Sign in to follow this  
jerome1232

Garden of Eden as an allegory, historicity of Adam

Recommended Posts

Interesting play on logic.  If we mortals are so stupid why would we make convenants with G-d, receive the Holy Ghost, become a Saint and try to believe in anything?

 

Obviously it's a relative thing. We are stupid -- relatively. It is not a play on logic. It is the truth. We are, relative to God, nothing. We have a small measure of intelligence...enough to exercise agency. Mortal intelligence is relative among people and not the important part of qualifying for salvation. If one's intelligence is low enough, of course, they are not accountable. But that is up to God. God's intelligence, which is complete, as compared to ours, which is finite, does indeed, in the grand scheme of things, qualify us as stupid.

 

A man that is learned who thinks he is wise shows himself to be foolish. There is only one true wisdom -- reliance upon He who actually IS wise. To be learned is good, IF we rely upon the counsel of God. Why? Because only God truly can see all the truth, with no perception issues, misunderstandings, cultural biases, or any other imperfections in thought and understanding. 

 

It's all fine and dandy to talk about the importance of learning and intelligence. To be learned is good. Yes. But it is not the benchmark for salvation. Humility, obedience, repentance, etc. is. Intelligence is not the established criterion. There is no, "Only the smart will enter the kingdom of God" principle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that anything in the story could be viewed as symbolic.  I once had a Stake President who told us, in a Bishop's training meeting, that the flaming swords guarding the tree of life were Bishops...relating that to temple recommends.  This man, and he wasn't an idiot by any stretch, could see his way to grab some pieces of the story and use them in his own way to make a point.  I think Paul had done the same, a few times, with other scriptures.  My personal view is that the creation story is literal...but one can use it as it seems wise.  

 

It's not so much how was it done. It's how do I connect these dots. I think it's very clear that the creation story is symbolic (a tree that grants awareness of good and evil, another tree that grants immortality, clearly symbolic stuff in my mind) but it's also very clear (I think) that Adam and Eve must be literal people. I'm having trouble connecting those dots. I had a thought...

Adam was really the first prophet, the first man to be taught by God. If this is so quite a bit of the symbolism around the garden and the fall don't make much sense to me. /shrug. Perhaps mankind was innocent and not accountable until they were taught by God through Adam. I don't know. I agree that treating everything as symbolic runs into problems with the fall and the atonement.

 

I am really just pondering and wondering what others thoughts on the matter are.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If there is no empirical evidence there are other means to gain truth.  My point is that when there is empirical evidence – it should not be ignored.

Yes, you and I are very much in agreement here. Why endeavour in the first place to find truth at all if we are going to cast some, or any of it, aside? I apologize for misunderstanding you the first time around.

 

I might add that we just shouldn't accept it as the final word on such matters, either. I realize this goes against the principles of objectivity, but at the same time, we don't want to finalize a matter as "We know all there is to know because we have empirical evidence." I know that's not what you've said or are saying. I am just adding a separate thought I had.

 

 

I do not believe a G-d of truth would create empirical evidence that is a lie.

 

I debated about whether or not to comment on this. This to me is tricky. If I go strictly by the wording, I am find it difficult to agree with because empirical evidence is man-made. Empiricism hails from two sets of philosophies: 1) first and foremost, Cartesian dualism, 2) philosophy of science. These philosophies serve as the framework for what we humans call empiricism. It's invented from the ideas of men. So to say that Heavenly Father would create empirical evidence, based on that wording alone, is false. He never created it in the first place, man did.

 

But, when I considered the idea that, regardless of what we call it, He wouldn't create stuff on this earth, for us to empirically observe, that would lead to false conclusions, and what could quite possibly be considered lies. This I can agree with. He is a god of order and truth, not chaos and lies. That would be like someone leave behind clues to lead a person some place but then throwing out all the wrong clues. Among "lies" and "choas" we could also consider that unintelligible.

 

I'm very much with you on this, Traveler.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that anything in the story could be viewed as symbolic.  I once had a Stake President who told us, in a Bishop's training meeting, that the flaming swords guarding the tree of life were Bishops...relating that to temple recommends.  This man, and he wasn't an idiot by any stretch, could see his way to grab some pieces of the story and use them in his own way to make a point.  I think Paul had done the same, a few times, with other scriptures.  My personal view is that the creation story is literal...but one can use it as it seems wise.  

 

I agree. Whether I consider all or parts of the creation story or all or parts of the story of the Garden of Eden to be literal or figurative doesn't really matter - in the end I come up with the same message everyone else does. Likewise with many of the other stories of the Old Testament. It's the message that's important.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apparently my use of a simple example of an illusionist dissuaded you from consideration of the rest of my suggested variables. Strange. I wouldn't have taken away from what I said that it meant "God is an illusionist". The clear implication is that we, as mortals, are stupid -- not that God is deceptive.

But God put us here as mortals.  Consider the value and purpose of the veil.  We are supposed to be behind a curtain of uncertainty, that is part of the purpose of this life and God set it up that way.  That is what allows for a test of character as opposed to a test of fundamental knowledge.  The fundamental knowledge test was the first estate test.  Now is the test to see if we will do the things we are supposed to despite not having all the knowledge.  This is why I believe this drive for having all the knowledge now is not really what this life is about, it will return to us, if we are faithful and once the veil is removed. We had all the "empirical evidence" shown to us before this life began.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting play on logic.  If we mortals are so stupid why would we make convenants with G-d, receive the Holy Ghost, become a Saint and try to believe in anything?

We are not wholly one or the other.  We are sons and daughters of God covered in a body that is "stupid", the corrupted, mortal body and brain.  When one listens to their spiritual influences over their "stupid" brain, then they make covenents with God and by doing so grow in spiritual influence becoming less "stupid".  If one listens more to their "stupid" brain they become hardened to the spirit, stiff necked, blinded, darkened, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We are not wholly one or the other.  We are sons and daughters of God covered in a body that is "stupid", the corrupted, mortal body and brain.  When one listens to their spiritual influences over their "stupid" brain, then they make covenents with God and by doing so grow in spiritual influence becoming less "stupid".  If one listens more to their "stupid" brain they become hardened to the spirit, stiff necked, blinded, darkened, etc.

 

Surely you don't believe that our spirits, even sans physical body, are on par with God's intelligence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Surely you don't believe that our spirits, even sans physical body, are on par with God's intelligence.

Of course not but I would think our spirits are closer to God's intelligence level than they are to the fallen human brain level.

 

Why?  How intelligent do you think a spirit would be, spending eons in the presence of God and fully matured, learning all that it could while in that condition?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course not but I would think our spirits are closer to God's intelligence level than they are to the fallen human brain level.

 

Why?  How intelligent do you think a spirit would be, spending eons in the presence of God and fully matured, learning all that it could while in that condition?

 

I agree. But I would still maintain that even in spirit form, relative to God, we were stupid. :) Of course that is only conjecture. We don't really know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree. But I would still maintain that even in spirit form, relative to God, we were stupid. :) Of course that is only conjecture. We don't really know.

Ok, but the point of that is that our bodies only have to have enough intelligence to reason in order to set up this probationary state we are in.  The body doesn't have to be equal to the spirit in terms of capacity or intelligence while here.

 

I think that is where the line is drawn in terms of people that might have conditions in which they cannot have accountability, i.e. - Down's syndrome. 

 

Also, realize, there are conditions in which humans have IQs less than apes (not trying to be rude about using that reference, only that it was used in this discussion specifically as an impossibility) and yet are genetically related to human beings and have a spirit attached to them. So, to think that God would never put a spirit into that kind of body just because of an intelligence level issue is absolutely not true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, but the point of that is that our bodies only have to have enough intelligence to reason in order to set up this probationary state we are in.  The body doesn't have to be equal to the spirit in terms of capacity or intelligence while here.

 

I think that is where the line is drawn in terms of people that might have conditions in which they cannot have accountability, i.e. - Down's syndrome. 

 

Also, realize, there are conditions in which humans have IQs less than apes (not trying to be rude about using that reference, only that it was used in this discussion specifically as an impossibility) and yet are genetically related to human beings and have a spirit attached to them. So, to think that God would never put a spirit into that kind of body just because of an intelligence level issue is absolutely not true.

 

I do not believe our bodies are limited to only have enough intelligence for this probationary state; to be true or even observable.  There are many creatures with far less reasoning capabilities that operate very well in this fallen carnal state.  For example ants – their aggregate weight is about the same as human and they modify their environment – many believe more successfully than humans.

 

Human as a physical creation are the most noble, intelligent mortal beings and are even in the likeness of G-d himself - far beyond any other creature.   With that in mind I would suggest refraining from characterizing G-d’s best and most beloved creation as “stupid”.

 

The scriptures tell – as well as our modern prophets warn us specifically that the fall of man is both spiritual and physical.  I see nothing in scripture or anything observable that would indicate that the physical fall was more to any degree than the spiritual fall we suffer from no longer enjoying G-d presents nor having actual memory of our past spiritual achievements.  In fact I would go so far in this matter and discussion to say that every evil committed by man and every wrong doing that has taken place over the entire probation of man in this fallen condition has been a spiritual failure of the individual; caused mostly from the spiritual fall and not a result of our so-called inferior physical condition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do not believe our bodies are limited to only have enough intelligence for this probationary state; to be true or even observable.  There are many creatures with far less reasoning capabilities that operate very well in this fallen carnal state.  For example ants – their aggregate weight is about the same as human and they modify their environment – many believe more successfully than humans.

 

Human as a physical creation are the most noble, intelligent mortal beings and are even in the likeness of G-d himself - far beyond any other creature.   With that in mind I would suggest refraining from characterizing G-d’s best and most beloved creation as “stupid”.

 

The scriptures tell – as well as our modern prophets warn us specifically that the fall of man is both spiritual and physical.  I see nothing in scripture or anything observable that would indicate that the physical fall was more to any degree than the spiritual fall we suffer from no longer enjoying G-d presents nor having actual memory of our past spiritual achievements.  In fact I would go so far in this matter and discussion to say that every evil committed by man and every wrong doing that has taken place over the entire probation of man in this fallen condition has been a spiritual failure of the individual; caused mostly from the spiritual fall and not a result of our so-called inferior physical condition.

(there is nothing in your third paragraph that I disagree with, and I am not sure what point you are trying to make with it)

 

To give an example of "operating well" in this state is not showing how our bodies have intelligence beyond what is needed here.

 

The body, as it is now, is for this life.  Yes, it is.  The body for the next life is a resurrected body.  If you are trying to say that there is no difference between the two types of bodies then that is a discussion for another thread - because likely that will take a lot of discussion to work through that.  I think it is pretty well accepted that there is a difference between a body that turns to dust vs one that is eternal and glorified and can withstand to be in the presence of a glorified Kingdom.  Even the Telestial Kingdom's glory is beyond what we can withstand with our current body and form.  We cannot comprehend it even with this body.  D&C 76; " 89 And thus we saw, in the heavenly vision, the glory of the telestial, which surpasses all understanding;"

 

So, how are you saying that our bodies are capable of understanding things beyond this realm when in D&C 76 says that even the lowest Kingdom "surpasses all understanding"?

 

"Stupid" is not the best word to use but I was only using it because that is what was used to describe "ape-women" in previous posts - to use the words that were used as a reason why there could be none of that DNA.  In the grand scheme of things, if there is an intelligence level less than that capable of understanding even the lowest level of glory then I don't think it is way off in left field to call it "stupid".  Now if you are comparing human intelligence to all other creatures on the planet (which we were not doing) then, yes, that is not right to call it "stupid".

 

Again, this all comes to how far one thinks we have fallen from our previous state.  Some want to think that things were not so different in the pre-mortal life.  Let me put it this way, it was enough of a stark difference from our previous state that a third of the host of heaven were pretty concerned about doing such a thing, it had to be that much of a fall to create that much hesitancy in going forward with it.  

 

Metaphorically, I think it would at least equal to the kinds of thoughts one has before going into surgery, do I really want to be put under and put all my faith in this doctor who is going to cut into me and I could potentially die?   In fact, I think the comparison change in a person before anesthesia and during anesthesia is pretty similar ratio to how much we changed from before this world to this current state.  I think that is how strong the veil is and how strong the Fall was. ("Stupid" is not the best word to use but if one were to compare the "intelligence" level of one under anesthesia to before anesthesia it is certainly is in the "stupid" category or less.)   Likewise, that is the magnitude of how saving the saving grace of Christ is, to pull us out of that anesthetic like state of near death.  However far the Fall was is to the same degree at least (but even more so) the saving grace of Christ is. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(there is nothing in your third paragraph that I disagree with, and I am not sure what point you are trying to make with it)

 

To give an example of "operating well" in this state is not showing how our bodies have intelligence beyond what is needed here.

 

The body, as it is now, is for this life.  Yes, it is.  The body for the next life is a resurrected body.  If you are trying to say that there is no difference between the two types of bodies then that is a discussion for another thread - because likely that will take a lot of discussion to work through that.  I think it is pretty well accepted that there is a difference between a body that turns to dust vs one that is eternal and glorified and can withstand to be in the presence of a glorified Kingdom.  Even the Telestial Kingdom's glory is beyond what we can withstand with our current body and form.  We cannot comprehend it even with this body.  D&C 76; " 89 And thus we saw, in the heavenly vision, the glory of the telestial, which surpasses all understanding;"

 

So, how are you saying that our bodies are capable of understanding things beyond this realm when in D&C 76 says that even the lowest Kingdom "surpasses all understanding"?

 

"Stupid" is not the best word to use but I was only using it because that is what was used to describe "ape-women" in previous posts - to use the words that were used as a reason why there could be none of that DNA.  In the grand scheme of things, if there is an intelligence level less than that capable of understanding even the lowest level of glory then I don't think it is way off in left field to call it "stupid".  Now if you are comparing human intelligence to all other creatures on the planet (which we were not doing) then, yes, that is not right to call it "stupid".

 

Again, this all comes to how far one thinks we have fallen from our previous state.  Some want to think that things were not so different in the pre-mortal life.  Let me put it this way, it was enough of a stark difference from our previous state that a third of the host of heaven were pretty concerned about doing such a thing, it had to be that much of a fall to create that much hesitancy in going forward with it.  

 

Metaphorically, I think it would at least equal to the kinds of thoughts one has before going into surgery, do I really want to be put under and put all my faith in this doctor who is going to cut into me and I could potentially die?   In fact, I think the comparison change in a person before anesthesia and during anesthesia is pretty similar ratio to how much we changed from before this world to this current state.  I think that is how strong the veil is and how strong the Fall was. ("Stupid" is not the best word to use but if one were to compare the "intelligence" level of one under anesthesia to before anesthesia it is certainly is in the "stupid" category or less.)   Likewise, that is the magnitude of how saving the saving grace of Christ is, to pull us out of that anesthetic like state of near death.  However far the Fall was is to the same degree at least (but even more so) the saving grace of Christ is. 

 

In general if we talk about the fall of Mankind (outside of Adam and Eve) - we must think of the fall in spiritual terms only.  This is because whatever physical body we have in mortality it is physically greater (superior) than what we were physically in the pre-existence.  You and I suffered only a spiritual fall – we did not suffer a physical fall.  What we got was in essence a significant physical upgrade or advantage.  Along this same line it would be incorrect to speak of a restoration of our physical body to a state that did not ever previously exist.

 

It should be obvious from scripture of unclean spirits willing to inhabit even swine that the one in third part of heaven that rebelled was not because of physical limitations but because of the spiritual disadvantage that they would suffer from the spiritual corruption of the fall.

 

 

Also in another post – that I have lost and cannot find – perhaps in another thread – you posted that you believe that the human brain was hard wired for sin.  If this was true it would mean that children are born hard wired for sin and would be incapable of doing anything else.  This is a contradiction of your arguments that children are pure and cannot be corrupted until after they reach the age (physical condition) of accountability.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Stupid" is not the best word to use but I was only using it because that is what was used to describe "ape-women" in previous posts. 

 

Um...no. "Stupid" was the word used to describe all humans relative to God.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Um...no. "Stupid" was the word used to describe all humans relative to God.

 

Depends on what we are communicating - Are we implying that G-d should have done a better job of it or that his plan for men having a mortal experience is missing something?

 

If we see things as they appear now and not in what is destined to be – we may be making an assessment without sufficient information – and that would be stupid --- Woops what did I just say? :blink: 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Depends on what we are communicating - Are we implying that G-d should have done a better job of it or that his plan for men having a mortal experience is missing something?

 

Oh come on. Did you read my explanations? How can you possibly read that implication into it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In general if we talk about the fall of Mankind (outside of Adam and Eve) - we must think of the fall in spiritual terms only.  This is because whatever physical body we have in mortality it is physically greater (superior) than what we were physically in the pre-existence.  You and I suffered only a spiritual fall – we did not suffer a physical fall.  What we got was in essence a significant physical upgrade or advantage.  Along this same line it would be incorrect to speak of a restoration of our physical body to a state that did not ever previously exist.

 

It should be obvious from scripture of unclean spirits willing to inhabit even swine that the one in third part of heaven that rebelled was not because of physical limitations but because of the spiritual disadvantage that they would suffer from the spiritual corruption of the fall.

 

 

Also in another post – that I have lost and cannot find – perhaps in another thread – you posted that you believe that the human brain was hard wired for sin.  If this was true it would mean that children are born hard wired for sin and would be incapable of doing anything else.  This is a contradiction of your arguments that children are pure and cannot be corrupted until after they reach the age (physical condition) of accountability.

I disagree.  And you would be disagreeing with Alma 42 as well as the basic LDS doctrine if you really believe that the Fall only brought about a spiritual fall for us.  Because the Fall is both physical and spiritual, the atonement allows for immortality as well as eternal life, not just eternal life.  We would not need the gift of immortality without the Fall.

 

We do not think of the Fall in spiritual terms only.  Just the same, we do not think of the effects of the atonement in spiritual terms only.  The atonement also allows us to overcome the physical effects of the body - death.

 

Alma 42; "And now, ye see by this that our first parents were cut off both temporally and spiritually from the presence of the Lord; and thus we see they became subjects to follow after their own will.

 Now behold, it was not expedient that man should be reclaimed from this temporal death, for that would destroy the great plan of happiness.

 Therefore, as the soul could never die, and the fall had brought upon all mankind a spiritual death as well as a temporal, that is, they were cut off from the presence of the Lord, it was expedient that mankind should be reclaimed from this spiritual death.

 10 Therefore, as they had become carnal, sensual, and devilish, by nature, this probationary state became a state for them to prepare; it became a preparatory state."

 

Alma 11:"43 The spirit and the body shall be reunited again in its perfect form; both limb and joint shall be restored to its proper frame, even as we now are at this time; and we shall be brought to stand before God, knowing even as we know now, and have a bright recollection of all our guilt.

 44 Now, this restoration shall come to all, both old and young, both bond and free, both male and female, both the wicked and the righteous; and even there shall not so much as a hair of their heads be lost; but every thing shall be restored to its perfect frame, as it is now, or in the body, and shall be brought and be arraigned before the bar of Christ the Son, and God the Father, and the Holy Spirit, which is one Eternal God, to be judged according to their works, whether they be good or whether they be evil."

 

Alma 40; " 23 The soul shall be restored to the body, and the body to the soul; yea, and every limb and joint shall be restored to its body; yea, even a hair of the head shall not be lost; but all things shall be restored to their proper and perfect frame."

 

What is the definition of "restore" = to bring back, to repair.  Our bodies were and will never be perfect or in a perfect frame in this life.  So, how could the body be "restored"?  It is brought back to the way it was formed perfectly, in the Garden of Eden.

 

You, too, have posted previously that you considered the idea that we all had to go through a "garden of eden" experience.  Well, here, I am giving you some support for that idea and you don't want to take it.  I am surprised.

 

Bruce R. McConkie from Ensign 1982; "“Mortality and procreation and death all had their beginnings with the Fall. …

“… An infinite Creator, in the primeval day, made the earth and man and all forms of life in such a state that they could fall. This fall involved a change of status. All things were so created that they could fall or change. …

“… In the primeval and Edenic day all forms of life lived in a higher state than now prevails. … Death and procreation had yet to enter the world”

 

Elder Nelson 1996; "“The creation of Adam and Eve was a paradisiacal creation, one that required a significant change before they could fulfill the commandment to have children and thus provide earthly bodies for premortal spirit sons and daughters of God.

“… The Fall of Adam (and Eve) constituted the mortal creation and brought about the required changes in their bodies, including the circulation of blood and other modifications as well. They were now able to have children. They and their posterity also became subject to injury, disease, and death

 

The Fall affected Adam and Eve "and their posterity" and caused what is called "the mortal creation" as opposed to the paradisiacal creation. The difference between a "paradisiacal creation" and a "mortal creation" is described as "significant" by Elder Nelson.

 

2 Nephi 9:" Wherefore, it must needs be an infinite atonement—save it should be an infinite atonement this corruption could not put on incorruption. Wherefore, the first judgment which came upon man must needs have remained to an endless duration. And if so, this flesh must have laid down to rot and to crumble to its mother earth, to rise no more.

 O the wisdom of God, his mercy and grace! For behold, if the flesh should rise no more our spirits must become subject to that angel who fell from before the presence of the Eternal God, and became the devil, to rise no more."

 

Without the flesh rising our spirits would become subject to the devil.   Think about that.  Spiritual salvation depends on physical salvation.  This is the part that I keep talking about because our religion does not explain in any detail why it is so important to have a body to have spiritual salvation. I find this a very interesting topic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Um...no. "Stupid" was the word used to describe all humans relative to God.

Human = body and spirit.  I was seperating them out in an attempt to help all those reading that the feature that makes us limited and in a fallen state, as far as intelligence, is likely the body and not the spirit.  The body, in this state, doesn't allow full expression of the spirit.

 

Knowing that we are both body and spirit, what percentage of our thoughts, actions, personality, manerisms, etc comes from the wiring of the brain vs the "wiring" (not sure if it is the same structure in a spirit body) of the spirit body?  So, in other words, when we are talking "human" - the combination of the body and spirit, are we talking a 50%-50% representation or a 90-10 or what roughly?  It is my belief that the spiritual input to our actions and thoughts and manerisms is small.  Jesus, being the only begotten, may have approached more of a 50-50% balance between body and spirit.  The body's input has to be more than 50% as we know that the natural man is an enemy to God.  The default action of "humans" in general is to go away from the teachings of our Savior.  So, evidence suggests that the natural man is more influential.  For those that have a change from that set-up, they have a change of heart, they start to let the spirit have more and more control and then they become spiritually minded. Most "humans" are carnally minded.  And therefore, even though you are trying to say that it is a comparison between "humans" and God, as "humans" are mostly carnal, then it is not too far off to suggest that you are saying the body is "stupid" compared to God.   We have forgotten how smart our spirits our, we are behind the veil.  Our spirits are Gods, eternal in nature and ones that have already passed the first estate test, showing faith in God's plan.  That doesn't sound "stupid" to me.  Naive or inexperienced or young would be better words than "stupid" even when refering to our spirits alone and not "humans".  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree.  And you would be disagreeing with Alma 42 as well as the basic LDS doctrine if you really believe that the Fall only brought about a spiritual fall for us.  Because the Fall is both physical and spiritual, the atonement allows for immortality as well as eternal life, not just eternal life.  We would not need the gift of immortality without the Fall.

 

We do not think of the Fall in spiritual terms only.  Just the same, we do not think of the effects of the atonement in spiritual terms only.  The atonement also allows us to overcome the physical effects of the body - death.

 

Alma 42; "And now, ye see by this that our first parents were cut off both temporally and spiritually from the presence of the Lord; and thus we see they became subjects to follow after their own will.

 Now behold, it was not expedient that man should be reclaimed from this temporal death, for that would destroy the great plan of happiness.

 Therefore, as the soul could never die, and the fall had brought upon all mankind a spiritual death as well as a temporal, that is, they were cut off from the presence of the Lord, it was expedient that mankind should be reclaimed from this spiritual death.

 10 Therefore, as they had become carnal, sensual, and devilish, by nature, this probationary state became a state for them to prepare; it became a preparatory state."

 

Alma 11:"43 The spirit and the body shall be reunited again in its perfect form; both limb and joint shall be restored to its proper frame, even as we now are at this time; and we shall be brought to stand before God, knowing even as we know now, and have a bright recollection of all our guilt.

 44 Now, this restoration shall come to all, both old and young, both bond and free, both male and female, both the wicked and the righteous; and even there shall not so much as a hair of their heads be lost; but every thing shall be restored to its perfect frame, as it is now, or in the body, and shall be brought and be arraigned before the bar of Christ the Son, and God the Father, and the Holy Spirit, which is one Eternal God, to be judged according to their works, whether they be good or whether they be evil."

 

Alma 40; " 23 The soul shall be restored to the body, and the body to the soul; yea, and every limb and joint shall be restored to its body; yea, even a hair of the head shall not be lost; but all things shall be restored to their proper and perfect frame."

 

What is the definition of "restore" = to bring back, to repair.  Our bodies were and will never be perfect or in a perfect frame in this life.  So, how could the body be "restored"?  It is brought back to the way it was formed perfectly, in the Garden of Eden.

 

You, too, have posted previously that you considered the idea that we all had to go through a "garden of eden" experience.  Well, here, I am giving you some support for that idea and you don't want to take it.  I am surprised.

 

Bruce R. McConkie from Ensign 1982; "“Mortality and procreation and death all had their beginnings with the Fall. …

“… An infinite Creator, in the primeval day, made the earth and man and all forms of life in such a state that they could fall. This fall involved a change of status. All things were so created that they could fall or change. …

“… In the primeval and Edenic day all forms of life lived in a higher state than now prevails. … Death and procreation had yet to enter the world”

 

Elder Nelson 1996; "“The creation of Adam and Eve was a paradisiacal creation, one that required a significant change before they could fulfill the commandment to have children and thus provide earthly bodies for premortal spirit sons and daughters of God.

“… The Fall of Adam (and Eve) constituted the mortal creation and brought about the required changes in their bodies, including the circulation of blood and other modifications as well. They were now able to have children. They and their posterity also became subject to injury, disease, and death

 

The Fall affected Adam and Eve "and their posterity" and caused what is called "the mortal creation" as opposed to the paradisiacal creation. The difference between a "paradisiacal creation" and a "mortal creation" is described as "significant" by Elder Nelson.

 

2 Nephi 9:" Wherefore, it must needs be an infinite atonement—save it should be an infinite atonement this corruption could not put on incorruption. Wherefore, the first judgment which came upon man must needs have remained to an endless duration. And if so, this flesh must have laid down to rot and to crumble to its mother earth, to rise no more.

 O the wisdom of God, his mercy and grace! For behold, if the flesh should rise no more our spirits must become subject to that angel who fell from before the presence of the Eternal God, and became the devil, to rise no more."

 

Without the flesh rising our spirits would become subject to the devil.   Think about that.  Spiritual salvation depends on physical salvation.  This is the part that I keep talking about because our religion does not explain in any detail why it is so important to have a body to have spiritual salvation. I find this a very interesting topic.

 

You must not have read my post - so I will ask again.  Who other than Adam and Eve suffered a "PHYSICAL FALL"?   I did not because the physical body I was born with did not fall lower to something else - therefore I did not suffer a physical fall - I starte out with a mortal body.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You must not have read my post - so I will ask again.  Who other than Adam and Eve suffered a "PHYSICAL FALL"?   I did not because the physical body I was born with did not fall lower to something else - therefore I did not suffer a physical fall - I starte out with a mortal body.

We believe in vicarious acts.  Just as Christ atoned for all of us, Adam fell that men might be. It was done for all of us.  As part of the first estate test, we all here accepted this plan and agreed to accept a fallen body as opposed to a paradisiacal body.  This body and everything around us is in a physical state fallen from its original design.  Adam and Eve are the only ones who first received a paradisiacal body that was specially designed to be able to fall and they are the only ones given the assignment to do it for all of us.  They are the only ones who underwent the actual transformation from paradisiacal state to corrupted body.   But we all did it symbolically through them.

 

What difference would it make to you if we all fell symbolically through Adam and Eve vs a personal, individual starting out with a paradisiacal body that was transformed?  Isn't the effect the same?

 

Keep in mind that Satan's idea was that he wanted all the glory to himself and of himself, he couldn't stand the idea of being obliged to someone else, a Savior.  He still tries to pass that message on, that the only way to get things done is to do it yourself so there is no indebtedness to someone else.  He hates the idea of vicarious acts being equal to individual acts.

 

Adam and Eve doing it for us is as if we did it our self.  Don't you agree?  Why or why not?  We already believe that kind of thing is possible, i.e. - work for the dead, so there should be no hang up there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's my take on this topic.  I keep faith and an open mind.  There are certain things I know for myself by the Spirit.  I know that there is a God, that he reveals truth through various methods, and that he is intent on making us grow through faith.  Evidence doesn't test us.  It doesn't challenge us.  It doesn't make us grow.

 

God gives us sufficient revealed knowledge to keep the most faithful moving forward towards exalation.  That doesn't mean that we get the "high-def" version of all truth.  He also gives truth in ways that it can be understood by people in different times and circumstances.  Genesis comes to us from ancient people whose situations were far more different that ours today.  In many cases, God gave visions to people and they strained to write what they saw.  Millions, maybe billions of years of the creative process were presented as days.  John saw fighter planes and tanks and could only describe them as locusts and armored horses.  Other prophets saw cars and called them chariots.  Joseph looked into the celestial kingdom and saw people with a "white stone" that reveals information to them.  Around our house, we call the iPhone the "iStone."  

 

So when I read of Adam and Eve, I know that Joseph Smith saw and heard Adam/Michael on the banks of the Susquehanna River (See Section 128).  Adam was a real person.  The name Adam means "many."  Does that tell us that there were more than one at the beginning and that the one who was Michael the first mortal man on earth?  Possibly.  My mind is open to that possibility because it doesn't change the essence of the gospel.

 

Were the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and the tree of life literal or figurative?  I think it was probably both.  I believe there was probably a real tree, but the symbol of it (like the cross) took on greater metaphorical meaning.  There was a real cross upon which Jesus was crucified and there is a symbolic cross that his disciples take up when they follow him.  In the recent debate over Kate Kelly and the Ordain Women movement, one LDS writer made a beautiful metaphor that called womanhood the "tree of knowledge of good and evil" and the priesthood "the tree of life."  Both are necessary to exaltation.  One has the power to admit souls into mortality and the other to admit them into eternity.  

 

Another beautiful metaphor that is literal and figurative is what we call the "veil" between mortality and immortality.  Every woman is the "veil."  No one passes into mortality without passing through the body of a woman.  

 

So to me, the gospel is filled with marvelous richness both literal and in metaphor.  There are literal things and spiritual things that are bound together.  Moses' name meant "waters" because his adopted mother drew him from the water.  Yet the Lord makes a play on words with his name when he tells Moses that he will make him mightier than "many waters."  Then Moses later parts the Red Sea.  Literal and figuratively, the narrative goes together.

 

Such narratives are not done haphazardly.  They are inspired and they are thoughtful.

 

I don't need all the "facts" to line up when I read the Book of Abraham.  When I read it, it fills me with the Spirit.  Too many people get hung up on Kolob without seeing the powerful syllogism the Lord teaches through the metaphor of Kolob.  Is there a real Kolob?  Yes, and I expect that it is probably Sirius, a heavenly body that was significant to the ancients.  But beyond literal, the most important message is what the metaphor of Kolob teaches us about eternal progression and exaltation.

 

Don't get hung up on details.  Search the scriptures and enjoy them. Savor the truths, the language, and the inspiration that comes.  Then you'll know for yourself everything the Lord wants you to know at every moment along your progression back to him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We believe in vicarious acts.  Just as Christ atoned for all of us, Adam fell that men might be. It was done for all of us.  As part of the first estate test, we all here accepted this plan and agreed to accept a fallen body as opposed to a paradisiacal body.  This body and everything around us is in a physical state fallen from its original design.  Adam and Eve are the only ones who first received a paradisiacal body that was specially designed to be able to fall and they are the only ones given the assignment to do it for all of us.  They are the only ones who underwent the actual transformation from paradisiacal state to corrupted body.   But we all did it symbolically through them.

 

 

As always you give a lot of food for thought.  I will add some of my thinking.  First of all I would displace a little your thinking concerning vicarious acts.  For the most part I see that we can perform vicarious ordinances but I do not believe we can perform vicarious acts.  For example we cannot repent for someone else.

 

 

 

As for Christ paying for our sins though vicarious offering - I do not think it is that simple.  As the proctor of our covenants and as the granter of our agency in mortality he is, jointly with us responsible for our sins that we commit under his allowing us agency.  Therefore he can justly take upon him our sins that we commit under his covenant to grant us agency in mortality and redeem or pay the price of what we have done – especially because he knew what we would do with our agency and we do not.

 

 

 

What difference would it make to you if we all fell symbolically through Adam and Eve vs a personal, individual starting out with a paradisiacal body that was transformed?  Isn't the effect the same?

 

 

 

 

It matters to me and is basic to understanding the Justice of G-d.  We know for sure that the physical bodies we (everybody other than Adam and Eve) received are the first actual opportunity we have had with a physical experience.  I emphasize this point because I think you over emphasize the physical fall and ignore almost completely the spiritual fall of man.  In fact I sometimes wonder if you believe that we spiritually suffered a fall at all.  The reality is that we did not physically fall at all because you and I never had anything physically better to fall from.  Our only actual fall was 100% a spiritual fall.  If we did not fall spiritually – we did not fall!

 

Because we fell spiritually our physical bodies are made to be a perfect match for our current environment to complete our experience. 

 

For Adam and Eve the fall may appear to be the result of a physical conflict or misunderstanding cause by a physical condition.  My point is that the fall is the result of a spiritual conflict that we all faced and chose as spiritual beings.  A choice not just faced and made by Adam and Eve and our falling was 100% the result of a spiritual choice and had nothing to do with anything physical that we had experienced.

 

 

 

Keep in mind that Satan's idea was that he wanted all the glory to himself and of himself, he couldn't stand the idea of being obliged to someone else, a Savior.  He still tries to pass that message on, that the only way to get things done is to do it yourself so there is no indebtedness to someone else.  He hates the idea of vicarious acts being equal to individual acts.

 

 

 

 

I think there is much more to Lucifer becomming Satan than what you have listed.  But I believe we need to understand that for him and all the follow him - the choice to rebell against G-d is a spiritual choice.  And it is the natural spiritual choice.

 

 

Adam and Eve doing it for us is as if we did it our self.  Don't you agree?  Why or why not?  We already believe that kind of thing is possible, i.e. - work for the dead, so there should be no hang up there.

 

 

 

If Adam and Eve could "do" it for us - what need is there for us to suffer throught life?  We could just let someone else do "it" for us.  (quoting you)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As always you give a lot of food for thought.  I will add some of my thinking.  First of all I would displace a little your thinking concerning vicarious acts.  For the most part I see that we can perform vicarious ordinances but I do not believe we can perform vicarious acts.  For example we cannot repent for someone else.

 

 

 

As for Christ paying for our sins though vicarious offering - I do not think it is that simple.  As the proctor of our covenants and as the granter of our agency in mortality he is, jointly with us responsible for our sins that we commit under his allowing us agency.  Therefore he can justly take upon him our sins that we commit under his covenant to grant us agency in mortality and redeem or pay the price of what we have done – especially because he knew what we would do with our agency and we do not.

 

 

 

It matters to me and is basic to understanding the Justice of G-d.  We know for sure that the physical bodies we (everybody other than Adam and Eve) received are the first actual opportunity we have had with a physical experience.  I emphasize this point because I think you over emphasize the physical fall and ignore almost completely the spiritual fall of man.  In fact I sometimes wonder if you believe that we spiritually suffered a fall at all.  The reality is that we did not physically fall at all because you and I never had anything physically better to fall from.  Our only actual fall was 100% a spiritual fall.  If we did not fall spiritually – we did not fall!

 

Because we fell spiritually our physical bodies are made to be a perfect match for our current environment to complete our experience. 

 

For Adam and Eve the fall may appear to be the result of a physical conflict or misunderstanding cause by a physical condition.  My point is that the fall is the result of a spiritual conflict that we all faced and chose as spiritual beings.  A choice not just faced and made by Adam and Eve and our falling was 100% the result of a spiritual choice and had nothing to do with anything physical that we had experienced.

 

 

 

I think there is much more to Lucifer becomming Satan than what you have listed.  But I believe we need to understand that for him and all the follow him - the choice to rebell against G-d is a spiritual choice.  And it is the natural spiritual choice.

 

 

If Adam and Eve could "do" it for us - what need is there for us to suffer throught life?  We could just let someone else do "it" for us.  (quoting you)

(someday I will have to learn how to break up the quotes)  As for the first two paragraphs, I agree.   Jesus overcoming the physical affects of the Fall is free for everyone, just like it occured freely.  To recover from the spiritual Fall, which is to sin, requires repentence and I agree, that is more involved.

 

I am not sure what you think needs to be justified.  What justice are you talking about?  We all agreed to come here during our First estate trial.  That was the choice.  We all made that choice to have the opportunity to be tested in this way and gain experience about good and evil.  And yes that was a choice that we made as spirits but the choice was in regard to our physical state, whether we wanted to come to Earth in a fallen body for a period of time.  This fallen body and circumstances gives us a chance to be in these kinds of circumstances, to be exposed to a certain degree to good and evil but to not have it be a permanent condition and that is accomplished with the physical death.  I look at it as a package deal.  It cannot be separated one from the other.  The way we become separated from God was by being born into this fallen body.

 

From previous discussion, I think you might believe there is some holding tank for spirits who have "fallen" but not yet born that is away from God's presence.  I don't know of any doctrine that states such a thing and I don't believe that unlesss you can show me my error.  Part of the reason I don't believe that is that we are all born innocent and we believe that we will not be punished for Adams transgression.  I don't see a reason that we would be spiritually separated from God before birth.

 

As far as why Adam and Eve couldn't do it all for us; we all have specific assignments in this world.  We cannot all be the Bishop or the Relief Society President or the Prophet or Adam and Eve.  These are callings and assignments based in our faith and valiant natures and challenges we each need to face in this life or accomplish.  That isn't to say that I can't benefit spiritually from a good Bishop, RS president, Prophet or Adam and Eve etc.   We believe that the baby born under the covenant who dies at the age of one hour can be adopted into the same promise that was given to Abraham, how is that justified?   Whatever assignment any one of us has been given for this life is the thing that we hope to do and has to be done by ourself.   But there are some blessings that can be received by the work of others. It isn't an all or nothing condition and just because there are some things received from others doesn't preclude our need to do other things for ourselves. Where much is given much is required.  The requirements are different, not 100% the same.

 

We all knew that Adam and Eve would make the choice to eat of the tree of death and allow us to be born into a fallen, corrupted body and then we agreed to the plan, thus passing the first estate test.  It wasn't that we passed the first estate test and then we had another test to see if we would partake of the tree of death.  If so, where are those spirits that passed the first estate test but are continually in a state of paradise because they refuse to eat the of the tree of death.  Those are the ones that got cast out with the third of the host of heaven.  God didn't get that division wrong.  He didn't accidently let some pass the first estate test who really didnt want to go through with it in the first place.

 

That would be like saying there are people who apply to college, get accepted but then find out that they have to buy books and refuse to do so, so now they dont want to go through with college.   The first estate sifts out those fence sitters as to their desire to be in a fallen state.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(someday I will have to learn how to break up the quotes)  As for the first two paragraphs, I agree.   Jesus overcoming the physical affects of the Fall is free for everyone, just like it occured freely.  To recover from the spiritual Fall, which is to sin, requires repentence and I agree, that is more involved.

 

I am not sure what you think needs to be justified.  What justice are you talking about?  We all agreed to come here during our First estate trial.  That was the choice.  We all made that choice to have the opportunity to be tested in this way and gain experience about good and evil.  And yes that was a choice that we made as spirits but the choice was in regard to our physical state, whether we wanted to come to Earth in a fallen body for a period of time.  This fallen body and circumstances gives us a chance to be in these kinds of circumstances, to be exposed to a certain degree to good and evil but to not have it be a permanent condition and that is accomplished with the physical death.  I look at it as a package deal.  It cannot be separated one from the other.  The way we become separated from God was by being born into this fallen body.

 

 

The justice I am talking about is simple - everything that occurs to us (in this life, a previous life or in a following or next life, must be because of a knowledgeable choice that was made in order to bring about the result.  I do not believe that justice is the result of a choice we do not or cannot understand – especially concerning consequences.  Children before the age of accountability may be a good example of the kind of justice I believe to which you also may agree.  I just expand on the idea.   So if justice for us must be based on our choices such that all things that occur to us must be the result of a knowledgeable choice we make – otherwise justice does not exist and is an illusion. 

 

 

 

From previous discussion, I think you might believe there is some holding tank for spirits who have "fallen" but not yet born that is away from God's presence.  I don't know of any doctrine that states such a thing and I don't believe that unlesss you can show me my error.  Part of the reason I don't believe that is that we are all born innocent and we believe that we will not be punished for Adams transgression.  I don't see a reason that we would be spiritually separated from God before birth.

 

As far as why Adam and Eve couldn't do it all for us; we all have specific assignments in this world.  We cannot all be the Bishop or the Relief Society President or the Prophet or Adam and Eve.  These are callings and assignments based in our faith and valiant natures and challenges we each need to face in this life or accomplish.  That isn't to say that I can't benefit spiritually from a good Bishop, RS president, Prophet or Adam and Eve etc.   We believe that the baby born under the covenant who dies at the age of one hour can be adopted into the same promise that was given to Abraham, how is that justified?   Whatever assignment any one of us has been given for this life is the thing that we hope to do and has to be done by ourself.   But there are some blessings that can be received by the work of others. It isn't an all or nothing condition and just because there are some things received from others doesn't preclude our need to do other things for ourselves. Where much is given much is required.  The requirements are different, not 100% the same.

 

We all knew that Adam and Eve would make the choice to eat of the tree of death and allow us to be born into a fallen, corrupted body and then we agreed to the plan, thus passing the first estate test.  It wasn't that we passed the first estate test and then we had another test to see if we would partake of the tree of death.  If so, where are those spirits that passed the first estate test but are continually in a state of paradise because they refuse to eat the of the tree of death.  Those are the ones that got cast out with the third of the host of heaven.  God didn't get that division wrong.  He didn't accidently let some pass the first estate test who really didnt want to go through with it in the first place.

 

That would be like saying there are people who apply to college, get accepted but then find out that they have to buy books and refuse to do so, so now they dont want to go through with college.   The first estate sifts out those fence sitters as to their desire to be in a fallen state.

 

 

 

I am sure there are many kingdoms for various purposes and needs.  Often the scriptures hint concerning things to which there is no actual doctrine.  A mother in Heaven is an example of this and we even sing of this possibility in the song “Oh my Father”.

 

I find evidence in scripture that indicates that there is a place for fallen spirits over which Jesus has singular responsibility as G-d and as the mediator with the Father.  For example we see G-d (Jehovah or Jesus) governing not only earth but all the spirits in exile from the Father (Satan who was cast out of heaven – never to return among those over which Jesus governs.)

 

Some think the tree of knowledge of good and evil to be a literal tree.  We know from revelation that the sister tree (The Tree of Life) that is also in the garden is symbolic and Alma speak to us of a seed that we plant that grows to become the tree of life.  In the Genesis epoch of the Garden Adam is warned that anyone that pursues the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil with intent to obtain this knowledge must of necessity be cast out from the father.  The indication is in the day, or as we can understand from the ancient Hebrew – at the time such a choice is made all making that choice will surely die.  We know this was not a physical death because Adam and Eve did not die right a way but much later – but they did die a spiritual death or death of being cast out or falling. 

 

Since the fall took effect on all the children of Adam and Eve – I cannot find any scriptural evidence that we remained with the father but rather became from the fall ever beholden to Christ to redeem our return.  And so I submit that the choice by Adam and Eve was not unique among the children of G-d and that all that would come to earth to take on a mortal body in every way accepted for themselves the choice and all it consequences.

 

So we are again upon the point that for us the fall is completely spiritual.  And all fallen spirits, including even small children are redeemed by Christ in order to return to the Father.  Our spirits are fallen and incapable of retuning on their own – regardless of how pure and clean we think them to be.  Without Christ the fallen spirits of children could not return to the father.  For me this is such a simple understanding.  All that choose to participate in the plan that was made before the foundations of the earth rely on Christ as their mediator to end our exile from G-d. 

 

The spirit must fall in order to justly and rightfully inhabit a mortal body.  Only a redeemed spirit therefore can inhabit a glorified eternal body.  If the spirits of children had not fallen then such spirits could not be associated with a mortal body.  It is by the atonement of Christ that the fallen are made pure.  If there was no spiritual fall than there would be no knowledge of evil – nor is there knowledge of good.  Good being the sacrifice of Christ that knowledge can only come from those redeemed from the fall..  Therefore only by falling and choosing to fall can one obtain knowledge of good and evil.

 

 

 

 

 

one last point - this is how I do multiple quotes.  I slect the quote button.  Then in he following box for response I create a quite block.  I delete all from the initial quote that I am not responding to in my first comments and copy that text into the quote box.  This can be repeted as many times as desired by moving text from the previous text to the new quote box.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The justice I am talking about is simple - everything that occurs to us (in this life, a previous life or in a following or next life, must be because of a knowledgeable choice that was made in order to bring about the result.  I do not believe that justice is the result of a choice we do not or cannot understand – especially concerning consequences.  Children before the age of accountability may be a good example of the kind of justice I believe to which you also may agree.  I just expand on the idea.   So if justice for us must be based on our choices such that all things that occur to us must be the result of a knowledgeable choice we make – otherwise justice does not exist and is an illusion. 

 

 

 

Why isn't your concern about justice cleared up with the idea that through Christ we are all protected from the effects of the Fall until the age of accountability?  Then as we start to make choices with accountability we fall spiritually - correlating with sin.

 

Christ covers the demand for justice.  Now we are beholden to Him and must obey the gospel.  Through the light of Christ, that we are all born with, we have a "life-support" connection, so-to-speak, that withholds effects from the spiritual death or separation.

 

How much understanding do you propose we have before justice can be applied?  I don't think it has to be a full understanding.  If a person murders another for the first time, do they really understand what is in store for them after commiting such a crime?   I think we had a pretty good idea about the consequences of our choice in Heaven with the First estate test.  And because of that understanding, I think this is why it drew away a third of the host of Heaven, that wasn't an easy choice.   But all of us here made that choice.  The choice was made having faith that Christ would keep us from the effects of the Fall if we followed Him.  We knew He had our back.

 

I think you read into the spiritual fall more than I do.  I do not look at the spiritual fall that you are speaking of, just the separation from God as a description of character.  A spiritual fall in which sin is commited is certainly a description of character but the simple separation from God that was necessary to move forward in the plan of salvation is a step forward not backward.  It is described as a step downward but forward.  I think you are looking at the downward part too much and neglecting the forward aspects of the move.  All in all, the spiritual fall as it pertains to leaving the presence of God to come here to mortality is a forward motion as opposed to the static position we would have been in if we didn't do it.   This is a temporary state and we all looked at this life as a temporary condition, not permanent.  

 

I would liken mortality to taking a final exam where all the books are closed, the chalk board is erased and you can't talk to your classmates.  If you want to pass the class you have to take the final exam.  The person isn't a different person just because all the resources have been taken away but she would certainly be limited.  The limitation is only temporary though.  The testing condition doesn't represent how it will be after the test as all the books will be open and everything available again.  The change is a situational change.  Now, if someone cheats on the test or doesn't give a good effort in taking the test, then it counts as a change in character that will remain.

 

A lot of the test is also a test of capacity - ones capacity for faith and charity.  If I want to join the marines and am asked to climb to the top of a 20 foot rope, I probably won't make it.  Not necessarily because I don't want to, I may not be capable of such a thing.  Then, I am not going to be accepted into the marines. Or I might be asked to sit in the cold water as long as I can before hypothermia sets in.  In that way there is a screening of those that have both the physical as well as the mental stamina needed for the job.

 

Likewise, some of the challenges we face in this life are a test of capacity (i.e - valiant), not so much a choice between A and B.  How much faith can we show, how much charity can we show.  Some will reveal their spiritual weakness in these areas even despite trying.  That sounds harsh but our spiritual make up is at varied levels when we start and we all to some degree will reveal the extent of our capabilities falling short in some areas. That is okay because that is the test. ... everyone gets hypothermia eventually when sitting in 62 degree water.  Just like all of us sin while here (and accountable).  But luckily it is not an all or nothing test, it is a test of capability, just like the first estate test involved those that were more valiant than others.  Just because the test involves all of us falling short of perfection does not make it a permanently downward action any more than the marine sitting in 62 degree water for hours before he gets hypothermia is a flaw in character.   God allowed us to proceed with this step even though He knew that only Christ would do it with perfection.

 

Agreeing to take the test alone could not cause a spiritual fall if it is really a necessary step towards becoming like God.  Did Christ increase or decrease in stature by coming to Earth?

 

In response to your statement of a spirit must fall to inhabit a mortal body - do you not believe in the statement that we can be in the world without being of the world?  The contrast between the two is what creates the test.  If they were the same then there would be no influence one way or the other, it would just be.  There is an internal struggle because there is a contrast between things spiritual and things carnal. If there was no difference between the two then the test we face now would be no different than the first estate test.  Why would we repeat the first estate test?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this