Two questions i dont know if there are available answers for... deep deep doctrine

[Just_A_Guy]

Why did God command them not to partake of the fruit if it was necessary for the plan to continue?

If I place a plate of cookies on the table, tell my kids not to eat any of them, and leave--does that mean my kids will never be allowed to partake of the cookies? Of course not! The implicit statement is to not eat any of them unless or until I return and give instruction to the contrary.

There are subtle and inconclusive hints within the temple liturgy that the same notion may apply to the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. If this interpretation is correct, then the "transgression" wasn't partaking of the fruit per se; it was doing so in a time, place, and manner that were contrary to the expressed instructions of the Father.

Cleon Skousen once gave a talk about the Atonement where he alleged that Satan's plan was nothing short of revolution--the complete usurpation of the Father's throne; and I think there's something to that. The drama in Eden would merely be a continuation of Satan's attempts to--quite literally--play God; as he attempts to position himself (rather than the Father) as the one who provides Adam and Eve with the divine ability to create life.

Edited August 14, 2012 by Just_A_Guy

[Eleven]

This is the best explanation I've found in my studies.

Why didn’t God cause the Fall to occur, or simply create a fallen world to begin with? “It is contrary to the nature of God to create anything imperfect or unholy. It is contrary to the nature of God to entice men to violate law or to do evil. If God had created a world in which there was opposition, sin, and evil then we could hold Him responsible for such conditions-The Book of Mormon: Second Nephi, The Doctrinal Structure, pg 102

“Why didn’t the Lord simply create man mortal in the first place and avoid all the trauma and experience of a Fall brought to pass through transgression and seemingly conflicting commands? There are in the scriptures no one-sentence answers to this question, but we have been given enough knowledge concerning Gods plan to think through a possible response. In the plan of salvation God does for mankind what they cannot do for themselves. Man must do all he can for himself...Since the Fall was a necessary part of the plan of salvation, and since man was capable of bringing about the fallen condition himself, he was required–or rather it was his privilege–to take the necessary steps.

If God had created man mortal, then death, sin, and all the circumstances of mortality would be God’s doing and would be eternal and permanent in their nature; whereas if man brings the Fall upon himself, he is the responsible moral agent and God is able to rescue and redeem him from his fallen state.”–Selected Writings of Robert J. Matthews pg 479-480

To summarize, God is perfect and only creates perfect things. The fall was just as important in the plan of salvation as anything else, and *had* to happen. Since God wasn't going to create an imperfect being, it had to be set up where man chose to fall from his perfect state, to an imperfect state.

Out of all the comments, I thoroughly enjoyed this. I read up some and found this too. Dallan H Oaks said once that there is a very careful distinction in our article of faith #2. "We believe man will be punished for their own SINS and not for Adams Transgression

He goes on to say that the difference between a Sin and a Transgression is this:

Murder is inherently wrong, therefore a sin.

Driving without a license are crimes only because they are locally prohibited, therefore it is a transgression, not a sin

-put into my own words from June 2006 Ensign Page 48-

Vort, youre a straight arrow, what do you make of this? Is this to say out of Gods two commandments, one was a spiritual commandment (replenish) and the other was simply a worldly law? Ive never seen God give something as simple as a worldly law, but i would love to be corrected. Also from this article, It says These two commandments were given to give them a choice.

Am I to understand they were meant to oppose each other?

I understand entirely this quote above the "reasons" why God had to put agency and responsibility of our actions on us as mortals, but it completely boggles my mind that God could/would ever give two commandments that opposed each other.

I havent read all the comments so I'll do that now and see if i can further my findings

[Eleven]

If I place a plate of cookies on the table, tell my kids not to eat any of them, and leave--does that mean my kids will never be allowed to partake of the cookies? Of course not! The implicit statement is to not eat any of them unless or until I return and give instruction to the contrary.

There are subtle and inconclusive hints within the temple liturgy that the same notion may apply to the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. If this interpretation is correct, then the "transgression" wasn't partaking of the fruit per se; it was doing so in a time, place, and manner that were contrary to the expressed instructions of the Father.

Cleon Skousen once gave a talk about the Atonement where he alleged that Satan's plan was nothing short of revolution--the complete usurpation of the Father's throne; and I think there's something to that. The drama in Eden would merely be a continuation of Satan's attempts to--quite literally--play God; as he attempts to position himself (rather than the Father) as the one who provides Adam and Eve with the divine ability to create life.

So I'll be blunt, because this is the only example i can think of. Kids are taught not to have sex, but this doesnt mean sex is impure, it just means at that time it is.

Can you help me understand where in scriptures maybe where it implies this notion? This definitely makes sense on how it "could" fit, but in my mind i havent made the connection "how" and "where" it connects

[Just_A_Guy]

Precisely.

I can't think of a smoking-gun scripture that would back up this notion. I think the closest you can get is Lehi's sermon in 2 Nephi 2:23, where he basically says that if Adam and Eve hadn't partaken of the fruit at some point, they would have had no children. From there it seems to be a logical inference that if God's work and glory is to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of more than just one man (Moses 1:39), then at some point God would have wanted Adam and Eve to partake of the fruit and begin creating children.

[Eleven]

I wonder If God was planning on furthering their knowledge of things Himself by teaching them verbally until they took it upon themselves. Like what if Gods original plan was to teach Adam and Eve everything the fruit would have offered, and once they knew everything, they would understand that they needed to accept mortality upon themselves or something like that..

Maybe God, like you say, wanted them to get to some stage of progression before he allowed them to partake of the fruit and Adam and Eve simply jumped the gun. So God improvised thinking "Well, i was going to have them take it at some point, guess i need to deal with this now"

Just speculation and outward thinking..

[SteveVH]

This is the best explanation I've found in my studies.

Why didn’t God cause the Fall to occur, or simply create a fallen world to begin with? “It is contrary to the nature of God to create anything imperfect or unholy. It is contrary to the nature of God to entice men to violate law or to do evil. If God had created a world in which there was opposition, sin, and evil then we could hold Him responsible for such conditions-The Book of Mormon: Second Nephi, The Doctrinal Structure, pg 102

“Why didn’t the Lord simply create man mortal in the first place and avoid all the trauma and experience of a Fall brought to pass through transgression and seemingly conflicting commands? There are in the scriptures no one-sentence answers to this question, but we have been given enough knowledge concerning Gods plan to think through a possible response. In the plan of salvation God does for mankind what they cannot do for themselves. Man must do all he can for himself...Since the Fall was a necessary part of the plan of salvation, and since man was capable of bringing about the fallen condition himself, he was required–or rather it was his privilege–to take the necessary steps.

If God had created man mortal, then death, sin, and all the circumstances of mortality would be God’s doing and would be eternal and permanent in their nature; whereas if man brings the Fall upon himself, he is the responsible moral agent and God is able to rescue and redeem him from his fallen state.”–Selected Writings of Robert J. Matthews pg 479-480

To summarize, God is perfect and only creates perfect things. The fall was just as important in the plan of salvation as anything else, and *had* to happen. Since God wasn't going to create an imperfect being, it had to be set up where man chose to fall from his perfect state, to an imperfect state.

This is one aspect of Mormon belief that has always baffled me. Adam and Eve were created in original innocence; free from sin. In this state they "walked with God" in the garden. Through the temptation of the serpent (to be as Gods themselves), and because of the doubt that had been placed into their hearts by the enemy (God was somehow hoding out on them by not allowing them to eat of the tree of Knowledge), they chose to disobey God. Did God wish for them to disobey? If he did then he was complicit in their sin. No, God's will was that they obey him and not eat of the tree, otherwise there would have been no transgression (sin).

I am certainly open to correction here, but my understanding of the Mormon postition is that God gave Adam and Eve two commandments. By obeying one command (not to eat of the tree) they would have no choice but to disobey the command to be fruitful and multiply. Now I have no idea of the origin of the notion that Adam and Eve could not have had children while in their state of original holiness, but from what I understand you believe that they could not have had children unless they first sinned. Am I correct?

What this boils down to is a scenario in which an all loving God would place his children in the predicament that they would have no choice but to disobey him, which is to say that they had no choice at all. It was like demanding that I drive 150 miles in 30 minutes without breaking the speed limit. In order to obey one command I must break another. If you keep God's command to not eat of the tree then you violate God's command to be fruitful and multiply.

Could someone please explain this to me?

Much thanks.

[Atlantis]

What we term right is limited to our understanding of right! For example: Is killing right? After the flood was is right or wrong for Noah's (Adam too) children to marry in the family? You can't tell children everything but allow understanding through time to enlighten their little minds. There is no other way. Joseph Smith speaking to the Twelve once said: If I were to tell all the things I know about God and the Kingdom of God, I feel that you would rise up and kill me yourself. This makes one realise that even the Twelve have much to learn, how much more do we therefore? Were we told everything by Heavenly Father it would like a Parent telling his children about sex, you wonder what would they hear? The good part of the bad of it!

[SteveVH]

correct, we believe that they were unable to have children unless they ate the fruit.

this is a good article: ?In the Beginning?: A Latter-day Perspective - Ensign Jan. 1998 - ensign

President Joseph Fielding Smith wrote: “The Lord said to Adam that if he wished to remain as he was in the garden, then he was not to eat the fruit, but if he desired to eat it and partake of death he was at liberty to do so.” 19 In essence the Lord told Adam that there were two directions to go, each with its unique consequences—and that Adam was to choose which one.

Wow, that doesn't sound anything like the scriptural account in Genesis. God strictly forbade Adam and Eve from eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, he didn't offer it as just another choice. They chose, out of their own free will, to disobey God.

My personal take on it (not doctrine) I think it is symbolic, and that it has to do with the power of procreation. I think it is a transgression to bring children into the world because it goes against their agency. Full agency requires that someone has enough experience to make an informed decision - sure 2/3 parts "chose" to come here, but it was not an informed choice, we had no experience of what it was really like, just theoretical ideas until we actually did it.

That may be true assuming that the Mormon belief in pre-mortal existence is true.

Why don't we baptize infants? because they don't have enough experience yet to make an informed decision - we wait until they are 8yo at least.... so I think it is a sin - or at least a transgression - to bring a child into the world without their fully informed choice, but it is a necessary step, the only way to gain experience is to go into the thing partially blind. ... if that makes sense? just how I see it.

So you actually believe that giving life to children is a sin, yet a sin that we must commit? Were we not commanded to be fruitful and multiply? If this is a sin then what you are saying is that we are commanded by God to sin. If this is true then we are not speaking of the same God. I think you need to contemplate your position a little further.

I think it is necessary for us to come to a knowledge of good and evil though - to gain appreciation, to have the chance to sacrifice, and to experience love (the greatest love is this, that a man lay down his life for his friend - no sin, no sacrifice, no love)... this imperfect experience is a temporary one, but a needed one. We would like to find some system where we don't have to experience evil to appreciate the good, but it looks like it is impossible to have an up without also having a down... theory of relativity or something, everything is relative, either you have everything in the whole spectrum relative to one another, or you have nothing at all....

Well, we certainly find ourselves in this situation, but that is because of the choice of Adam and Eve. The consequences of their sin were death, suffering, toil, etc... It did not, however, have to be this way. They could have obeyed God's command in the first place. I still see nothing in scripture that even hints that Adam and Eve would have been prevented from having children had they obeyed God. They were created "male and female" for a reason and that reason was procreation, otherwise we would have been created as non-sexual beings.

If there were an easier way, I think god would have taken it.

It was not God who made the choice to disobey, but rather man. It seems to me that you believe that disobeying God was necessary in order to complete God's plan. Think about that. My take is that God's plan will prevail inspite of man's poor choices and inspite of man's sin. God never required that we sin in order to bring his plan to fruition because it is impossible for God to sin or to cause man to sin. Instead, out of his unfathomable love for us, he became man, suffered and died and rose in order to save us from the choices we made in contradition to his will.

Anyway, I appreciate your response even if I have trouble agreeing with your position.

God bless.

Edited August 19, 2012 by StephenVH

[SteveVH]

We actually call the fall in the Eden a transgression, not a sin, the difference being Adam and Eve did not have the experience to know what they were doing. sorry, I should have used the word transgression. (Why we don't baptize children, we believe they don't have enough understanding to sin, they might transgress, but they do not sin, and do not need their sins washed away).

Again, there is a distinct difference in how we view Adam and Eve. When God created man he said not only that it was good, but very good. God can create nothing less than good. Adam and Eve were created perfectly; that means perfect intelligence; perfect physical bodies (not subject to corruption or decay) and perfect holiness; they had never sinned prior to eating of the tree. The fact that Adam and Eve knew only goodness as they walked with God in the Garden, does not mean that they were naive. They were created with the gift of free will, separating them from the animals. They knew very well that if they ate of the Tree that they would be disobeying God (witness the conversation with the serpent). They chose, of their own free will to disobey God. Call it what you will, but if it were a mere transgression for which they had no culpability (did not know what they were doing, as you say), then why did God react in such a manner?

"To the woman he said,

“I will make your pains in childbearing very severe;

with painful labor you will give birth to children.

Your desire will be for your husband,

and he will rule over you. ”

To Adam he said, “Because you listened to your wife and ate fruit from the tree about which I commanded you, ‘You must not eat from it,’ “Cursed is the ground because of you;

through painful toil you will eat food from it all the days of your life. It will produce thorns and thistles for you, and you will eat the plants of the field. By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food until you return to the ground, since from it you were taken; for dust you are and to dust you will return.” (Genesis 3:16-19)

Sounds pretty severe for someone that was not knowingly at fault.

Question for you, why do you believe God placed the tree of knowledge of good and evil in the garden of Eden? He knew what would happen, so why did He place it there if He did not need it?

In order for Adam and Eve to truly love God they must choose to love God. Love cannot exist unless one chooses to love. We cannot love accidentally or unknowingly. God placed the tree in the Garden to provid the opportunity for Adam and Eve to choose to love God and remain faithful to him. He had already given them everything they could desire. They had the choice to show their love for God by remaining faithful and trusting in him. Instead, being tempted by the serpent, they chose to disobey Him. They wanted something for themselves that they believed God was withholding from them.

So the choice was not which sin to choose, but whether or not to choose sin at all. They certainly had the choice to love God by remaining faithful to Him. That was His will for them. They went against His will and chose themselves over God and we find ourselves in a world that exists as a consequence of that choice; evil, death, suffering, struggle, etc. have entered in. But God loved them, and us, so much that he promised to send a Savior to bring mankind back into relationship with Him so that we might attain what Adam and Eve had lost; everlasting life in the family of God.

[Vort]

Adam and Eve disobeyed God, hearkened to the voice of Satan, fell from their state of grace in Eden, and were spiritually cut off from God from that time forth (also called spiritual death). You may insist that it was not "really" sin, if that's what you want to do. The wage of sin is death, and death, both physical and spiritual, is exactly what Adam and Eve received for their actions.

We as Latter-day Saints do not believe that Adam and Eve were evil, or that they condemned the human race to misery, as some other religions believe. We hold Adam as one of the greatest prophets, and Adam and Eve as our glorious first parents. It is my opinion that the whole idea of "transgression-but-not-sin" (a distinction made nowhere in scripture) has arisen as a reaction to the "evil Adam" idea that we reject. But I must agree with Stephen's logic, if not completely with his conclusions.

[SteveVH]

Adam and Eve disobeyed God, hearkened to the voice of Satan, fell from their state of grace in Eden, and were spiritually cut off from God from that time forth (also called spiritual death). You may insist that it was not "really" sin, if that's what you want to do. The wage of sin is death, and death, both physical and spiritual, is exactly what Adam and Eve received for their actions.

We as Latter-day Saints do not believe that Adam and Eve were evil, or that they condemned the human race to misery, as some other religions believe. We hold Adam as one of the greatest prophets, and Adam and Eve as our glorious first parents. It is my opinion that the whole idea of "transgression-but-not-sin" (a distinction made nowhere in scripture) has arisen as a reaction to the "evil Adam" idea that we reject. But I must agree with Stephen's logic, if not completely with his conclusions.

I appreciate your perspective and certainly would not expect you to agree completley with my conclusions. As for Adam and Eve being evil, I would consider them no more evil than any of the rest of us who fall into temptation and make the wrong choice. I would differ, as you would probably expect, with the conclusion that their sin had little or no effect on the human race as a whole and even the rest of creation, for that matter, but that is a topic for another time. My purpose in joining this thread is to attempt to understand the Mormon view of this event. There are layers of doctrine underlying the various perspectives of the events found in the first several chapters of Genesis. If one believes in a pre-mortal existence, for instance, then one will draw a different conclusion than one who believes that man was created by God and had no existence prior to his creation. I'm not sure that this is the place to peel away this onion but I do appreciate everyone's input. Thanks.

[james12]

Steven,

Just a couple of scriptures to help you understand LDS thought on Adam and Eve.

Regarding Adam and Eve having children 2 Nephi 2:17-25* Here is verse 23 from 2 Ne 2:

And now, behold, if Adam had not transgressed he would not have fallen, but he would have remained in the garden of Eden. And all things which were created must have remained in the same state in which they were after they were created; and they must have remained forever, and had no end. 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.

Regarding both a spiritual and a physical creation. Moses 3:4-7* Here is verse 5 of that section:

And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew. For I, the Lord God, created all things, of which I have spoken, spiritually, before they were naturally upon the face of the earth.

And now the end of verse 7:

And I, the Lord God, formed man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul, the first flesh upon the earth, the first man also; nevertheless, all things were before created; but spiritually were they created and made according to my word.

Just to round out the major portions of additional scripture we also have the account in Abraham 4 and 5.

Abraham 4

Abraham 5

The creation appears to be a simple story but it is fraught with meaning. I am still working to understand it. But as LDS any explanation must square with these scriptures. If it does not there is clearly something wrong.

[Finrock]

The Fall was a part of the Plan of Salvation. It was designed to happen. God provided the conditions so that Adam and Eve could make a choice. The result of Adam and Eve partaking of the fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil was that God's plan could move forward. It was obviously the best choice. In this case, the trangression of God's commandment was a necessary step required to kick-start the Plan of Redemption. Further, because the Fall was planned, God had already taken care of the results of the Fall by providing a Savior. So, God knew that by transgressing Adam and Eve would Fall but He also knew that they could be healed from the affects of the Fall through the atonement.

The issue is that we are creating philosophical absolutes without properly understanding the nature and purpose of God. There is no other way for the Plan of Redemption to come about and thus God acting any other way would be bad. God's plan was perfectly good.

Regards,

Finrock

[Traveler]

I appreciate your perspective and certainly would not expect you to agree completley with my conclusions. As for Adam and Eve being evil, I would consider them no more evil than any of the rest of us who fall into temptation and make the wrong choice. I would differ, as you would probably expect, with the conclusion that their sin had little or no effect on the human race as a whole and even the rest of creation, for that matter, but that is a topic for another time. My purpose in joining this thread is to attempt to understand the Mormon view of this event. There are layers of doctrine underlying the various perspectives of the events found in the first several chapters of Genesis. If one believes in a pre-mortal existence, for instance, then one will draw a different conclusion than one who believes that man was created by God and had no existence prior to his creation. I'm not sure that this is the place to peel away this onion but I do appreciate everyone's input. Thanks.

As an expert working in the field of automation and artificial intelligence - it seems just and right to me that if a scientist knew that as a creator of decision making intelligence - I must share responsibility for decisions made - especially if I know in advance the outcome of the decisions that I alone design into the intelligence from which the decision that is made and I alone control all circumstances of the decision.

It is obvious to me that the scripture account is missing critical data needed in order to understand fully many things which are given as glimpses concerning the creation and the most important doctrine concerning the fall.

I also believe that one of the greatest dangers is complicit in the speculation concerning things that did not happen. For example - had Adam and Eve remained in the garden of G-d that they could have children and that the human race could have all enjoyed the blessing of paradise.

Along with each individual interpretation of the creation and the fall are insights to that individual’s understanding and interpretations of G-d as well as such things as their beliefs in justice and mercy. This is in essence a double edge sword. Often “believer” give themselves allowances they deny to Adam and Eve that is a mockery of G-d, justice and mercy and their interpretation and justification of G-d’s position through the epoch of the fall.

In addition - G-d has recently chosen to reveal to man, new concepts, ideas and “things” not understood so much in our current traditions prior to our era. As G-d gives to man so much new concerning creation and maintenance of our universe - it is very sad to me that so many believers in religion have chosen to reject these things without really understanding them or becoming very well informed as to why these new ideas have become important to those that have carefully considered what is being observed.

Thanks for posting and I hope to be present when the union is pealed back.

The Traveler

[SteveVH]

As an expert working in the field of automation and artificial intelligence - it seems just and right to me that if a scientist knew that as a creator of decision making intelligence - I must share responsibility for decisions made - especially if I know in advance the outcome of the decisions that I alone design into the intelligence from which the decision that is made and I alone control all circumstances of the decision.

Sounds like an interesting field of work. It seems to me that the only real difference is that with a human being intelligence is not artificial but rather very real. The most important component missing here, however, is free will. A computer can only do what it is programmed to do. It has no "choice" in the matter. I hope you are not trying to say that God is responsible for our sin because He is omniscient and knows that we will sin and that He went ahead and created us in this manner anyway. Unlike your artificial intelligence, God "alone" does not control "all circumstances of the decision". He has allowed us the freedom to make our own decisions. Some are good and some are not so good.

It is obvious to me that the scripture account is missing critical data needed in order to understand fully many things which are given as glimpses concerning the creation and the most important doctrine concerning the fall.

If it is the word of God, however, it give us what we need to know. Genesis is not a scientific account of creation therefore no need for scientific details. It tells us that God is the Author of life and of all creation. It is the beginning of the story of salvation history. Man fell from grace with God and suffered severe consequences as a result. Out of God's love for his children, however, God sent a Savior in order that man might once again belong to the family of God. That is the message in a nutshell; we have a loving God and all of us are in need of salvation.

I also believe that one of the greatest dangers is complicit in the speculation concerning things that did not happen. For example - had Adam and Eve remained in the garden of G-d that they could have children and that the human race could have all enjoyed the blessing of paradise.

What in the text would cause one to think otherwise? Is it difficult to believe that a loving God who created the human race, who gave our first parents everything they could desire, who walked with his children in the Garden as a Father, would not allow this happiness to continue had they remained faithful to him? He created them male and female before the fall, not after. Why would anyone believe that they were not created to procreate? Why would he reward them with children if they turned away from him but not if they remained faithful? Just some questions that arise as I think about your comments.

Along with each individual interpretation of the creation and the fall are insights to that individual’s understanding and interpretations of G-d as well as such things as their beliefs in justice and mercy.

Without seeming too defensive, are you speaking about me? If so, I would love to hear your insights.

This is in essence a double edge sword. Often “believer” give themselves allowances they deny to Adam and Eve that is a mockery of G-d, justice and mercy and their interpretation and justification of G-d’s position through the epoch of the fall.

What kind of allowances and who are these "believers" of which you speak?

In addition - G-d has recently chosen to reveal to man, new concepts, ideas and “things” not understood so much in our current traditions prior to our era. As G-d gives to man so much new concerning creation and maintenance of our universe - it is very sad to me that so many believers in religion have chosen to reject these things without really understanding them or becoming very well informed as to why these new ideas have become important to those that have carefully considered what is being observed.

Could you give an example of these "new ideas and 'things'"? Sorry, I'm just not following you. An example would be really helpful.

Thanks for posting and I hope to be present when the union is pealed back.

Me too.

[SteveVH]

Steven,

Just a couple of scriptures to help you understand LDS thought on Adam and Eve.

Regarding Adam and Eve having children 2 Nephi 2:17-25* Here is verse 23 from 2 Ne 2:

Regarding both a spiritual and a physical creation. Moses 3:4-7* Here is verse 5 of that section: And now the end of verse 7:

Just to round out the major portions of additional scripture we also have the account in Abraham 4 and 5.

Abraham 4

Abraham 5

The creation appears to be a simple story but it is fraught with meaning. I am still working to understand it. But as LDS any explanation must square with these scriptures. If it does not there is clearly something wrong.

Thanks for your response. I could not agree more that the creation story is anything but simple and that it is fraught with meaning, as you say. While verses from the Book of Mormon would not be convincing to me, I can still appreciate they are convincing to you.

I think this is an area where we actually have a similar situation. While I read scripture regularly, I always read it within the context of Church teaching. It sounds like you all do pretty much the same.

God bless.

[SteveVH]

The Fall was a part of the Plan of Salvation. It was designed to happen. God provided the conditions so that Adam and Eve could make a choice. The result of Adam and Eve partaking of the fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil was that God's plan could move forward. It was obviously the best choice. In this case, the trangression of God's commandment was a necessary step required to kick-start the Plan of Redemption. Further, because the Fall was planned, God had already taken care of the results of the Fall by providing a Savior. So, God knew that by transgressing Adam and Eve would Fall but He also knew that they could be healed from the affects of the Fall through the atonement.

The issue is that we are creating philosophical absolutes without properly understanding the nature and purpose of God. There is no other way for the Plan of Redemption to come about and thus God acting any other way would be bad. God's plan was perfectly good.

Regards,

Finrock

Just a couple of comments. We don't plan for our loved ones to get hurt so that we can heal them, only to bring them back to the state in which they existed before they got hurt. Adam and Eve's decision to disobey God was certainly not the best choice. I will agree that God provided the conditions so that Adam and Eve could make a choice. What I am saying is that they made the wrong choice for the simple reason that disobeying God is never the right choice. Like Adam and Eve, I too make wrong choices when I fall into sin. The fact that Christ came to save me from these sins does not make the sin a good thing. It just makes Christ a wonderful Savior who loves me inspite of my failures.

I keep returning to this point. God could not be complicit in our sin, nor does he ever desire us to sin. He gave Adam and Eve a choice so that they could freely choose to love him, not so that they would sin to further his plan. His will was for them to remain faithful to his very specific command not to eat of the tree. So I still scratch my head when trying to understand your position. Maybe I'm just a little slow. :)

[Vort]

Just a couple of comments. We don't plan for our loved ones to get hurt so that we can heal them, only to bring them back to the state in which they existed before they got hurt. Adam and Eve's decision to disobey God was certainly not the best choice. I will agree that God provided the conditions so that Adam and Eve could make a choice. What I am saying is that they made the wrong choice for the simple reason that disobeying God is never the right choice. Like Adam and Eve, I too make wrong choices when I fall into sin. The fact that Christ came to save me from these sins does not make the sin a good thing. It just makes Christ a wonderful Savior who loves me inspite of my failures.

I keep returning to this point. God could not be complicit in our sin, nor does he ever desire us to sin. He gave Adam and Eve a choice so that they could freely choose to love him, not so that they would sin to further his plan. His will was for them to remain faithful to his very specific command not to eat of the tree. So I still scratch my head when trying to understand your position. Maybe I'm just a little slow. :)

What you say makes sense, based on your limited understanding. But you do not have the whole story, so your conclusions are invalid.

I don't have the whole story, either. But I do know something that you don't know, because I have been given it by modern revelation, a source you don't accept. And what I do know that you lack is that Adam and Eve at some point or another had to partake of the forbidden fruit. Their fall was an absolutely necessary and vital part of God's plan.

I do not know how the conditions of that fall had to have happened. I do not know for sure that they had to fall by disobeying God's commandment to them. I do not know that things had to have gone exactly as they did go. But I do know that the fall was necessary, and that Adam and Eve's transgression -- whether or not it qualifies as "sin", which is mostly an academic and definitional debate -- led to the blossoming of God's plan. I also know from modern revelation that Adam and Eve were forgiven for their transgression. Finally, I know that man is punished for his own sin, and not for Adam's transgression, so in a spiritual sense, Adam's fall does not condemn us; our own sins do that.

Edited August 21, 2012 by Vort

[Finrock]

Good morning StephenVH! I hope you are enjoying your day. :)

I keep returning to this point. God could not be complicit in our sin, nor does he ever desire us to sin. He gave Adam and Eve a choice so that they could freely choose to love him, not so that they would sin to further his plan. His will was for them to remain faithful to his very specific command not to eat of the tree. So I still scratch my head when trying to understand your position. Maybe I'm just a little slow. :)

You aren't slow. We simply disagree as to the nature of God's plan. I believe the Fall was by design. The state that Adam and Eve were in before the fall was incomplete. It wasn't a perfect state. They could not progress, fully, in their pre-Fall state. This is why the Fall was necessary. God intented that Adam and Eve live a life of strife and hardship. He wants us to live a life of strife and hardship because he knows that it is better for us to wade through sorrow and strife so that we can learn through experience to know the good from the evil. The Fall allows us to progress. It allows God's plan to be fulfilled. It is a necessary component of God's plan. When you understand that, then it becomes clear that Adam and Eve had to eventually fall from the state they were in. So, the best choice was for Adam and Eve to transgress God's law so that the Fall could come about. There really was no other way for this event to happen, that would respect Adam and Eve's agency.

It is, what it is. I don't believe that this act makes God not good. I believe this event shows the mercy, wisdom, and great power of God and it allows me to have a profound appreciation to our first parents that they were brave enough to transgress God's law knowing that doing so would take them out of a state of peace and ease in to a state of hardship and death; knowing at the same time that passing through this phase of hardship and death would allow them to gain exaltation and eternal life by applying the atonement of Jesus Christ in their life.

Regards,

Finrock

[SteveVH]

If their intelligence were complete (I'll call it complete rather than perfect), and they were not naive, then they would not have eaten the fruit.

Unfortunately, intelligence has little, if anything to do with falling into temptation and choosing to disobey God. Even Jesus was tempted, but his will was one with his Father's will and he did not fall into sin. I don't think it has anything to do with intelligence. Intelligent people make wrong choices every day. It wasn't a matter of them being stupid. It was a matter of them being tempted and choosing selfishness over faithfulness.

I agree with you that the tree (or what it symbolically represented) put free will in the picture, but more than that, I think greater love is born of greater sacrifice (greater love has no man than this, that he lay down his life). Without the fall, the greatest sacrifice would never have occurred, and the greatest love would not have existed.

God's love is constant and unchanging. There is nothing we can do to make God love us more and nothing we can do to make him love us less. The "greatest love" has been with us since the beginning. Jesus just proved it by his suffering and death. God certainly did not need the fall to occur in order to love us more.

it can't just be a thought experiment... there is a world of difference between the thought "I love you enough to die for you" and the actual deed "I actually died for you because I love you so much". To make something real, it needs to actually happen. just how I see it. As much as we would like an easier way out, I think what we have is the only way to gain genuine appreciation and experience - the only way for the greatest love to exist.

You will get no argument from me as to the value of sacrificial love. It is what exists in a good marriage and is an absolute requirement in raising healthy children. When there is a mutual self-giving between people, that is true love. Where I disagree somewhat is that, as I said, the love shown by Christ by giving his very life for us was always there from the beginning. As for how we love God in return, there is much for us to learn and sacrificial love on our part is certainly required. As a Catholic I believe that our suffering here on earth has salvific value when joined with the suffering of Christ because we are the body of Christ. If he suffered, so shall we.

God bless.

[SteveVH]

Good morning StephenVH! I hope you are enjoying your day. :)

Thankl you so much. I had a great day and hope you did as well. :)

You aren't slow. We simply disagree as to the nature of God's plan. I believe the Fall was by design. The state that Adam and Eve were in before the fall was incomplete.

I see no evidence that they were incomplete. God does not create things that are incomplete. What evidence do you have that they were incomplete?

It wasn't a perfect state.

Again, evidence please.

They could not progress, fully, in their pre-Fall state.

First of all you are approaching the question with the presupposition that "progression" is necessary. Consider this. What if they were created in such a state that they had already attained that goal to which you believe progression will lead? They were already at the top of the ladder. Sin caused them (and us) to fall to the bottom and now we need a Savior to bring us back to the top. The topic of "progression" is probably better left to another thread, but it seems that it may be at the heart of this issue.

God intented that Adam and Eve live a life of strife and hardship.

The only way that they would live a life of strife and hardship is if they sinned by disobeying God's command. You are more than implying here that God intended for them to sin, making him complicit in their sin which is an impossibility. He intended to give them a free choice to love him and remain faithful to him. They chose otherwise. We know very well what God's will was in this case. His will is expressed in his command not to eat of the tree "for you shall surely die". I cannot imagine that God, after giving the command, was secretly thinking "Come on, don't pay attention to my command, listen to the serpent and eat it or my plan will fail". I don't mean to sound flipant here. This is a very important principle.

He wants us to live a life of strife and hardship because he knows that it is better for us to wade through sorrow and strife so that we can learn through experience to know the good from the evil.

Do you believe God knows good from evil? He has never committed an evil act. One does not need to participate in evil in order to know evil. Our God is a good Father; a perfect Father. He does not want his children to live a life of strife and hardship and does not cause anyone to live in strife and hardship. He also will never interfere in the free will of mankind. It is the free will of mankind that causes hardship and strife. Yes, God allows it, but he does not cause it or desire it. That is why we are called to help anyone in need, care for the sick and dying, clothe the naked, shelter the homeless and feed the hungry. We are called to relieve suffering and hardship anywhere we find it for the very reason that God does not desire it. Jesus healed the lame, gave sight to the blind and hope to the hopeless. We are called to do the same.

The Fall allows us to progress. It allows God's plan to be fulfilled. It is a necessary component of God's plan. When you understand that, then it becomes clear that Adam and Eve had to eventually fall from the state they were in.

I understand, I just disagree.

So, the best choice was for Adam and Eve to transgress God's law so that the Fall could come about. There really was no other way for this event to happen, that would respect Adam and Eve's agency.

So the best choice was to sin against God instead of remaiing faithful? Sorry, I just can't but it. Then again I don't believe in the notion of "progression". You are wearing one set of glasses and I another. I believe that I am saved completely and will attain heaven purely by the grace of God and not any amount of "progression" on my part. My response to God's grace should lead me to live a holy life, but my salvation is a complete gift. If I lived as perfect a life as anyone has lived, I could not attain heaven. On the other hand I could live a wretched life and at one moment before my death, if I call upon God with a repentent heart, I could be saved. Anyway, just so you know where I am comming from. I don't consider progression a necessary part of God's plan so I see the entire thing differently.

It is, what it is. I don't believe that this act makes God not good. I believe this event shows the mercy, wisdom, and great power of God and it allows me to have a profound appreciation to our first parents that they were brave enough to transgress God's law

Think about what you are saying here. Brave enough to transgress God's law? Does sinning take courage? Do you think that God was proud of them for disobeying him? It is the entire notion that "sin" is a good thing that I just can't get past.

I do appreciate your comments. They seem to be in line with most of the conversations I have had with Mormons, though I have heard quite a few variations. Anyway, I'm here to learn what you believe regardless of whether or not I believe it and so I thank you.

God bless.

[SteveVH]

What you say makes sense, based on your limited understanding. But you do not have the whole story, so your conclusions are invalid.

If what I say makes sense then it follows that my understanding cannot be that limited. And I think what you mean by your second statement is that my conclusions are invalid in your subjective opinion.

I don't have the whole story, either. But I do know something that you don't know, because I have been given it by modern revelation, a source you don't accept. And what I do know that you lack is that Adam and Eve at some point or another had to partake of the forbidden fruit. Their fall was an absolutely necessary and vital part of God's plan.

Sorry, but again I think it would be more accurate to say that you believe something that I don't believe because you belileve that you have been given modern revelation and based upon those beliefs you have concluded that Adam and Eve had to partake of the forbidden fruit and sin against God. We are not dealing in objective truth here so you really can't say that you "know" and I don't. We both "believe" different things.

God bless.

[Traveler]

Sounds like an interesting field of work. It seems to me that the only real difference is that with a human being intelligence is not artificial but rather very real. The most important component missing here, however, is free will. A computer can only do what it is programmed to do. It has no "choice" in the matter. I hope you are not trying to say that God is responsible for our sin because He is omniscient and knows that we will sin and that He went ahead and created us in this manner anyway. Unlike your artificial intelligence, God "alone" does not control "all circumstances of the decision". He has allowed us the freedom to make our own decisions. Some are good and some are not so good.

Obviously G-d created some men with greater flaws in intelligence that made them more susceptible of evil - is this just or merciful?

If it is the word of God, however, it give us what we need to know. Genesis is not a scientific account of creation therefore no need for scientific details. It tells us that God is the Author of life and of all creation. It is the beginning of the story of salvation history. Man fell from grace with God and suffered severe consequences as a result. Out of God's love for his children, however, God sent a Savior in order that man might once again belong to the family of God. That is the message in a nutshell; we have a loving God and all of us are in need of salvation.

The fact that the scriptures does not resolve doctrine indicates that the record has too many unknown and is insufficient. There is too much variation in both time and culture and the more Biblical scripture is studied the more variations and disagreements there have been. Plus the fall you speak of was in pursuit of knowledge of good and evil? Really - to pursue truth will cause a just and merciful G-d to reject such a person?

What in the text would cause one to think otherwise? Is it difficult to believe that a loving God who created the human race, who gave our first parents everything they could desire, who walked with his children in the Garden as a Father, would not allow this happiness to continue had they remained faithful to him? He created them male and female before the fall, not after. Why would anyone believe that they were not created to procreate? Why would he reward them with children if they turned away from him but not if they remained faithful? Just some questions that arise as I think about your comments.

That is the problem - if you apply the same logic to the speculation of missing text - you should apply that same logic to the text that does exist - however, if you honestly do you will come to the same conclusions about G-d being just and merciful or should I say that the justice and mercy documented is obviously flawed.

Without seeming too defensive, are you speaking about me? If so, I would love to hear your insights.

Yes - but at the same time, I do not mean to single you out. But I will give some examples. That someone consider it freewill when a person is deceived into making a choice concerning something they really do not understand and that it is just and merciful that children are punished for the errors in judgments of their parents.

What kind of allowances and who are these "believers" of which you speak?

Specifically - That those that "know" better are given mercy for their sins and those that do not understand are given no mercy but are justly condemned to hell - even if their sins are less hurtful of others.

Could you give an example of these "new ideas and 'things'"? Sorry, I'm just not following you. An example would be really helpful.

Me too.

Mankind is standing at a great threshold of knowledge that is changing our understanding of the creation and maintenance of everything in the universe. This began in the days of Galileo, continued with the concepts of evolution and now is so far removed from relativity, special relativity, quantum mechanics, particle physics, the discovery of the Higgs Boson, dark matter, and dark energy. Again there is, in much of the religious community, the assumption that G-d hates men to pursue truth and that those that do will be denied G-d's mercy and be cast into hell for seeking such truths and publishing their best understanding of it.

But my question is that if a person cannot comprehend the truth as they see it literally before their eyes - how can we believe that they understand the parables, symbolism and the things hidden in scripture?

The Traveler

Edited August 22, 2012 by Traveler

[SteveVH]

Obviously G-d created some men with greater flaws in intelligence that made them more susceptible of evil - is this just or merciful?

It is a flawed question because your premise is incorrect. Why is one with less intelligence more susceptible to evil? If one commits "evil" due to some deficiency then one's culpability in that evil act is mitigated accordingly.

The fact that the scriptures does not resolve doctrine indicates that the record has too many unknown and is insufficient.

Scripture is a written text. It can reslove nothing. It is people and their interpretation of the text that must resolve doctrinal disputes. While this is not the place or time to do this, I can demonstrate to you that the Bible is the most relaible text that we possess from antiquity. The fact that one cannot find evidence to support their preconcieved notions does not mean that something is missing in the Bible. It means one had better reconsider their position.

There is too much variation in both time and culture and the more Biblical scripture is studied the more variations and disagreements there have been. Plus the fall you speak of was in pursuit of knowledge of good and evil? Really - to pursue truth will cause a just and merciful G-d to reject such a person?

You can read for yourself what God's reaction was to the sin of Adam and Eve. It wasn't pretty.

That is the problem - if you apply the same logic to the speculation of missing text - you should apply that same logic to the text that does exist - however, if you honestly do you will come to the same conclusions about G-d being just and merciful or should I say that the justice and mercy documented is obviously flawed.

Sorry, you lost me there. God is always just and merciful. If you are interpreting the text to read differently then I think you had better take a second look. God cannot be unjust or unmerciful. He was just and more than merciful with Adam and Eve. He promised to send a Savior to undo what they had done.

Yes - but at the same time, I do not mean to single you out. But I will give some examples. That someone consider it freewill when a person is deceived into making a choice concerning something they really do not understand and that it is just and merciful that children are punished for the errors in judgments of their parents.

If one is decieved into making a choice and has no understanding of what they are doing then there is no sin. Sin requires knowledge and consent.

Specifically - That those that "know" better are given mercy for their sins and those that do not understand are given no mercy but are justly condemned to hell - even if their sins are less hurtful of others.

What?

Mankind is standing at a great threshold of knowledge that is changing our understanding of the creation and maintenance of everything in the universe. This began in the days of Galileo, continued with the concepts of evolution and now is so far removed from relativity, special relativity, quantum mechanics, particle physics, the discovery of the Higgs Boson, dark matter, and dark energy. Again there is, in much of the religious community, the assumption that G-d hates men to pursue truth and that those that do will be denied G-d's mercy and be cast into hell for seeking such truths and publishing their best understanding of it.

Are you assuming that this is my position?

But my question is that if a person cannot comprehend the truth as they see it literally before their eyes - how can we believe that they understand the parables, symbolism and the things hidden in scripture?

Of whom are you speaking?

Edited August 22, 2012 by StephenVH

[bytor2112]

If it is the word of God, however, it give us what we need to know. Genesis is not a scientific account of creation therefore no need for scientific details. It tells us that God is the Author of life and of all creation. It is the beginning of the story of salvation history. Man fell from grace with God and suffered severe consequences as a result. Out of God's love for his children, however, God sent a Savior in order that man might once again belong to the family of God. That is the message in a nutshell; we have a loving God and all of us are in need of salvation.

You say, "man fell from grace". If God did not intend for man to fall, why didn't he just start over? Destroy Adam and Eve....like the inhabitants of the earth during the flood? Just start over.....

If we are as you declare, "God's children"...when did this occur? Before we were born? Did we exist before we were born? If not, why would God continue to create people to suffer the consequences of Adam's choice? If he didn't plan for the Fall, how did Satan get one over on God so easily? If God is "all knowing" how did HE not know this would happen?

If God loves his children, why create them to suffer an Eternity in a burning hell of endless torment because of Adam's decision unless they would believe in Christ whom the vast majority of all that have ever lived or ever will live will never hear about?

How does one Come unto Christ and in HIM find Eternal Life if they have never heard of Christ? How about all of those that were destroyed in the flood or the billions that never heard of Christ while in mortality? What about infants and children that die?