Flesh & Bone <—> Flesh & Blood?


mikbone
 Share

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, mikbone said:

What would happen to God’s immortal body if He partook of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good & evil?

Moses 3:17 & Abraham 5:13

And contrast with

Alma 12:26 & Alma 42:5

Since He has partaken of the tree of life (evidently after a passing through a preparatory state initiated by the partaking of the forbidden fruit, and having proven to choose only good, and having thus fulfilled the plan of redemption through exaltation), His immortal body would do nothing different than what it already does.

Edited by CV75
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We dont know, right?

Are the fruit of the trees in the Garden of Eden literal or allegorical?  

If they are literal fruit with pharmacological effects.  Are you claiming that any God is immune to the effects of the active ingredient?

What if the fruit is allegorical, and there is a process or priesthood power that can have the effect of converting immortals <--> mortals?

 

The following quote from Brigham Young might be of interest:

Quote

Man the Offspring of God — Things were first created spiritually; the Father actually begat the spirits, and they were brought forth and lived with him. Then he commenced the work of creating earthly tabernacles, precisely as he had been created in this flesh himself, by partaking of the coarse material that was organized and composed this earth, until his system was charged with it, consequently the tabernacles of his children were organized from the coarse materials of this earth. Discourses of Brigham Young, John A. Widtsoe, p. 76-77

 

Edited by mikbone
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, mikbone said:

We dont know, right?

Are the fruit of the trees in the Garden of Eden literal or allegorical?  

If they are literal fruit with pharmacological effects.  Are you claiming that any God is immune to the effects of the active ingredient?

What if the fruit is allegorical, and there is a process or priesthood power that can have the effect of converting immortals <--> mortals?

 

The following quote from Brigham Young might be of interest:

 

The quote you offer from President Young is very closely aligned with Adam-God, IIRC. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Two problems wo1th this theory. First, God already knows good from evil so the tree would not affect him. Second, it seems to me that it was the transgression of Adam and Eve in partaking the fruit, not some sort of magic or supernatural power of the fruit themselves, that caused the change. 

Edited by Midwest LDS
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Midwest LDS said:

Two problems woth this theory. First, God already knows good from evil sp the tree wpuld not affect him. Second, it seems to me that it was the transgression of Adam and Eve in partaking the fruit, not some sort of magic or supernatural power of the fruit themselves, that caused the change. 

I don't think that it was transgression.  If so, what does the fruit of the tree of life represent, obedience?  And if so, why would He create a barrier (cherubim and a flaming sword) to prevent Adam from partaking obedience?  

Also why is the transposition of the fruit of ToKoG&E and ToG&E contrasted in Moses, Alma 12 & Alma 42?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, mikbone said:

We dont know, right?

Are the fruit of the trees in the Garden of Eden literal or allegorical?  

If they are literal fruit with pharmacological effects.  Are you claiming that any God is immune to the effects of the active ingredient?

What if the fruit is allegorical, and there is a process or priesthood power that can have the effect of converting immortals <--> mortals?

 

The following quote from Brigham Young might be of interest:

 

The allegorical describes the eternal laws having the same effects which are expressed literally in various planes according to their respective "languages" or laws.

It doesn't matter if the fruit (or any other way the plan of happiness is described) is allegorical, literal or simultaneously both (as just about everything is anyway--see Alma 30:44; Moses 6:63--we see truth according to the "wavelength" or light we possess); the eternal effect is such that it may as well be literal, works perfectly well as allegorical, and is ultimately both once we comprehend all things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

But your point is that it exactly was a change. But it is a change involving eternal progression not temporary regression, and a change involving the children of God, not God. Allegorically and literally.

No that is your point.  My take is totally different.  I can see multiple instances when it would be advantageous for an immortal to convert him/herself back to a mortal for a temporary period to achieve a certain goal, literally.  

That being said, I don't require you or anyone else to appreciate my conclusions. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, mikbone said:

I don't think that it was transgression.  If so, what does the fruit of the tree of life represent, obedience?  And if so, why would He create a barrier (cherubim and a flaming sword) to prevent Adam from partaking obedience?  

Also why is the transposition of the fruit of ToKoG&E and ToG&E contrasted in Moses, Alma 12 & Alma 42?

I suspect we won't agree on this matter, but you bring up some points I haven't considered before. I appreciate the thought experiment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, mikbone said:

No that is your point.  My take is totally different.  I can see multiple instances when it would be advantageous for an immortal to convert him/herself back to a mortal for a temporary period to achieve a certain goal, literally.  

That being said, I don't require you or anyone else to appreciate my conclusions. 

I was understanding you to say that transgression is a change, i.e. an immortal converting to a mortal state and back again, and that when God does it, it is not in the sense of sinning.

I see Adam and Eve's transgression as a change from a terretsrial state to a telestial state, and not in the sense of sinning as we do in the telestial state. I also see their choice as a change involving the eternal progression of the children of God, and not as reflective of a temporary regression of God. The allegory, the literal fruit, etc. involves the former, not the latter.

This is why it doesn't matter in my mind whether the story of Adam and Eve is allegorically, literal, or both. My comments are not an expression of lack of appreciation of your idea that God moves back and forth between states, just pointing out that this particular story doesn't support your conclusions. I wasn't trying to express whether I appreciate them or not, as that is irrelevant to the discussion. I would rather focus on the actual support presented for your conclusions, for which I presume you are seeking feedback.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

I was understanding you to say that transgression is a change, i.e. an immortal converting to a mortal state and back again, and that when God does it, it is not in the sense of sinning.

I see Adam and Eve's transgression as a change from a terretsrial state to a telestial state, and not in the sense of sinning as we do in the telestial state. I also see their choice as a change involving the eternal progression of the children of God, and not as reflective of a temporary regression of God. The allegory, the literal fruit, etc. involves the former, not the latter.

This is why it doesn't matter in my mind whether the story of Adam and Eve is allegorically, literal, or both. My comments are not an expression of lack of appreciation of your idea that God moves back and forth between states, just pointing out that this particular story doesn't support your conclusions. I wasn't trying to express whether I appreciate them or not, as that is irrelevant to the discussion. I would rather focus on the actual support presented for your conclusions, for which I presume you are seeking feedback.

I believe that the Garden of Eden and the fall of man is literal.

And when I look at the fall, I see multiple things happening.  

1) When God forbade Adam and eve to partake of the ToKoG&E, it was not a commandment.  God wanted Adam & Eve to partake of the fruit, of their own volition contrary to his recommendation. IT WAS NOT A SIN.  And He explained that the consequences of partaking the fruit - was eventual death. Partaking of the fruit can be viewed as causing the regression from a terrestrial state to a telestial state.  OR, is can be viewed as step in the right direction (a fall up) toward eternal life.  Without the fall none of us would have had the opportunity to obtain eternal life.  Adam and Eve’s transgression was a choice to experience the trials of life and the blessings of family.

2) The ‘transgression’ did not change the bodies of Adam & Eve.  The fruit itself had the ability of changing our first parents bodies from Flesh & Bone to Flesh & Blood.  The transgression and the fruit are 2 seperate things.

 

If God were to partake of a substance, power or process that converted him from an immortal to a mortal or vice versa it would have nothing to do with the fall or transgression.  To God it would simply be a tool used to produce a temporary effect.

 

This conversation would probably be easier in person.  I think that we are mostly talking about the same thing.

 

And you are correct, the possibility of fruit changing bodies does not support my conclusions.  But the thought experiment allowing such changes permitted me to make an intuitive leap.

Edited by mikbone
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, mikbone said:

I believe that the Garden of Eden and the fall of man is literal.

And when I look at the fall, I see multiple things happening.  

1) When God forbade Adam and eve to partake of the ToKoG&E, it was not a commandment.  God wanted Adam & Eve to partake of the fruit, of their own volition contrary to his recommendation. IT WAS NOT A SIN.  And He explained that the consequences of partaking the fruit - was eventual death. Partaking of the fruit can be viewed as causing the regression from a terrestrial state to a telestial state.  OR, is can be viewed as step in the right direction (a fall up) toward eternal life.  Without the fall none of us would have had the opportunity to obtain eternal life.  Adam and Eve’s transgression was a choice to experience the trials of life and the blessings of family.

2) The ‘transgression’ did not change the bodies of Adam & Eve.  The fruit itself had the ability of changing our first parents bodies from Flesh & Bone to Flesh & Blood.  The transgression and the fruit are 2 seperate things.

If God were to partake of a substance, power or process that converted him from an immortal to a mortal or vice versa it would have nothing to do with the fall or transgression.  To God it would simply be a tool used to produce a temporary effect.

This conversation would probably be easier in person.  I think that we are mostly talking about the same thing.

And you are correct, the possibility of fruit changing bodies does not support my conclusions.  But the thought experiment allowing such changes permitted me to make an intuitive leap.

I believe the Garden of Eden and the fall of man are literal, and when used to describe a pattern for eternal truths, are also allegorical. The way these are described to us by another person is symbolic, as language is a symbol (or figurative), no matter medium of conveyance. When this is done by the Spirit, the Spirit carries them unto our hearts and we gain a sense of what is real (2 Nephi 33:1).

There are many ways, some correct and some not, to look at what transpired between God and Adam and Eve. But since this thread is about the exalted God reassuming a mortal frame to beget a Mortal Child (or a paradisaical frame to beget paradisiacal first parents for that Child), as you pointed out, a thought experiment must be used instead. Thus, my original response is that His immortal body would do nothing different than what it already does.

I think instead, God can change His relative glory in the flesh by quickening others to behold and withstand His presence (several scripture references), and perhaps by outwardly expressing less than His fulness, or containing the fulness of His glory. The resurrected Jesus partaking of the materials of this earth in “a piece of a broiled fish, and of an honeycomb” after His resurrection (Luke 24:42) only to ascend into heaven again by verse 51 suggests that exalted beings don't partake of telestial food (or by extension fruit from the paradisaical tree of knowledge) to become mortal as a prerequisite to interacting with us, including siring a Savior.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I think instead, God can change His relative glory in the flesh by quickening others to behold and withstand His presence (several scripture references), and perhaps by outwardly expressing less than His fulness, or containing the fulness of His glory. The resurrected Jesus partaking of the materials of this earth in “a piece of a broiled fish, and of an honeycomb” after His resurrection (Luke 24:42) only to ascend into heaven again by verse 51 suggests that exalted beings don't partake of telestial food (or by extension fruit from the paradisaical tree of knowledge) to become mortal as a prerequisite to interacting with us, including siring a Savior.

This is a totally reasonable position. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, CV75 said:

I think instead, God can change His relative glory in the flesh by quickening others to behold and withstand His presence (several scripture references), and perhaps by outwardly expressing less than His fulness, or containing the fulness of His glory. The resurrected Jesus partaking of the materials of this earth in “a piece of a broiled fish, and of an honeycomb” after His resurrection (Luke 24:42) only to ascend into heaven again by verse 51 suggests that exalted beings don't partake of telestial food (or by extension fruit from the paradisaical tree of knowledge) to become mortal as a prerequisite to interacting with us, including siring a Savior.

My only change to the word "change' would be "mask." He is able to mask His relative glory. Probably something personal within me that thinks mask is a better word for this statement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, Anddenex said:

My only change to the word "change' would be "mask." He is able to mask His relative glory. Probably something personal within me that thinks mask is a better word for this statement.

I would say suppress or contain, but both mask and conceal have the same end.  I cannot remember where, but somewhere, it's written that resurrected beings appear to be able to suppress their glory, whereas spirits cannot.  Thus when visited by a resurrected being, that being may appear to be a regular person (as the resurrected Christ sometimes did), but when visited by a spirit, that spirit will always appear in whatever glory he may have.  Next time I find this, I really should make a note somewhere (right after making a somewhere in which to make the note - perhaps a scripture and a note in Gospel Library).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, mikbone said:

How about conceal?

 

3 minutes ago, zil said:

I would say suppress or contain, but both mask and conceal have the same end.  I cannot remember where, but somewhere, it's written that resurrected beings appear to be able to suppress their glory, whereas spirits cannot.  Thus when visited by a resurrected being, that being may appear to be a regular person (as the resurrected Christ sometimes did), but when visited by a spirit, that spirit will always appear in whatever glory he may have.  Next time I find this, I really should make a note somewhere (right after making a somewhere in which to make the note - perhaps a scripture and a note in Gospel Library).

I think suppress, contain, or conceal are probably better words than "mask."

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