Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Jehovah and His Premortal Ministry


Recommended Posts

34 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

I some additional questions.

Did God create the tree of the knowledge of good and evil?

If not, how did it get in the garden?

If so, does God know evil?

If so, why is it bad for man to know evil?

How can we be like Yeshua, if we don't know evil?

1- yes; 2- by Priesthood "templates"; 3- of course (He went through mortal probation and NOW knows ALL things); 4- no, it is not bad (just don't obsess about it and simply put things in its appropriate places); 5- Jesus spent 40 days in the wilderness being confronted by the wiles of Satan, in the Garden of Gethsemane He was crushed by everything horrible (the "Bitter Cup" descending below all things), we are absolutely given the opportunity to see, experience and to choose between good and evil.

I have commented in previous threads that every implementation of the "Plan of Salvation" (for each "Eternal Round" for each generation of the Gods) must be done in and through the Everlasting Priesthood.  All covenants, keys, offices, presiding authorities, functions, recruitment of Intelligences (to become spirit children), etc.  The "current" Plan of Salvation (to be implemented by the presiding God) cannot be considered unless a "Lamb of God" has been chosen (God must physically look into the "Meridian of Time" to verify the accomplishment/fulfilment of the Atonement) before proceeding with the Creation.

In the Creation, the Garden of Eden must carefully be set up so that Adam and Eve can be given commandments and choices.  Two commands:  1- be fruitful and multiply; 2- do not touch the tree or any part of it.  These commands could NOT both be obeyed, they were mutually exclusive.  God had to be absolutely circumspect in NOT unduly influencing their decision about partaking of the fruit (i.e. to proceed with obtaining the capacity for bearing children and in consequence bringing about the Fall, the desired objective).

Every aspect of the "Plan of Salvation" is facilitated with the use of templates provided by the Priesthood.  It enables the creation (organisation) of the first man.  Which is why I totally reject the contention of some members of this board that God has to use evolution for forming human bodies.  Certain steps have to be approved by the Council of the Gods.  All done by covenants.

Link to comment
2 hours ago, RevTestament said:

I have some additional questions.

Did God create the tree of the knowledge of good and evil?

Genesis 2:8 And the Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed. 9 And out of the ground made the Lord God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

2 hours ago, RevTestament said:

If not, how did it get in the garden?

N/A

2 hours ago, RevTestament said:

If so, does God know evil?

If so, why is it bad for man to know evil?

How can we be like Yeshua, if we don't know evil?

Genesis 3:22  And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever: 23 Therefore the Lord God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.

I would add that it is bad to know evil because evil is bad.  It wouldn't be correct to think it is good to know what is evil, because evil is not good.  It is bad, or evil.

 

Link to comment
3 hours ago, RevTestament said:

I have some additional questions.

Did God create the tree of the knowledge of good and evil?

If not, how did it get in the garden?

If so, does God know evil?

If so, why is it bad for man to know evil?

How can we be like Yeshua, if we don't know evil?

Yes, God made the tree. It has existed on every world designed to lead the children of God to progress through that stage.

God does know evil. 

It is not bad for mankind to know evil. The restriction not to eat of the fruit of the tree was more like a “not yet” commandment. They were not ready yet but would be and then the prohibition would be lifted. Adam and Eve jumpstarted the process for what I suspect were heroic reasons. I will try not to go too deep into my heresy.

We cannot until we know evil.

 

Link to comment
On 9/17/2019 at 6:37 AM, teddyaware said:

1) Do you believe God knows all things from the beginning? 

2) If your answer to question one is in the affirmative, do you believe God knew Adam and Eve were going to fall before he created them? 

3) If your answer to question two is in the affirmative, why would a perfect God go ahead and proceed to create Adam and Eve when he knew beforehand the horrific tragedy that inevitably awaited them?

4) If Adam and Eve had not fallen, do you believe you would have ever existed in some form?

1] Yes
2] Yes. I believe he knew they would eventually sin.
3] You may want to consider why human parents procreate when they know that various things which could
occur to their children (they could kill people; they could suffer from cancer and die prematurely, etc). What
kind of parent would you be knowing all that could happen and yet want to procreate with your wife?
4] If Adam and Eve had not fallen, their relationship with God would have remained intact. I believe they had
the ability to procreate before the fall as the animals had the ability to procreate before the fall.

Joseph Smith taught the Fall was not a sin because God had decreed it (1993 General Conference).

The church seems to be moving away from this though:

2018
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/new-testament-student-manual/philippians-and-colossians/chapter-45-philippians-and-colossians?lang=eng

- Jesus Christ is the Only Begotten Son of God the Eternal Father. He is our Creator. 
He is our Teacher. He is our Savior. His atonement paid for the sin of Adam and won 
victory over death, assuring resurrection and immortality for all men.


2008 
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/2008/03/the-atonement-of-jesus-christ?lang=eng

- Some gifts coming from the Atonement are universal, infinite, and unconditional. 
These include His ransom for Adam’s original transgression so that no member of 
the human family is held responsible for that sin.

- For example, while all members of the human family are freely given a reprieve 
from Adam’s sin through no effort of their own, they are not given a reprieve from 
their own sins unless they pledge faith in Christ, repent of those sins, are 
baptized in His name, receive the gift of the Holy Ghost and confirmation into 
Christ’s Church, and press forward in faithful endurance the remainder of life’s 
journey.

Do you believe God knew it would happen and wanted them to disobey (His desired will) or do you believe He
knew it would happen and allowed it to happen (His permissive will)?

Thanks,
Jim

Link to comment
On 9/16/2019 at 9:52 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

The dilemma of two choices was entailed by a command not to eat of the Tree of Knowledge (clearly a figurative tree) along with a command to reproduce.  The innocence of the former prevented the ability to do the latter.

Genesis 2:9 says, "And out of the ground made the Lord God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food;
the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil
. "

Do you believe all these trees were figurative?

Thanks,
Jim

Link to comment
13 minutes ago, theplains said:

Joseph Smith taught the Fall was not a sin because God had decreed it (1993 General Conference).

 No, that is not something he taught/

13 minutes ago, theplains said:

Do you believe God knew it would happen and wanted them to disobey (His desired will) or do you believe He
knew it would happen and allowed it to happen (His permissive will)?

God knew it would happen, that Adam or Eve or both of them would eventually transgress one of his laws, but he never did want them to disobey him.  After they did, though, he knew how to turn that into a good thing.

Link to comment
On 9/16/2019 at 9:10 PM, mfbukowski said:

The commandment was ambiguous= "Thou shalt not eat....yet it is given unto thee"

Seems pretty clear to me.

"But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it, nevertheless, thou mayest choose for thyself,
for it is given unto thee; but, remember that I forbid it, for in the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die."

"Thou mayest choose for thyself for it is given unto thee" means Adam had the free choice to obey or disobey that
was given unto Adam by God.  If God had said, "thou mayest eat", that would have confused Adam but instead it
says, "thou mayest choose".

All of God's commandments telling us not to do something are predicated upon us being able to choose for ourselves
because the choice is given unto us.

Thanks,
Jim
 

Edited by theplains
forgot to include some words
Link to comment
7 minutes ago, Ahab said:

 No, that is not something he taught/

God knew it would happen, that Adam or Eve or both of them would eventually transgress one of his laws, but he never did want them to disobey him.  After they did, though, he knew how to turn that into a good thing.

From https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/1993/10/the-great-plan-of-happiness?lang=eng

decreed.gif

Link to comment
1 hour ago, theplains said:

See?  I told you Joseph Smith did not teach that the Fall was not a sin.  He did teach that Eve's act which caused the Fall was not a sin, but rather a transgression of law, but he did not teach that the Fall itself was not a sin.

Think about the crucifixion of our Lord as another example.  Both our Father and our Lord knew it was going to happen but that doesn't mean either of them wanted our Lord to be crucified. The Atonement was good but the crucifixion as the means of  our Lord's death was not a good thing and neither our Father nor our Lord are responsible for the choice some men made to assent to putting our Lord to death by crucifixion.  His life, how he chose to live it, is what saved and continues to save us.

 

Edited by Ahab
Link to comment
1 hour ago, Ahab said:

I told you Joseph Smith did not teach that the Fall was not a sin.  He did teach that Eve's act which caused the Fall was not a sin, but rather a transgression of law, but he did not teach that the Fall itself was not a sin.

I think your double negatives made this sentence very confusing. Maybe you should clarify it.

Link to comment
4 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

I think your double negatives made this sentence very confusing. Maybe you should clarify it.

I don't see how to do that.  Sometimes double negatives can cancel each other out but in that case that would not be what I was saying.  I did not say nor did I mean that Joseph taught that the Fall was a sin.  He simply did not teach that the Fall was not a sin, meaning he did not say "the Fall was not a sin".  He didn't teach that.  Nor did he teach that the Fall was a sin. 

A sin is a choice a person makes to do something in opposition to God's will while knowing what is good and what is evil and what God's will is, and it is never God's will for anyone to commit a sin.

I don't know how I can make it any plainer than that.

Link to comment
On 9/12/2019 at 9:41 PM, JLHPROF said:

Well, I know I have a different view in that I don't believe Jehovah and the premortal Christ to be the same person.

Even in the Abraham 3:23-28 reference above there are clearly two separate beings speaking - the one who is like unto God and the one who is like unto the Son of Man.

I don't believe they are both Jesus.

I am trying to wrap my head around this idea. If pre-mortal Christ and Jehovah are different beings, then who is Jehovah in your view? Is it God the Father or the Holy Ghost? Or is there another 4th member of the Godhead?

Also, do you have any other sources besides Abr 3:23-28 to support this somewhat 'radical' view?

I ask because I have been wondering about the pronouns in Abr 3:23-28 for a while and am still uncertain.

Link to comment
2 hours ago, theplains said:

ou may want to consider why human parents procreate when they know that various things which could
occur to their children (they could kill people; they could suffer from cancer and die prematurely, etc). What
kind of parent would you be knowing all that could happen and yet want to procreate with your wife?

There is a difference between thinking of possibilities that might happen and knowing for sure what will happen though, especially if mortal and therefore good at rationalizing for one’s own benefit (kids can help take care of you when you get older as well as provide family income).

 

Link to comment
2 hours ago, theplains said:

Genesis 2:9 says, "And out of the ground made the Lord God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food;
the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil
. "

Do you believe all these trees were figurative?..............

Two of them were.  Everyone (even children) knows that life eternal does not come from a tree or its fruit.  Same for knowledge of good and evil.  Such knowledge does not come from eating fruit.  Trees which grow fruit for food can be literal, but not for eternal life or knowledge of good and evil.  One needs to think through the difference.  We have an old saying that "money doesn't grow on trees."  The expression is not meant to be taken literally.

Moreover, the entire Creation & Garden Story is "a temple story," according to Anglican Bishop Tom Wright.  The story of the creation of humans and their predicament with trees of knowledge and life are not a historical account, but rather a liturgical sequence dramatically acted out in temples.  In fact, the Babylonian story of creation, Enuma elish, was enacted as a liturgical drama in the main temple in Babylon each year.  That Babylonian creation drama (same as the Assyrian one) even included the same acts of creation and in the same order as in Genesis 1.  Scholars are astonished at the similarities.

Why the similarities, which can cause consternation?  Because God instituted that liturgical sequence at the beginning, and we find remnants of it throughout every culture and civilization.

Link to comment
15 minutes ago, Anonymous Mormon said:

I am trying to wrap my head around this idea. If pre-mortal Christ and Jehovah are different beings, then who is Jehovah in your view? Is it God the Father or the Holy Ghost? Or is there another 4th member of the Godhead?

Also, do you have any other sources besides Abr 3:23-28 to support this somewhat 'radical' view?

I ask because I have been wondering about the pronouns in Abr 3:23-28 for a while and am still uncertain.

Yahweh (Jehovah) is a title, and it can be held by whatever god is performing that function or calling.

The wording in Abr 3:23-28 is clear and easily understood.  Which part has you confused?

Link to comment
2 hours ago, theplains said:

Seems pretty clear to me.

"But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it, nevertheless, thou mayest choose for thyself,
for it is given unto thee; but, remember that I forbid it, for in the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die."

"Thou mayest choose for thyself for it is given unto thee" means Adam had the free choice to obey or disobey that
was given unto Adam by God.  If God had said, "thou mayest eat", that would have confused Adam but instead it
says, "thou mayest choose".

All of God's commandments telling us not to do something are predicated upon us being able to choose for ourselves
because the choice is given unto us..................

Good, clear logic.  You have forgotten two things, however: (1)  the horns of the dilemma which Eve & Adam must face:  Not to eat and thus not reproduce, or eat and reproduce.  They must obey two opposing commands, and cannot do both; (2) the entire story is not a conversation and matter of actual choice, but rather a liturgical drama in which the dramatis personae have set roles and scripts:  It is formal liturgy.

Link to comment
2 hours ago, theplains said:

Genesis 2:9 says, "And out of the ground made the Lord God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food;
the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil
. "

Do you believe all these trees were figurative?

Isn't it enough to understand that by eating some of the fruit from the tree that was called the tree of knowledge of good and evil that they could gain knowledge of good and evil?  What difference does it make how that worked, if it worked?

Personally, I think there was an actual literal tree that God called the tree of knowledge of good and evil and that by eating some of the fruit of that tree, whatever the fruit looked like, Adam and Eve gained knowledge of good and evil by eating that fruit.

That is what actually happened.  They ate from that tree and they gained knowledge of good and evil.  It could have been an apple or a pear or a fig or whatever, the fact is that by eating that fruit they gained knowledge of what and who was good and what and who was evil.

No need to understand every little bitty detail as long as you can understand that much from the story.

Link to comment
On 9/12/2019 at 9:41 PM, JLHPROF said:

Well, I know I have a different view in that I don't believe Jehovah and the premortal Christ to be the same person.

Even in the Abraham 3:23-28 reference above there are clearly two separate beings speaking - the one who is like unto God and the one who is like unto the Son of Man.

I don't believe they are both Jesus.

Both Yahweh (Jehovah) and Christ (Messiah) are titles or callings.  The person who fits that calling at a given time is the one who is so called.  For example, many kings and priests of ancient Israel were "anointed" (messiahs), so the term is well-known.  Jesus is not the only christos (mashiah).  Both God the Father and his Son have used the title Yahweh, "He who causes that which comes into existence," which is often translated as "LORD" in the KJV Bible.  Abr 3:23-28 is very straightforward, and is best read in the new format of the Study Edition of the Book of Abraham, page 14, online at https://www.pearlofgreatpricecentral.org/study-edition/ .  The word "Lord" there would likely be rendered in Egyptian either as YHWH, or NBNb is the Egyptian word for "Lord."  At the Divine Council, God's firstborn son has not yet been appointed as the prime agent of God the Father.  In fact, it is the formal confrontation between him and his brother Satan.  Once that has been resolved, then the formal ordination of the Son can take place.

Link to comment
20 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Isn't it enough to understand that by eating some of the fruit from the tree that was called the tree of knowledge of good and evil that they could gain knowledge of good and evil?  What difference does it make how that worked, if it worked?

Personally, I think there was an actual literal tree that God called the tree of knowledge of good and evil and that by eating some of the fruit of that tree, whatever the fruit looked like, Adam and Eve gained knowledge of good and evil by eating that fruit.

That is what actually happened.  They ate from that tree and they gained knowledge of good and evil.  It could have been an apple or a pear or a fig or whatever, the fact is that by eating that fruit they gained knowledge of what and who was good and what and who was evil.

No need to understand every little bitty detail as long as you can understand that much from the story.

The Brethren have been reiterating now for generations that Adam's rib is figurative, and generations of Saints have gone through the liturgical reenactment.  It is an ordinance of the Gospel, not a literal eating event.  The Garden is the Temple of God, wherein his holy ordinances take place.  Only the oaths and covenants and the endowment of power are to be taken literally.

Link to comment
9 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The Brethren have been reiterating now for generations that Adam's rib is figurative, and generations of Saints have gone through the liturgical reenactment.  It is an ordinance of the Gospel, not a literal eating event.  The Garden is the Temple of God, wherein his holy ordinances take place.  Only the oaths and covenants and the endowment of power are to be taken literally.

A more correct translation of "rib" is "side" and our illustrious brethren have told us repeatedly for generations that Eve was taken from the side of Adam.

From the rib of Adam, Eve was formed (see Gen. 2:22; Moses 3:22; Abr. 5:16). Interesting to me is the fact that animals fashioned by our Creator, such as dogs and cats, have thirteen pairs of ribs, but the human being has one less with only twelve. I presume another bone could have been used, but the rib, coming as it does from the side, seems to denote partnership. The rib signifies neither dominion nor subservience, but a lateral relationship as partners, to work and to live, side by side.   https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/1987/10/lessons-from-eve?lang=eng

 

Link to comment
4 hours ago, Ahab said:

 No, that is not something he taught/

God knew it would happen, that Adam or Eve or both of them would eventually transgress one of his laws, but he never did want them to disobey him.  After they did, though, he knew how to turn that into a good thing.

I thought I was dipping into heresy. The conventional understanding is that Adam and Eve had to fall and the fall is good (while also being bad).

4 hours ago, theplains said:

Seems pretty clear to me.

"But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it, nevertheless, thou mayest choose for thyself,
for it is given unto thee; but, remember that I forbid it, for in the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die."

"Thou mayest choose for thyself for it is given unto thee" means Adam had the free choice to obey or disobey that
was given unto Adam by God.  If God had said, "thou mayest eat", that would have confused Adam but instead it
says, "thou mayest choose".

All of God's commandments telling us not to do something are predicated upon us being able to choose for ourselves
because the choice is given unto us.

Thanks,
Jim
 

Yeah, but God usually does not say “Thou shalt not.........but you can make the choice.” I mean, it is true, but God usually does not lay out the options in that way.

2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Two of them were.  Everyone (even children) knows that life eternal does not come from a tree or its fruit.  Same for knowledge of good and evil.  Such knowledge does not come from eating fruit.  Trees which grow fruit for food can be literal, but not for eternal life or knowledge of good and evil.  One needs to think through the difference.  We have an old saying that "money doesn't grow on trees."  The expression is not meant to be taken literally.

Moreover, the entire Creation & Garden Story is "a temple story," according to Anglican Bishop Tom Wright.  The story of the creation of humans and their predicament with trees of knowledge and life are not a historical account, but rather a liturgical sequence dramatically acted out in temples.  In fact, the Babylonian story of creation, Enuma elish, was enacted as a liturgical drama in the main temple in Babylon each year.  That Babylonian creation drama (same as the Assyrian one) even included the same acts of creation and in the same order as in Genesis 1.  Scholars are astonished at the similarities.

Why the similarities, which can cause consternation?  Because God instituted that liturgical sequence at the beginning, and we find remnants of it throughout every culture and civilization.

Something can be both liturgy and history. Plus we have this from Elder Holland:

“In our increasingly secular society, it is as uncommon as it is unfashionable to speak of Adam and Eve or the Garden of Eden or of a “fortunate fall” into mortality. Nevertheless, the simple truth is that we cannot fully comprehend the Atonement and Resurrection of Christ and we will not adequately appreciate the unique purpose of His birth or His death—in other words, there is no way to truly celebrate Christmas or Easter—without understanding that there was an actual Adam and Eve who fell from an actual Eden, with all the consequences that fall carried with it.

I do not know the details of what happened on this planet before that, but I do know these two were created under the divine hand of God, that for a time they lived alone in a paradisiacal setting where there was neither human death nor future family, and that through a sequence of choices they transgressed a commandment of God which required that they leave their garden setting but which allowed them to have children before facing physical death. 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.”

 

I am not convinced completely that the fruit is real but why not? Sometimes in our attempts to see through symbols we overspiritualize. If something transformed our first parents why not fruit? It is no more ridiculous then believing that part of being redeemed is being immersed in water or that divine authority can be passed on from hand to head. The gospel is often startlingly crude. A physical resurrection instead of a purely spiritual one. A physical paradise on Earth as the next stage. Jesus spitting and using clay to heal. Seerstones and Urim and Thummim. Glowing balls of light in wooden boats. I am currently in the process of a name removal. I am going to help release someone from divine covenants and my part will be completed with the click of a mouse and so will everyone else’s. Allowing us to perform binding ordinances by proxy. A lot of it makes no sense but it all works. Why couldn’t fruit change someone’s perceptions of good and evil? Admittedly I do not think they fell due to the fruit. They fell because of the laws of the Universe. They disobeyed God.

Link to comment
2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Good, clear logic.  You have forgotten two things, however: (1)  the horns of the dilemma which Eve & Adam must face:  Not to eat and thus not reproduce, or eat and reproduce.  They must obey two opposing commands, and cannot do both; (2) the entire story is not a conversation and matter of actual choice, but rather a liturgical drama in which the dramatis personae have set roles and scripts:  It is formal liturgy.

But it can also be true.

I am not convinced on one point of that though. Are we sure they could never have children without the Fall? One figure said it was the only way but he might have been lying. As it stands the story makes God into a trickster. He gives two contradictory commandments. Nephi knew the story but still insisted God does not give commandments without providing a way to follow them.

I need to stop.

Link to comment
2 hours ago, Anonymous Mormon said:

I am trying to wrap my head around this idea. If pre-mortal Christ and Jehovah are different beings, then who is Jehovah in your view? Is it God the Father or the Holy Ghost? Or is there another 4th member of the Godhead?

Also, do you have any other sources besides Abr 3:23-28 to support this somewhat 'radical' view?

I ask because I have been wondering about the pronouns in Abr 3:23-28 for a while and am still uncertain.

The OT descriptions of Yaweh frequently include attributes requiring a physical body or to a being capable of creating our spirit bodies.  Christ as a premortal spirit was neither. 

The OT specifically commanded praying to Jehovah, something Jesus specifically instructed differently  - only to the Father in his name.

However since D&C 110 positively identies Christ as holding the Jehovah office, I am personally of the belief that someone holding the office of Jehovah is a resurrected Savior.

This answers all discrepancies in my opinion, both in OT and new revelation.  It even covers Christ's statement I AM as a foreshadowing of his sacrifice.  It also explains how he says he does nothing except that which the Father did.

So yes. In the OT (and endowment) I believe Jehovah was another Christ already resurrected.  And our resurrected Jesus is now our Jehovah and will be the Jehovah overseeing new worlds.

Just my opinion.

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I thought I was dipping into heresy. The conventional understanding is that Adam and Eve had to fall and the fall is good (while also being bad).

If you are then I am right there with you, my brother.  Choose for yourself whether you want to turn around now.

The reason I believe God did not want us, or Adam and Eve to disobey him when he told them they should not eat fruit from that tree and thereby gain knowledge of good and evil was not because it is bad to know what is good but because it is bad to know what is bad.

Knowledge of anything evil, such as knowing what is involved in doing something evil, is never a good thing to know.  It can be useful in catching bad guys who do evil things, and to help us avoid doing those evil things ourselves, but it would be much better to just know what is good, including what is good to know to help catch the bad guys who do evil things.  And unless you are a police officer or something like that who has to concern yourself with catching bad guys so you can get them off of the streets so that they no longer can do any bad things, it is better to just focus on the good and positive stuff that will  help you and other people to live good lives.

But the knowledge of good and evil available after eating the fruit from that tree didn't come ala carte, where Adam and Eve could pick only the good knowledge and avoid knowing anything evil.  If they were to know what was good they also had to know what was evil, as well, since to know one is to know the other since it is the opposite of the other.

So faced with that, it would have been better for them to remain innocent and not know anything at all about good or evil than to know anything about what is evil.  Except that by knowing what was evil they could also know what was good too, and who was good and who was evil.  So it could turn out to be a good thing, after all, as long as they chose to do good rather than to do something evil and not repent of any evil they did.

Link to comment
4 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

The OT descriptions of Yaweh frequently include attributes requiring a physical body or to a being capable of creating our spirit bodies.  Christ as a premortal spirit was neither. 

The OT specifically commanded praying to Jehovah, something Jesus specifically instructed differently  - only to the Father in his name.

However since D&C 110 positively identies Christ as holding the Jehovah office, I am personally of the belief that someone holding the office of Jehovah is a resurrected Savior.

This answers all discrepancies in my opinion, both in OT and new revelation.  It even covers Christ's statement I AM as a foreshadowing of his sacrifice.  It also explains how he says he does nothing except that which the Father did.

So yes. In the OT (and endowment) I believe Jehovah was another Christ already resurrected.  And our resurrected Jesus is now our Jehovah and will be the Jehovah overseeing new worlds.

Just my opinion.

35829006.jpg

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

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