The paradisiacal nature before the fall

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

When this has happened to me, I post it in parts and that can narrow down the problem.  I either post a quarter, save it and then edit in additional quarters or if it prevents me from editing ( sometimes happens as the board seems more forgiving with an edit than a submit reply post on the first attempt to edit, but then locks me out of the post), then add on "part 2"...marking clearly continuations just in case someone posts while I am doing it.

Yeah I am going to do this!  

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, theplains said:

Why do you believe God told Adam, Eve, and the animals to be fruitful and multiply before the Fall?

Jim

OK I wanted to answer this even though some of my answers will not be popular hereabouts, discussing the difference between men and women.

But what I will do is post it all in segments and re-editing the post to find what the program finds objectionable.

So there will be repeated edits- and I will note the ending so that you know when I am finished with the edits.

Here goes!- from here on down it is the original post ---

First of all I have to mention that I do not take the story literally, but see it as an inspired story to teach us several very important religious principles.  Further these are my personal beliefs and not necessarily doctrine:

1) the spiritual difference between men and women, 

2) the proper nature of marital love, and the reason for its restriction 

3) The necessity for free choice (agency) to define good from evil

4) The nature of a fall from innocence which happens to all of us 

5) Why such a fall is necessary which is twofold. 

So the bottom line and answer to your question I think is that it is clear that the story says that God did give the commandment to reproduce before they were capable of doing that, while they were innocent.

That implies a need for a fall from innocence to reproduce and fulfill the commandment.   To me that's clear as a bell in the story, and a major reason the story is constructed as it is- that is the lesson the story is created to teach, otherwise all of the existence of mankind becomes a huge mistake!   

 

Edited October 16, 2019 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

Continuation of above reply to @theplains

I do not see how Evangelicals can reconcile that- that our very existence as we exist was a mistake, and God knew it was going to go that way or else He is NOT omniscient.   

Either God wanted that mistake or he didn't see it coming!   

I can't accept that he did not see it coming, and so conclude that it was actually a part of the plan in the Great Chess Game I have been talking about, the analogy as originated by William James.

I think the LDS interpretation is quite clear in Genesis.  

He tells them to multiply in Gen 1:28 and it becomes clear that they were not capable yet of reproducing and did not understand all that it entailed until later while Satan is tempting them much later in Chapter 3.  My quote below begins quoting Satan's reasoning for why they should eat the fruit, even though it has been both prohibited AND "given" to them:

Quote

Quote

 

5 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.

6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.

7 And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.

 

 

 

So verse 7 clearly implies I think that Eve knew exactly what she was doing and saw what was the necessary path for mankind- that all of creation was not a MISTAKE after all but a step in the direction God desired!

But he was caught- He is the ideal of Perfection- how could he tell A&E straight out that they were SUPPOSED to sin?  He had to create a situation where he was not TELLING them directly to sin but says instead " Thou shalt not eat- yet it is given unto thee".

What is that supposed to mean??  Is it prohibited or is it given to us??  

Eve being more subtle than Adam SAW that God was both encouraging them to take of the fruit and yet showing them that there would be both good and bad consequences!   She got it!!

And she gave it to her "husband"- they had been married by God.

So to directly answer your question- God HAD TO give the commandment before the fall because if He did it AFTER the fall- that would be too late- Eve would not have been able to figure out the eternal puzzle when later she confronted it.

If they had just eaten the fruit because it looked tasty- they would not understand the purpose or significance of that decision.  They had to have a CHOICE to eat or not eat and an idea of the consequences of both- 1- the ability to reproduce VS 2- "surely dying". 

Without death there would be no need for reproduction and all the spirits who were to come to earth could not progress!!  And of course that was the whole plan. 

 As it was billions of spirits could not learn of the salvation Jesus gave us or the gospel itself because there would be no reproduction OR death.

This is running long so I will finish up the numbered reasons above quickly or this could become a book--- 

They learned:

1- the spiritual difference between men and women and the fact that women ARE more spiritual than men.  I know that will get flak but we have LDS evidence for that in the temple, won't discuss it now.

2- the proper method of demonstration of marital love is obviously IN MARRIAGE and we know that A&E were married- as quoted above. Further it is a simple fact of nature that men and women have to be aroused and so the need for understanding what "naked" is.  Obviously I am not going to say more about that but it should be clear. No realization of nakedness= no multiplying and replenishing- and they did not know that in the Garden.

3- choice- without choice there can be no sin/transgression/fall.   That hopefully is clear

4- We all have a fall from innocence- the way it is defined here that includes the ability to sin and the awareness of sexual differences in puberty

5-  The fall story was necessary to illustrate the importance of agency and choice and the necessity to learn how to overcome the world to emulate Jesus in some small way.   Without the ability to overcome sin and obstacles we could not be tested and there could be no progression

END OF POST

No changes not sure why I got the 403

 

Edited October 16, 2019 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, MiserereNobis said:

But luckily there is high Mass and Benedictine monasteries  

Quite honestly there are things I miss- mostly this meditative, non-cognitive direct basking in the spirit and meditation in a group doing the same-  but I think I would miss far more if I came back. 

I would miss our humanism I think

[Metis_LDS]

My best loved scripture about this topic. Anyone care to explain what "the Gods had not appointed unto Adam his reckoning" means.   Okay we can say that Adam was on Kolob time, so is that part of the fall to be on earth time???

Abraham 5:13

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/pgp/abr/5?id=p13&lang=eng#p13

Edited October 16, 2019 by Metis_LDS
clarity and addition

[JLHPROF]

29 minutes ago, Metis_LDS said:

My best loved scripture about this topic. Anyone care to explain what "the Gods had not appointed unto Adam his reckoning" means.   Okay we can say that Adam was on Kolob time, so is that part of the fall to be on earth time???

Abraham 5:13

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/pgp/abr/5?id=p13&lang=eng#p13

The Fall from God's presence was literal, not just spiritual.  When the earth was moved from its place near Kolob the manner of measuring time, lifespan, and other things changed.

[Robert F. Smith]

40 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

The Fall from God's presence was literal, not just spiritual.  When the earth was moved from its place near Kolob the manner of measuring time, lifespan, and other things changed.

 

[longview]

56 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

1 hour ago, Metis_LDS said:

My best loved scripture about this topic. Anyone care to explain what "the Gods had not appointed unto Adam his reckoning" means.   Okay we can say that Adam was on Kolob time, so is that part of the fall to be on earth time???

Abraham 5:13

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/pgp/abr/5?id=p13&lang=eng#p13

The Fall from God's presence was literal, not just spiritual.  When the earth was moved from its place near Kolob the manner of measuring time, lifespan, and other things changed.

Moses 3:17 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.

JST 2 Peter 3:8 But concerning the coming of the Lord, beloved, I would not have you ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

That command was given while earth was near Kolob.  This was a Kolob day.

After the Fall, earth was moved to the telestial realm.  Adam did live many, many earth days.  But there are 1000 earth years to a Kolob day (the Lord's time).

It is interesting to note that Emma Smith kept the latest revisions of the Book of Moses (second draft?) in her possessions.  The second draft ended up with the RLDS (it shows Adam living 999 years and 6 months, within a Kolob day).  The Utah church published its Book of Moses based on a earlier draft (Adam living 930 years).

[InCognitus]

13 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I do not see how Evangelicals can reconcile that- that our very existence as we exist was a mistake, and God knew it was going to go that way or else He is NOT omniscient.   

Either God wanted that mistake or he didn't see it coming!   

I've never understood this view as well, especially considering that scripture says that Jesus was "foreordained before the foundation of the world" (1 Peter 1:19-20), to be the "Lamb slain from the foundation of the world" (Rev 13:8).  So obviously providing our means of salvation after the fall was all part of God's plan from the very beginning.  He very much knew it would happen and planned for it.  It was his plan A, not Plan B.

I enjoyed your comments.  Thank you.

[mfbukowski]

18 minutes ago, InCognitus said:

I've never understood this view as well, especially considering that scripture says that Jesus was "foreordained before the foundation of the world" (1 Peter 1:19-20), to be the "Lamb slain from the foundation of the world" (Rev 13:8).  So obviously providing our means of salvation after the fall was all part of God's plan from the very beginning.  He very much knew it would happen and planned for it.  It was his plan A, not Plan B.

I enjoyed your comments.  Thank you.

That's actually an excellent point I never noticed before.  Thank YOU!

 

[InCognitus]

17 hours ago, theplains said:

Why do you believe God told Adam, Eve, and the animals to be fruitful and multiply before the Fall?

I'll throw in my 2 cents to this discussion

Another way I view this is to consider the commandment that Jesus gave us in Matthew 5:48  "Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect."

Why did Jesus command us to be "perfect" (complete) before he atoned for our sins and overcame death to redeem us from the fall?   He is asking us to start on the path that leads to fulfilling that commandment.  It is the path of progression.

With regard to the fall, we could not really progress in God's plan without having the ability to choose to follow God of our own free will, and we could not really choose unless there was an alternative choice available.  The fall brought about all those possibilities.  We just need to all choose wisely now that we are here.

[Calm]

14 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I do not see how Evangelicals can reconcile that- that our very existence as we exist was a mistake, and God knew it was going to go that way or else He is NOT omniscient.   

https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/why-did-god-allow-the-fall/ 

Quote

If God’s primary purpose in creation and redemption is the display of his glory, what does that tell us about why he allowed the fall? Both logically and chronologically, the fall comes between creation and redemption. Without a creation there could be no fallen creation; without a fallen creation there could be no redeemed creation. Salvation presupposes sin; restoration presupposes a fall. Thus it’s reasonable to infer that God’s primary purpose in allowing the fall was to showcase his glory both in the original creation and also in his powerful and merciful restoration of that creation from its rebellion and corruption.

But was redemption really necessary for God to be glorified? Couldn’t an unfallen creation glorify God as much as a restored creation?

Reflecting on this question has prompted a number of Christian thinkers to develop what’s called the “O Felix Culpa” theodicy. (Literally “O blessed fault,” and “theodicy” is an explanation of how God can justly allow evil.) The basic idea is this: While the fall was a great evil, it made it possible for God to bring about even greater goods in its wake: the God-glorifying goods of the incarnation, atonement, resurrection, and all the salvific blessings that flow from them.

One might think an unfallen creation would be preferable to a fallen creation—and all else being equal, that’s true. But all else is not equal, for our world is not merely a fallen creation. It’s a fallen creation into which the eternal Son of God has entered, taking on human nature, perfectly expressing God’s likeness in our midst, living a morally flawless life, making atonement for our sins through his sacrificial death, rising in triumph from the grave, and ascending into heaven, where he continually intercedes and secures for us an eternal joyful dwelling-place in God’s presence.

A world with no fall and no salvation is altogether less God-glorifying than a world with a tragic fall but also a wondrous salvation.

 

Edited October 16, 2019 by Calm

[InCognitus]

17 minutes ago, Calm said:

https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/why-did-god-allow-the-fall/ 

Quote

If God’s primary purpose in creation and redemption is the display of his glory, what does that tell us about why he allowed the fall? Both logically and chronologically, the fall comes between creation and redemption. Without a creation there could be no fallen creation; without a fallen creation there could be no redeemed creation. Salvation presupposes sin; restoration presupposes a fall. Thus it’s reasonable to infer that God’s primary purpose in allowing the fall was to showcase his glory both in the original creation and also in his powerful and merciful restoration of that creation from its rebellion and corruption.

But was redemption really necessary for God to be glorified? Couldn’t an unfallen creation glorify God as much as a restored creation?

Reflecting on this question has prompted a number of Christian thinkers to develop what’s called the “O Felix Culpa” theodicy. (Literally “O blessed fault,” and “theodicy” is an explanation of how God can justly allow evil.) The basic idea is this: While the fall was a great evil, it made it possible for God to bring about even greater goods in its wake: the God-glorifying goods of the incarnation, atonement, resurrection, and all the salvific blessings that flow from them.

One might think an unfallen creation would be preferable to a fallen creation—and all else being equal, that’s true. But all else is not equal, for our world is not merely a fallen creation. It’s a fallen creation into which the eternal Son of God has entered, taking on human nature, perfectly expressing God’s likeness in our midst, living a morally flawless life, making atonement for our sins through his sacrificial death, rising in triumph from the grave, and ascending into heaven, where he continually intercedes and secures for us an eternal joyful dwelling-place in God’s presence.

A world with no fall and no salvation is altogether less God-glorifying than a world with a tragic fall but also a wondrous salvation.

 

This approach to the "Why did God allow the fall" question has always seemed to me to be a horrible view of God's character.  It portrays a God that boosts his ego (i.e. it is more "God-glorifying" for God to do one thing or another) by allowing something horrible to happen to his creation so that he can be the hero and save his creation from the very thing he allowed to happen to begin with.  

From a Latter-day Saint perspective, God's whole work and "glory" is to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man.  He is not selfishly trying to demonstrate how great he is by creating situations to make him look better, but he is a God of love and his whole "God-glorifying" purpose is to increase his family, by lovingly providing the opportunity to others to be partakers of and share in the same "glory" that he has.  This is why God promised eternal life "before the world began" (Titus 1:2).  He called us "to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began" (2 Tim 1:9).  And this is why Jesus prayed to the Father for his disciples, and asked that they be given the same glory that Jesus received from the Father:  "And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one: I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me." (John 17:21-22).

Also, I don't think the linked article is giving a completely accurate consideration of the point of the "felix culpa".  St. Thomas Aquinas states that human nature is "raised to something greater after sin":

Quote

"But there is no reason why human nature should not have been raised to something greater after sin. For God allows evils to happen in order to bring a greater good therefrom; hence it is written (Romans 5:20): “Where sin abounded, grace did more abound.” Hence, too, in the blessing of the Paschal candle, we say: “O happy fault, that merited such and so great a Redeemer!” Summa Theologica, III, 1, 3, and 3; see also the Catechism, 412.

 

 

[Calm]

6 minutes ago, InCognitus said:

This approach to the "Why did God allow the fall" question has always seemed to me to be a horrible view of God's character.  It portrays a God that boosts his ego

Only if one assumes God displays his glory for ego driven reasons.  If he is displaying his glory for other reasons, perhaps to teach his creatures of God so they will be drawn to him, could this not be viewed as similar to the LDS belief?

Edited October 16, 2019 by Calm

[mfbukowski]

6 hours ago, Calm said:

Only if one assumes God displays his glory for ego driven reasons.  If he is displaying his glory for other reasons, perhaps to teach his creatures of God so they will be drawn to him, could this not be viewed as similar to the LDS belief?

Baltimore catechism :

" Why did God make us?

To show forth his goodness and to share with him the happiness of Heaven"

 I memorize that in second grade so it might have not quite made it through all these years on unscathed

Edit:

Looked it up. Not too shabby.

http://www.cmri.org/baltimore-catechism-no2-lessons1-10.shtml#Lesson1

 

Quote

 

The Purpose of Man's Existence

Lesson 1 from the Baltimore Cathechism

« prev : next »

"1. Who made us?

God made us.

In the beginning, God created heaven and earth. (Genesis 1:1)

2. Who is God?

God is the Supreme Being, infinitely perfect, who made all things and keeps them in existence.

In him we live and move and have our being. (Acts 17:28)

3. Why did God make us?

God made us to show forth His goodness and to share with us His everlasting happiness in heaven."

 

 

Edited October 17, 2019 by mfbukowski

[Ahab]

12 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Baltimore catechism :

" Why did God make us?

To show forth his goodness and to share with him the happiness of Heaven"

I like how John Walton answered his daughter Elizabeth's question when she asked him where she came from:  "Behind one of your Momma's smiles", he said. 

I believe our parents were so happy that they just couldn't contain themselves without making more of themselves.

[mfbukowski]

31 minutes ago, Ahab said:

I like how John Walton answered his daughter Elizabeth's question when she asked him where she came from:  "Behind one of your Momma's smiles", he said. 

I believe our parents were so happy that they just couldn't contain themselves without making more of themselves.

You still have a little Catholic in you. 

 

[Ahab]

48 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

You still have a little Catholic in you. 

 

In the universal sense, yes, I suppose that is true.

[theplains]

On 10/16/2019 at 2:53 PM, InCognitus said:

Why did Jesus command us to be "perfect" (complete) before he atoned for our sins and overcame death to redeem us from the fall?

The statement was made in the context of what he had said before.

Jim