CV75 Posted March 8, 2011 Share Posted March 8, 2011 I am not sure that is correct. We do not have enough information about the condition of Adam and Eve before the Fall to know why God appears to give them contradictory commandments, or whether they were in fact contradictory commandments.I sometimes view them as a choice between commandments, one option leading to mortality and exaltation and the other option leading to a continuation of paradise. Link to comment
consiglieri Posted March 8, 2011 Author Share Posted March 8, 2011 In rereading this thread, I am beginning to see why it was a woman who first had to eat the fruit. Link to comment
zerinus Posted March 8, 2011 Share Posted March 8, 2011 I sometimes view them as a choice between commandments, one option leading to mortality and exaltation and the other option leading to a continuation of paradise.I know what you are saying, but that is not what is normally called the contradiction. The contradiction is that God commanded Adam and Eve to "multiply and replenish the earth" before the Fall, which according to the Book of Mormon they could not have done without the fall. But I think our knowledge is too limited to jump to the conclusion that God had given them contradictory commandments. There may have been factors in play that we are not aware of at the moment. Link to comment
mercyngrace Posted March 8, 2011 Share Posted March 8, 2011 In rereading this thread, I am beginning to see why it was a woman who first had to eat the fruit. From Moses 4:And Satan put it into the heart of the serpent, (for he had drawn away many after him,) and he sought also to beguile Eve, for he knew not the mind of God, wherefore he sought to destroy the world...It's noteworthy that Satan thought he was beguiling Eve and that in doing so he could thwart the plan. Guess she showed him....And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it became pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make her wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and also gave unto her husband with her, and he did eat. And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they had been naked. And they sewed fig-leaves together and made themselves aprons.Typical. She recognizes that partaking of the tree is a good thing and she has to sell Adam on the idea so his eyes can be opened. He was probably too busy trying to keep all the commandments to see the big picture. Men. Link to comment
zerinus Posted March 8, 2011 Share Posted March 8, 2011 From Moses 4:Typical. She recognizes that partaking of the tree is a good thing and she has to sell Adam on the idea so his eyes can be opened. He was probably too busy trying to keep all the commandments to see the big picture. Men. 1 Timothy 2:14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.It is not exactly brain surgery is it! LOL! Link to comment
mercyngrace Posted March 8, 2011 Share Posted March 8, 2011 1 Timothy 2:14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.It is not exactly brain surgery is it! LOL! We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God. ~ 8th Article of FaithNope. Apparently, it's rocket science. Link to comment
mercyngrace Posted March 8, 2011 Share Posted March 8, 2011 Quick question: If someone keeps all the commandments, can he repent? (Yeah, yeah, I know I'm just paraphrasing Alma.)For he gave commandment that all men must repent... ~ 2 Nephi 2:21I'm wondering how our theoretical law-abiding man can repent if he's never sinned. Link to comment
consiglieri Posted March 8, 2011 Author Share Posted March 8, 2011 "Experiential knowledge of good and evil" does not mean that we had to sin to learn good and evil. It means that we had to experience adversity to learn good and evil Link to comment
consiglieri Posted March 8, 2011 Author Share Posted March 8, 2011 I think she already knows that I am right, but she is too stubborn to admit it. But if she is as good looking as she used to be when I dated her in the preexistence, I will forgive her stubbornness for the sake of her good looks.I honestly can't believe you just said that, zeranus. Link to comment
consiglieri Posted March 8, 2011 Author Share Posted March 8, 2011 1 Timothy 2:14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.It is not exactly brain surgery is it! LOL! A deft quote from the anti-woman author of a pseudo-Pauline epistle.Nice work. Link to comment
mercyngrace Posted March 8, 2011 Share Posted March 8, 2011 I honestly can't believe you just said that, zeranus.Don't mind, Zerinus, he's a brain surgeon, you know. Link to comment
consiglieri Posted March 8, 2011 Author Share Posted March 8, 2011 Don't mind, Zeranus, he's a brain surgeon, you know.Well I'm certainly no brain surgeon.I can't even spell.I keep confusing my a's with my i's . . . Link to comment
CV75 Posted March 9, 2011 Share Posted March 9, 2011 Quick question: If someone keeps all the commandments, can he repent?Yes, he can repent, because someone who keeps all the commandments can also break them. Link to comment
CV75 Posted March 9, 2011 Share Posted March 9, 2011 Yes, he can repent, because someone who keeps all the commandments can also break them.From the prior posts, it seems this is a principle that supports Adam-God, depending on whether the principle of agency or the principle of opposition is preeminent (which came first?). Agency promotes action, anti-agency prevents it. Agency as the ability to act expands through righteousness, and diminishes through sin.If the principle of agency rules, then a perfect man chooses righteousness even though he can choose sin; he will thus promote agency and the options to exercise it within his sphere of influence; he will not require sin (the erosion of agency) of others. If the principle of opposition rules all others, then a perfect man sometimes chooses sin for the greater good; he will thus erode agency and the options to exercise it within his sphere of influence; he will require sin of others.It seems to me that of the two, agency is the ruling eternal principle. Whatever role opposition plays in our progress and mastery of all things, existence hinges on agency (D&C 93:29-31) as evidenced by the war in heaven (Moses 4:3) . The dependence of existence on opposing principles is weaker, since existence itself is Link to comment
ELF1024 Posted March 9, 2011 Share Posted March 9, 2011 One cannot choose to be obedient if one does not have the ability to choose not to be obedient. Without the ability to choose, life is meaningless. Link to comment
consiglieri Posted March 9, 2011 Author Share Posted March 9, 2011 One cannot choose to be obedient if one does not have the ability to choose not to be obedient. Without the ability to choose, life is meaningless.But this is deeper than that, at least in my view, because things are structured by God such that one cannot choose to be obedient at all.We have to recognize this fact first before we understand the Plan of Salvation.According to the Book of Mormon, anyway . . . All the Best!--Consiglieri Link to comment
ELF1024 Posted March 9, 2011 Share Posted March 9, 2011 But this is deeper than that, at least in my view, because things are structured by God such that one cannot choose to be obedient at all.I think that is a rather pessimistic intrepretation of scripture. Link to comment
mercyngrace Posted March 9, 2011 Share Posted March 9, 2011 I think that is a rather pessimistic intrepretation of scripture.Jim, it's the Kobayashi Maru - nobody passes that test...James T. Kirk: [to Spock] The test itself is a cheat, isn't it? I mean you program it to be unwinnable. Spock: Your argument precludes the possibility of a no-win scenario. James T. Kirk: I don't believe in no-win scenarios. Spock: Then not only did you violate the rules, you also fail to understand the principal lesson. Actually, it's the height of optimism. The point is that a violation of the rules allows for winning through Christ. The principal lesson is that there are no no-win scenarios that can't be overcome by charity. Or as Joseph Smith liked to say Omnia vincit amor. Link to comment
ELF1024 Posted March 9, 2011 Share Posted March 9, 2011 Jim, it's the Kobayashi Maru - nobody passes that test...James T. Kirk: [to Spock] The test itself is a cheat, isn't it? I mean you program it to be unwinnable. Spock: Your argument precludes the possibility of a no-win scenario. James T. Kirk: I don't believe in no-win scenarios. Spock: Then not only did you violate the rules, you also fail to understand the principal lesson. Actually, it's the height of optimism. The point is that a violation of the rules allows for winning through Christ. The principal lesson is that there are no no-win scenarios that can't be overcome by charity. Or as Joseph Smith liked to say Omnia vincit amor.I agree that there are "no no-win scenaraios"; however I found the idea that we were simply incapable of choosing obedience to be rather pessimisitc. We can choose obedience; we may not choose it a reliable percentage of the time, but we do choose it occasionally. Link to comment
mercyngrace Posted March 9, 2011 Share Posted March 9, 2011 I agree that there are "no no-win scenaraios"; however I found the idea that we were simply incapable of choosing obedience to be rather pessimisitc. We can choose obedience; we may not choose it a reliable percentage of the time, but we do choose it occasionally.This is a misunderstanding of what has been said in this thread. We can choose obedience! We just can't choose it perfectly. And even when the desire for sin is gone from us, we still have "thorns" in our flesh - imperfections that remind us of our humanity. Remember we are talking about sin as a means to bring us to Christ, not as something to persist in after we've experienced the redemptive power of His grace:1 What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? 2 God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein? 3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? 4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. 5 For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection: 6 Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin. 7 For he that is dead is freed from sin. ~ Paul Link to comment
emeliza Posted March 9, 2011 Share Posted March 9, 2011 What an interesting thread, glad I stumbled across it today.I have to say that I agree with MnG and mostly Consig. Unfortunately I am not nearly as able to express my thoughts as either of them. It does seem like we are all somewhat arguing over semantics. God put us here to learn. He gave us commandments. Humans either can't keep all the commandments due to our nature or we were never supposed to keep all the commandments because by breaking some, we learn best. Some people learn best from hitting rock bottom (lots of sinning), others learn prior to hitting rock bottom (only some sinning). But either way we all sin. Thankfully there is a Savior, that we can turn to. Some people turn to the Savior only after hitting rock bottom, some turn to Him at a different point, some never turn to Him.Either way, I am not sure God likes us breaking His commandments, but I think it is true that we must break them. I also think it is equally true that we should try are best not to break them.That is where Consig confuses me. Sometimes it seems my dear friend, that you are saying that we should be breaking commandments to get closer to God. However I think for many of us, that is not necessary because either we are already closer to God, or we already broke a ton of the commandments and were able to get closer to Him. I think that once we have that relationship, we are to work on keeping the commandments and maintaining our closeness. For some people, I think they have to hit rock bottom more than once though.Oh and MnG, I really liked those scriptures where you pointed out "weakness". Never thought of it that way before. Link to comment
consiglieri Posted March 9, 2011 Author Share Posted March 9, 2011 Oh and MnG, I really liked those scriptures where you pointed out "weakness". Never thought of it that way before.MnG is great, isn't she?Glad you stumbled across this thread.And don't worry.I do tend to be confusing at times . . . All the Best!--Consiglieri Link to comment
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted March 9, 2011 Share Posted March 9, 2011 Jim, it's the Kobayashi Maru - nobody passes that test...James T. Kirk: [to Spock] The test itself is a cheat, isn't it? I mean you program it to be unwinnable. Spock: Your argument precludes the possibility of a no-win scenario. James T. Kirk: I don't believe in no-win scenarios. Spock: Then not only did you violate the rules, you also fail to understand the principal lesson. Actually, it's the height of optimism. The point is that a violation of the rules allows for winning through Christ. The principal lesson is that there are no no-win scenarios that can't be overcome by charity. Or as Joseph Smith liked to say Omnia vincit amor.Are you related to Consig?You know the whole James T Kirk thing. Link to comment
consiglieri Posted March 9, 2011 Author Share Posted March 9, 2011 You know the whole James T Kirk thing.I got a commendation for original thinking. Link to comment
mercyngrace Posted March 10, 2011 Share Posted March 10, 2011 Are you related to Consig?You know the whole James T Kirk thing.Nope. We're not related.It's just that great minds think alike. Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.