Is postmodernism the original sin?

[JohnsonJones]

Now, in conjunction with the above, it could be that in an eternal state of a telestial body (as Mormons would believe) that there can be no changes in the state of the body or function.  This would correlate with the LDS belief that there is no increase in the Telestial or Terrestrial worlds, only in the Celestial, and then only in the highest state thereof.

In this the world would be static, and without some catalyst to institute a change, it would remain there, eternal and unchanging.  Hence, time would be as if it were non-existent.  Adam and Eve would not be able to have children because their bodies do not change...hence no biological changes which are required to have children.

The fruit then could be seen as something that creates change.  However, that in and of itself doesn't explain the change completely.  Why is it that Adam would have to transgress in order to obtain the fruit.  Could it not be simply that the fruit itself could eventually be given to Adam by the Lord if that was what was required, without any transgression on Adam's part being necessary?

Or is it, because Adam had dominion over the world as given to him by the Lord, that an act needed to be done to change that world from unchanging in the Laws of the Lord, to a world that changed according to the understanding of men?  Hence, in that instance, only transgression, or rebellion against the Lord to separate it from the Lord could cause it to fall, and to start changing (aka, time to have an effect upon it).  In this way, a contrary command would be given to Man, one where he could not take the fruit of good an evil which could cause his own body to be able to have those changes, but also another that required those changes to happen in order for him to fulfill it (multiply and replenish the earth).

Hence, the conundrum of which Adam and Eve would have had to know (but perhaps being ignorant of whether it was good or evil making it a transgression instead of open rebellion...aka...sin) the results of each choice, and that the only way to fulfill one law, was to break the other.

On the otherhand, even in that instance, what if Adam and Eve both had the faith to rely that in the Lord's own due time, it would come to pass.  Or perhaps, the same result would have occurred?  If they kept the commandment to refrain from taking the fruit, but because of that could not multiply and replenish the earth...they would have also been in transgression, and hence rebellion, and thus fallen and because of their dominion, taken the entire world with them as well?

Or, was there another way?  We, of course, do not know it as we did not take that other way, if there was one, but it is something that can be an interesting mental ponderment.

Just me thinking on the item, not specifically (as I stated previously) what I believe or even what I have strong opinions on.

[Guest]

The transgression of the fall is as unique as the Atonement.  If we are to celebrate Eve partaking of the fruit, we should celebrate every lash that Christ took, every thorn that pierced His scalp, and every gout of blood that dropped from each pore.

While we are grateful, I don't think "celebrate" is the right word.  We don't celebrate Good Friday in this faith.  We celebrate Easter.  So what is the analogy in the fall?  

Gethsemane, scourging, etc  (the Passion) ==>    Partaking of the fruit

Crucifixion   ==>         They fell

Resurrection  ==>      They made covenants with the Father and went to work.

So, again, I say: we don't celebrate the fall.  We celebrate the making of covenants each time we go to the temple.

Edited May 23, 2017 by Guest

[Traveler]

 

@JohnsonJones

Often in the Old Testament, (and in general all prehistoric documents) names of individuals were symbolic of far more than the individual.  I believe this is also the case of Adam and Eve.  Though I believe that our first parents were individuals we call Adam and Eve – the name Adam means mankind.  I believe the choice of the fall was not unique to Adam and Eve but a choice made by all the spirit children of G-d that are born of both Adam and Eve and also of their covenant with G-d.  As an additional note – often in scripture the phrase “son of” or daughter of” denotes a covenant.  Thus, the title “son of man” is a reference to the covenant of Adam and Eve with G-d.  The Jews understood this anciently and were quite upset when Jesus called himself the son of man.  A son of Adam and daughter of Eve also reference the ancient premortal covenant.

 

The Traveler

Edited May 23, 2017 by Traveler

[BackBlast]

10 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

We know that the Lord always has backups of backups of backups (for example, Saul, and then David).

This isn't accurate.  The Lord doesn't need backups of backups of backups.  That's the advantage of being all knowing and having past, present, and future before you.  He can provide the blessings that individuals are given according to their obedience and the law, and then He can also know when they will fall short or fail in a purpose and then know exactly what needs to be in place to continue to accomplish His purpose.  He doesn't need Plan B, Plan C, or Plan D.  He has, The Plan.

[Guest]

23 minutes ago, BackBlast said:

He has, The Plan.

 No.  We don't need no stinking 

Oh!  Here's the Plan

 

[JohnsonJones]

2 hours ago, BackBlast said:

This isn't accurate.  The Lord doesn't need backups of backups of backups.  That's the advantage of being all knowing and having past, present, and future before you.  He can provide the blessings that individuals are given according to their obedience and the law, and then He can also know when they will fall short or fail in a purpose and then know exactly what needs to be in place to continue to accomplish His purpose.  He doesn't need Plan B, Plan C, or Plan D.  He has, The Plan.

Abel, Seth.

King Saul, King David.

etc...etc...etc...

[BackBlast]

1 hour ago, JohnsonJones said:

Abel, Seth.

King Saul, King David.

etc...etc...etc...

You didn't understand my point.  David wasn't His plan B.  That was The Plan.

Your idea suggests that the Lord does not know the future and cannot prophecy, or only has limited capacity to see them fulfilled, and must have a plan for every contingency to accomplish His purpose.  He doesn't need to plan for every contingency because He knows the path that will actually occur regardless of what the public plan A or B is.  Sometimes we only know plan A, but He has no such limitation.

Edited May 23, 2017 by BackBlast

[Vort]

3 hours ago, BackBlast said:

This isn't accurate.  The Lord doesn't need backups of backups of backups.  That's the advantage of being all knowing and having past, present, and future before you.  He can provide the blessings that individuals are given according to their obedience and the law, and then He can also know when they will fall short or fail in a purpose and then know exactly what needs to be in place to continue to accomplish His purpose.  He doesn't need Plan B, Plan C, or Plan D.  He has, The Plan.

This is simply false. Our own most sacred ceremonies portray God as laying out the plan for the temptation of our first parents, and then saying, "IF they yield [to that temptation]..." Not "when", but "if". Moses came down from the mount with a law that would have created a kingdom of priests; but that didn't happen, and the remnant shards of that law were ever after carried in the ark of the covenant to remind the people what they had lost. The early Saints were given a specific implementation of the law of consecration which was intended to be an eternal covenant -- yet we have not lived in a Church-sponsored "united order" for over a hundred years. Joseph Smith restored plural marriage, and no honest person can read the statements of the early Church leaders and still maintain that it was not believed to be an order that would endure forever; yet in 1890, it was formally done away with.

I do not know exactly what is meant by God's omniscience, but I am very willing to assume it means that God sees the future as a fait accompli. In this, I stand in direct opposition to people like Rob Osborn, who claim that God cannot actually know the future, only various probability assignments. But even though I take a traditional view of an all-knowing God, I reject the idea that God skates by on his omniscience and avoids the duplication and drudgery of, you know, actually planning for contingencies.

God is not a genie in a bottle who just blinks his eyes and things pop into and out of existence. He is a perfect and glorified Man. That's the bottom line.

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, Vort said:

This is simply false...

I do not know exactly what is meant by God's omniscience, but I am very willing to assume it means that God sees the future as a fait accompli. In this, I stand in direct opposition to people like Rob Osborn, who claim that God cannot actually know the future, only various probability assignments. But even though I take a traditional view of an all-knowing God, I reject the idea that God skates by on his omniscience and avoids the duplication and drudgery of, you know, actually planning for contingencies.

God is not a genie in a bottle who just blinks his eyes and things pop into and out of existence. He is a perfect and glorified Man. That's the bottom line.

If I understand you correctly, you're taking some sort of balanced approach.  However, I'm not getting a clear picture of what that balanced approach is.

[Vort]

Just now, Carborendum said:

If I understand you correctly, you're taking some sort of balanced approach.  However, I'm not getting a clear picture of what that balanced approach is.

My approach, balanced or unhinged as it may be, is that God's plans do indeed take into account various possibilities due to agency. That is the nature of agency. As to whether God knows that Path A or Path B or Path Φ may (or will) be taken, that's irrelevant. I'm perfectly willing to believe God knows which path will be chosen. I do not, however, believe that God therefore only ever sets out what is needed for that path and no other.

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, Vort said:

My approach, balanced or unhinged as it may be, is that God's plans do indeed take into account various possibilities due to agency. That is the nature of agency. As to whether God knows that Path A or Path B or Path Φ may (or will) be taken, that's irrelevant. I'm perfectly willing to believe God knows which path will be chosen. I do not, however, believe that God therefore only ever sets out what is needed for that path and no other.

Ok, I guess I see what you're saying.  I suppose the common belief would be "If God knows all the paths and has set things up to provide a certain outcome, why would He need to set up contingencies?  If there is no need, He simply wouldn't."  This would assume that God only does what is necessary and nothing else.  But is there a need?  Or does He do so even if there were no need?

I'm really not so keen on the idea that these questions are in any way important.  Any argument in any direction seems like sophistry anyway.

Edited May 23, 2017 by Guest

[BackBlast]

11 minutes ago, Vort said:

This is simply false. Our own most sacred ceremonies portray God as laying out the plan for the temptation of our first parents, and then saying, "IF they yield [to that temptation]..." Not "when", but "if". Moses came down from the mount with a law that would have created a kingdom of priests; but that didn't happen, and the remnant shards of that law were ever after carried in the ark of the covenant to remind the people what they had lost. The early Saints were given a specific implementation of the law of consecration which was intended to be an eternal covenant -- yet we have not lived in a Church-sponsored "united order" for over a hundred years. Joseph Smith restored plural marriage, and no honest person can read the statements of the early Church leaders and still maintain that it was not believed to be an order that would endure forever; yet in 1890, it was formally done away with.

I'm not seeing this as proof contrary to my statements.  He gives man his agency.  Saying when instead of if accomplishes what exactly?   To me it would seem to impact Adam's agency.  Just because a man or people will fall short, does not mean that He should skip what is theirs by right of previous choices, even if they subsequently prove unworthy and it is taken away from them or a seemingly less than ideal path is chosen.

D&C 130:20 There is a law, irrevocably decreed in heaven before the foundations of this world, upon which all blessings are predicated—

21 And when we obtain any blessing from God, it is by obedience to that law upon which it is predicated.

It doesn't matter if He knows that the person will rise higher and higher and then finally betray all of creation and seek to destroy it all.  That person will still receive all blessings for the laws that they are obedient to at that time.  It's part of the law, and knowledge of the end doesn't change that.

11 minutes ago, Vort said:

I do not know exactly what is meant by God's omniscience, but I am very willing to assume it means that God sees the future as a fait accompli. In this, I stand in direct opposition to people like Rob Osborn, who claim that God cannot actually know the future, only various probability assignments. But even though I take a traditional view of an all-knowing God, I reject the idea that God skates by on his omniscience and avoids the duplication and drudgery of, you know, actually planning for contingencies.

God is not a genie in a bottle who just blinks his eyes and things pop into and out of existence. He is a perfect and glorified Man. That's the bottom line.

I view it somewhat differently.  He isn't skating by, by avoiding duplication.  He has to do so much more homework up front, to insure the maximum progression of every one of his children following their individual and collective agency.  That sounds like a lot of homework to me, even more than a best guess and a fall back plan or 10.

[Guest]

35 minutes ago, Vort said:

whether God knows that Path A or Path B or Path Φ may (or will) be taken, that's irrelevant. 

It is quite interesting that you used this particular Greek letter for this context, considering what it is used for in Physics.  Did you do that on purpose?

[Vort]

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

It is quite interesting that you used this particular Greek letter for this context, considering what it is used for in Physics.  Did you do that on purpose?

Nope, not consciously.

[prisonchaplain]

@Armin I can't defend the German system of paid clergy for civilian churches. My only point was that we do have paid clergy, through our military, VA, and prison chaplaincy corps. Still, the American system is so very different from Europe's.  IMHO, if you were to campaign against it, in the German context, you'd do better to simply say that religions should be self-sustaining, rather than oppose the alleged extravagance of the benefits packages. Church faithful are often very loyal to their spiritual leaders, and you may find a backlash against the accusation that they are living lavishly off the public till. They may believe that their highly educated clergy, who often put in many many hours, during odd hours, and most certainly on weekends, deserve their keep.

BTW, I'm with you on the overall concept. The less government money and influence is entangled with religious organizations the safer we all are--including those insitutions.

[prisonchaplain]

@Armin At the end of the day, we actually agree. We are simply looking from very different angles.  Perhaps a bottom line we can both endorse is that a primary role of the church towards its government should be that of prophet.  Church leaders should be able to declare to secular authority "Thus sayeth the LORD."  That is much harder to do when that government pays your salary and collects your institution's funding for you. 

[prisonchaplain]

@Armin  There are a few denominations that have given themselves over to postmodern libertine morality. They exist in the United States, as well.  And you are correct that we can rejoice that our tax dollars do not go to support such ungodly teaching and practice--draped in clergy robes, or not.