2 Ne 2 questions


dillonkor
 Share

Recommended Posts

1. v. 10: What is the meaning of "to answer the ends of the atonement"?

2. v. 15: "the one being sweet and the other bitter." does this refer to the actual taste of the fruits? Or is this metaphorical? I have always thought that the actual tatste of the forbidden fruit is sweet.

3. v. 17: "according to the things which I have read" what did Lehi read in brass plates that container an account of the war in heaven? Can you think of an old testament chapter that contains such information?

4. v. 23: "And they would have had no children" why couldn't they have children? They were innocent, but they were not without knowledge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

1. v. 10: What is the meaning of "to answer the ends of the atonement"?

 

"Ends" means "purposes" or "aims". "To answer" means "to correspond with" or "to be suited to".

 

2. v. 15: "the one being sweet and the other bitter." does this refer to the actual taste of the fruits? Or is this metaphorical? I have always thought that the actual tatste of the forbidden fruit is sweet.

 
It is obviously metaphorical. But it is worth contemplating the possibility that the forbidden fruit was in fact the sweet, leaving the fruit of the tree of life as the bitter.
 

3. v. 17: "according to the things which I have read" what did Lehi read in brass plates that container an account of the war in heaven? Can you think of an old testament chapter that contains such information?

 
Possible, but unlikely. Lehi said that he "must needs suppose" these things, but if he had read a verbatim account, he wouldn't have to suppose. Isaiah hints at these things, so I suspect that Lehi read Isaiah or something else like it.
 

4. v. 23: "And they would have had no children" why couldn't they have children? They were innocent, but they were not without knowledge.

 

We don't know why they couldn't have children. We do know that the "forbidden fruit" was not sex, and I have no reason to suppose that Adam and Eve did not know about (or figure out) such things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2. You aren't the first person to think the forbidden fruit was the sweet one and the fruit of the tree of life bitter.  The sentence structures certainly make it seem that way.  Metaphoric or physical + metaphoric (it couldn't be only physical), either can make use of the terms bitter and sweet.

 

What follows is utter speculation.  Add lots of "to me"s in there.

 

Regarding #4: It seems pretty clear that they were not fully mortal in the garden.  In all probability, they were something like translated.  It seems probable that in that state, whatever it was, they couldn't procreate.*  The way scriptures describe translation, it seems like a sort of temporary not-quite-resurrection (you won't get sick, won't die, won't have physical pain - but it's not permanent), and we know that procreation between resurrected, exalted beings will produce spirit children, not mortal children.  We also know that not all resurrected beings will be capable of procreation.  So, it's reasonable to assume that in a translated state, one can't do either - the body perhaps cannot be used to create mortal children - it not being fully mortal at that stage - the whole is not yet exalted to a state which can produce spirit children - therefore, no procreation.

 

*I personally have no problem believing either way: that Adam and Eve didn't have sex / know about sex; or that they did, but it would not produce children.  I think arguments could be made for either.  I also think it's utterly irrelevant and none of our business. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Translated beings are raised to a terrestrial level of existence.  Adam and Eve were in a terrestrial state while in the Garden.  So, your instincts are correct on that score.

 

What that has to do with procreation is just guesswork.  But you may be on to something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regarding #4: It seems pretty clear that they were not fully mortal in the garden.  In all probability, they were something like translated.  It seems probable that in that state, whatever it was, they couldn't procreate.*  The way scriptures describe translation, it seems like a sort of temporary not-quite-resurrection (you won't get sick, won't die, won't have physical pain - but it's not permanent), and we know that procreation between resurrected, exalted beings will produce spirit children, not mortal children.  We also know that not all resurrected beings will be capable of procreation.  So, it's reasonable to assume that in a translated state, one can't do either - the body perhaps cannot be used to create mortal children - it not being fully mortal at that stage - the whole is not yet exalted to a state which can produce spirit children - therefore, no procreation.

 

*I personally have no problem believing either way: that Adam and Eve didn't have sex / know about sex; or that they did, but it would not produce children.  I think arguments could be made for either.  I also think it's utterly irrelevant and none of our business. :)

I always like thoughts like these. Consider these questions.

 

1. How is it that there are children in the eternal state? Aren't babies a condition of mortality and all spirits mature?

2. How can there be growth like we have here, because on this earth our knowledge is hidden from us, but such is not the case in the eternities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I always like thoughts like these. Consider these questions.

 

1. How is it that there are children in the eternal state? Aren't babies a condition of mortality and all spirits mature?

2. How can there be growth like we have here, because on this earth our knowledge is hidden from us, but such is not the case in the eternities.

 

1. We are spirit children of God.  Thus, there can be "children" without "babies".  What we don't know (remember?) are the mechanics around creating spiritual offspring.

 

2. Until one has become like God (omniscient), there can be growth.  Thus, no matter how much we knew in eternity past (and I believe we knew an awful lot* but not all), there is room for growth until such time as we are perfect (or have reached our personal limits).

 

My dad once explained his thoughts on why we have time and why with God "all things are present": if I explain something to you, it takes time for me to explain it and time for you to understand it - it starts in the past, is happening in the present, and won't finish until the future.  God knows it before I start - it's already present.  :)   (My dad has lots of interesting things to ponder.)

 

*I personally don't worry about my lack of understanding of modern theories related to physics, because (a) there are so many other things to learn, and as long as I'm learning, I don't think whether I learn physics matters, (b) mastering the Gospel is more important and thus gets priority on my time, © for all I know, I already understand the nature of the universe and how worlds are created; but I'm 100% certain I don't fully understand how to have Charity for all - so I'm more worried about that at the moment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

We don't know why they couldn't have children. We do know that the "forbidden fruit" was not sex, and I have no reason to suppose that Adam and Eve did not know about (or figure out) such things.

 

 

When I was Catholic trying to grasp the idea of a pre-mortal existence, I saw the events of the Garden as pre-mortal (hence they were able to dwell with God and not experience death).  After they got banished (they chose to leave the garden), that's when their bodies got transformed to mortality.

 

So, I don't know if this interpretation aligns with LDS teaching but I always saw the Garden of Eden as the scripture reference to Pre-Mortal existence and the events that lead us to choose to be born in mortality as taught by the LDS.

Edited by anatess
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you all! I am glad to have found an active forum with many sincere thinkers are coming to share their ideas.

 

Some follow-up comments and more questions:

 

"Ends" means "purposes" or "aims". "To answer" means "to correspond with" or "to be suited to".

 

v.10: My question is more about the context. The sentence reads: "Wherefore, the ends of the law which the Holy One hath given, unto the inflicting of the punishment which is affixed, which punishment that is affixed is in opposition to that of the happiness which is affixed, to answer the ends of the atonement--For it must needs be, that there is an opposition in all things.

 

So what does answering the ends of the atonement mean here? What are "the ends"? The ideas leading up to seem to indicate happiness and punishment. If that is the case, then I have always thought of this in reverse: the atonement answers the ends of the punishment and happiness. But the order is flipped here, and it seems to say that happiness and punishment answer the ends of the atonement. Any thoughts?

 

 

I'm not sure if we can even assume that the fruit was a real fruit.  It too seems metaphorical.

 

My understanding is that they are indeed real fruits, but the terms also are used metaphorically.

 

Regarding #4: It seems pretty clear that they were not fully mortal in the garden.  In all probability, they were something like translated.  It seems probable that in that state, whatever it was, they couldn't procreate.*  

 

I found an Ensign article by Elder McConkie that validates some of the things discussed here: "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." (Ensign, 06/1982)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I was Catholic trying to grasp the idea of a pre-mortal existence, I saw the events of the Garden as pre-mortal (hence they were able to dwell with God and not experience death).  After they got banished (they chose to leave the garden), that's when their bodies got transformed to mortality.

 

So, I don't know if this interpretation aligns with LDS teaching but I always saw the Garden of Eden as the scripture reference to Pre-Mortal existence and the events that lead us to choose to be born in mortality as taught by the LDS.

I'm not going into details right now.  But according to the Houston temple president, that is not a correct correlation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I was Catholic trying to grasp the idea of a pre-mortal existence, I saw the events of the Garden as pre-mortal (hence they were able to dwell with God and not experience death).  After they got banished (they chose to leave the garden), that's when their bodies got transformed to mortality.

 

So, I don't know if this interpretation aligns with LDS teaching but I always saw the Garden of Eden as the scripture reference to Pre-Mortal existence and the events that lead us to choose to be born in mortality as taught by the LDS.

 

While they became mortal either shortly before or upon leaving the garden, and while one could call that, technically, pre-mortal, it's not what the church manuals mean by "pre-mortal life" - which was living _as a spirit_ without a physical body, in the presence of God.  Adam and Eve had physical bodies in the garden, thus, not pre-mortal in that sense.  I've noticed a trend toward "pre-earth" life, thus avoiding the confusion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While they became mortal either shortly before or upon leaving the garden, and while one could call that, technically, pre-mortal, it's not what the church manuals mean by "pre-mortal life" - which was living _as a spirit_ without a physical body, in the presence of God.  Adam and Eve had physical bodies in the garden, thus, not pre-mortal in that sense.  I've noticed a trend toward "pre-earth" life, thus avoiding the confusion.

 

Yes, I understand this is not what is taught.  It was how I understood Pre-Mortality while investigating the Church.  But it is taught that we were given Spirit Bodies in pre-mortal life.  Since Adam's body was flesh and bones and immortal and was able to bear the presence of the Father, I understood this to be the Spirit Body.  It was transformed at the Fall to be mortal and provide conflict to the Spirit (the first choice) and will be restored again at the Resurrection.

 

Another non-doctrinal one:

The JWs teach that the forbidden fruit is sex.  I don't think so.  But, I can accept that part of that knowledge they sought with the forbidden fruit is pro-creation.  But sex is not the only way pro-creation is accomplished.  After all, Jesus Christ was born outside of this sexual construct.

 

Okay, I'm going to get off my non-doctrinal horse now so as not to confuse the OP.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

After all, Jesus Christ was born outside of this sexual construct.

We have no concrete information about how Jesus' body was formed.

What we do know is that Father's DNA and Mary's fused, exactly as is the case with every child ever born on this plant.

To claim "Jesus Christ was born outside of this sexual construct" is going well beyond any authoritative, doctrinally sound statement.

Lehi

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We have no concrete information about how Jesus' body was formed.

What we do know is that Father's DNA and Mary's fused, exactly as is the case with every child ever born on this plant.

To claim "Jesus Christ was born outside of this sexual construct" is going well beyond any authoritative, doctrinally sound statement.

Lehi

 

What I meant by sexual construct is - God the Father engaging in sex with Mary.  Mary was a virgin.  It's pretty certain that Jesus' conception was not through sex.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I meant by sexual construct is - God the Father engaging in sex with Mary.  Mary was a virgin.  It's pretty certain that Jesus' conception was not through sex.

I understand and understood perfectly what you meant.

The statements stands: "We have no concrete information about how Jesus' body was formed."

Nor do we know how it was not formed.

I, for one, am uncomfortable with discussing Father's love life.

Lehi

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand and understood perfectly what you meant.

The statements stands: "We have no concrete information about how Jesus' body was formed."

Nor do we know how it was not formed.

I, for one, am uncomfortable with discussing Father's love life.

Lehi

 

Not to be beating the horse dead or anything... but I thought the Virgin Birth was doctrinal?  So we know at least that much?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not to be beating the horse dead or anything... but I thought the Virgin Birth was doctrinal?  So we know at least that much?

Not to put too fine a point on it, but it depends on what the definition of "virgin" is.

Keep in mind that Isaiah's "virgin" was translated into Greek as parthanos, so when Matthew quoted it using the LXX, and the AV translators used "virgin" instead of "young woman", that definitely influenced Joseph Smith's translation of Nephi.

"Alma" in Isaiah did not mean "virgin", since the prophecy's first fulfillment was with Isaiah's own wife and their son Mahershalalhashbaz.

Again, however, I feel more and more uncomfortable even peering down this lane, much less traveling it.

Yes, we believe in the "virgin birth". But we still do not know what that actually means.

Lehi

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What we do know is that Father's DNA and Mary's fused, exactly as is the case with every child ever born on this plant.

No.  We don't.

We can safely infer that they were.

He is the Father of Jesus Christ — literally. No matter how that fusion occurred, He is His Father.

It is necessary that their DNA was present in Him because without the dual (and mysteriously mutually exclusive) characteristics of an immortal Parent and a mortal parent, He could not have completed His mission of Atonement. He must have been mortal so as to be capable of death, but immortal so as not to be subject to death. Only by being "outside" of mortality could He be the Atonement because were He subject to death, His death would not have been a sacrifice. But were He to have been immortal, He could not have died at all.

If we believe, as we do, that Father is a physical Being, with a glorified body of flesh and bone, then He has DNA. We and He are of the same species, and, being thus, He and Mary could have a Child, just as interracial couples can have children that share the traits of each parent's race.

Thus, Mary and the Father's DNA merged to form the body of Jesus Christ with the required traits of mortality and immortality in the One Who needed both. There is no doubt that He had His mother's chromosomes. There is no doubt that He had 23 pairs of chromosomes. the other 23 came from Somewhere, and the testimonies of prophets from ancient and modern dispensatonis attest to where that second set cames from.

Lehi

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not to put too fine a point on it, but it depends on what the definition of "virgin" is.

Keep in mind that Isaiah's "virgin" was translated into Greek as parthanos, so when Matthew quoted it using the LXX, and the AV translators used "virgin" instead of "young woman", that definitely influenced Joseph Smith's translation of Nephi.

"Alma" in Isaiah did not mean "virgin", since the prophecy's first fulfillment was with Isaiah's own wife and their son Mahershalalhashbaz.

Again, however, I feel more and more uncomfortable even peering down this lane, much less traveling it.

Yes, we believe in the "virgin birth". But we still do not know what that actually means.

you're also going in the wrong direction on post #18 as well.

How so?

"Alma" means "young woman", not "virgin". In Italian we say traduttore, traditore, the translator is a traitor.

When Joseph translated the Book of Mormon, we know that his familiarity with the AV colored his work simply because there are so many passages where he uses the same wording as the AV to give similar concepts in the Book of Mormon.

We also know that the LXX is no more than a fair translation of the Hebrew scripture. Isaiah 7:14 does not use the word בְּתוּלָה bethûlâh but עַלְמָה ‛almâh, not "virgin", but "young woman (of marriageable age)". But the LXX uses the Greek παρθένος, parthenos rather than παιδίσκη paidiske (young woman), as alma should have been rendered.

So, again, how so?

Lehi

Edited by LeSellers
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share