Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Recommended Posts

I had a few questions on the GC talk.

"To add further sorrow and complexity to their circumstance, their transgression had 
spiritual consequences as well, cutting them off from the presence of God forever. Because 
we were then born into that fallen world and because we too would transgress the laws of 
God, we also were sentenced to the same penalties that Adam and Eve faced.

What a plight! The entire human race in free fall—every man, woman, and child in it physically 
tumbling toward permanent death, spiritually plunging toward eternal anguish
."

What specific laws (plural) did Adam and Eve transgress and what specific penalties did Adam 
and Eve face which would cause us to be sentenced with the same penalties?  Are mortality
and the ability to procreate two of these penalities?

In LDS theology, is a new born child spiritually separated from God (suffering the same 
penalty as Adam and Eve experienced) or is the new born child only considered 'fallen'
in the sense that he or she is born with mortality?

Thanks,
Jim

Link to comment

Our Savior saved us so now no worries.

The part of the talk you quoted had to do with what our situation would have been if we had had no Savior to save us.

We don't know if Adam and Eve broke other laws or commandments of God after they left Eden but it seems likely that they did something else that was a sin. If not the only thing they did wrong was to eat some fruit that they were told not to eat.

Yes.

No. The ability to procreate is not a penalty of sin.

Yes.

 

Edited by Ahab
Link to comment
9 hours ago, theplains said:

I had a few questions on the GC talk.

"To add further sorrow and complexity to their circumstance, their transgression had 
spiritual consequences as well, cutting them off from the presence of God forever. Because 
we were then born into that fallen world and because we too would transgress the laws of 
God, we also were sentenced to the same penalties that Adam and Eve faced.

What a plight! The entire human race in free fall—every man, woman, and child in it physically 
tumbling toward permanent death, spiritually plunging toward eternal anguish
."

What specific laws (plural) did Adam and Eve transgress and what specific penalties did Adam 
and Eve face which would cause us to be sentenced with the same penalties?  Are mortality
and the ability to procreate two of these penalities?

In LDS theology, is a new born child spiritually separated from God (suffering the same 
penalty as Adam and Eve experienced) or is the new born child only considered 'fallen'
in the sense that he or she is born with mortality?

Thanks,
Jim

In LDS theology every man, woman and child would unavoidably be subject to everlasting physical death and total spiritual death if the consequences of the fall were not mitigated by the atonement of Christ. Through the atonement of Christ, little children are given an eight year grace period during which they are not held morally culpable before God for the fallen human imperfections they demonstrate by their thoughts and actions. In other words, little children are not held morally responsible before God by the mere fact that they are little children, but the eight year grace period of moral innocence before God is made possible only through the salvative work of Christ. In the final anayisis, if there is any good in the universe it only exists because of the atoning Christ. Without the redeeming work of Christ everyone, including little children, would be forever immersed in abject spiritual darkness.

 12 But little children are alive in Christ, even from the foundation of the world; if not so, God is a partial God, and also a changeable God, and a respecter to persons; for how many little children have died without baptism! (Moroni 8:12)

Therefore, little children are not born innocent before God simply because they are little children, they are born innocent because through the atonement they are alive in Christ until they arrive at the years when they become morally accountabe before God.

Edited by Bobbieaware
Link to comment
3 hours ago, theplains said:

I had a few questions on the GC talk.

"To add further sorrow and complexity to their circumstance, their transgression had 
spiritual consequences as well, cutting them off from the presence of God forever. Because 
we were then born into that fallen world and because we too would transgress the laws of 
God, we also were sentenced to the same penalties that Adam and Eve faced.

What a plight! The entire human race in free fall—every man, woman, and child in it physically 
tumbling toward permanent death, spiritually plunging toward eternal anguish
."

What specific laws (plural) did Adam and Eve transgress and what specific penalties did Adam 
and Eve face which would cause us to be sentenced with the same penalties?  Are mortality
and the ability to procreate two of these penalities?

In LDS theology, is a new born child spiritually separated from God (suffering the same 
penalty as Adam and Eve experienced) or is the new born child only considered 'fallen'
in the sense that he or she is born with mortality?

Thanks,
Jim

There is really only one sin- it is kind of the Master Sin of which all other sins partake and that sin is Pride

It is said that pride is "emnity" between God and man.  This was seen to be a monumental talk when it was given, and I find it still highly relevant today

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1989/04/beware-of-pride?lang=eng

Every sin puts the will of man before the will of God- it is an assertion of our personal will over what God wants us to do.  That is why it is so tied with agency- in order to sin one must make a choice.That of course conflicts with the idea that mankind is "born bad" because we have no choice about being born and so "original sin" could not be a sin for LDS.

 

Edited by mfbukowski
Link to comment
12 hours ago, theplains said:

I had a few questions on the GC talk.

"To add further sorrow and complexity to their circumstance, their transgression had 
spiritual consequences as well, cutting them off from the presence of God forever. Because 
we were then born into that fallen world and because we too would transgress the laws of 
God, we also were sentenced to the same penalties that Adam and Eve faced.

What a plight! The entire human race in free fall—every man, woman, and child in it physically 
tumbling toward permanent death, spiritually plunging toward eternal anguish
."

What specific laws (plural) did Adam and Eve transgress and what specific penalties did Adam 
and Eve face which would cause us to be sentenced with the same penalties?  Are mortality
and the ability to procreate two of these penalities?

In LDS theology, is a new born child spiritually separated from God (suffering the same 
penalty as Adam and Eve experienced) or is the new born child only considered 'fallen'
in the sense that he or she is born with mortality?

Thanks,
Jim

I'll start by asking a couple more than a couple of questions:

Does a death penalty seem an appropriate response to eating a bit of fruit?

What types of penalties as defined in the Old Testament warrant a death sentence?

Is there some way that Adam and Eve could be charged with one of the crimes that warrant a death penalty?

The principle being that the penalty will equal the crime or it is not just. God is just.

Edited by SamIam
To remove a mote, lest a beam prevail...
Link to comment
2 hours ago, SamIam said:

I'll start by asking a couple of questions:

Does a death penalty seem an appropriate response to eating a bit of fruit?

What types of penalties as defined in the Old Testament warrant a death sentence?

Is there some way that Adam and Eve could be charged with one of the crimes that warrant a death penalty?

The principle being that the penalty will equal the crime or it is not just. God is just.

That's what you're going to start with?  A couple of questions, but then you ask three?

Sorry, just joshing you.

You're really going to say that mortality is a death sentence?  OK, if you insist.  Because on October 3, 1951 I was sentenced to death.  Just for being born.  That's my birthday, by the way.  My birthday wish list is available upon request! :D

It is recorded that Adam and Eve became subject to death because they partook of food that changed their bodies from immortal to mortal. Just like I'd probably die if I fried up and ate a batch of Amanita phalloides (aka death cap).  It's not that I committed a sin, but the mushroom doesn't know that.  It was trying to tell everyone who saw me do it that by golly you better not eat my reproductive bodies!  

A death penalty is a punishment for law-breaking, and is executed upon adjudication as soon as possible.  Adam and Eve's transgression has NOTHING to do with any death penalty.  A child must leave its parents' home to fulfill the measure of its creation, just like Adam and Eve had to leave the garden to fulfill theirs.  They could have chosen to remain there forever.  We don't know how long it took for them to get the idea of transgressing that rule against eating the fruit.  Was it a day?  A week?  A year?  A million years?  Sin is a product of choice, and it was absolutely necessary that Adam and Eve have free choice.  And maybe they got bored!  In any case, they partook and entered mortality.  

When you had your breakfast this morning, did you eat a fried egg?  Or did you eat a chicken embryo?  Semantics is the study of how to make outlandish things sound perfectly reasonable, and vice-versa.  And your question about death penalty is an exercise in semantic trickery.  Thanks for playing!

Link to comment
13 hours ago, theplains said:

I had a few questions on the GC talk.

"To add further sorrow and complexity to their circumstance, their transgression had 
spiritual consequences as well, cutting them off from the presence of God forever. Because 
we were then born into that fallen world and because we too would transgress the laws of 
God, we also were sentenced to the same penalties that Adam and Eve faced.

What a plight! The entire human race in free fall—every man, woman, and child in it physically 
tumbling toward permanent death, spiritually plunging toward eternal anguish
."

What specific laws (plural) did Adam and Eve transgress and what specific penalties did Adam 
and Eve face which would cause us to be sentenced with the same penalties?  Are mortality
and the ability to procreate two of these penalities?

In LDS theology, is a new born child spiritually separated from God (suffering the same 
penalty as Adam and Eve experienced) or is the new born child only considered 'fallen'
in the sense that he or she is born with mortality?

Thanks,
Jim

Adam and Eve transgressed the laws of Eden (paradise, terrestrial world, etc.), the penalty being no progress into higher laws. This cascaded into other penalties such as: subjecting themselves to separation from God, Satan’s influence, the natural laws that work against life, and the ultimate separation of the body and spirit. This did not offset the fact that procreation was one commandment they chose to keep, and with its attendant blessings.

So Adam and Eve suffered bringing children into a lesser world than they came from, even a world of death where the children can suffer and rejoice under the same laws as, or no differently than, the parents.

Of course, the Lord turned both mortality and procreation into opportunities for progress into higher laws and greater blessings. Otherwise, Adam and Eve may well have ended it right there with a suicide pact had the not already chosen to obey the law of procreation.

So newborns are fallen in the sense that they are born into mortality, but neither can they progress into higher laws without the Atonement of Jesus Christ, who turns both mortality and procreation into opportunities for progress into higher laws and greater blessings.

Link to comment
10 hours ago, SamIam said:

I'll start by asking a couple more than a couple of questions:

Does a death penalty seem an appropriate response to eating a bit of fruit?
Fruit was symbolic.  And scripture indicates that the wages of sin are death.  Any sin.

What types of penalties as defined in the Old Testament warrant a death sentence?
Under OT law some required death, some didn't.  Under eternal law, all sin requires death.  Hence the need for a Savior.

The principle being that the penalty will equal the crime or it is not just. God is just.
There is only one penalty for sin.

 

Link to comment
12 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

This was seen to be a monumental talk when it was given, and I find it still highly relevant today

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1989/04/beware-of-pride?lang=eng

I wasn't aware that pronouncement was considered to be monumental at that time but I was very impressed with it. I had just recently joined the Church and that was the first Ensign article I read that was from who I then accepted as a modern Prophet of God.

It kinda started me off on the right foot, so to speak.

Link to comment
5 hours ago, SamIam said:

Indeed we are all so intelligent and have all the answers...

Well, I certainly wish I had them all...

Quote

Alas while liver failure may not be your lot perhaps simply a Psilocybin induced altered state might be sufficient to account for such ramblings of birthdays, wish lists and fried eggs.   And this while implying that they were in a state of eternal existence and then became mortal as a result of decisions made. If one was eternal and then was mandated a state of mortal that alone can be understood to be some type of death sentence. At first Adam couldn't die but then he could and yet the more prudent recognize that the initial death sentence was the spiritual death imposed upon mankind that was "adjudicated as soon as possible"Genesis 2:17 surely must be realized to have a death penalty implication if they are warned that upon a certain behavior they "will surely die".

And while, if memory serves, it was Brigham Young who spoke of fruits and falls and physical changes yet his was not the only word on the subject and a genuine seeker of truth harvests from all venues and not only from that considered suitable to affirm personal preference.  Other Prophets recognize different interpretations: " Adam’s transgression was banishment from the presence of God and bringing physical death into the world"  was observed by President Joseph Fielding Smith. I suspect that both you and I could continue to provide list upon list, quote upon quote of sound LDS resourced material that speaks in similar fashion of the implications of death imposed upon all mankind as a result of the fall and the choices of Adam and Eve.  Yet I suspect that rhetoric of how "outlandish things" are the substance of the claims of God are in short supply and only sourced from the stupor of late night efforts of unsuccessful intellectual intent.  Indeed, I may be bold to suggest but I am most confident that neither Adam nor Eve engaged the Father in subsequent discussion after the judgment was rendered of the semantics of how "outlandish" it was to suppose that they were really going to die while accusing Him of "semantic trickery" that He should insist that it was so.  

Where I am going is scripturally sustainable with a couple of Jewish references tossed in for good measure. Nonetheless, it is not one of those things that we simply thrust out there for the fact that radically brilliant observations that magnify the standard fair must be savored slowly or they simply shock and astonish and perhaps are deemed affrontive and are tossed underfoot without suitable consideration.  However, it is one of those things that those who already are possessed of such eclectic prescience as yourself cannot consider, having answered all the riddles of the universe already.  However, if you are patient there may be one or two yet unresolved conundrums that you have yet to fathom - I believe this to be one.  However, again if you are patient and perhaps a hint less condemning of the act of conversational engagement where individuals join together to share and contemplate with courtesy and consideration of one another's thoughts you might, perhaps just maybe, learn something and maybe, just maybe you might make a brilliant observation of your own.  I'm not holding my breath on that but pass the mushrooms and lets see where this train lets off.     

 

What a densely-packed formation of thought!  I especially enjoyed the eclectic mix of metaphors, and the cleverly veiled intellectual insults.  Note that I am not offended -- on the contrary I am impressed by your facility in that regard! Unlike your original post, this one required rather more careful parsing to get what you're trying to say.  Probably because it was denser than what I am used to, or I am not as smart as you seem to think I am.  Or else you really do think I was writing while under the influence of some strange drug.  

So, you're saying that if I tell my child that if he jumps off the cliffs of Dover he will surely die, this constitutes a death sentence?

When I got my first drivers license, my father told me (in an obvious attempt to impress upon me the gravity of my new responsibility) that now I had a license to kill.  Rather than letting him have his moment of sincere parental advice, I took him to task about it, since to me "license" implied permission, and there was no way I had any kind of permission to kill anyone, simply because I had permission to drive an automobile without supervision.  He did not enjoy my resistant attitude.  And in truth I was being a jerk.

But I still don't care for his metaphor, and I still think that equating The Fall with the term "death sentence" is an instance of semantic trickery.

Perhaps I was being too "affrontive", however, so I apologize.

Edited by Stargazer
Link to comment

bump

 

Edited by mfbukowski
Link to comment
On 4/3/2017 at 10:31 PM, mfbukowski said:

That is why it is so tied with agency- in order to sin one must make a choice.That of course conflicts with the idea that mankind is "born bad" because we have no choice about being born and so "original sin" could not be a sin for LDS.

 

I don't think I can agree with this statement as I understand it.

 

We did choose to be born.  Those that chose to not be born followed the Devil and are his "angels".  Those that chose to do God's will and be born are not "born bad" and are not tainted with "original sin" either. 

Link to comment
8 minutes ago, Vance said:

I don't think I can agree with this statement as I understand it.

 

We did choose to be born.  Those that chose to not be born followed the Devil and are his "angels".  Those that chose to do God's will and be born are not "born bad" and are not tainted with "original sin" either. 

Good point- that was said poorly

Link to comment

We are each and all Adam and Eve.

We each made a choice to participate in the world-slash-hell.  That constitutes each of us 'partaking of the fruit'.  (Thus we see, that it is always our own choice, and not the works of an original couple.)

It seems at first that there is penalty and separation (i.e. death), because there is so much suffering here and we are covered by the veil of forgetfulness.  And, indeed, we find ourselves in many chains and blindnesses and pain and loss.  Hard to breathe, even.

But as we walk (live) CHRIST, hell falls away; and we find that we were in heaven all along and never left, never were unloved, never unknown, never ashamed; only 'now' we have been endowed with power and priesthood; which were endowed to us by virtue of our descent into hell (=baptism) and our Christ-walk out of it (=overcame); we 'wear' our Earth/robes; we have been refined by our fires (we were the son on the table=Isaac); we have been brought into one heart and one mind with one another (=Zion).

Link to comment
On 4/4/2017 at 0:32 AM, SamIam said:

I'll start by asking a couple more than a couple of questions:

Does a death penalty seem an appropriate response to eating a bit of fruit?

What types of penalties as defined in the Old Testament warrant a death sentence?

Is there some way that Adam and Eve could be charged with one of the crimes that warrant a death penalty?

The principle being that the penalty will equal the crime or it is not just. God is just.

I would say a death penalty is only an appropriate response to eating fruit if one knows that is the result. I do not believe someone swimming to the bottom of a reactor pool and hugging the fuel rods is worthy of death but if it happens and if there is a signage and/or guards warning you and/or shooting at you to get you to stop then it is your decision.

Only the most heinous of crimes warrant a death sentence in the Bible. You know, things like murder, adultery, picking up sticks on the Sabbath, those kinds of things.

Probably not, what they did was not so much a crime as much as a conscious choice to die in exchange for something else.

Not all penalties come from crimes. In the end death is a mercy. I mean, do you want to live in this world forever like it is now?

Edited by The Nehor
Link to comment
2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I would say a death penalty is only an appropriate response to eating fruit if one knows that is the result. I do not believe someone swimming to the bottom of a reactor pool and hugging the fuel rods is worthy of death but if it happens and if there is a signage and/or guards warning you and/or shooting at you to get you to stop then it is your decision.

Only the most heinous of crimes warrant a death sentence in the Bible. You know, things like murder, adultery, picking up sticks on the Sabbath, those kinds of things.

Probably not, what they did was not so much a crime as much as a conscious choice to die in exchange for something else.

Not all penalties come from crimes. In the end death is a mercy. I mean, do you want to live in this world forever like it is now?

I had already provided a initiatory post in response to JHLPROF but I went back and deleted it as there seemed no interest manifest and I didn't want to leave a partial incomplete answer without the complete picture so that it made sense.  I also noted that the author of the OP wasn't even participating in the discussion and I have to admit I actually took a bit of umbrage.  I have participated off and on here at Mormon Dialogue for over 5 years.   However, I have to admit I am not very good with the atmosphere. I'm not good with the short response and I put a lot of effort in my often lengthy responses but I feel like no one is really genuinely interested in sharing in the process of exchange...preferring glib disinterest over learning from each other....enough belly aching. I apologize but I am hoping to stir up a real process of sharing back and forth for the reward of the exchange. 

The three questions I asked for instance - they do have legitimate answers.  When you state "Not all penalties come from crimes. In the end death is a mercy" it doesn't manifest a sense of God's order or a perception of his character.  It makes it sound like he can be somewhat arbitrary when I am sure that He was perfectly justified in charging them in the way He did and instituting the penalty was required for their initiatory step into the plan of salvation. They had to earn death.  Even if what you said were spot on, and it could be from a 100,000 foot level, it is not reflective of the detailed process and the order and the exactness of detail that is required for the plan of Salvation to cover all of the requirements that satisfy the various juxtapositions of laws that enable the plan to work.

You hit on a few things quite precisely but it does not seem you have imbued them with the significance they merit.  I will go ahead  and repeat my initial response here as it takes both yours and JHLPROF positions into consideration and if anyone is interested in a back and forth exchange of ideologies then we can try to develop the process. This is far from complete and  I apologize for seeming so whiny but this is material I have worked on for over 15 years and it is very important to me...enough said here was my original response and we'll see where this goes.

 

Quote

On 4/4/2017 at 9:50 AM, JLHPROF said:

I'll start by asking a couple more than a couple of questions:

Does a death penalty seem an appropriate response to eating a bit of fruit?
Fruit was symbolic.  And scripture indicates that the wages of sin are death.  Any sin.

What types of penalties as defined in the Old Testament warrant a death sentence?
Under OT law some required death, some didn't.  Under eternal law, all sin requires death.  Hence the need for a Savior.

The principle being that the penalty will equal the crime or it is not just. God is just.
There is only one penalty for sin.

 

All in all a reasonable start. The fruit was symbolic however, concerning sin, most accept that the reality of sin in the preexistence is without question.  Well, at least within the supportable statements of scripture and prophets and apostles we accept that there is a strong element of support for the doctrine. It is apparent that these preexistent sins did not warrant an immediate death penalty or perhaps better stated, an exile from the presence of the Father which we know as spiritual death.    The question becomes was there something or some element of what Adam and Eve did that that could produce a charge of sin sufficient to warrant death.  We have to be very specific here as we are discussing nuts and bolts of how certain laws are played out by God to effect the proper conditions for the plan of salvation to be effective and to justify the delineation of the population of God's children into different groupings - telestial , terrestrial, Celestial. 

I am using the term "charge" very specifically as I am not saying they committed the actual sin for which they were charged but the charge had the similar effect as we might observe in our own judicial system.  For instance if a man was charged with murder he, in most cases, would be incarcerated, his freedoms curtailed while evidence was gathered pretrial to either exonerate him or to prove his guilt. In the Old Testament intentional murder had a death penalty attached. If such a situation occurred in the prefall period we could then put specificity to the charge under which Adam and Eve find their freedoms curtailed while a probationary period is declared so that evidence can be gathered that will either exonerate or validate the charge against them.   To advance the discussion further we can look at some verses that on the surface seem like little more than eyelid weights but when looked upon for the types, shadows and imagery they imply they become exciting, tantalizing commentaries on the plan of salvation sufficient to lift those weights into wide eyed stares of incredulity.

 

Quote

Deuteronomy 19:4-12

4 And this is the case of the slayer, which shall flee thither, that he may live: Whoso killeth his neighbour ignorantly, whom he hated not in time past;

5 As when a man goeth into the wood with his neighbour to hew wood, and his hand fetcheth a stroke with the axe to cut down the tree, and the head slippeth from the helve, and lighteth upon his neighbour, that he die; he shall flee unto one of those cities, and live:

6 Lest the avenger of the blood pursue the slayer, while his heart is hot, and overtake him, because the way is long, and slay him; whereas he was not worthy of death, inasmuch as he hated him not in time past.

7 Wherefore I command thee, saying, Thou shalt separate three cities for thee.

                       10 That innocent blood be not shed in thy land, which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance, and so blood be upon thee.

11 But if any man hate his neighbour, and lie in wait for him, and rise up against him, and smite him mortally that he die, and fleeth into one of these cities:

12 Then the elders of his city shall send and fetch him thence, and deliver him into the hand of the avenger of blood, that he may die.

                       13 Thine eye shall not pity him, but thou shalt put away the guilt of innocent blood from Israel, that it may go well with thee. (Also Joshua 20:9)

 

Now these verses define two types of murderer - an accidental one and an intentional one.  Now us Anglo's often breeze right by things of this nature in the Old Testament because we lack cultural understandings which might enhance the implications  of what is being said but I'll add one final reference to bring this under a Jewish banner of interpretation:

 

Quote

Midrash Rabbah - Numbers XXIII:13 THEN YE SHALL APPOINT YOU CITIES OF REFUGE... THAT THE MANSLAYER... MAY FLEE THITHER (XXXV, 11). This bears on the Scriptural texts, Good and upright is the Lord, therefore doth He instruct sinners in the way (Ps. XXV, 8). Remember, O Lord, Thy compassions and Thy mercies (ib. 6). David says: Sovereign of the Universe! Were it not for Thy mercies which came to the timely assistance of Adam, he could not have survived. For it says, In the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die (Gen. II, 17), but Thou didst not do so unto him. Thou didst merely exclude him from the Garden of Eden and he lived nine hundred and thirty years, and only then did he die. What didst Thou do to him? Thou didst merely drive him from the Garden of Eden; as it says, So He drove out the man (ib. III, 24). Why was he driven out? Because he brought death upon future generations, and deserved to die immediately, but Thou didst have compassion upon him and didst drive him out, as is the fate of one who commits murder in error, such a man having to be an exile from his own home to the cities of refuge. Consequently it says, ‘Remember, O Lord, Thy compassions and Thy mercies,’ for they have been from of old (Ps. XXV, 6).

Now this quote is not to be taken as 100% doctrinally correct but it leads us to the considerations that might get us in the right frame of mind to understand the implications of the fall and how it applies to Adam and Eve and to answer the OP as to what was the act that required them being cast out and why. 

This will require a few more posts as there is some information concerning cities of refuge and the role of the high priest who resided there.  This scripture will lead to this important consideration:

Quote

 

Numbers 35:30-32

30 Whoso killeth any person, the murderer shall be put to death by the mouth of witnesses: but one witness shall not testify against any person to cause him to die.

31 Moreover ye shall take no satisfaction for the life of a murderer, which is guilty of death: but he shall be surely put to death.

32 And ye shall take no satisfaction for him that is fled to the city of his refuge, that he should come again to dwell in the land, until the death of the priest.

If we start assigning names to roles and circumstances to conditions in these verses ( and a couple more to come later) the elements of the fall and how it works begin to become manifest.  Who is the avenger of blood? Who was murdered? Who is the priest? Who is the murderer.  How long is the accidental murderer prevented from returning to the lands of his inheritance? What are the lands of his inheritance? Why must he remain in exile until the death of the priest? Does the death of the priest shadow anything? Who are those found guilty of murder who are turned over to the avenger of Blood? What is the relationship of the Avenger of Blood to the one who was slain? Why is he equally innocent of any crime if he slays the accidental murderer or the intentional one before they make it to the city of refuge? Is there symbolism associated with the only limitation on the avenger of blood - that he cannot slay the murderer as long as he is under the protection of the high priest? What happens if the accidental murderer leaves the protection of the high priests while the high priest lives? Why would all of Israel be guilty of innocent blood if these conditions are not met? Is innocent blood a significant distinction?  Why does the Avenger of Blood mercifully allow the high priest to protect the innocent slayer?

We are somewhat starting in the middle here and it is difficult for me to see if this is sensible as I already know where I'm going and so it seems fine to me.  Let me know...

Edited by SamIam
Link to comment
On 4/3/2017 at 11:32 PM, SamIam said:

Does a death penalty seem an appropriate response to eating a bit of fruit?

As others noted it's not necessary to read it as a penalty. i.e. you broke the law then I'm going to punish you. Rather the more typical Mormon reading is that the consequence of eating the fruit was knowledge and mortality. That it's not a penalty is found in the JST revision. "Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die" (Moses 4:9) In this version Satan indirectly tells Eve "For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil." (Moses 4:11) That happened immediately which is why they hid from God. Their eyes had been opened. The casting from the garden was to prevent them from eating of the tree of life and living forever in their sins. (Moses 4:28) So it was a blessing, not a curse, as most Mormons see it. (This is quite at odds with most Christians who see it entirely as a curse) In fact with the Book of Mormon and a few other accounts typically Mormons view Eve as the hero of the story doing what was necessary to bring life and knowledge into the world. And death was seen ultimately as a positive not negative thing.

 

 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, SamIam said:

I had already provided a initiatory post in response to JHLPROF but I went back and deleted it as there seemed no interest manifest and I didn't want to leave a partial incomplete answer without the complete picture so that it made sense.  I also noted that the author of the OP wasn't even participating in the discussion and I have to admit I actually took a bit of umbrage.  I have participated off and on here at Mormon Dialogue for over 5 years.   However, I have to admit I am not very good with the atmosphere. I'm not good with the short response and I put a lot of effort in my often lengthy responses but I feel like no one is really genuinely interested in sharing in the process of exchange...preferring glib disinterest over learning from each other....enough belly aching. I apologize but I am hoping to stir up a real process of sharing back and forth for the reward of the exchange. 

The three questions I asked for instance - they do have legitimate answers.  When you state "Not all penalties come from crimes. In the end death is a mercy" it doesn't manifest a sense of God's order or a perception of his character.  It makes it sound like he can be somewhat arbitrary when I am sure that He was perfectly justified in charging them in the way He did and instituting the penalty was required for their initiatory step into the plan of salvation. They had to earn death.  Even if what you said were spot on, and it could be from a 100,000 foot level, it is not reflective of the detailed process and the order and the exactness of detail that is required for the plan of Salvation to cover all of the requirements that satisfy the various juxtapositions of laws that enable the plan to work.

You hit on a few things quite precisely but it does not seem you have imbued them with the significance they merit.  I will go ahead  and repeat my initial response here as it takes both yours and JHLPROF positions into consideration and if anyone is interested in a back and forth exchange of ideologies then we can try to develop the process. This is far from complete and  I apologize for seeming so whiny but this is material I have worked on for over 15 years and it is very important to me...enough said here was my original response and we'll see where this goes.

 

 

All in all a reasonable start. The fruit was symbolic however, concerning sin, most accept that the reality of sin in the preexistence is without question.  Well, at least within the supportable statements of scripture and prophets and apostles we accept that there is a strong element of support for the doctrine. It is apparent that these preexistent sins did not warrant an immediate death penalty or perhaps better stated, an exile from the presence of the Father which we know as spiritual death.    The question becomes was there something or some element of what Adam and Eve did that that could produce a charge of sin sufficient to warrant death.  We have to be very specific here as we are discussing nuts and bolts of how certain laws are played out by God to effect the proper conditions for the plan of salvation to be effective and to justify the delineation of the population of God's children into different groupings - telestial , terrestrial, Celestial. 

I am using the term "charge" very specifically as I am not saying they committed the actual sin for which they were charged but the charge had the similar effect as we might observe in our own judicial system.  For instance if a man was charged with murder he, in most cases, would be incarcerated, his freedoms curtailed while evidence was gathered pretrial to either exonerate him or to prove his guilt. In the Old Testament intentional murder had a death penalty attached. If such a situation occurred in the prefall period we could then put specificity to the charge under which Adam and Eve find their freedoms curtailed while a probationary period is declared so that evidence can be gathered that will either exonerate or validate the charge against them.   To advance the discussion further we can look at some verses that on the surface seem like little more than eyelid weights but when looked upon for the types, shadows and imagery they imply they become exciting, tantalizing commentaries on the plan of salvation sufficient to lift those weights into wide eyed stares of incredulity.

 

 

Now these verses define two types of murderer - an accidental one and an intentional one.  Now us Anglo's often breeze right by things of this nature in the Old Testament because we lack cultural understandings which might enhance the implications  of what is being said but I'll add one final reference to bring this under a Jewish banner of interpretation:

 

Now this quote is not to be taken as 100% doctrinally correct but it leads us to the considerations that might get us in the right frame of mind to understand the implications of the fall and how it applies to Adam and Eve and to answer the OP as to what was the act that required them being cast out and why. 

This will require a few more posts as there is some information concerning cities of refuge and the role of the high priest who resided there.  This scripture will lead to this important consideration:

If we start assigning names to roles and circumstances to conditions in these verses ( and a couple more to come later) the elements of the fall and how it works begin to become manifest.  Who is the avenger of blood? Who was murdered? Who is the priest? Who is the murderer.  How long is the accidental murderer prevented from returning to the lands of his inheritance? What are the lands of his inheritance? Why must he remain in exile until the death of the priest? Does the death of the priest shadow anything? Who are those found guilty of murder who are turned over to the avenger of Blood? What is the relationship of the Avenger of Blood to the one who was slain? Why is he equally innocent of any crime if he slays the accidental murderer or the intentional one before they make it to the city of refuge? Is there symbolism associated with the only limitation on the avenger of blood - that he cannot slay the murderer as long as he is under the protection of the high priest? What happens if the accidental murderer leaves the protection of the high priests while the high priest lives? Why would all of Israel be guilty of innocent blood if these conditions are not met? Is innocent blood a significant distinction?  Why does the Avenger of Blood mercifully allow the high priest to protect the innocent slayer?

We are somewhat starting in the middle here and it is difficult for me to see if this is sensible as I already know where I'm going and so it seems fine to me.  Let me know...

That is a lot of words.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Atheist Mormon said:

Yea right Ahab!!!!! No worries....

How come I've been in trouble (constantly) since I've been born?

Be of good cheer.  These things shall give thee experience and be for thy good.  Whatever doesn't kill you just makes you stronger as you learn to put things in the proper perspective. And death isn't so bad either, really.  Life is like a box of chocolates; you never know what you are going to get. 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

As others noted it's not necessary to read it as a penalty. i.e. you broke the law then I'm going to punish you. Rather the more typical Mormon reading is that the consequence of eating the fruit was knowledge and mortality. That it's not a penalty is found in the JST revision. "Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die" (Moses 4:9) In this version Satan indirectly tells Eve "For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil." (Moses 4:11) That happened immediately which is why they hid from God. Their eyes had been opened. The casting from the garden was to prevent them from eating of the tree of life and living forever in their sins. (Moses 4:28) So it was a blessing, not a curse, as most Mormons see it. (This is quite at odds with most Christians who see it entirely as a curse) In fact with the Book of Mormon and a few other accounts typically Mormons view Eve as the hero of the story doing what was necessary to bring life and knowledge into the world. And death was seen ultimately as a positive not negative thing.

When we look at the end of the process, sure everything comes out to the best advantage for all mankind.  However, the Fall and the atonement which overcomes it are very delicately balanced scenarios that must satisfy certain conditions.  It is these conditions that when properly juxtaposed against each other provide for certain very significant contingencies.  We're talking about a balance that if not properly met would result in several dire consequences.  If justice and mercy are not properly addressed God could cease to be God, man is in a state that prior to the atonement could justly result in his eternal death (an interesting pairing of concepts).  We cannot develop this concept further until we are willing to observe the conditions are weighty and require proper handing before the various issues can resolve satisfactorily: Consider:

Quote

 

2 Nephi 2:21

21 And the days of the children of men were prolonged, according to the will of God, that they might repent while in the flesh; wherefore, their state became a state of probation, and their time was lengthened, according to the commandments which the Lord God gave unto the children of men. For he gave commandment that all men must repent; for he showed unto all men that they were lost, because of the transgression of their parents.

 

Nephi is here saying that all men were lost and it was because of the very condition that some are saying is not an issue of a penalty.  It has to be an issue of demands of law being satisfied

that has placed them in this position, otherwise what price is the Savior going to pay with his innocent blood if there really was no charge that warranted that response. There are dozens of verses that speak to these very precise conditions but we tend to step over them and not think deeply enough concerning them.  In your comments, which tend to a positive overview, are you not positing a very real threat to Adam and Eve's eternal potential.  Why would they live forever in their sins if they partook of the tree of life?  Is there no real condition that justifies that perspective and that penalty? Maybe it is an obvious question to some, but why would they live forever in their sins if the sum total of their efforts was "a positive not negative thing". What did they do that warranted their death under any condition, let alone partaking of the tree of life? Consider upon the type and shadow of the Avenger of Blood scenario that I posted above it gives overlay and specifics to the Fall that upon deep thought can begin to take us in the direction I hope to go.  However, there is no need to go until we understand the gravity of what is happening.  This is important because when we discover what the charge was with Adam and Eve we will know better what is the same burden is shouldered by all mankind - specifically ourselves.

Edited by SamIam
Link to comment
1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

That is a lot of words.

I'm probably being too generous but will give a second chance with a shorter response to see if there is any genuine interest...Consider upon this set of verses:

Quote

(Alma 5:22-23.)

 

22 And now I ask of you, my brethren, how will any of you feel, if ye shall stand before the bar of God, having your garments stained with blood and all manner of filthiness? Behold, what will these things testify against you?

 

23 Behold will they not testify that ye are murderers, yea, and also that ye are guilty of all manner of wickedness?

Out of context, this couple of verses is not adequately focused but if we add verse 6 from the same chapter we find the audience to whom these words are addressed.

(Alma 5:6.)

 

6 And now behold, I say unto you, my brethren, you that belong to this church, have you sufficiently retained in remembrance the captivity of your fathers? Yea, and have you sufficiently retained in remembrance his mercy and long-suffering towards them? And moreover, have ye sufficiently retained in remembrance that he has delivered their souls from hell?

 

So he is addressing the good guys...the members of the church.  Why would they be classed as murderers if they had not actually taken another life.  We surely don't imagine that the entire congregation even has the potential to be guilty of another man's life and yet Alma is defining a perspective that makes them murderers.  Why?

Here are a couple of other verses from the same chapter that add to the weighty matters:

 

Quote

Alma 5:14, 62

 

14 And now behold, I ask of you, my brethren of the church, have ye spiritually been born of God? Have ye received his image in your countenances? Have ye experienced this mighty change in your hearts?

62 I speak by way of command unto you that belong to the church; and unto those who do not belong to the church I speak by way of invitation, saying: Come and be baptized unto repentance, that ye also may be partakers of the fruit of the tree of life.

He speaks to some who are not members but he gives them the manner in which they too can avoid being classed as murderers - by repentance.  How does repentance enable you or I to avoid being classed as murderers - how could we be classed as murderers anyway - we haven't killed anyone....

Edited by SamIam
Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...