Conditions that make agency possible

[TheTanakas]

My family and I started reading the section for the week of February 3-9 in "Come, Follow 
Me - For Individuals and Families".

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/come-follow-me-for-individuals-and-families-book-of-mormon-2020/intro?lang=eng

I had a question on these passages.

46-47 - Lehi identified essential conditions that make agency possible and enable us 
to reach our divine potential, including the following:

1. A knowledge of good and evil (2 Nephi 2:5)
2. A law given to mankind (2 Nephi 2:5)
3. Opposing, enticing choices (2 Nephi 2:11)
4. Power to act (2 Nephi 2:16)

As you read 2 Nephi 2, what do you learn about each of these conditions of agency and 
their relationship to each other? What would happen to our agency if one or more of 
these conditions were missing?

Since essential #1 was missing from Adam and Eve before they ate from the forbidden 
tree, what happened to their agency?  Did they even have it to begin with?

[Moonbeast32]

20 hours ago, TheTanakas said:

Since essential #1 was missing from Adam and Eve before they ate from the forbidden 
tree, what happened to their agency?  Did they even have it to begin with?

Actually, they did have it. To a very specific degree that is.

God told them that to partake of every other fruit was good, and that the forbidden fruit is forbidden. Therefore they had knowledge of what action would be good, and which one was evil. It was agency to a very very singular instance; a tiny phosphorus matchhead to light an entire bonfire.

Edited February 9, 2020 by Moonbeast32

[estradling75]

20 hours ago, TheTanakas said:

My family and I started reading the section for the week of February 3-9 in "Come, Follow 
Me - For Individuals and Families".

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/come-follow-me-for-individuals-and-families-book-of-mormon-2020/intro?lang=eng

I had a question on these passages.

46-47 - Lehi identified essential conditions that make agency possible and enable us 
to reach our divine potential, including the following:

1. A knowledge of good and evil (2 Nephi 2:5)
2. A law given to mankind (2 Nephi 2:5)
3. Opposing, enticing choices (2 Nephi 2:11)
4. Power to act (2 Nephi 2:16)

As you read 2 Nephi 2, what do you learn about each of these conditions of agency and 
their relationship to each other? What would happen to our agency if one or more of 
these conditions were missing?

Since essential #1 was missing from Adam and Eve before they ate from the forbidden 
tree, what happened to their agency?  Did they even have it to begin with?

To repeat what Moonbeast32 pointed out.

Knowledge of Good... God Said do not eat.  (Also the Law)

Knowledge of Evil...  The devil said eat to become like God. (Also The Opposing and enticing choice)

And of course the power to act

Adam and Eve had all parts so they had agency in this matter.

 

[TheTanakas]

On 2/9/2020 at 11:33 AM, Moonbeast32 said:

Therefore they had knowledge of what action would be good, and which one was evil

Do you mean that God viewed their disobedience as an evil action?

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

32 minutes ago, TheTanakas said:

Do you mean that God viewed their disobedience as an evil action?

No.  It wasn't evil it was necessary.  They had two options:  don't eat the fruit, stay in the garden, and live forever  or eat the fruit, get kicked out of the garden, and eventually die.  

The later choice was unpleasant but necessary as Lehi tells us.  If they hadn't made the hard choice, they would not have had children and the plan would have been frustrated.  Thus, we honor them for their choice. 

[Traveler]

On 2/8/2020 at 1:31 PM, TheTanakas said:

Since essential #1 was missing from Adam and Eve before they ate from the forbidden 
tree, what happened to their agency?  Did they even have it to begin with?

Some may disagree - but I believe that the Eden epoch is in part symbolic of our pre-existence; not just Adam and Eve and thus the agency is not just representative of Adam and Eve but for all that will experience mortality - That to partake of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil was an expression of Agency of all accepting the Plan of Salvation.

 

The Traveler

[TheTanakas]

20 hours ago, LiterateParakeet said:

No.  It wasn't evil it was necessary.  They had two options:  don't eat the fruit, stay in the garden, and live forever  or eat the fruit, get kicked out of the garden, and eventually die.  

Where did you get the idea Adam and Eve were told they would get kicked out
of the garden if they eat the forbidden fruit?

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

5 hours ago, TheTanakas said:

Where did you get the idea Adam and Eve were told they would get kicked out
of the garden if they eat the forbidden fruit?

 

From Pres. Joseph Fielding Smith as quoted in a book I'm reading about Adam and Eve. It was part of a discussion about the "contradictory" commandments that Adam and Eve recieved in the Garden of Eden.  It is the author's opinion, supported by quotes from Leaders, that they were not actually given conflicting commandments.  

 From the book:
 

Quote

On several occasions, President Joseph Fielding Smith taught: "The Lord said to Adam, here is the tree of knowledge of good and evil.  If you want to stay here then you cannot eat of that fruit.  If you want to stay here then I forbid you to eat it.  But you may act for yourself and you may eat of it if you want to.  And if you eat it you will die."  

In the footnote it says also:

Pres Smith stated: "Morality was created through the eating of the forbidden fruit, if you want to call it forbidden, but I think the Lord has made it clear that it was not forbidden.  He merely said to Adam, if you want to stay here [in the garden] this is the stiuation.  If so, don't eat it."

It seems fair to note that, while President Smith's position that Adam and Eve did not receive 'contradictory commandments' finds support in the teachings of a number of the Brethren, various General Authorities have held different opinion on how to best address this issue of the seeming contradiction.  In the end, in the opinion of this author, President Smith's interpretation seems to best coincide with the overarching doctrine of the church."

The Truth About Eden: Understanding the Fall and our Temple Experience by Alonzo L. Gaskill

The book seems to be out of print:  https://deseretbook.com/p/truth-eden-alonzo-l-gaskill-90060 

But I got it on Kindle from amazon.  

Edited February 22, 2020 by LiterateParakeet
typo and formatting

[Traveler]

5 hours ago, TheTanakas said:

Where did you get the idea Adam and Eve were told they would get kicked out
of the garden if they eat the forbidden fruit?

I think you may be having a problem seeing the forest because of all the trees.  Often in scriptures (and in the teaching of Christ) the symbolism of parables are used.  Some are concerned that parables and symbolism do not represent truth and that if there are parables and symbolism is used in sacred scripture - that the value of scripture becomes questionable.    Or that we will not be able to distinguish fact from fiction.  It is reasonable to understand that ancient scripture is capable of having more than one meaning concerning a specific place and time.  In other words - scripture is not just to understand history (past events such as Eden) - but to understand our own time and circumstance.  For example - at the end of Chapter 3 of Genesis we are introduced to Cherubim.  I would point out that Cherubim is the plural of Cherub and yet as important as the Cherubim is to the Eden epoch - there is no literal reference anywhere else in scripture as to how Cherubim play in the plan of salvation - unless there is connections through symbolism.

I submit that if one cannot understand the symbolism of scripture - the literal specifics of their questions will never bear fruit. 

 

The Traveler

[Vort]

16 minutes ago, LiterateParakeet said:

It is the author's opinion, supported by quotes from Leaders, that they were not actually given conflicting commandments.

If this is indeed what the author wrote, then it is my opinion that the author is correct. The very idea of God giving "conflicting commandments" is absurd on its face.

The scriptural account as we have it very clearly shows Eve disobeying God and hearkening to the voice of Satan, and then Adam following suit. There is no way around this. Unless we are willing to say that sometimes it's righteous to ignore God's commandment and hearken to Satan's voice—which I, for one, am utterly unwilling to do—there is no way to turn this into "Adam and Eve did a good thing in partaking of the fruit as they did."

Yet that is exactly what our leaders have taught. So how do we resolve this conundrum? Not through "conflicting commandments" nonsense, certainly.

Two thing are clear to me:

1. The scriptural accounts of the events in the garden of Eden are highly symbolic, and may include a number (even a large number) of elements that are naive to take at literal face value, e.g. perhaps the "forbidden fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil" was not actually a fruit that you pick off a tree and eat.

2. We do not have the whole story, only a symbolic (and perhaps figurative) description of events that allows us to understand our place before God and our fallen condition.

I feel confident that we will fully understand that there is no discrepancy between the events in the garden of Eden and our leaders' teachings about Eve's (and Adam's) virtue in their actions in the day when those events are fully revealed to us. Until then, I suspect it's a fool's errand to insist on synthesizing an artificial harmony based on present publically revealed knowledge.

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

@Vort  yes that is a direct quote from Alonzo Gaskill in his footnotes.  

I agree that the scriptural accounts of the garden are highly symbolic, and that we don't have the full story of Adam and Eve.  We're on the same page here.  

[Traveler]

1 hour ago, LiterateParakeet said:

@Vort  yes that is a direct quote from Alonzo Gaskill in his footnotes.  

I agree that the scriptural accounts of the garden are highly symbolic, and that we don't have the full story of Adam and Eve.  We're on the same page here.  

I believe all the pieces are there and we can understand how this plays into the Plan of Salvation but I agree with @Vort - if we insist on literal understanding of such things in scripture we will likely displace using the Holy Ghost with our own methods as the means of knowledge and understanding.  If we use the literal story of Adam and Eve - we become stuck with many ideas as suggested in your discussion with @Vort - and others - Like; why did not G-d anticipate Satan deception and not allow Eve to be beguiled?  It gives the impression that G-d is not as smart as Satan and is forced to adjust his plan.

 

The Traveler

[TheTanakas]

On 2/22/2020 at 3:57 PM, Traveler said:

I think you may be having a problem seeing the forest because of all the trees.  Often in scriptures (and in the teaching of Christ) the symbolism of parables are used.  Some are concerned that parables and symbolism do not represent truth and that if there are parables and symbolism is used in sacred scripture - that the value of scripture becomes questionable.

Are you saying Adam and Eve did not literally eat from a forbidden tree?

[TheTanakas]

On 2/22/2020 at 4:21 PM, Vort said:

perhaps the "forbidden fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil" was not actually a fruit that you pick off a tree and eat.

And the Garden of Eden was not literally a garden place?

[Vort]

25 minutes ago, TheTanakas said:

And the Garden of Eden was not literally a garden place?

I don't know. I am convinced that Eden was a real thing, probably a place, and the garden of Eden was likewise a real thing, probably a place. My default assumption is that it was a garden, which I interpret to mean a cultivated and controlled region. But I don't have any real insight into the underlying reality being portrayed.

[Traveler]

42 minutes ago, TheTanakas said:

And the Garden of Eden was not literally a garden place?

Do you believe that if the Garden of Eden is not a literal place - but symbolic of our pre-existence - that we should not worship G-d any more or believe in the plan of salvation?

 

The Traveler

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

15 hours ago, TheTanakas said:

And the Garden of Eden was not literally a garden place?

I'm open to the possibility.  I believe that Adam and Eve were real, and there was a Fall...beyond that, what is literal and what is symbolic isn't totally clear to me.  I am convinced the symbolism IS important for us though, as evidenced by the times its repeated. 

 

[Anddenex]

I find it interesting in light of Church teaching (modern revelation) we still have people thinking the garden of Eden wasn't a distinct place (only symbolic), "Latter-day revelation confirms the biblical account of the Garden of Eden and adds the important information that it was located on what is now the North American continent." (emphasis mine)

President Benson (as President of the Quorum of Twelve Apostles), "America is a place of many great events. Here is where Adam dwelt, where the Garden of Eden was located. America was the place of former civilizations, including Adam’s, the Jaredites’, and Nephites’. America is also the place where God the Father and His Son, Jesus Christ, appeared to Joseph Smith, inaugurating the last gospel dispensation on earth before the Savior’s second coming." (emphasis mine)

 

 

 

Edited February 25, 2020 by Anddenex

[TheTanakas]

23 hours ago, Traveler said:

Do you believe that if the Garden of Eden is not a literal place - but symbolic of our pre-existence - that we should not worship G-d any more or believe in the plan of salvation?

 

The Traveler

That depends. If the Garden of Eden is not a literal place, then it would seem the Fall was not a literal event and
thus the plan of salvation is not literal either.  I never heard of the concept of the Garden of Eden being symbolic
of our pre-existence.

[Vort]

3 minutes ago, TheTanakas said:

If the Garden of Eden is not a literal place, then it would seem the Fall was not a literal event and
thus the plan of salvation is not literal either.

Completely non sequitur. The literal reality of the fall of man and of the plan of salvation does not hinge on whether the garden of Eden was actually a garden, or even a literal physical location.

[TheTanakas]

Just now, Vort said:

Completely non sequitur. The literal reality of the fall of man and of the plan of salvation does not hinge on whether the garden of Eden was actually a garden, or even a literal physical location.

Would that mean they did not literally disobey God by eating from a literal forbidden tree?

[Vort]

2 minutes ago, TheTanakas said:

Would that mean they did not literally disobey God by eating from a literal forbidden tree?

Not at all. For example, it might mean that they literally did disobey God by doing something that is represented figuratively as eating a forbidden fruit, and thus literally disqualified themselves from God's presence, which is the literal Fall of Man.

If I buy into DoTerra and start trying to sell you a bunch of essential oils, you might say that I'm working for DoTerra so I really drank the Koolaid. I did not literally drink any Koolaid; that's just a figurative expression. But in this example, I did literally buy into DoTerra and start trying to sell you essential oils. So the DoTerra part is all literal, even if the Koolaid remark is not.

Mind you, I'm not saying this is the case with the garden of Eden. As I have already stated, my default assumption is that the garden of Eden was not only a real place, but was a garden in, you know, Eden. All I'm saying is that supposing that the garden story is a figurative representation rather than a literal depicition of events doesn't touch the reality of the Fall of Man or of the plan of salvation.

[Traveler]

18 hours ago, TheTanakas said:

Would that mean they did not literally disobey God by eating from a literal forbidden tree?

There are some very interesting hints in the Eden epoch that if taken literally would cause one to wonder about the omnipotence and all knowing nature of G-d.  For example, Eve clearly states that she was beguiled by the serpent to partake of the fruit.  We may try to argue that G-d gives us agency to choose and thus allowed Eve to choose - but what kind of choice or agency is a choice resulting from a deception?  But this was more than a choice of Eve - it was a choice that would be answered upon the heads of her children.  There is no way the literal events in Eden because of a cleaver deception can be said to be just - let alone the example of love and compassion.  And there are other questions - Why would G-d allow his plan for man to be frustrated through the allowance of a beguiling lie?  If G-d knew in advance the result; yet placed Adam and Eve knowingly in a place where they would fail - why is G-d not responsible, at least in part, for the results?  He was the one that knew better - certainly better than Adam and Eve - but G-d is not responsible?  Was not King David held responsible for placing Uriah in a circumstance where he would die?  And G-d is somehow less knowledgeable?

There is also another tree - it is called the Tree of life.  Associated with this other tree are Cherubim.  The job of the Cherubim is to protect the way.  But Jesus Christ said that he is the way, the truth, and the life?  So if Eden epoch is literal and not symbolic - Jesus is not really the way - the Cherubim are.  Is it possible that the symbolism of the Cherubim includes Jesus?

 

The Traveler

[TheTanakas]

3 hours ago, Traveler said:

There are some very interesting hints in the Eden epoch that if taken literally would cause one to wonder about the omnipotence and all knowing nature of G-d.  For example, Eve clearly states that she was beguiled by the serpent to partake of the fruit.  We may try to argue that G-d gives us agency to choose and thus allowed Eve to choose - but what kind of choice or agency is a choice resulting from a deception? 

Eve's first choice was to obey or disobey God's command 'not to eat' from the forbidden
tree.  When she was deceived, her choice then expanded to 'do I believe God or Satan?'
Even in our society, we make many choices even though the devil is trying to deceive
us. This does not make choice/agency less valid.

But this was more than a choice of Eve - it was a choice that would be answered upon the heads of her children.

Do you have a scripture to indicate what you mean?

There is no way the literal events in Eden because of a cleaver deception can be said to be just - let alone the example of love and compassion.  And there are other questions - Why would G-d allow his plan for man to be frustrated through the allowance of a beguiling lie?  If G-d knew in advance the result; yet placed Adam and Eve knowingly in a place where they would fail - why is G-d not responsible, at least in part, for the results?  He was the one that knew better - certainly better than Adam and Eve - but G-d is not responsible?  Was not King David held responsible for placing Uriah in a circumstance where he would die?  And G-d is somehow less knowledgeable?

It seems you are criticizing God for his actions because he has foreknowledge.  But what
kind of human parent are you if you want to bring children into this world knowing full 
well that your child will suffer along the way?  

There is also another tree - it is called the Tree of life.  Associated with this other tree are Cherubim.  The job of the Cherubim is to protect the way.  But Jesus Christ said that he is the way, the truth, and the life?  So if Eden epoch is literal and not symbolic - Jesus is not really the way - the Cherubim are.  Is it possible that the symbolism of the Cherubim includes Jesus?

The Cherubim were not placed to guard the Tree of Life for the salvation of Adam and Eve. They were
placed there to prevent them from eating from it after they had eaten from the forbidden tree.  You
are confusing the role of the Cherubim with the role of Jesus.

Edited February 26, 2020 by TheTanakas
view

[JohnsonJones]

22 hours ago, TheTanakas said:

That depends. If the Garden of Eden is not a literal place, then it would seem the Fall was not a literal event and
thus the plan of salvation is not literal either.  I never heard of the concept of the Garden of Eden being symbolic
of our pre-existence.

This can be an interesting venue of discussion but generally falls into the arena of deep doctrine where many things that were stated about such items have been misunderstood in the Past.

A Prime example is what people call the Adam-God doctrine.  In this, Brigham Young expressed several ideas.  These ideas had that Adam had a Father and the Savior was also the Son of the same Father.  Adam was immortal and ate from the fruits of mortality (which had gained their nutrients from the sun and soil of the earth) thus filling or charging his system with the nutrients of death or mortality.  He then had children which in turn had children and continued on till we come to us today.

This could have happened in the Garden of Eden, it may have happened elsewhere, or parts happened in the Garden and parts happened elsewhere.

Unfortunately, this is read at times by those who do not understand what Young's phraseology was to infer that Adam was not just the Son of his Heavenly Father, but in fact the Father of Heaven himself (which is something Brigham Young did not say, or else he was constantly contradicting himself through the years when he referred to them differently and as different personages).  This is not what Brigham Young meant, but it is what many who have studied it have come to the conclusion that he meant.  This item was so confusing that later prophets tried to also point out that Brigham Young had referred to Adam as the Son of the Father spiritually on multiple occasions as well as that Adam was sent to earth BY his Father to perform this mission in mortality. 

Brigham Young said some things regarding Adam and his mission here, but as they have been misunderstood, many of them have been put the side during the 20th century due to how much people misunderstood what he stated.  In fact, the misunderstanding of President Youngs teachings were stated to be incorrect and the Adam-God doctrine is officially NOT part of our doctrine.  The teachings of Brigham Young still affect our doctrine today however, as the teachings of three separate beings in the Godhead and that Adam was immortal in the Garden until he took of the fruit and became mortal (and was the SON of a Father in heaven as are we, as found in the scriptures) are still seen today in teachings of the church found in multiple locations.

However, in that same light, he also had it that these things were symbolic in the Bible.  Adam is the word for man, and as such the Biblical story ALSO represents each of us and our own progression in life and through eternity.

Thus the story found in the scriptures is literal to a degree, but also very symbolic.  Where that literal story ends and the symbolic one ends can be difficult to know...but we know from Luke 3:38 that Adam was the son of God.

These deep doctrines can lead to great confusion and many times are best to be avoided.  If read with the Spirit and prayful study it can sometimes be enlightening to one and lead to a greater understanding, but it is something that can be perilous if done too lightly (or seriously) in our day and age.  Much of what we may study is not necessarily the basic doctrines of the Gospel and cannot be espoused as such.

It has led me to wonder at times though that if the story of Adam can also be seen as symbolic of our own mortal existence and path towards finding heaven, if the same could be applied to Noah in some way or form more so than what I have looked at upon the surface.

Edited February 26, 2020 by JohnsonJones