Question about free agency

[Jason_J]

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

I know , just curious about the traditional line of thinking as to how they could have multiplied if they didn't know they were naked.

[questioning_seeker]

This is just an inconsequential comment, but knowing God's strongly held preference for modesty in dress, were Adam and Eve, by being naked, already acting in a manner inconsistent with God's preferences prior to taking the fruit? Probably the answer has something to do with God not having previously given them any guidance on how and how not to dress.

[questioning_seeker]

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

I think that if casting out His children was how God chose to respond to rebellion, then your question might have some validity. However, I think He was simply separating two incompatible groups, which would be an appropriate course of action if indeed the two groups truly were incompatible.

[Vort]

I think that if casting out His children was how God chose to respond to rebellion, then your question might have some validity. However, I think He was simply separating two incompatible groups, which would be an appropriate course of action if indeed the two groups truly were incompatible.

Yet the scriptures clearly teach that Satan and his followers were cast out of heaven for rebellion, and that they are forever damned and lost to God, alienated from him for all eternity. How do you square your beliefs with these doctrines?

[SteveVH]

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.

Then let me thoroughly apologize for mis-stating your beliefs. That was my understanding based upon speaking with a number of Mormons. Let me assure you that I have no intention of mis-stating any of your beliefs. I am interested in what you believe, not in misrepresenting your beliefs for the sake of discussion. But to be very honest it is sometimes difficult to ascertain what you believe because it depends upon who one asks. Do you not believe that you will become a God of your own world? If not, then I have been terribly misled. Do you not believe that "As man is, God once was; As God is, man may become"? Each time I have believed that we had some common ground, based upon a conversation, it seems to disapear when we go into some depth.

You seem to be extremely reasonable in your statements and it would appear that we are in almost total agreement concerning the path to our eternal destiny. But I know that is really not the case if we begin disecting it. The foundational doctrines concerning the origin of mankind and the nature of God, which directly influence the way one percieves scripture, are so far apart that I can see no way they can be reconciled. But I came here to better understand what you believe and why you believe it, not to reconcile our two faiths.

May I ask two questions, just to clear something up in my own mind? Do you believe that Adam and Eve made a choice, based upon their free will? And if so, what do you believe would have happened had Adam and Eve obeyed God and walked away from Satan?

Thanks

[Jason_J]

Then let me thoroughly apologize for mis-stating your beliefs. That was my understanding based upon speaking with a number of Mormons. Let me assure you that I have no intention of mis-stating any of your beliefs. I am interested in what you believe, not in misrepresenting your beliefs for the sake of discussion. But to be very honest it is sometimes difficult to ascertain what you believe because it depends upon who one asks.

I've actually had the opposite experience in my study of the Latter-day Saint faith, including all the years prior to my conversion. I think the issue is when we get into speculative/non-essential teachings (or what is termed "theologumen" in the traditional realm).

Do you not believe that you will become a God of your own world?

Perhaps. In all honesty, this isn't something that I really even think about (and I would wager that it's the same for most Latter-day Saints). Yes, I believe that through Christ, we can become joint-heirs with Him, become like God, live the life that God lives (since we are participating in that life), and inherit all things through Christ. My point as far as whether we will be our "own Deity" is that the implication of such a phrase (whether you intend it as such, I am not sure) is that we no longer need the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. In reality, LDS exaltation states that God will always be our God, and that the gift of eternal life from Him is tied to Him and the atonement of Jesus Christ. Indeed, our belief is that eternal life/exaltation includes living in the eternal presence of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost in Heaven.

If not, then I have been terribly misled. Do you not believe that "As man is, God once was; As God is, man may become"?

Yes. However I believe that what the mortal experience of God the Father entailed goes into speculation, and I also think that it is perfectly acceptable for a Latter-day Saint to believe that the Father was Divine and God during His mortal incarnation, just as Jesus Christ was.

Each time I have believed that we had some common ground, based upon a conversation, it seems to disapear when we go into some depth.

You seem to be extremely reasonable in your statements and it would appear that we are in almost total agreement concerning the path to our eternal destiny. But I know that is really not the case if we begin disecting it.

Actually, I think it is quite clear that Latter-day Saints would agree with your statements in the paragraph that I responded to. Sure, we disagree with Catholics and others on various aspects of salvation, what Heaven is like, what it means to be deified, etc. We do not deny that (indeed, we claim to be a restoration of true doctrine and priesthood). The point of my post was that Latter-day Saints do not believe that we can receive eternal life through our own works, or independent from God, the atonement of Jesus Christ, etc, or that our love of Christ does not motivate us to follow Christ's commandments and enter into sacred covenants with God. Eternal life is a gift from God for the Latter-day Saint, and God asks for our cooperation in that, by following His commandments, as evidenced in the Bible.

The foundational doctrines concerning the origin of mankind and the nature of God, which directly influence the way one percieves scripture, are so far apart that I can see no way they can be reconciled. But I came here to better understand what you believe and why you believe it, not to reconcile our two faiths.

Why would they even need to be reconciled? Latter-day Saints certainly aren't trying to reconcile our beliefs with more traditional understandings of various doctrines. Indeed, we agree that the foundational doctrines on the nature of mankind and God are at odds, since we do claim to have the restored (and further revealed) understandings of those beliefs.

May I ask two questions, just to clear something up in my own mind? Do you believe that Adam and Eve made a choice, based upon their free will?

Yes, Latter-day Saints that free will (also known as "agency" in our belief) has always been operative, and Adam and Eve made a choice.

And if so, what do you believe would have happened had Adam and Eve obeyed God and walked away from Satan?

Thanks

If Adam and Eve did not partake, they would not have known good and evil, they would have remained in the Garden of Eden, and they would not have had children (since they didn't even know that they were naked).

[SteveVH]

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.

All of this is true. And Adam and Eve did have an option. They had the option to either obey God or disobey God. We know what they chose.

Show me the scriptures where you learned this from.

It is a matter of reading the story. They were already created in God's image and likeness. What did they hope to attain past that?

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.

I believe God wanted them to be "like them" also which is why he made them in his image and likeness. I also believe that they would have received the knowledge of good and evil had they obeyed God as I have explained in detail in another post. The evil of Satan would have become immediately apparent to them had they chosen to remain faithful to God. They would have understood the distinction. Keep in mind it was the knowledge of good and evil that made them "like" God. This just amazes me that you believe that disobeying God was a good thing. It means that God was complicit in their sin. The very idea is contradictory. The only way one can become like God is to disobey God? Please explain.

I have to run but will address the rest of your post soon.

Edited October 4, 2011 by StephenVH

[Justice]

It is a matter of reading the story. They were already created in God's image and likeness. What did they hope to attain past that?

Being created in His image doesn't make them like God.

After they ate the fruit, God said "the man is become as one of us, knowing good and evil..."

They wanted to become like God, or like their Father. Is that a crime? I guess it all depends on your view of God, and the meaning of exaltaion.

[Justice]

The only way one can become like God is to disobey God? Please explain.

I have.

The only way they could become like God is to do as God does... choose good over evil. In order to do that they first needed to know evil. God provided that. God gave a choice and explained the consequences of each. They chose, so they could have the consequences.

In choosing to eat the fruit they were after the knowledge that would make them able to procreate and keep God's first commandment. That's also how they became like God.

I don't know how else to explain it. God created the earth for 1 purpose, so man could dwell on it as mortals. Adam fulfilled it's purpose for creation.

I'm not saying it's easy to understand, I know I don't. But, I have other scripture that explains beyond what the Bible does. Have you read it yet?

Edited October 4, 2011 by Justice

[Vort]

Hope I don't muddy the waters by commenting.

But to be very honest it is sometimes difficult to ascertain what you believe because it depends upon who one asks.

We believe in continuing revelation. We have an open canon. Our leaders are prophets of God, and they reveal God's word and will to us.

Having said that much, our doctrine is quite stable and learnable. So why might you find different people offering contradictory statements? Well, I served an LDS Church mission to Italy, and I cannot tell you how many Italian Catholics I talked to who agreed with the LDS doctrines I taught them -- eternal marriage, the salvation of children (even unbaptized), the doctrine of premortal existence... Yet in (almost) every case, they assumed that such things were a part of Roman Catholic doctrine. As it was not my place to preach Catholic doctrine to them, I rarely corrected them in this, but I admit I found it disconcerting and a bit frustrating.

If your own church's members often do not know or understand its doctrine, why would you assume that Latter-day Saints would be significantly more knowledgeable about our doctrine? (Though in my own experience, we really are quite a bit more knowledgeable about our own doctrine than most other denominations.)

Do you not believe that you will become a God of your own world? If not, then I have been terribly misled.

This has never been taught as LDS doctrine. It is an extrapolation of Lorenzo Snow's quote that you mentioned: "As man is, God once was; as God is, man may become", and of Joseph Smith's teachings in his sermon at King Follett's funeral. I am not saying the idea is false, necessarily; I don't know if it is true or false, though I suspect the truth is far more involved than something so simplistic. I am saying it is not orthodox LDS doctrine.

May I ask two questions, just to clear something up in my own mind? Do you believe that Adam and Eve made a choice, based upon their free will? And if so, what do you believe would have happened had Adam and Eve obeyed God and walked away from Satan?

You did not ask me, but I will answer anyway. I believe Adam and Eve chose according to their own will, as was given them by God to do.

I do not know what might have happened had Adam and Eve refused to hearken to Satan's temptation. But I have an opinion. There are two general schools of thought on this matter:

• On the one hand, LDS doctrine seems fairly clear. 2 Nephi 2:22-23 reads:

  And now, behold, if Adam had not transgressed he would not have fallen, but he would have remained in the garden of Eden. [...] And they would have had no children; wherefore they would have remained in a state of innocence, having no joy, for they knew no misery; doing no good, for they knew no sin.

  Eve herself says as much in the book of Moses:

  And Eve [said]: Were it not for our transgression we never should have had seed, and never should have known good and evil, and the joy of our redemption, and the eternal life which God giveth unto all the obedient.

• On the other hand, one can read the scriptures above to be referring to the actual Fall itself, rather than the particular transgression that precipitated the Fall. In other words, it is possible that when Eve and Lehi talk about the transgression of Adam, they are actually referring to the effect of the transgression: the Fall. We have reason to suspect that God might have provided the Fall to Adam and Eve even in the absence of Satan's duplicity. This is speculation, of course; we have no publicly revealed doctrine to that effect. But it is a reasonable extension of what we do know, and aside from the above-quoted scriptures, does not otherwise do violence to LDS scripture or teaching.

In my personal opinion, God was not dependent on Satan's duplicity or on Eve's gullibility. I believe that God's plans would have come to fruition even if Adam and Eve had been completely obedient to God. I do believe that Adam and Eve would have had to freely choose their fallen state -- which is what they did, so it amounts to the same thing.

[Traveler]

Then let me thoroughly apologize for mis-stating your beliefs. That was my understanding based upon speaking with a number of Mormons. Let me assure you that I have no intention of mis-stating any of your beliefs. I am interested in what you believe, not in misrepresenting your beliefs for the sake of discussion. But to be very honest it is sometimes difficult to ascertain what you believe because it depends upon who one asks. Do you not believe that you will become a God of your own world? If not, then I have been terribly misled. Do you not believe that "As man is, God once was; As God is, man may become"? Each time I have believed that we had some common ground, based upon a conversation, it seems to disapear when we go into some depth.

You seem to be extremely reasonable in your statements and it would appear that we are in almost total agreement concerning the path to our eternal destiny. But I know that is really not the case if we begin disecting it. The foundational doctrines concerning the origin of mankind and the nature of God, which directly influence the way one percieves scripture, are so far apart that I can see no way they can be reconciled. But I came here to better understand what you believe and why you believe it, not to reconcile our two faiths.

May I ask two questions, just to clear something up in my own mind? Do you believe that Adam and Eve made a choice, based upon their free will? And if so, what do you believe would have happened had Adam and Eve obeyed God and walked away from Satan?

Thanks

First I would comment about G-ds and worlds. I thought we had established that having a world has nothing to do with any reasonable definition of a G-d. I do not know where this keeps creeping into the conversation. If a G-d must have their own world - what was our G-d before he created any worlds (which are without number).

Second to the statement

As man is, God once was; As God is, man may become

We believe that Jesus is not just the mediator but the very example of G-d to all that believe. So to understand the statement substitute Jesus for every place the word G-d appears and you will understand the importance of the statement:

So it becomes - “As man is, Jesus once came into the world and was, as Jesus is (resurrected, exalted and one with G-d the Father), man may become. Does this understanding cause you concern? If so please explain why?

Now to your final question - you are very correct that our understanding of G-d and his nature of necessity does color our understanding of what took place. But to understand the LDS point of view - that man is better off understanding that without the fall there would be no savior and redeemer and without a savior and redeemer man would not know or experience the love (goodness) of G-d (that is his most important trait to know and understand). I think it is best to look at a very important question that must be dealt with -

Did G-d plan for man to fall before he even began creation? This question is more important than it appears at the surface. The reason is because without the fall there is no need for a Son, a savior or redeemer. Is G-d unchanging? If the fall is not the will of G-d then neither is his Son, a savior or a redeemer, his will --but only brought about because of a “CHANGING” will because his plan for man had been altered by something of greater power than his will. That is a big problem I have with traditional Christianity that the fall ruined the greater possible good.

What do you believe would have happened if there was no fall - would there be any need for his Son, Jesus? I submit that without the fall we would not know the depth of G-d’s love, “For G-d so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that who so believes in him should have everlasting life.” And is it not heresy to believe that there is even a possibility that there is a “better” way? Do not the scriptures tell us that there is no other way to be one with G-d than through Jesus Christ? Why then assume and teach that man should be better off without Christ? Is this not an exercise in will of greater error and sin than Adam’s and Eve’s choosing to eat of the fruit of the tree?

The Traveler

Edited October 4, 2011 by Traveler

[Traveler]

I just wanted to point out that without the fall of man, through Adam and Eve that man would never know good or evil. The “greatest” good is G-d’s depth of love that can only be shown and understood by understanding the scripture that tells us, “That G-d so love the world that he gave his only begotten Son - that who so believes in him shall have everlasting life”.

Most understand that partaking of the fruit introduces evil and sin to mankind but few really understand that man would also learn the real and wonderful extent of G-d’s love; manifested in the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. If anyone believes this understanding could come to man and be better understood by another method - please explain - in detail.

Thank you -- The Traveler

[Seminarysnoozer]

One of the great problems in discussing important points of doctrine is the use - or misuse of terms in communicating understanding. In this discussion there seems to be a great deal of cross over in the understanding and use or expression of will verses agency. In addition there seems to be some confusion in regards to choice as opposed to agency. The crossover of meaning comes because of common usage where we have lost the distinct differentiation that the terms once possessed.

I would submit that there is a difference between the divine intended understanding of agency in regards to both individual will and selectable choice. I believe agency goes beyond choices of “I want” and has much more to do with discipline and alignment to a “higher” sense or power. Thus the statement by Jesus, “Not my will but thy will be done” is a better understanding in the exercise of agency.

If we understand agency as a connection to higher “intelligence” or light that is accomplished through discipline - I believe we are better aligned to become an agent of light rather than an agent of darkness trying to be a being of light. Note in this analogy there is no agency of “grayness” possible; there is no agency that allows for part light and part darkness. So agency is not just choice but action based on discipline completed in such a way that we become “aligned” with a power or source that is “beyond” us or what we may be capable of in the mere exercise of our will and choice.

With this understanding we can see the importance of G-d granting unto us power to become G-ds like unto him as divine agents and his work is not to make us subjects of his will or faith in him to “take care” of us and supply to us our every need. Such a reward would destroy our agency. The great difference is in our discipleship or discipline (beyond choice or will) we move beyond ourselves, as G-d has to become disciplined in the arts, craft, manners and genus of G-dliness.

The Traveler

I agree. I think a way of summing up what you said here, though, is simply by saying that "free agency" requires responsibility or accountability for one's actions. Definition of responsible; Liable to be required to give account, as of one's actions or of the discharge of a duty or trust. We are required to give account to Christ. And "divine agents" as you use the term would fit the definition within "discharge of a duty". Being "accountable" for our actions is a term that is a little more familiar, when talking about 'free agency'.

[Seminarysnoozer]

The evil of Satan would have become immediately apparent to them had they chosen to remain faithful to God. They would have understood the distinction. Keep in mind it was the knowledge of good and evil that made them "like" God. This just amazes me that you believe that disobeying God was a good thing. It means that God was complicit in their sin. The very idea is contradictory. The only way one can become like God is to disobey God? Please explain.

Evil could not be in the presence of God. While in the Garden they were still in the presence of God. Had they remained in the Garden they would not know evil. Unless, you think that evil can remain in the presence of God.

Them choosing the tree of death, or the tree of knowledge of good and evil is really the opportunity to know good and evil. All good and evil is not known the moment they ate the fruit. We know that is true because Adam, a little while later, didn't know why he was sacrificing.

My husband explained it one time like this in one of our family home evenings;

A young adult son approaches his parents and says; 'I hope to be like you some day, you have taught me well, what do I need to do next?' The parents reply; 'Whenever you are ready to move on to the next part of your life and really be prepared to be a parent, you need to leave our home and start to provide for yourself, making choices for yourself and learning responsibility. If you decide to do that, though, you will be cut off from us for a short period of time. We will give you assistance if you need it though.' After a a few weeks of contemplating this decision the young adult man decides that he has grown as much as he can by living with mom and dad and so he leaves their presence to face the world on his own for a while to learn the things he needs to, to become more like his parents. By doing this, he makes mistakes. His parents help him recover from those mistakes when he asks for help. He learns from these experiences and understands the significance of making correct choices in his life. He is then able to pass that learned experience to his children.' .... for whatever thats worth, hope it helps. Adam and Eve were ready to move on and bring all of us with them. It was a seemingly downward step but it is downward and onward and through the atonement of Christ a restoration of our previous status, a recovery from the fall that Adam and Eve knew was part of the plan.

[SteveVH]

If Adam and Eve did not partake, they would not have known good and evil, they would have remained in the Garden of Eden, and they would not have had children (since they didn't even know that they were naked).

Do you really believe that Adam and Eve, created in the image and likeness of God, were wandering around the Garden unaware that they were not wearing clothes? Hebrew expressions concerning nakedness cannot be understood in a modern, literal sense.

Lets take the case of Noah in which we find a parallel between Noah and Adam. After the flood Noah builds a vineyard. He takes the fruit of the vine, proceeds to get drunk and finds himself naked in his tent. This is a parallel to Adam's eating of the forbidden fruit and recognizing his nakedness. Now it starts to get a little confusing, if we understand "nakedness" in modern terms rather than within the meaning understood in this ancient culture and language. According to the narrative, Noah's son Ham goes into the tent and sees his Father's nakedness. He then goes out and tells his two brothers, Shem and Japeth who proceed to go into Noah's tent (walking backwards) and cover him.

When Noah awakes his inclination is to curse Ham, but he cannot because God had already given his three sons a blessing, so instead, Noah curses Ham's decendents. Now, we must ask what all the hoopla was about. If Ham had simply stumbled upon his father laying naked the scenario does not make sense. To "Look upon the nakedness of your father" is a Hebrew expression with a meaning far more serious than literally seeing one's father naked. To look upon the nakedness of your father meant to sleep with with your father's wife; to commit incest, which is why Noah was outraged and wished to curse Ham. Because he cannot curse Ham he curses the fruit of the incest who will be Canaan. This interpretation of the expression is verified in Leviticus. The first command concerning sexual purity which was given upon Israel's entrance into the land of Canaan is "you shall not uncover the nakedness of your father, which is the nakedness of your mother; she is your mother, you shall not uncover her nakedness." (LV 17:7) This was a command against incest, not against seeing the naked body of one's father.

Nakedness, in the case of Adam and Eve, is Hebrew code for something other than the literal sense. For Adam and Eve to realize their nakedness was for them to realize their guilt and shame, not to finally realize that they weren't wearing clothes. They were not created without intellectual capacity or the ability to perceive. There was certainly nothing wrong with Adam and Eve, being husband and wife, to be together naked. God gave the command to be fruitful and multiply prior to the fall, which is the very reason they were created male and female from the beginning.

Assuming the Mormon position that they could not be fruitful and multiply unless they disobeyed God means to hold two contradictory positions simultaneously. We must assume that an all-knowing, all-loving, all-wise, all-powerful God placed his children in a position in which they had no choice but to sin. In order to keep one command they must violate another. They were to be fruitful and multiply, yet they could not fulfill that command unless they violated God's command not to eat of the fruit. What kind of God would that be? It would be a God who was complicit in causing his own children to sin, which is impossible. It is for this reason that I cannot, for a second, buy into the Mormon position on this matter.

I would be very interested in how you reconcile this conflict.

Edited October 4, 2011 by StephenVH

[JudoMinja]

Do you really believe that Adam and Eve, created in the image and likeness of God, were wandering around the Garden unaware that they were not wearing clothes? Hebrew expressions concerning nakedness cannot be understood in a modern, literal sense.

Lets take the case of Noah in which we find a parallel between Noah and Adam. After the flood Noah builds a vineyard. He takes the fruit of the vine, proceeds to get drunk and finds himself naked in his tent. This is a parallel to Adam's eating of the forbidden fruit and recognizing his nakedness. Now it starts to get a little confusing, if we understand "nakedness" in modern terms rather than within the meaning understood in this ancient culture and language. According to the narrative, Noah's son Ham goes into the tent and sees his Father's nakedness. He then goes out and tells his two brothers, Shem and Japeth who proceed to go into Noah's tent (walking backwards) and cover him.

When Noah awakes his inclination is to curse Ham, but he cannot because God had already given his three sons a blessing, so instead, Noah curses Ham's decendents. Now, we must ask what all the hoopla was about. If Ham had simply stumbled upon his father laying naked the scenario does not make sense. To "Look upon the nakedness of your father" is a Hebrew expression with a meaning far more serious than literally seeing one's father naked. To look upon the nakedness of your father meant to sleep with with your father's wife; to commit incest, which is why Noah was outraged and wished to curse Ham. Because he cannot curse Ham he curses the fruit of the incest who will be Canaan. This interpretation of the expression is verified in Leviticus. The first command concerning sexual purity which was given upon Israel's entrance into the land of Canaan is "you shall not uncover the nakedness of your father, which is the nakedness of your mother; she is your mother, you shall not uncover her nakedness." (LV 17:7) This was a command against incest, not against seeing the naked body of one's father.

Nakedness, in the case of Adam and Eve, is Hebrew code for something other than the literal sense. For Adam and Eve to realize their nakedness was for them to realize their guilt and shame, not to finally realize that they weren't wearing clothes. They were not created without intellectual capacity or the ability to perceive. There was certainly nothing wrong with Adam and Eve, being husband and wife, to be together naked. God gave the command to be fruitful and multiply prior to the fall, which is the very reason they were created male and female from the beginning.

Ok, I'm having trouble making the leap you just made here.... If the word nakedness in this scripture is in reference to sexuality, how does it mean they did not realize their "guilt and shame"? Wouldn't it mean they did not know or understand that they were sexual beings? Doesn't that support the idea that they could not "multiply and replenish the earth" if they did not somehow come to recognize that they were "naked"?

Assuming the Mormon position that they could not be fruitful and multiply unless they disobeyed God means to hold two contradictory positions simultaneously. We must assume that an all-knowing, all-loving, all-wise, all-powerful God placed his children in a position in which they had no choice but to sin. In order to keep one command they must violate another. They were to be fruitful and multiply, yet they could not fulfill that command unless they violated God's command not to eat of the fruit. What kind of God would that be? It would be a God who was complicit in causing his own children to sin, which is impossible. It is for this reason that I cannot, for a second, buy into the Mormon position on this matter.

I would be very interested in how you reconcile this conflict.

This is exactly what we teach- that Adam and Eve were in a position that no matter what they chose they would be incapable of following God's command. Is that really any different than the position we have been put in? Does not our mortal frailty make it impossible for us to be "perfect" as we have been commanded to be? (Matthew 5:48) No matter what we do, we are incapable of following God's command for perfection. That is why He provided a Savior.

[SteveVH]

Evil could not be in the presence of God. While in the Garden they were still in the presence of God. Had they remained in the Garden they would not know evil. Unless, you think that evil can remain in the presence of God.

Them choosing the tree of death, or the tree of knowledge of good and evil is really the opportunity to know good and evil. All good and evil is not known the moment they ate the fruit. We know that is true because Adam, a little while later, didn't know why he was sacrificing.

My husband explained it one time like this in one of our family home evenings;

A young adult son approaches his parents and says; 'I hope to be like you some day, you have taught me well, what do I need to do next?' The parents reply; 'Whenever you are ready to move on to the next part of your life and really be prepared to be a parent, you need to leave our home and start to provide for yourself, making choices for yourself and learning responsibility. If you decide to do that, though, you will be cut off from us for a short period of time. We will give you assistance if you need it though.' After a a few weeks of contemplating this decision the young adult man decides that he has grown as much as he can by living with mom and dad and so he leaves their presence to face the world on his own for a while to learn the things he needs to, to become more like his parents. By doing this, he makes mistakes. His parents help him recover from those mistakes when he asks for help. He learns from these experiences and understands the significance of making correct choices in his life. He is then able to pass that learned experience to his children.' .... for whatever thats worth, hope it helps. Adam and Eve were ready to move on and bring all of us with them. It was a seemingly downward step but it is downward and onward and through the atonement of Christ a restoration of our previous status, a recovery from the fall that Adam and Eve knew was part of the plan.

Thanks for your comments. Please see my Post #120 above. The very idea that God would create a plan that would require us to violate his will in order to grow closer to him and be more like him is nonsensical. From the beginning, God created us in his image and likeness to be in relationship with him. I have children also. For them to break their relationship with me would not be their or my best interest. As a loving father I am there to assist them in sorting out their life, not to disown them so that they can go out and learn in the school of hard knocks. That would not be my will, nor was it God's will that his children disobey him and so suffer incredibly serious consequences. God was telling his children not to play in the street because they would die. He did not then secretly desire that they go ahead and disobey him so they could experience being hit by a car for themselves.

[Seminarysnoozer]

Thanks for your comments. Please see my Post #120 above. The very idea that God would create a plan that would require us to violate his will in order to grow closer to him and be more like him is nonsensical. From the beginning, God created us in his image and likeness to be in relationship with him. I have children also. For them to break their relationship with me would not be their or my best interest. As a loving father I am there to assist them in sorting out their life, not to disown them so that they can go out and learn in the school of hard knocks. That would not be my will, nor was it God's will that his children disobey him and so suffer incredibly serious consequences. God was telling his children not to play in the street because they would die. He did not then secretly desire that they go ahead and disobey him so they could experience being hit by a car for themselves.

I didn't say "child", that would be a ridiculous example, I gave a metaphor to contemplate the good that comes from this situation using an example of a "young adult". Meaning this is a person who is ready to move on to the next level of their learning. I think you could see how it would be detrimental to force a young young adult to live in your house and live by your rules only all their life and not have their own life if they really want to learn responsibility on their own. How do you teach your children responsibility? I think you would answer something along the lines, 'by giving it to them'. If one believes that as a child of God we never needed to learn responsibility then I could see how this whole situation creates conflict. I would think you could understand this better if you understood the value of us learning responsibility. But that is only possible if one thinks that we will have the need for responsibility after this life. If one believes that everything could and would be given without any gratitude or responsibility, in other words, not valued or earned, then you are right, being exposed to responsibility is contradictory.

I think your example of 'getting hit by a car' misrepresents this life. We all knew ahead that we would be saved by a Savior. That is what we agreed to. Maybe a better example is asking a child to jump into a swimming pool that the parent is floating right there in the water to catch the child and help the child if they need it. The only danger of this life is if we jump into the part of the water where there is no parent around, that is our choice. Satan in the premortal life tried to convince people, possibly, that randomly people would be saved but that was a lie, we all are saved (with the exception of the sons of perdition). The chances of getting 'hit by a car' is zero if one does not fight against the spirit.

Edited October 4, 2011 by Seminarysnoozer

[SteveVH]

Ok, I'm having trouble making the leap you just made here.... If the word nakedness in this scripture is in reference to sexuality, how does it mean they did not realize their "guilt and shame"?

I did not say that they "did not realize their guilt and shame". I said just the opposite; that the words "realized their nakedness" did mean that they realized their guilt and shame. Before the fall they were naked but not ashamed. This does not mean that they were walking around unaware they they were not wearing clothes. It means that they had no guilt and therefore no shame. The point is that nakedness, as expressed in this genre of writing, has nothing to do with wearing clothing or not wearing clothing. When did they experience guilt and shame? After they disobeyed God. The guilt and shame came from disobeying God by eating of the Tree, not suddenly becoming aware that they had no clothing. God did not chide them for being naked, but for eating of the Tree which he had expressly forbidden them to do.

Wouldn't it mean they did not know or understand that they were sexual beings? Doesn't that support the idea that they could not "multiply and replenish the earth" if they did not somehow come to recognize that they were "naked"?

The term nakedness, as I have said, has to do with disobeying God, not wearing clothing. Why in the world would they be ashamed of their nakedness, being husband and wife? I have also already demonstrated that the term nakedness as used in the story of Noah and Ham, really had nothing to do with the normal understanding of the word. How can this not be taken into consideration?

This is exactly what we teach- that Adam and Eve were in a position that no matter what they chose they would be incapable of following God's command. Is that really any different than the position we have been put in? Does not our mortal frailty make it impossible for us to be "perfect" as we have been commanded to be? (Matthew 5:48) No matter what we do, we are incapable of following God's command for perfection. That is why He provided a Savior.

And you can believe this and still believe that God is just? Adam and Eve were not in the same predicament as we are now. Their very nature was different before the fall than it was after the fall. We are now suffering the consequences of our first parent's actions. Even now, however, we are not forced to sin. Unless we choose to sin there is no sin. The predicament that Adam and Eve found themselves in, according to the Mormon position, does force them to sin; they had no other option, which not only violates their free will but makes God complicit in their sin. Causing another to sin is a sin in and of itself. If God placed them in a position where they had no choice but to sin, then it was actually God who sinned and that is an impossiblity.

Edited October 4, 2011 by StephenVH

[SteveVH]

We all knew ahead that we would be saved by a Savior.

Well, that is the Mormon postion, but certainly not an objective fact. It is an unbiblical notion, or at least an extra-biblical notion. The account of creation in Genesis gives us no indication of a pre-mortal existence.

The only danger of this life is if we jump into the part of the water where there is no parent around, that is our choice. Satan in the premortal life tried to convince people, possibly, that randomly people would be saved but that was a lie, we all are saved (with the exception of the sons of perdition). The chances of getting 'hit by a car' is zero if one does not fight against the spirit.

But the Mormon postition does not give Adam and Eve a choice. They are forced to disobey God one way or the other. The only choice is how do we disobey God. I am sorry, but a just God would never do that. Would you put your own children in that kind of a situation? Would you give them two conflicting commands with dire consequences either way? I wouldn't.

Edited October 4, 2011 by StephenVH

[Traveler]

This notion that G-d justifies and allows the cursing (punishments) of innocent children because of the sins of their parents is completely contrary to everything I understand and believe to be just, right, true and part of the mercy and compassion of G-d. For me it is a false interpretation of scripture that has lead traditional Christianity into high treason against G-d and to the very depths of apostasy.

The Traveler

[estradling75]

But the Mormon postition does not give Adam and Eve a choice. They are forced to disobey God one way or the other. The only choice is how do we disobey God. I am sorry, but a just God would never do that. Would you put your own children in that kind of a situation? Would you give them two conflicting commands with dire consequences either way? I wouldn't.

Question for you... Do you believe that a all knowing all powerful God created a plan for us humans... And that this wonderful plan was then horribly and totally derailed by the actions of Satan and Adam and Eve? Resulting it the need for the all knowing and all powerful God to come up with another plan to get things back on track?

To me a plan that doesn't take into account the Father of Lies, and mortal choices isn't a much of a plan at all.

The Mormon position is that the Father's initial (and only) plan is still working exactly as it is suppose to. Satan's temptation and Adam and Eve's choices are all accounted and prepared for. It a interesting diversion to wonder what would have happened had Adam and Eve (or even Satan) chose differently. If God is worthy of the title then clearly it would have been prepared for and the plan would continue on. We simply don't know how might have happened because it isn't necessary for us to know

[JudoMinja]

I did not say that they "did not realize their guilt and shame". I said just the opposite; that the words "realized their nakedness" did mean that they realized their guilt and shame. Before the fall they were naked but not ashamed. This does not mean that they were walking around unaware they they were not wearing clothes. It means that they had no guilt and therefore no shame. The point is that nakedness, as expressed in this genre of writing, has nothing to do with wearing clothing or not wearing clothing. When did they experience guilt and shame? After they disobeyed God. The guilt and shame came from disobeying God by eating of the Tree, not suddenly becoming aware that they had no clothing. God did not chide them for being naked, but for eating of the Tree which he had expressly forbidden them to do.

The leap I was having trouble making was from the definition of "nakedness" you provided with your example and then how you applied it to Adam and Eve. Essentially, you equated nakedness to sexuality. You then stated that when it says Adam and Eve "realized their nakedness" what they actually realized was their guilt and shame. How does sexuality = guilt/shame? I think, the more accurate statement would be that they did not naturally understand sexuality, and they did understand once they partook of the forbidden fruit. This reaffirms that they would not have been able to have children without partaking of the fruit, as you cannot have children without an understanding of sexuality.

The term nakedness, as I have said, has to do with disobeying God, not wearing clothing. Why in the world would they be ashamed of their nakedness, being husband and wife? I have also already demonstrated that the term nakedness as used in the story of Noah and Ham, really had nothing to do with the normal understanding of the word. How can this not be taken into consideration?

As I said above- It seemed more like you were equating nakedness to sexuality, not disobedience. However, even if we use that definition: nakedness = disobedience, there is a problem with the scriptural interpretation, since they were already naked BEFORE partaking of the fruit. So, they were already being disobedient but did not realize or understand how (did not understand how to procreate). Once they partook of the fruit, they understood, and were ashamed.

And you can believe this and still believe that God is just? Adam and Eve were not in the same predicament as we are now. Their very nature was different before the fall than it was after the fall. We are now suffering the consequences of our first parent's actions. Even now, however, we are not forced to sin. Unless we choose to sin there is no sin. The predicament that Adam and Eve found themselves in, according to the Mormon position, does force them to sin; they had no other option, which not only violates their free will but makes God complicit in their sin. Causing another to sin is a sin in and of itself. If God placed them in a position where they had no choice but to sin, then it was actually God who sinned and that is an impossiblity.

Yes, we have the ability to choose and so did Adam and Eve. We (and they) are not FORCED to sin... However, it is simply not possible for any of us to live without sinning. There is a difference. The Law of God is beyond our ability to maintain perfectly. We are commanded to be PERFECT. Matthew 5:48 "Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect." Obeying that commandment is impossible for us.

This does not at all sway my belief in a just God. In fact, it reaffirms it. God is perfectly just, and because He is perfectly just He cannot look upon sin with the least degree of allowance. He knew that we would be incapable of living up to His commands, and yes if He were ONLY a just God, He would be very cruel. However, He is also a MERCIFUL God. The fact that it is impossible for us to live up to God's expectations on our own (and that it was impossible for Adam and Eve to avoid sin) is exactly why we need a Savior and why God provided one for us. We are still expected to do our absolute best in striving to live up to God's expectations, and then the Savior's atonement will make up for our inability.

[Justice]

Simple. Often physical things tell of spiritual things. Often, one event is used to teach another in similitude.

One cannot deny the fact that this story is in reference to their physical nakedness because they covered themselves with something that covered their nakedness, which was not approved by God, and He made coats of skins to cover them.

All of these symbols that you speak of still may be true. But, the fact is Adam and Eve did not know they were naked until they ate the fruit. They covered their physical nakedness. They did not cover their physical nakedness before they ate the fruit. Those are the facts of the story and remain obvious in the text. You are free to teach us about the symbols it may be referring to, but if you are trying to say it has nothing to do with physical nakedness, I will disagree.

[Jason_J]

Simple. Often physical things tell of spiritual things. Often, one event is used to teach another in similitude.

One cannot deny the fact that this story is in reference to their physical nakedness because they covered themselves with something that covered their nakedness, which was not approved by God, and He made coats of skins to cover them.

All of these symbols that you speak of still may be true. But, the fact is Adam and Eve did not know they were naked until they ate the fruit. They covered their physical nakedness. They did not cover their physical nakedness before they ate the fruit. Those are the facts of the story and remain obvious in the text. You are free to teach us about the symbols it may be referring to, but if you are trying to say it has nothing to do with physical nakedness, I will disagree.

In addition, God clearly states, in Genesis 3:

11And he said, Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?

If Adam and Eve already knew that they were naked, as SteveVH asserts, then why would God ask them who told them that they were naked? The Biblical text is quite clear on what this is about.