The Meaning of Atonement

[estradling75]

5 hours ago, wenglund said:

Actually, the reason we (including the Church's lesson material and statements from General Authorities) draw the important distinction between transgression and sin is because there are different penalties associated with each. Understanding this is helpful to understanding the atonement and the mechanics of justice and mercy,.particularly as they relate to children under the age of accountability. In other words, this important distinction is needed to distance our beliefs from much of the Christian world in terms of "Original Sin" and the related "infant baptisms."

That having been said, what reason do you and @Rob Osborn have for believing that God would not give conflicting commandments?

And, given your belief, how do you explain the fall being a part of God's commanded Plan? If the plan required a fall, and if the fall required transgression, how could there not be a conflict?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

The scriptures state that God can not look upon sin with the least degree of allowance wither we call it Sin or transgression it is not allowed.  This is what we see in the Garden of Eden

Having said that Christ paid the penalty for all sin (and transgression).  And with that power Christ grants forgiveness.  Christ's forgiveness is given based on a mix of repentance and accountability of the sinner.  For those unaccountable their actions are covered by Christ's mercy, making repentance easy to nonexistent.  The fact that repentance is not needed and forgiveness a given does not make the initial action not a sin.

There are no "little" sins...  only sins that are easier to deal with (repent of) then others.

The Fall was necessary the Book of Mormon makes this clear.  However it never states that what triggered the Fall was the "Only" way the Fall could be triggered.  It simply states that this is how it happen.  This difference is Huge.

As for conflicting commandments I quote Nephi  "for I know that the Lord giveth no commandments unto the children of men, save he shall prepare a way for them that they may accomplish the thing which he commandeth them. " 

If we believe Nephi (which I do) then we have to believe the Lord had a way for Adam and Eve to obey all the commands he gave.  But like Nephi entering the city the last time to get the Brass plates we often do not know how the Lord prepared the way until we obey.

We do not know what preparations the Lord made for Adam and Eve to fulfill all the commandments... because they disobeyed so it did not happen.  The Lord handled their sin instead and we have a clear record of that.

 

[Melisa]

Seldom do I completely disagree with anyone.  Likewise, seldom do I feel that there is little or nothing to add – even to my own inputs.   I would hope than you never think of my posts as rival or rebuttal but as a “type and shadow” of the same important core principles.  For example, often Jesus would add to a topic by saying – “The kingdom of Heaven is like - - -.  Usually what was in the - - - was intended not as a correction but expansion.  Not that my idea is greater – just a little different.

[wenglund]

7 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

Yes, I believe I addressed that, and that is the crux of what I stated.

However, that verse in itself can be read in various ways.  One, in how I utilized it to demonstrate the two commandments that I believe are exactly how you interpret them...but one cannot say that theirs is the ONLY way to interpret it.  As such, it is not conclusive evidence. 

It can also be read, starting in verse 22 that if Adam had not fallen he would have remained in the Garden of Eden.  Eve, on the otherhand, would have been cast out.  As she was cast out, and Adam remaining in the Garden, nothing would have changed.  No children would have been able to come about.  Because he fell, he remained with Eve.

A reading of it in this way indicates that Adam KNEW that if he did not fall, there would be no children.  Thus, he chose to partake of the fruit after Eve, because he realized that he must do so if Men might be...as verse 25 infers.

This is probably just as valid an interpretation as the one that indicates that there were conflicting commandments.  I think the strongest strength of using this set of verses if found in verse 23. 

In this, it utilizes the words they, rather than he, and indicates that when it is speaking of Adam, it is speaking of Adam and Eve collectively rather than singularly.  However, it does not negate the other interpretation, merely strengthens the interpretation you favor that is of the idea that they were in a state of innocence in the garden and were unable to have children in the state that they existed in the Garden.

Unfortunately, both interpretations (and others) can all be utilized or seen in those verses.  I'm not arguing they are the correct interpretation, but I cannot say that mine is right and theirs is wrong conclusively, as there is not conclusive evidence. 

You could say it is similar to the theory of evolution...a Non-Religious idea.  In this, we have bones that we can trace (and now, DNA evidence even) the history of men and the status of evolution.  We have the slow changes that evolved through time.  One could say, the hundreds of pieces of evidence showing this evolution is all circumstance, but the strength of it shows that the DNA and skeletal evidence supports the scientific theories of evolution...at least for the past 50-60 thousand years.  Of course, this is also up to one's interpretation.  One could say that each step that they uncovered are related species, but are NOT part of an evolutionary chain from a kind of species of Ape to Mankind.  There are also alternate explanations of evolution, or even how men were created or came to be.  In this, there is no conclusive evidence either, despite what one side or the other may say about the matter.

The evidence in both these instances can be used to support multiple ideas and multiple theories.  We can think as we desire, and we can express our opinions (as I did above, and as I expressed as opposing opinion that interprets the same scripture completely differently in this post).

You make some excellent points.  The "they" in verse 23 in relation to having no children, does leave the door open to other interpretations  However, the "they" in relation to remaining in a state of innocence, seems problematic for the alternative interpretation. A fallen Eve could hardly be described as "innocent."

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

7 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

Spiritual falls means one is sinning and need repentance.

Yes, that is one of several valid connotation. The connotation I mentioned is another.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Rob Osborn]

29 minutes ago, wenglund said:

Yes, that is one of several valid connotation. The connotation I mentioned is another.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

43 And thus did I, the Lord God, appoint unto man the days of his probation—that by his natural death he might be raised in immortality unto eternal life, even as many as would believe;
            44 And they that believe not unto eternal damnation; for they cannot be redeemed from their spiritual fall, because they repent not. (D&C 29:43-44)

There can be no spiritual fall without sin. All spiritual falling is a result of sin.

[wenglund]

5 hours ago, estradling75 said:

The scriptures state that God can not look upon sin with the least degree of allowance wither we call it Sin or transgression it is not allowed.  This is what we see in the Garden of Eden

Yes, D&C 1:31 does say that the Lord cannot look upon sin with the least degree of allowance. However, in the fol;owing verse  (32) He provides an allowance--i.e. in cases of repentance and obedience. This is a contradiction, though one of which both you and I seem not to have problem.

The principles in play in those verses are justice (no degree of allowance) and mercy (allowance in cases of repentance). I don't see how the principles of justice and mercy somehow prevent the Father from issuing contradictory commands, particularly given the contradiction in the verses I cited..

Quote

Having said that Christ paid the penalty for all sin (and transgression).  And with that power Christ grants forgiveness.  Christ's forgiveness is given based on a mix of repentance and accountability of the sinner.  For those unaccountable their actions are covered by Christ's mercy, making repentance easy to nonexistent.  The fact that repentance is not needed and forgiveness a given does not make the initial action not a sin. There are no "little" sins...  only sins that are easier to deal with (repent of) then others.

Actually, D&C 29:46-47 says that they cannot sin. So, you have it exactly backwards. It is not that they can easily repent or have no need to repent of their sins, but that they cannot sin, and thus have no need for repentance. 

Again, the distinction between transgression and sin separates us from the majority of the Christian world who believe in original sin, and thus the need for infant baptism. 

Beside, I would encourage you to read Elder Oaks' differentiation (see HERE--about half way  down the page). His legally trained mind draws an important distinction--interestingly enough in relation to the scripture I quoted. It isn't a matter of big or small.

Quote

The Fall was necessary the Book of Mormon makes this clear.  However it never states that what triggered the Fall was the "Only" way the Fall could be triggered.  It simply states that this is how it happen.  This difference is Huge.

I don't know about "Huge," but there is a difference. However, the difference is moot--not just because we know how the fall actually occurred, but we are given absolutely no indication that the fall could have occurred in an other way. In other words, there is entirely no evidence to suggest that there was another way.. 

Quote

As for conflicting commandments I quote Nephi  "for I know that the Lord giveth no commandments unto the children of men, save he shall prepare a way for them that they may accomplish the thing which he commandeth them. " 

If we believe Nephi (which I do) then we have to believe the Lord had a way for Adam and Eve to obey all the commands he gave.  But like Nephi entering the city the last time to get the Brass plates we often do not know how the Lord prepared the way until we obey.

We do not know what preparations the Lord made for Adam and Eve to fulfill all the commandments... because they disobeyed so it did not happen.  The Lord handled their sin instead and we have a clear record of that.

It is interesting that you picked the Nephi and Laban story to make your point since I could not think of a better one to underscore mine, followed closely by Abraham and Isaac. On the one hand, Nephi was bound under the law of Moses wherein God commanded not to kill; while on the other hand, God commanded Nephi to kill Laban. Granted, justification was given for killing Laban, but that made the two commands no less paradoxical or contradictory. And, while Abraham was stopped from taking the life of his son, Isaac, that, too, made the commands no less paradoxical or contradictory.

D&C 132:36 makes this clear. The two commands were paradoxical or contradictory, but by obeying the latter command, it was counted unto Abraham for righteousness, just as may be supposed with Adam and Eve. 

Thus, one may reasonably believe what you quoted from Nephi above, while also viewing the various commands in the Garden as contradictory--understanding that disobedience to one of the commandments may have been the way God prepared for Adam and Eve to accomplish the Plan and obedience to his other commandments. In fact, there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that there was any other way for Adam and Eve to have obeyed those other commandments.

I say "commandments" (plural) because I am just beginning to vet the topic. Stay tuned.

I like this saying:

Quote

The law of the Christian life is a paradox. It is made up of seeming contradictions. All its teachings are contrary to the common opinions of man. According to this law, giving is getting; scattering is gaining; holding is losing; having nothing is possessing all things; dying is living. It is he who is weak who is strong… Happiness is found when it is no longer sought; the clearest sight is of the invisible; (and) things which are not bring to naught things which are.[iii] (as quoted HERE, along with more paradoxes)

This having been said, I can accept that you may see things otherwise, and have been unpersuaded by what I have argued. To each their own.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

1 hour ago, Rob Osborn said:

43 And thus did I, the Lord God, appoint unto man the days of his probation—that by his natural death he might be raised in immortality unto eternal life, even as many as would believe;
            44 And they that believe not unto eternal damnation; for they cannot be redeemed from their spiritual fall, because they repent not. (D&C 29:43-44)

There can be no spiritual fall without sin. All spiritual falling is a result of sin.

The scripture you cited speaks of "that" spiritual fall--i.e. the one resulting from sin, and not "all" spiritual falls as you suppose.

In fact, given that the word "fall" in this case is synonymous with "death," we know from Alma 12:13 and D&C 63:17 and 12 other scriptures as well as the Topical Guide,  that there are at least two kinds of, or connotations of, spiritual death, and even two sub-categories of one of the spiritual deaths--including being cut off or cast away from the presence of God. (Hel. 14:16. Alma 42:9, Ps 51:11)

We know from a number of scriptures (such as 2Ne. 9:6,  D&C 104:9,52,76:, Alma 22:12-13, and D&C 20:20) that one may be cut off from God's presence, or in other words fallen and die spiritually, by way of transgression--which, from my point of view, and that of the Church, is different from sin, particularly as it relates to the fall and spiritual death of Adam and Eve

As always, you are free to believe otherwise.

Thanks, -Wade Engund-

[Rob Osborn]

6 hours ago, wenglund said:

The scripture you cited speaks of "that" spiritual fall--i.e. the one resulting from sin, and not "all" spiritual falls as you suppose.

In fact, given that the word "fall" in this case is synonymous with "death," we know from Alma 12:13 and D&C 63:17 and 12 other scriptures as well as the Topical Guide,  that there are at least two kinds of, or connotations of, spiritual death, and even two sub-categories of one of the spiritual deaths--including being cut off or cast away from the presence of God. (Hel. 14:16. Alma 42:9, Ps 51:11)

We know from a number of scriptures (such as 2Ne. 9:6,  D&C 104:9,52,76:, Alma 22:12-13, and D&C 20:20) that one may be cut off from God's presence, or in other words fallen and die spiritually, by way of transgression--which, from my point of view, and that of the Church, is different from sin, particularly as it relates to the fall and spiritual death of Adam and Eve

As always, you are free to believe otherwise.

Thanks, -Wade Engund-

And if you read the surrounding scriptures for context spiritual death is always associated with carnal pleasures and sin which makes one miserable. Tell you what, find an actual scripture that says little children (infants) are spiritually dead. I will bet you cannot find even one.

[estradling75]

19 hours ago, wenglund said:

Actually, the reason we (including the Church's lesson material and statements from General Authorities) draw the important distinction between transgression and sin is because there are different penalties associated with each. Understanding this is helpful to understanding the atonement and the mechanics of justice and mercy,.particularly as they relate to children under the age of accountability. In other words, this important distinction is needed to distance our beliefs from much of the Christian world in terms of "Original Sin" and the related "infant baptisms."

That having been said, what reason do you and @Rob Osborn have for believing that God would not give conflicting commandments?

And, given your belief, how do you explain the fall being a part of God's commanded Plan? If the plan required a fall, and if the fall required transgression, how could there not be a conflict?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Ok to answer your question lets run some examples.

1st Example

I in anger hit my brother...   (This is clearly counted a sin)

My Son in anger hits his brother..  (This is not counted a sin because he is special needs and is not a candidate for baptism in-spite of being over 8 years old)

Its the exact same action so the one being a sin and the other not would appear to be a conflict in God's command. This appearance last until the Lord showed the way. The way was all sinners need to repent of there actions the actions of the not accountable are covered by the Mercy of Christ.  Those who do not know of this path, this greater light and knowledge, engage in things like infant baptisms because everyone needs to repent.

2nd Example

I cut of someone head...  (This is clearly counted as a sin and kind of monstrous)

Nephi cuts off Laban's head..  (This is not counted as sin even though there is a Thou Shall Not Kill Commandment)

Its the exact same action... Both seem to violate the Thou Shall Not Kill Command.  This appearance lasts until one learns that God controls Life and Death and so the commandment really is Thou Shall Not Kill except when the Lord command or authorizes).  Those who do not know of this path, this greater light and knowledge, see conflict and do not understand how the Nephi could not have sinned.  Yet the Lord provided this path to Nephi to fulfill his command

3rd Example

I make every effort to sacrifice my son only to be stopped by something out of my control...  (This is clearly counted as a sin and is very monstrous)

Abraham makes every effort to to sacrifice Issac only to be stopped by something out of his control..  (This is not counted as sin but rather as righteousness)

Its the exact same action..  But the results are conflicting.  The resolution of this after Abraham exercises faith, God provides a way.  Just like he did for Nephi.

 

In all these examples there is a "Sinful Path" and a "Righteous Path".  In the story of the "Righteous Path" the next chapter is that person continues to live life with no major changes.  In the story of the "Sinful Path"  we really really hope the need chapter is about Repentance,  Christ and his Atonement and being cleansed from Sin.

 

Now to the Story of Adam and Eve.  God gave commandments.  If we believe Nephi that God will prepare away for them, then it is reasonable that like in the examples of Nephi and Abraham that God had a way prepared for Adam and Eve to be obey.  Now neither Nephi nor Abraham knew how their path would end when they started.  They only learned after they committed to the path.  And the only reason we know how their stories ended is because they documented it after in happen.

Adam and Eve did not walk the path of obedience, they did not walk the "Righteous Path."  Therefore unlike Nephi nor Abrham we do not know how the Lord prepared the way for them to walk the "Righteous Path." Because they did not do it. They walked the "Sinful Path" and the very next chapter of there story is about Repentance, Christ and his Atonement and being cleansed from Sin.

Now you say well what if they were like your son... acting but not accountable?  You made a good point about them not being capable of Sin.  Its a very good point.  But it turns the question back to you.  If Adam and Eve did not Sin, how did they fall?

To declare that the Fall was caused by sin (which it was) and then declare that Adam and Eve Fall without sinning is a Logical Paradox.

Now you and other members can quibble over the "Size" of the sin all you want.  But it clearly had to be big enough to cause the Fall and Require the Atonement of Christ to set right,  (and that is plenty big enough in my book) otherwise the story makes no sense.

As for "Original Sin" we also have no need to quibble over the "Size" of the sin to counter this.   All we need is the Article of Faith "We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression."

[eVa]

I thought spiritual death is only after judgement?

[Vort]

13 minutes ago, eVa said:

I thought spiritual death is only after judgement?

Spiritual death happens all the time. It is the end result of pulling away from God. Our separation from the divine is spiritual death. The final condemnation of eternal spiritual death occurs at the judgment, but spiritual death itself happens all the time, all around us. It is a tragic and horrible thing. In general, it should not be considered a final state for anyone, because people can still repent, and Christ makes people live again -- spiritually as much as (or more than) physically.

(Please note that I quit following this specific thread quite a while ago, because it took a turn into a theoretical discussion about "how the atonement works" in a mechanical sense. I tend to look askance at mechanistic explanations for the atonement, believing that, since they are almost uniformly wrong, they tend to distract from the essence of the atonement much more than they actually illuminate anything. So if your comment is in response to something specific that someone wrote -- which is likely -- I'm not sure whether or not my comment will be helpful.)

[wenglund]

1 hour ago, estradling75 said:

Now to the Story of Adam and Eve.  God gave commandments.  If we believe Nephi that God will prepare away for them, then it is reasonable that like in the examples of Nephi and Abraham that God had a way prepared for Adam and Eve to be obey.  Now neither Nephi nor Abraham knew how their path would end when they started.  They only learned after they committed to the path.  And the only reason we know how their stories ended is because they documented it after in happen.

Adam and Eve did not walk the path of obedience, they did not walk the "Righteous Path."  Therefore unlike Nephi nor Abrham we do not know how the Lord prepared the way for them to walk the "Righteous Path." Because they did not do it. They walked the "Sinful Path" and the very next chapter of there story is about Repentance, Christ and his Atonement and being cleansed from Sin.

Now you say well what if they were like your son... acting but not accountable?  You made a good point about them not being capable of Sin.  Its a very good point.  But it turns the question back to you.  If Adam and Eve did not Sin, how did they fall?

To declare that the Fall was caused by sin (which it was) and then declare that Adam and Eve Fall without sinning is a Logical Paradox.

Now you and other members can quibble over the "Size" of the sin all you want.  But it clearly had to be big enough to cause the Fall and Require the Atonement of Christ to set right,  (and that is plenty big enough in my book) otherwise the story makes no sense.

As for "Original Sin" we also have no need to quibble over the "Size" of the sin to counter this.   All we need is the Article of Faith "We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression."

Again,regarding the difference between transgression and sin,  it isn't a matter of size, nor in Adam and Eve's case was it a matter of incapability to sin(though I am not sure they had the capacity to sin), but rather the type of commandment being broken. Please read Elder Oaks' explanation. It is quite good.

Either way, if you still reject the belief that God can give conflicting commands, do you and @Rob Osborn at least agree that once Eve partook of the forbidden fruit, Adam had to break one of God's commandments in order to keep other of God's commands, and that there was no other way (the wording here is intended to ring a temple memory bell)?

Thanks, -Wade ENgluund-

 

[Vort]

Just now, wenglund said:

Either way, if you still reject the belief that God can give conflicting commands, do you and @Rob Osborn at least agree that once Eve partook of the forbidden fruit, Adam had to break one of God's commandments in order to keep other of God's commands, and that there was no other way (the wording here is intended to ring a temple memory bell)?

I reject the "conflicting commandments" theory. Since I do not know the actual nature of Adam's and Eve's transgression or the conditions put on them, the question is impossible to answer. Assuming that we're actually talking about fruit growing on a tree, and the commandments in play are exactly those told us in the Biblical narrative, I would wonder why Adam didn't just wait to talk with God and ask him the correct thing to do. Clearly, there is vastly more going on here than the bare-bones account we have been given. Apparently, the account is intended to illustrate our state before God, not to give an explanation of the mechanics of what happened. My suspicion is that, if we were given the fuller account, we would not understand it. Hence, we get the cleaned-up Edenic version of the Fall.

[wenglund]

1 hour ago, Rob Osborn said:

And if you read the surrounding scriptures for context spiritual death is always associated with carnal pleasures and sin which makes one miserable. Tell you what, find an actual scripture that says little children (infants) are spiritually dead. I will bet you cannot find even one.

Let me connect the logical dots for you:

1. Separation or being cut off from the presence of the Father, is a form of spiritual death (as the scriptures I cited attest).
2. All who are born into mortality, including those incapable of sinning, are separated and cut off from the presence of the Father by virtue of the veil.(I can provide scriptures and reason if needed)
3. Children under the age of 8, and others with the mental capacity below the age of 8, while incapable of sin, have been born into mortality. (This is not in dispute)
4. Therefore, those people born on earth that are yet incapable of sin, nevertheless experience a form of spiritual death or fall.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[estradling75]

25 minutes ago, wenglund said:

Again,regarding the difference between transgression and sin,  it isn't a matter of size, nor in Adam and Eve's case was it a matter of incapability to sin(though I am not sure they had the capacity to sin), but rather the type of commandment being broken. Please read Elder Oaks' explanation. It is quite good.

Either way, if you still reject the belief that God can give conflicting commands, do you and @Rob Osborn at least agree that once Eve partook of the forbidden fruit, Adam had to break one of God's commandments in order to keep other of God's commands, and that there was no other way (the wording here is intended to ring a temple memory bell)?

Thanks, -Wade ENgluund-

 

I am in agreement with Vort.

What are we taught to do if we don't know what to do and think we have a conflict?  Study and Prayer.

When Eve broke the commandment and went to Adam... from the record we have Adam starting to study the problem out.  We get his reasoning..  But we see no indications that he asked God for confirmation on what he should do.  Thus we do not know what God would have told him.

Maybe God would have said partake and stay with Eve.  In which case Adam would not have sinned...  Or maybe (like he did with Abraham) God had different answer.  An answer (which ever way) Adam did not get because he did not ask. (according to the records we have)

Edited February 2, 2018 by estradling75

[eVa]

40 minutes ago, Vort said:

Spiritual death happens all the time. It is the end result of pulling away from God. Our separation from the divine is spiritual death. The final condemnation of eternal spiritual death occurs at the judgment, but spiritual death itself happens all the time, all around us. It is a tragic and horrible thing. In general, it should not be considered a final state for anyone, because people can still repent, and Christ makes people live again -- spiritually as much as (or more than) physically.

(Please note that I quit following this specific thread quite a while ago, because it took a turn into a theoretical discussion about "how the atonement works" in a mechanical sense. I tend to look askance at mechanistic explanations for the atonement, believing that, since they are almost uniformly wrong, they tend to distract from the essence of the atonement much more than they actually illuminate anything. So if your comment is in response to something specific that someone wrote -- which is likely -- I'm not sure whether or not my comment will be helpful.)

I was in the middle of commenting when I had to leave work a few days ago!  I just got back and hit post without realizing I didn't quote the person I was asking my question to.  I did find your response very helpful as I only attributed "spiritual death" to the final judgement as well as "lost" to the state of a person who rebels/withdraws from the spirit of God while still on the earth.  Thanks!!

[Rob Osborn]

48 minutes ago, wenglund said:

Let me connect the logical dots for you:

1. Separation or being cut off from the presence of the Father, is a form of spiritual death (as the scriptures I cited attest).
2. All who are born into mortality, including those incapable of sinning, are separated and cut off from the presence of the Father by virtue of the veil.(I can provide scriptures and reason if needed)
3. Children under the age of 8, and others with the mental capacity below the age of 8, while incapable of sin, have been born into mortality. (This is not in dispute)
4. Therefore, those people born on earth that are yet incapable of sin, nevertheless experience a form of spiritual death or fall.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I disagree. I will explain later but this is a fundamental flaw.

[wenglund]

I may be wrong, but it seems that I differ from @Vort and @estradling75 in that I take Eve at her word, particularly given the endowing setting in which her answer in question  is disclosed. That is sufficient information for me to reasonably conclude that Adam had to break one of God's commandments in order to obey another, thus suggesting a paradox or conflict between commandments. But, it isn't a definitive reason, thereby allowing to each their own beliefs.

And, as long as the way we respectively believe ends up enhancing our seeking after Christ and availing ourselves of the benefits of his redemptive sacrifice, all is good. What is important is our shared belief that we, as well as Adam and Eve, chose to leave the presence of the Father and enter mortality in accordance with the Plan, and that, thankfully, a way has been provided for us to return to the Father's presence.

This having been said, for those interested, I still plan to examine the various commandments given to man following the creation and placement of man in the Garden. To me, there are points of interest that may prove useful in likening the scriptures to ourselves. We'll see.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

Regarding the pre-Fall command 

Quote

12. Man should leave his father and mother, and cleave unto his wife, and they shall be one flesh, or in other words, they should be married. (Moses 3:24):

Without debating whether it is paradoxical or contradictory or not, does anyone else besides me view this as a command to Adam and Eve to leave the presence of the Father and get on with family life relatively on their own?

If so, is this the preferred model for mortal families when the children come of marital age?

Isn't it the model employed by the Father in Heaven with his spirit children, particularly the 2/3rd that agreed to the Plan?

Could Adam and Eve have left God's presence (in the Garden) without falling?

Could they have gotten on with their family life (i.e. become one flesh by having children) without falling?

In short, does obedience to command #12 require a fall?

And, if so, was there any other known way for them to fall than through disobedience to command #9 (man was forbidden to partake of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, though they could choose to do so with the understanding that they would die--Moses 3:17)?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[estradling75]

22 minutes ago, wenglund said:

I may be wrong, but it seems that I differ from @Vort and @estradling75 in that I take Eve at her word, particularly given the endowing setting in which her answer in question  is disclosed. That is sufficient information for me to reasonably conclude that Adam had to break one of God's commandments in order to obey another, thus suggesting a paradox or conflict between commandments. But, it isn't a definitive reason, thereby allowing to each their own beliefs.

And what make Eve an authority on what God could have done?

We see people facing the same kind of dilemma as Eve all the time.  They say I want righteous thing X, but due to "things" commandment Y prevents it.  Therefore I am justified in breaking commandment Y to bring about X?  Say for example (since we are talking about kids) A Faithful Single sister really wants the blessing of motherhood (and fulfill that command).  But she is single, the only way she could be a mother is by breaking the Law of Chasity.  No one who has any understanding of the Gospel would say...  Its ok break the Law of Chasity you are justified in it.

Instead they are told to obey the command and remain active and faithful in trusting that the Lord will open a door for them. 

This is pretty clear to us in all other cases but for some reason we want to make an exception for Eve.

[wenglund]

3 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

And what make Eve an authority on what God could have done?

We see people facing the same kind of dilemma as Eve all the time.  They say I want righteous thing X, but due to "things" commandment Y prevents it.  Therefore I am justified in breaking commandment Y to bring about X?  Say for example (since we are talking about kids) A Faithful Single sister really wants the blessing of motherhood (and fulfill that command).  But she is single, the only way she could be a mother is by breaking the Law of Chasity.  No one who has any understanding of the Gospel would say...  Its ok break the Law of Chasity you are justified in it.

Instead they are told to obey the command and remain active and faithful in trusting that the Lord will open a door for them. 

This is pretty clear to us in all other cases but for some reason we want to make an exception for Eve.

That is an excellent point. I agree that people should query God or his "angels" (heavenly or mortal ministers) when faced with seeming conflicting commands,, just as Nephi,  and in a way, Abraham. 

However, in Eve's case, and in the absence of details whether she consulted with the Father or not, I grant her words authority given the endowed setting and context in which they are disclosed. Indeed, I personally view her words as if the Father, Himself, had said them. But that may be just me.

Besides, if Eve were incorrect in her belief, I trust that this would be pointed out, just as in the case pf some of Lucifer's comments. If we are being endowed, I trust that we are being endowed with the truth.

Even still, as confident as I am in my belief, I could be mistaken. To each their own.

Thanks, -Wade Englund

[estradling75]

1 minute ago, wenglund said:

That is an excellent point. I agree that people should query God or his "angels" (heavenly or mortal ministers) when faced with seeming conflicting commands,, just as Nephi,  and in a way, Abraham. 

However, in Eve's case, and in the absence of details whether she consulted with the Father or not, I grant her words authority given the endowed setting and context in which they are disclosed. Indeed, I personally view her words as if the Father, Himself, had said them. But that may be just me.

Besides, if Eve were incorrect in her belief, I trust that this would be pointed out, just as in the case pf some of Lucifer's comments. If we are being endowed, I trust that we are being endowed with the truth.

Even still, as confident as I am in my belief, I could be mistaken. To each their own.

Thanks, -Wade Englund

Indeed... and had the story said that Eve/Adam went to God received and followed his modified instructions... then it would not have been Sin that caused the Fall. 

But you can't have Sin causing the Fall, but Sin not actually happening.  That is the Logical Paradox of the "it was not really a Sin side"

[Vort]

2 hours ago, wenglund said:

n short, does obedience to command #12 require a fall?

Yes, without question. The Fall is a necessary preconditon for man's redemption and eventual exaltation. On this point, the scriptures and the prophets are perfectly clear and unanimous.

2 hours ago, wenglund said:

And, if so, was there any other known way for them to fall than through disobedience

We cannot answer this question definitively. The Lord makes known unto us things of this world, not of others (see Moses 1:35). And in this world, Adam and Eve hearkened to the voice of Satan. So that's what we know.

But it seems evident to me that when the Lord makes plans just in case Adam and Eve succumb to temptation, that implies that maybe they won't. What if they didn't? Lehi was of the opinion that nothing would ever have happened, and they would have stayed just the same. Another scripturally tenable possibility is that "the Lord giveth no commandments unto the children of men, save he shall prepare a way for them that they may accomplish the thing which he commandeth them" -- that is, a way would have been prepared for our first parents to remain faithful and obey the commandments of God. Has this pattern been followed in other worlds? I believe we have reason at least to suppose exactly that.

Until we know the exact nature of Adam and Eve's Edenic condition and precisely what the choice was that lay before them, we will be at a loss to understand exactly what they did and why. The history of the Fall as given to us is meant to emphasize our relationship with God. I believe we do better to concentrate on that divine relationship rather than suppose that we can derive a mechanistic understanding of the procedural elements of the Fall of Adam based on the Genesis account.

Edited February 3, 2018 by Vort

[brlenox]

4 hours ago, Vort said:

Yes, without question. The Fall is a necessary preconditon for man's redemption and eventual exaltation. On this point, the scriptures and the prophets are perfectly clear and unanimous.

We cannot answer this question definitively. The Lord makes known unto us things of this world, not of others (see Moses 1:35). And in this world, Adam and Eve hearkened to the voice of Satan. So that's what we know.

But it seems evident to me that when the Lord makes plans just in case Adam and Eve succumb to temptation, that implies that maybe they won't. What if they didn't? Lehi was of the opinion that nothing would ever have happened, and they would have stayed just the same. Another scripturally tenable possibility is that "the Lord giveth no commandments unto the children of men, save he shall prepare a way for them that they may accomplish the thing which he commandeth them" -- that is, a way would have been prepared for our first parents to remain faithful and obey the commandments of God. Has this pattern been followed in other worlds? I believe we have reason at least to suppose exactly that.

Until we know the exact nature of Adam and Eve's Edenic condition and precisely what the choice was that lay before them, we will be at a loss to understand exactly what they did and why. The history of the Fall as given to us is meant to emphasize our relationship with God. I believe we do better to concentrate on that divine relationship rather than suppose that we can derive a mechanistic understanding of the procedural elements of the Fall of Adam based on the Genesis account.

Forever spinning in circles....

[Guest]

Were they really conflicting commandments?  I'd ask, were they both commandments as we know them?

The thing about the commandment to NOT partake of the fruit is that it appears to be unlike any other.  I know of no other commandment that the Lord has given after which he says

Quote

nevertheless, thou mayest choose for thyself, for it is given unto thee...

Moses 3:16–17

True, this could easily mean the same thing that is known about all commandments, i.e. we have our own agency.  But what other commandments has the Lord specifically pointed out our power to choose immediately after giving the commandment?

It just seems very strange to me that this sequence of events occurs as it does.  Thus it seems that this commandment is different than any other.  And it also stands to reason that given the unique standing of the original sin, that it was treated differently than any other broken commandment.