Question about free agency

[SteveVH]

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

That is certainly not the position I have been taught in my faith and is a complete misrepresentation of my beliefs. I am not here to throw stones at you, Traveler. I don't think I have misrepresented what you believe and in fact, quite frequently, I will ask the poster to whom I am responding to please correct me if I am incorrect in my perception of your beliefs. It is what you actually believe that I have questioned, not a misrepresentation of what you believe. So I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you have just been misinformed and I will be happy to correct you. Then you can agree or disagree with what I actually believe.

God, because of his very nature, can never do anything that is unjust. What we believe is what scripture tells us. Please bear with me here. I am not fond of long posts with numerous scriptural references, but this is important. We didn't just make it up.

Genesis 3:17-19

"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 the plants of the field. By the sweat of your face shall you get bread to eat, until you return to the ground, from where you were taken; You are dirt, and to dirt you shall return.'"

Romans 5:12-14

"Therefore, just as though one person sin entered the world, and through sin, death, and thus death came to all, inasmuch as all sinned - for up to the time of the law, sin was in the world, though sin is not accounted when there is no law. But death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who did not sin after the pattern of the trespass of Adam, who is the type of the one who was to come."

1st Corinthians 15:21-22

"For since death came through a human being, the resurrection of the dead came also through a human being. For just as in Adam all die, so too in Christ shall all be brought to life."

Ephesians 2:1-3

"You were dead in your transgressions and sins in which you once lived following the age of this world, following the ruler of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the disobedient. All of us once lived among them in the desires of our flesh, following the wishes of the flesh and the impulses, and we were by nature children of wrath, like the rest."

We know not only from scripture, but by our own experience, that the affects of the original sin are always present in our world and have been since Adam. Who can deny it? It is simply a reality. You do not want to believe that "G-d justifies and allows the cursing (punishments) of innocent children because of the sins of their parents" yet it is all around you and spelled out very clearly in scripture. In our own time, too many children suffer from the sins of their parents. Is it fair? God allows it because we have free will, with which he will never interfere and our choices can certainly affect the lives of others, even for generations. Our nature changed, as we are told in Ephesians. We are, by nature, children of wrath. So we are inclined to sin and the punishment is that we get to suffer the consequences of our own sins. The reality is that others suffer from the consequences of our own sins as well, just as we do from the sin of Adam. It is not that we are punished for the sin of Adam, it is that due to the sin of Adam we tend toward our own sin due to our inherited nature. The "Good News" is that we have a Savior who can lift us up, restore our nature by dwelling within us and bring us to eternal life.

Edited October 5, 2011 by StephenVH

[SteveVH]

Question for you... Do you believe that a all knowing all powerful God created a plan for us humans...

Yes.

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?

No.

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.

I couldn't agree more.

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

Again, I agree with everything you have said. But here is the difference, I think. God does not make a plan in the human sense of the word. We have no idea what is coming down the pike that might interfere with a plan we make. God is omniscient. He knows all of history from beginning to end. It all really has to do with the gift of free will and the ability to love. God is love, as we are told in Sacred Scripture. He created us to love. Love cannot exist unless we choose to love and we cannot choose unless we have free will. With free will, we also have the choice to disobey God. He knew this, but certainly did not desire that we make the wrong choice. We did not have to make the wrong choice or it would have been no choice at all. That is the problem I see in the Mormon position which holds, if I am correct, that Adam and Eve had no choice but to disobey God and that somehow this is a good thing and is exactly what God desired.

God deals in the reality of our being, as well as that of the angels who also have the gift of free will. Out of nothing but his love for us, his plan included saving us from the choice we made. He does not desire disobedience so that we might have experiences to learn from. He desires obedience to his perfect will and it is in that obedience that we come to a relationship with him and a relationship with him brings complete fulfillment to our lives and restores us to our original state of living in his presence. He saves us in spite of ourselves if we are willing to accept his gift.

Edited October 5, 2011 by StephenVH

[SteveVH]

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.

I have been taught to read scripture always from several different perspectives. The following is taken from the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

"The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation: "All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal."

The spiritual sense. Thanks to the unity of God's plan, not only the text of Scripture but also the realities and events about which it speaks can be signs.

1. The allegorical sense. We can acquire a more profound understanding of events by recognizing their significance in Christ; thus the crossing of the Red Sea is a sign or type of Christ's victory and also of Christian Baptism.

2. The moral sense. The events reported in Scripture ought to lead us to act justly. As St. Paul says, they were written "for our instruction".

3. The anagogical sense (Greek: anagoge, "leading"). We can view realities and events in terms of their eternal significance, leading us toward our true homeland: thus the Church on earth is a sign of the heavenly Jerusalem."

Genesis is written in poetic language and contains profound truths that are not always readily apparent, especially when translated to English and read with a modern viewpoint. For instance, we find that God created light for this world before he created the sun. Are we to assume that the account is somehow innacurate? Did God put the cart before the horse? Of course not. So we must look deeper. We must look at scripture from more than a literal sense, especially when written in this genre.

Edited October 5, 2011 by StephenVH

[SteveVH]

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.

Then what you are saying is that sexuality is somehow inherently shameful and they finally realized that after eating of the fruit, thus covering themselves; they were acting shamefully by being naked before they ate and just now realized it. I just can't buy into that way of thinking, nor do I think that was the intent of the author. While the account of Genesis places the birth of their children after the fall, nowhere does it say that the fall was necessary in order to have children. The account places the eating of the tree almost immediately after they were created.

Again, we are dealing with an ancient language in a completely different culture. How does "looking upon the nakedness of your father" translate into an incestuous relationship with your father's wife? Yet scripture tells us that this is exactly what it meant to the Jews at that time. We are dealing with Hebrew idioms and that has to be taken into consideration when using proper exegesis.

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.

What I was trying to demonstrate is that the term can take on a different meaning from the literal. In the case of Adam and Eve their nakedness represents much more than the fact that they were just not wearing clothing. There is nothing shameful about the body that God created. In fact, he said it was "very good". It is how we view the body that can be shameful. Once removed from a position of being loved for their own sake, they were now afraid of being viewed as an object of pleasure. The desires of the flesh were now part of their fallen nature (lust, rather than a mutuall self-giving of one to the other) and that has continued to this day. This was all a consequence of their disobedience which led to their shamfulness.

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.

Yes, due to our inheritance of a fallen nature, we tend toward and struggle with sin. But it was not so until original sin changed human nature and creation itself. It is why we need a Savior. But Adam and Eve did not need a Savior prior to their disobedience. They were already in the presence of God. You say that Adam and Eve were not forced to sin. I agree with you. But that is exactly the problem I am having. The Mormon position does not give them a choice. If I understand correctly, you believe that it was absolutely necessary that they eat of the fruit; to gain knowledge, to procreate, to progress, and that God even desired them to eat of the fruit which means that he desired for them to disobey him. Do you see where I'm coming from? They had no way out. The only choice they had was the manner in which they would disobey. They, therefore, had no choice but to sin. That is what I cannot buy into.

Edited October 5, 2011 by StephenVH

[SteveVH]

I just want to make a general statement to all of you who are corresponding with me. Thank you for putting up with me. You have been very gracious, charitable and patient and I want you to know that. I have a learned a great deal more about your faith than I knew when I came here. If I have been out of line in any of my comments please accept my apology. Much of what I have been told about Mormon forums has been proven to be a myth, in my estimation. You guys are really a class act and I truly appreciate it. God bless each and every one of you.

Stephen

[Justice]

Well, Stephen, words become cumbersome when trying to explain things of a spiritual nature. It's often difficult to find the right words, and even then, it's impossible for those words to convey all the beliefs surrounding and backing up a belief. If one is to truly understand others they have to display a lot of patience, and they have to give the other people many opportunities to explain the same belief. I, for one, appreciate your patience.

Truth be told, we look at the Bible through a filter. Since we believe there is modern revelation and additional scripture, we have to make all of it ring true, so it shapes our views on what the Bible is teaching. To say it bluntly, we don't use just the words of the Bible and interpret God's true nature as a Trinity or otherwise. We gain the knowledge that He is not a Trinity from other revealed sources, and then project those beliefs into the words of the Bible.

To make what could be a long post shorter, to resolve the curiosity you have about our beliefs, you have to go to the other side of this filter. Without doing so, it will be very difficult, if not impossible, to see the words and phrases as we see them.

Either the Book of Mormon is also the word of God, and we have modern living prophets, or not. The short of it is that you have to determine if the Book of Mormon is true. However, if you view it through your interpretation of the Bible and filter it that way, it may seem that many of the things it teaches cannot be true. But, if the words of the Bible were just understood differently, it can be. So, your best course of action is the approach the Book of Mormon with a genuine desire to know if it's true, and if the story told by thousands of early members of our Church is true. Did Joseph Smith actually see The Father and The Son, making Him the best modern filter for understanding who He really is?

There's only one way to find out. And, I encourage and challenge you to do so. ALl it takes is a good, honest reading of it, and ask God if it is true, not us. God is a much better witness, and I know He will answer you if you are an honset seeker, because I know He loves you.

[JudoMinja]

Also, I believe that understanding the LDS interpretation of the Fall requires an understanding of the Plan of Salvation, most importantly the premortal existence. We believe that the Plan of Salvation is God's plan that He outlined for us in the premortal existence. He knew, and we knew as He explained it to us, that accepting the Plan would put us in a situation where we could not live up to his commandments, where we would have "no choice" but to sin.

Of course, with our agency, we would have the ability to choose perfection but our mortal failings would mean that each of us would sin in some degree or another. Essentially, we have "no choice" but to sin. Yes, God would prefer we choose not to sin at all. Yes, God would prefer we choose perfection, but He knew that we would be incapable. He knew that His Plan and expectations were beyond our abilities, and He explained that to us in the premortal existence.

He also explained that He would provide a Savior for us, so that as long as we did our best our sins could be cleansed and it would be as if it never happened. Without the Savior none of us would be able to live up to the Law of Justice. The Garden of Eden was the "entry" into this Plan. Adam and Eve were put in a situation where they simply could not live up to God's expectations. They did not have sufficient understanding to live up to the commandment to "multiply and replenish" the earth. The only way they could gain that understanding was to eat the fruit which would cause them to "surely die". God did not necessarily want them to disobey Him, but He knew that they were incapable of being fully obedient.

Even if they had not partaken of the fruit, they would have been disobedient as they would not have been able to follow the commandment to procreate. From your perspective- complete obedience was possible, procreation was possible- but we believe otherwise. We believe that no matter what Adam and Eve chose, they would have somehow Fallen from the presence of God. With their agency and their limited understanding, just like a child, they would have "transgressed" the Law of Justice. What followed was the consequence, not a punishment. Since God's justice is perfect we cannot be in His presence once we have transgressed that law. That is the natural result of our imperfection.

In the premortal existence, we were presented with this Plan and we knew that we could not fulfill the Law of Justice on our own. Even with the Savior being sent to fulfill the Law of Mercy and make up for our failings, why would we accept such a Plan when it meant we would have to leave the presence of God? Why would we accept a Plan to exercise our agency, when we could very well make choices that would lead us away from God, when we could reject the Savior and we would only have a chance of making it back to the "status quo" if we chose wisely?

We are not granted just the presence of God at the completion of the Plan. The Plan has a purpose far greater than that. There had to be something more than just the presence of God at the end, since we were already with God in the beginning. This is why we believe that this life is meant as a preparatory state, to learn responsibility and self-control, and to gain a body- because God has a body. We equate this life to a grown child leaving home to experience the world "on his own", make his own responsible decisions, and hopefully choose wisely.

Without understanding this, one is bound to misunderstand our interpretation of the Fall. The Fall was going to happen no matter what, had to happen for us to progress. Of course God would have preferred we be able to be completely obedient and fulfill the Law of Justice without sinning or transgressing. But He also understand that learning comes from picking ourselves up after making mistaks, and His perfect Plan accounted for the fact that we were not capable.

[SteveVH]

Well, Stephen, words become cumbersome when trying to explain things of a spiritual nature. It's often difficult to find the right words, and even then, it's impossible for those words to convey all the beliefs surrounding and backing up a belief. If one is to truly understand others they have to display a lot of patience, and they have to give the other people many opportunities to explain the same belief. I, for one, appreciate your patience.

Truth be told, we look at the Bible through a filter. Since we believe there is modern revelation and additional scripture, we have to make all of it ring true, so it shapes our views on what the Bible is teaching. To say it bluntly, we don't use just the words of the Bible and interpret God's true nature as a Trinity or otherwise. We gain the knowledge that He is not a Trinity from other revealed sources, and then project those beliefs into the words of the Bible.

To make what could be a long post shorter, to resolve the curiosity you have about our beliefs, you have to go to the other side of this filter. Without doing so, it will be very difficult, if not impossible, to see the words and phrases as we see them.

Either the Book of Mormon is also the word of God, and we have modern living prophets, or not. The short of it is that you have to determine if the Book of Mormon is true. However, if you view it through your interpretation of the Bible and filter it that way, it may seem that many of the things it teaches cannot be true. But, if the words of the Bible were just understood differently, it can be. So, your best course of action is the approach the Book of Mormon with a genuine desire to know if it's true, and if the story told by thousands of early members of our Church is true. Did Joseph Smith actually see The Father and The Son, making Him the best modern filter for understanding who He really is?

There's only one way to find out. And, I encourage and challenge you to do so. ALl it takes is a good, honest reading of it, and ask God if it is true, not us. God is a much better witness, and I know He will answer you if you are an honset seeker, because I know He loves you.

I totally agree with you. There is no one that approaches Scripture without some type of preconceived notion. As for reading and praying about the truth of the Book of Mormon, I went through that exercise in college after being visited by two Mormon missionaries and I am more Catholic than ever. Now, there will be some who will believe that if I didn't receive the testimony of the truth of the Book of Mormon then I simply was not an honest seeker. I'm not sure how one would measure such a thing. If one appraoches this question with a desire for it to be true are they hearing the voice of the Holy Spirit or the voice of their own desires? If one approaches this with honesty, but with an inherent degree of skepticism, have they just blocked out the true voice of God? I think it is nearly impossible to approach it with complete objectivity.

This is why I believe that the truth of our faith must be discerned using more than just our internal feelings. We were given the gifts of faith and reason as well, in order that we might determine truth. Truth cannot conflict with truth. Feelings can be very misleading and are dependent upon many outside factors. We have to look at the whole thing, using all of the gifts God has given us in determining truth so that we may not be deceived.

Thanks so much for your comments.

[estradling75]

Again, I agree with everything you have said. But here is the difference, I think. God does not make a plan in the human sense of the word. We have no idea what is coming down the pike that might interfere with a plan we make. God is omniscient. He knows all of history from beginning to end. It all really has to do with the gift of free will and the ability to love. God is love, as we are told in Sacred Scripture. He created us to love. Love cannot exist unless we choose to love and we cannot choose unless we have free will. With free will, we also have the choice to disobey God. He knew this, but certainly did not desire that we make the wrong choice. We did not have to make the wrong choice or it would have been no choice at all. That is the problem I see in the Mormon position which holds, if I am correct, that Adam and Eve had no choice but to disobey God and that somehow this is a good thing and is exactly what God desired.

I think you missed my point... Alot of Christians believe that if Adam and Eve had not have fallen then we all be kicking it right now in the garden. If that was truly God's plan for us then this life has to be plan B... This plan B then wouldn't be a slight tweak of the plan do to human will it would be a total revamp that require things like a Savior that the first plan didn't.

The Mormon position is that the Garden of Eden was always intended to be a transition point, that got this part plan going. Its shows that human weakness and the temptation of sin are all accounted for. Not only accounted for but worked into the plan. That while we can cut ourselves off God's purposes are still going to roll forward.

Unfortunately there is a very human tendency to try to justify sin. In the case of Adam and Eve we can only see the one path. Other options that they may or may not have had that would worked are unknown. We only see God taking a sinful act and turning it into something great and wonderful for their benefit and advancement, all according to plan. But because God did this, we want to make the sinful act less sinful because it turned out for the best. This is a very human, very common thing to try. I think when we do this hold up a mirror to our own desires. That like Adam and Eve God will take all our sins and change it into something wonderful. That is the promise of the atonement if we make use of it.

[SteveVH]

Also, I believe that understanding the LDS interpretation of the Fall requires an understanding of the Plan of Salvation, most importantly the premortal existence. We believe that the Plan of Salvation is God's plan that He outlined for us in the premortal existence. He knew, and we knew as He explained it to us, that accepting the Plan would put us in a situation where we could not live up to his commandments, where we would have "no choice" but to sin.

Of course, with our agency, we would have the ability to choose perfection but our mortal failings would mean that each of us would sin in some degree or another. Essentially, we have "no choice" but to sin. Yes, God would prefer we choose not to sin at all. Yes, God would prefer we choose perfection, but He knew that we would be incapable. He knew that His Plan and expectations were beyond our abilities, and He explained that to us in the premortal existence.

He also explained that He would provide a Savior for us, so that as long as we did our best our sins could be cleansed and it would be as if it never happened. Without the Savior none of us would be able to live up to the Law of Justice. The Garden of Eden was the "entry" into this Plan. Adam and Eve were put in a situation where they simply could not live up to God's expectations. They did not have sufficient understanding to live up to the commandment to "multiply and replenish" the earth. The only way they could gain that understanding was to eat the fruit which would cause them to "surely die". God did not necessarily want them to disobey Him, but He knew that they were incapable of being fully obedient.

Even if they had not partaken of the fruit, they would have been disobedient as they would not have been able to follow the commandment to procreate. From your perspective- complete obedience was possible, procreation was possible- but we believe otherwise. We believe that no matter what Adam and Eve chose, they would have somehow Fallen from the presence of God. With their agency and their limited understanding, just like a child, they would have "transgressed" the Law of Justice. What followed was the consequence, not a punishment. Since God's justice is perfect we cannot be in His presence once we have transgressed that law. That is the natural result of our imperfection.

In the premortal existence, we were presented with this Plan and we knew that we could not fulfill the Law of Justice on our own. Even with the Savior being sent to fulfill the Law of Mercy and make up for our failings, why would we accept such a Plan when it meant we would have to leave the presence of God? Why would we accept a Plan to exercise our agency, when we could very well make choices that would lead us away from God, when we could reject the Savior and we would only have a chance of making it back to the "status quo" if we chose wisely?

We are not granted just the presence of God at the completion of the Plan. The Plan has a purpose far greater than that. There had to be something more than just the presence of God at the end, since we were already with God in the beginning. This is why we believe that this life is meant as a preparatory state, to learn responsibility and self-control, and to gain a body- because God has a body. We equate this life to a grown child leaving home to experience the world "on his own", make his own responsible decisions, and hopefully choose wisely.

Without understanding this, one is bound to misunderstand our interpretation of the Fall. The Fall was going to happen no matter what, had to happen for us to progress. Of course God would have preferred we be able to be completely obedient and fulfill the Law of Justice without sinning or transgressing. But He also understand that learning comes from picking ourselves up after making mistaks, and His perfect Plan accounted for the fact that we were not capable.

Thanks for your perspective. I think you explain it well. In order to buy into the Mormon position it seems that there are some basic, foundational beliefs that one must accept. First, one must accept the pre-mortal existence (for which I have yet to find any scriptural evidence); that God has a body (I would agree that Christ certainly has a body, but find no evidence that the Father does, as Christ is referred to as the image of the invisible God) and that procreation was only possible through falling from grace with God (again I find no evidence to support that position and just, honestly, find it a strange notion altogether). In any event I do understand, if these matters were accepted, where you arrive at your beliefs in this area, so thank you.

[SteveVH]

I think you missed my point... Alot of Christians believe that if Adam and Eve had not have fallen then we all be kicking it right now in the garden. If that was truly God's plan for us then this life has to be plan B... This plan B then wouldn't be a slight tweak of the plan do to human will it would be a total revamp that require things like a Savior that the first plan didn't.

The Mormon position is that the Garden of Eden was always intended to be a transition point, that got this part plan going. Its shows that human weakness and the temptation of sin are all accounted for. Not only accounted for but worked into the plan. That while we can cut ourselves off God's purposes are still going to roll forward.

Unfortunately there is a very human tendency to try to justify sin. In the case of Adam and Eve we can only see the one path. Other options that they may or may not have had that would worked are unknown. We only see God taking a sinful act and turning it into something great and wonderful for their benefit and advancement, all according to plan. But because God did this, we want to make the sinful act less sinful because it turned out for the best. This is a very human, very common thing to try. I think when we do this hold up a mirror to our own desires. That like Adam and Eve God will take all our sins and change it into something wonderful. That is the promise of the atonement if we make use of it.

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

[estradling75]

Well, I'm not sure what I missed.

Its in response to all your claims that the Mormon position doesn't give Adam and Eve a choice... Or some how limit or force god to be unjust or unfair

[SteveVH]

Its in response to all your claims that the Mormon position doesn't give Adam and Eve a choice... Or some how limit or force god to be unjust or unfair

Please correct me if I am wrong. This is how I understand the Mormon position:

1. God commanded Adam and Eve to be fruitful and multiply. This could not be accomplished unless they ate of the fruit of the Tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

2. God forbid them to eat of the very tree that was necessary in order for them to keep his first command.

Am I correct so far?

Why would God forbid them to do the very thing that was necessary in order for them to keep his first command? By doing so, please tell me how they still had the free will choice to obey him? I'll just leave it at that for now.

Edited October 5, 2011 by StephenVH

[Traveler]

That is certainly not the position I have been taught in my faith and is a complete misrepresentation of my beliefs. I am not here to throw stones at you, Traveler. I don't think I have misrepresented what you believe and in fact, quite frequently, I will ask the poster to whom I am responding to please correct me if I am incorrect in my perception of your beliefs. It is what you actually believe that I have questioned, not a misrepresentation of what you believe. So I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you have just been misinformed and I will be happy to correct you. Then you can agree or disagree with what I actually believe.

God, because of his very nature, can never do anything that is unjust. What we believe is what scripture tells us. Please bear with me here. I am not fond of long posts with numerous scriptural references, but this is important. We didn't just make it up.

Genesis 3:17-19

"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 the plants of the field. By the sweat of your face shall you get bread to eat, until you return to the ground, from where you were taken; You are dirt, and to dirt you shall return.'"

Romans 5:12-14

"Therefore, just as though one person sin entered the world, and through sin, death, and thus death came to all, inasmuch as all sinned - for up to the time of the law, sin was in the world, though sin is not accounted when there is no law. But death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who did not sin after the pattern of the trespass of Adam, who is the type of the one who was to come."

1st Corinthians 15:21-22

"For since death came through a human being, the resurrection of the dead came also through a human being. For just as in Adam all die, so too in Christ shall all be brought to life."

Ephesians 2:1-3

"You were dead in your transgressions and sins in which you once lived following the age of this world, following the ruler of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the disobedient. All of us once lived among them in the desires of our flesh, following the wishes of the flesh and the impulses, and we were by nature children of wrath, like the rest."

We know not only from scripture, but by our own experience, that the affects of the original sin are always present in our world and have been since Adam. Who can deny it? It is simply a reality. You do not want to believe that "G-d justifies and allows the cursing (punishments) of innocent children because of the sins of their parents" yet it is all around you and spelled out very clearly in scripture. In our own time, too many children suffer from the sins of their parents. Is it fair? God allows it because we have free will, with which he will never interfere and our choices can certainly affect the lives of others, even for generations. Our nature changed, as we are told in Ephesians. We are, by nature, children of wrath. So we are inclined to sin and the punishment is that we get to suffer the consequences of our own sins. The reality is that others suffer from the consequences of our own sins as well, just as we do from the sin of Adam. It is not that we are punished for the sin of Adam, it is that due to the sin of Adam we tend toward our own sin due to our inherited nature. The "Good News" is that we have a Savior who can lift us up, restore our nature by dwelling within us and bring us to eternal life.

The problem is that you see this through the eyes of traditional Christianity and in so doing make excuses. Through that lens there is unexplainable injustice and children suffer yet the explanation is flawed because there is in reality no agency or free will under the landscape defined by traditional Christianity. Through your lens children can have no agency or will and despite all explanation and quotation of scripture there is gross inconsistency and contradictions. In answer to such gross inconsistency and contradictions the response by traditional Christianity is - that man cannot understand or comprehend G-d, or his methods or ways. If such is true then how can man (which cannot understand such justice) be condemned for eternity in hell for rebelling against that which he cannot comprehend because of inconsistencies and contradictions force upon him (without his consent) and then it is all excused under the umbrella that it is because of the agency and free will of man?

These are not my arguments - this is the view or every rational individual that has criticized the “Traditional Christian” landscape for most of the modern era in which we live. It is the very core of the rise of atheism. Not so much that they do not believe in G-d but that they cannot believe in such a G-d to call him just, kind, compassionate and merciful.

Paul indicated that there is a more excellent way. According to LDS theology we all sat in counsel with G-d and agreed to suffer in mortality - often unjustly and even as children but with the understanding that Jesus would suffer with us and more than us all that we may repent and finely be free of sin (if we so desire). That is the primary difference. That is the element missing. That is the understanding that - for whatever reason is lost to Traditional Christianity - and for the life of me I do not know why this simple little principle is so adamantly rejected. The point being that we chose by our agency to suffer as did Jesus the Son of G-d agreed to suffer to show us by experience and opportunity the love of G-d - which will endure suffering for a greater cause.

The Traveler

[Vort]

Please correct me if I am wrong. This is how I understand the Mormon position:

1. God commanded Adam and Eve to be fruitful and multiply. This could not be accomplished unless they ate of the fruit of the Tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

2. God forbid them to eat of the very tree that was necessary in order for them to keep his first command.

Am I correct so far?

According to my understanding of LDS scripture and doctrine, you are correct.

Why would God forbid them to do the very thing that was necessary in order for them to keep his first command?

I don't know. Perhaps it has something to do with trying them to see if they would hearken to the voice of Satan.

By doing so, please tell me how they still had the free will choice to obey him?

I don't understand. How would doing so violate Adam's and Eve's free will? Can they not still make a choice?

Perhaps your understanding of agency (or "free will") differs from mine. Of what do you think "free will" consists?

[estradling75]

Please correct me if I am wrong. This is how I understand the Mormon position:

1. God commanded Adam and Eve to be fruitful and multiply. This could not be accomplished unless they ate of the fruit of the Tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

2. God forbid them to eat of the very tree that was necessary in order for them to keep his first command.

Am I correct so far?

Why would God forbid them to do the very thing that was necessary in order for them to keep his first command? By doing so, please tell me how they still had the free will choice to obey him? I'll just leave it at that for now.

Because neither of us (our groups) have the whole story. We are not told what was possible only what happened.

Your belief is that Adam and Eve could have kept both commandment...But then you have to figure how God can fair and just and merciful to people how by definition have no knowledge of good and evil. Plus explain how god let his plan go seriously off the rails to something else entirely when Adam and Eve broke the commandment.

Our belief is that God gave Adam and Eve a seriously hard choice... Lets compare it to Abraham's command to sacrifice his son. This also clearly set up a conflict between that command and the Thou Shall not Kill command. Both command are of God and by all appearance he could not do both. He had to choose one or the other, and live with the consequences. With Abraham we learn that at the last moment God had a plan in mind to stop Abraham and offer a way out of the hard choice. With Adam and Eve we never get to see if God would have offered them a way out had they chosen differently. We are told only what happen. Thus leaving question and requiring us to work by faith.

[SteveVH]

I don't understand. How would doing so violate Adam's and Eve's free will? Can they not still make a choice?

According to the Mormon postition, yes they did have a choice. A choice between sinning this way or sinning that way. They did not have the choice to remain obedient. They were forced to sin, one way or the other. What makes this impossible, from my standpoint, is that it requires God to be complicit in their sin, which he could never be.

I think this is tied to the Mormon presupposition that they could not have children unless they ate of the tree, which I believe is erroneous and for which I find no scriptural basis. If you remove that assumption from the equation, then they would have been free to obey God. If you hold to that assumption they had no choice but to sin against God which is objectively unjust and contradictory.

Edited October 5, 2011 by StephenVH

[james12]

Please correct me if I am wrong. This is how I understand the Mormon position:

1. God commanded Adam and Eve to be fruitful and multiply. This could not be accomplished unless they ate of the fruit of the Tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

2. God forbid them to eat of the very tree that was necessary in order for them to keep his first command.

Am I correct so far?

Why would God forbid them to do the very thing that was necessary in order for them to keep his first command? By doing so, please tell me how they still had the free will choice to obey him? I'll just leave it at that for now.

From an LDS perspective I think this idea that the Lord "forbid" them needs to be clearified. We read in Moses 3:17 "But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it, nevertheless, thou mayest choose for thyself, for it is given unto thee; but, remember that I forbid it, for in the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die."

Joseph Fielding Smith said, "Mortality was created through the eating of forbidden fruit, if you want to call it forbidden, but I think the Lord has made it clear that it was not forbidden. He merely said to Adam, if you want to stay here [in the garden] this is the situation. If so, don't eat it. ("The Sacrament and the Atonement," address given at the LDS institute of religion, Salt Lake City, 14 Jan. 1961, 5)

It was forbidden only in the sense that in order for Adam and Eve to remain in their current state they could not eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge. However, the choice was theirs to make. I believe this clears up the apparent conflict between points 1 and 2.

[JudoMinja]

james- Thank you! I wanted to say that it wasn't exactly a "commandment" to not eat the fruit- that God was just identifying what would happen if they did, but I wanted to find the scripture to back it up and was having trouble doing so.. I should have remembered to look in the Pearl of Great Price, lol.

Anyway, Stephen, I agree with the interpretation James provided. This is one of those areas where we, as LDS, believe that modern day revelation has clarified something that was unclear in the Bible. The Genesis account does not give room for this understanding, as it does not supply the "thou mayest choose for thyself" bit. To rely only on the Bible to explain our perspective, we would indeed see a major conflict. But then, one would not believe our LDS interpretation if one did not also believe in modern revelation. This is the "lens" through which we interpret and understand the Bible. It provides clarifications on points that would seem to be contradictory, and I personally think that there are many aspects of the gospel that would seem very contradictory without this clarification.

[Vort]

From an LDS perspective I think this idea that the Lord "forbid" them needs to be clearified. We read in Moses 3:17 "But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it, nevertheless, thou mayest choose for thyself, for it is given unto thee; but, remember that I forbid it, for in the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die."

Joseph Fielding Smith said, "Mortality was created through the eating of forbidden fruit, if you want to call it forbidden, but I think the Lord has made it clear that it was not forbidden. He merely said to Adam, if you want to stay here [in the garden] this is the situation. If so, don't eat it. ("The Sacrament and the Atonement," address given at the LDS institute of religion, Salt Lake City, 14 Jan. 1961, 5)

It was forbidden only in the sense that in order for Adam and Eve to remain in their current state they could not eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge. However, the choice was theirs to make. I believe this clears up the apparent conflict between points 1 and 2.

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

[Traveler]

Please correct me if I am wrong. This is how I understand the Mormon position:

1. God commanded Adam and Eve to be fruitful and multiply. This could not be accomplished unless they ate of the fruit of the Tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

2. God forbid them to eat of the very tree that was necessary in order for them to keep his first command.

Am I correct so far?

Why would God forbid them to do the very thing that was necessary in order for them to keep his first command? By doing so, please tell me how they still had the free will choice to obey him? I'll just leave it at that for now.

It is the landscape in which the questions you ask are framed that the very answers appear to be wrong. Much like the question, “have you stopped beating your wife yet?” Please answer yes or no.

It is like asking the question in relation to your question #2. So according to Genesis, G-d commanded (forbid) the man Adam to pursue any knowledge of good? Am I correct so far?

The Traveler

[SteveVH]

The problem is that you see this through the eyes of traditional Christianity and in so doing make excuses.

What "excuses" have I made?

Through that lens there is unexplainable injustice and children suffer yet the explanation is flawed because there is in reality no agency or free will under the landscape defined by traditional Christianity.

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

Through your lens children can have no agency or will and despite all explanation and quotation of scripture there is gross inconsistency and contradictions.

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

In answer to such gross inconsistency and contradictions the response by traditional Christianity is - that man cannot understand or comprehend G-d, or his methods or ways.

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

If such is true then how can man (which cannot understand such justice) be condemned for eternity in hell for rebelling against that which he cannot comprehend because of inconsistencies and contradictions force upon him (without his consent) and then it is all excused under the umbrella that it is because of the agency and free will of man

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

These are not my arguments - this is the view or every rational individual that has criticized the “Traditional Christian” landscape for most of the modern era in which we live. It is the very core of the rise of atheism. Not so much that they do not believe in G-d but that they cannot believe in such a G-d to call him just, kind, compassionate and merciful.

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

[SteveVH]

It is the landscape in which the questions you ask are framed that the very answers appear to be wrong. Much like the question, “have you stopped beating your wife yet?” Please answer yes or no.

It is like asking the question in relation to your question #2. So according to Genesis, G-d commanded (forbid) the man Adam to pursue any knowledge of good? Am I correct so far?

The Traveler

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

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

Edited October 5, 2011 by StephenVH

[Seminarysnoozer]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Edited October 5, 2011 by Seminarysnoozer

[SteveVH]

Because neither of us (our groups) have the whole story. We are not told what was possible only what happened.

Your belief is that Adam and Eve could have kept both commandment...But then you have to figure how God can fair and just and merciful to people how by definition have no knowledge of good and evil. Plus explain how god let his plan go seriously off the rails to something else entirely when Adam and Eve broke the commandment.

As I have stated in a previous post, I believe that Adam and Eve would have gained the knowledge of good and evil in a legitimate way had they been obedient and walked away from Satan. Satan's evil would have become readily apparent and distinguishable from the goodness of God. One does not have to commit evil in order to understand it.

I think I can boil down the issue to this. I have no idea where we would be if they had obeyed God. It didn't happen. That is really not the issue I have. The issue is in believing that disobeying an express command of God is somehow a good and necessary thing. That is really at the heart of the matter.

Our belief is that God gave Adam and Eve a seriously hard choice... Lets compare it to Abraham's command to sacrifice his son. This also clearly set up a conflict between that command and the Thou Shall not Kill command. Both command are of God and by all appearance he could not do both. He had to choose one or the other, and live with the consequences. With Abraham we learn that at the last moment God had a plan in mind to stop Abraham and offer a way out of the hard choice. With Adam and Eve we never get to see if God would have offered them a way out had they chosen differently. We are told only what happen. Thus leaving question and requiring us to work by faith.

Except that Abraham was faithful and Adam and Eve were not. Abraham never lost his trust in God, even in the face of such a horrific choice. And God rewarded him for his faihtfulness. What did Adam and Eve (and all their children) receive in return for the choice they made? Sin, suffering and death. Yet you maintain that this was the correct choice to make and, in fact, necessary in order for us to attain divinity.

At this point, I think we have beat this horse to death. It is obvious that I am upsetting certain people here and that is not my intention. I am pretty sure that I understand your position so I think we should probably leave it at that. I do appreciate you responding to me. Thank you.