Did God Want Adam And Eve To Follow Satan In The Garden?

[Calm]

;For it must needs be, that there is an opposition in all things. If not so, my first-born in the wilderness, righteousness could not be brought to pass/>

Opposition can occur in many forms, including many that do not require a human opponent. Think of rock climbing for example, the opposition is a mountain.

I don't see the scripture mandating the presence of a Satan.

[Calm]

<br />Adjusted to the situation?<br /><br />That implies no planning, forthought, or forknowledge.<br />

On the contrary, being able to adjust successfully is usually a sign of great forethought and preparation.

[Nofear]

I like it. ... and I think I will incorporate this view, as one reasonable interpretation, into my lesson plan next time I need to teach this.

Thanks. I make to claim to ownership for the idea and am not the only person who came up with it, though I didn't think I got it directly from anybody else.

Adjusted to the situation?

That implies no planning, forthought, or forknowledge.

I disagree. On this planet, God clearly planned how he'd handle things if the Adversary was successful in his attempt at sabotage. I also think God planned how he'd handle things if the Adversary was not successful in his temptation of Adam and Eve. I think Satan also had other plans if his first attempts failed (for all we know, they did -- we only have record of Satan's successful attempt). And I think God had plans to counter those. So on and so forth, even up until today.

What calmoriah said.

[Zakuska]

On the contrary, being able to adjust successfully is usually a sign of great forethought and preparation.

While true... it doesn't necessarily play into God knowing all things all the time.

But then there is the Sliders scenario...

Amos 7

1 Thus hath the Lord God shewed unto me; and, behold, he formed grasshoppers in the beginning of the shooting up of the latter growth; and, lo, it was the latter growth after the king’s mowings.

2 And it came to pass, that when they had made an end of eating the grass of the land, then I said, O Lord God, forgive, I beseech thee: by whom shall Jacob arise? for he is small.

3 The Lord repented for this: It shall not be, saith the Lord.

4 ¶Thus hath the Lord God shewed unto me: and, behold, the Lord God called to contend by fire, and it devoured the great deep, and did eat up a part.

5 Then said I, O Lord God, cease, I beseech thee: by whom shall Jacob arise? for he is small.\

6 The Lord repented for this: This also shall not be, saith the Lord God.

7 ¶Thus he shewed me: and, behold, the Lord stood upon a wall made by a plumbline, with a plumbline in his hand.

8 And the Lord said unto me, Amos, what seest thou? And I said, A plumbline. Then said the Lord, Behold, I will set a plumbline in the midst of my people Israel: I will not again pass by them any more:

9 And the high places of Isaac shall be desolate, and the sanctuaries of Israel shall be laid waste; and I will rise against the house of Jeroboam with the sword.

God seems to be making a choice on what the future will hold for Jacob.

[BlueDreams]

Did God want Adam and Eve to choose to follow Satan in order to progress?

No, Satan has a tendency of injecting himself into plans. I think the premise to the verses in the BoM are very important in understanding what happened in the Garden of Eden and it's importance to us

11 For it must needs be, that there is an opposition in all things. If not so, my first-born in the wilderness, righteousness could not be brought to pass, neither wickedness, neither holiness nor misery, neither good nor bad. Wherefore, all things must needs be a compound in one; wherefore, if it should be one body it must needs remain as dead, having no life neither death, nor corruption nor incorruption, happiness nor misery, neither sense nor insensibility

12 Wherefore, it must needs have been created for a thing of naught; wherefore there would have been no purpose in the end of its creation. Wherefore, this thing must needs destroy the wisdom of God and his eternal purposes, and also the power, and the mercy, and the justice of God.

13 And if ye shall say there is no law, ye shall also say there is no sin. If ye shall say there is no sin, ye shall also say there is no righteousness. And if there be no righteousness there be no happiness. And if there be no righteousness nor happiness there be no punishment nor misery. And if these things are not there is no God. And if there is no God we are not, neither the earth; for there could have been no creation of things, neither to act nor to be acted upon; wherefore, all things must have vanished away.

The story of Adam and Eve and Christ that follows is demonstrating this exact principle. What I love about this story is that, in my mind, it shows the great insignificance of Satan when dealing with God. And it only works in this formatting of story.

I personally don't think God makes plan b's. He's perfect and all that is Him is eternal and infinite and in complete balance. Thus his creation of the Garden of Eden was perfectly designed for its purpose. That we choose sin is never God's desire. But that we choose is. Only in our choices are we free and have the capability to have goodness.

Satan didn't frustrate anything. He didn't even give God a second thought, IMHO. He was playing into a fixed structure and pushed himself into a choice that was inevitable for all things to come to pass in order that man may experience and choose full joy. The irony to me is that despite his desire to disrupt the infinite structures and plans of God, Satan has merely chosen his place within the structure. He hasn’t made darkness, he chose it. He’s an advocate of it, but simply moves in the fixed rules and set of what chaos entails. This means eventual obscurity and placement as nothing more than a backdrop to the pure light which characterizes all that God is. His role and power is constantly dependent on others to pay attention to him and the state of a corruptible earth. His power, in that sense is very finite

[mfbukowski]

Adjusted to the situation?

That implies no planning, forthought, or forknowledge.

Well I see your point and I think maybe that wording was bad.

Remember the line about "doing what has been done on other worlds"? I think perhaps as nofear suggested the plan was that they eventually would have eaten of the fruit, perhaps as it had been done on other worlds, whatever that means. Perhaps on this world it was different because this is also where the savior would come forth.

I think there is a difference between God knowing what will happen and actually making it happen- so in this case they made their choice, but which ever way it happened, it was according to God's will.

I believe that God really does interact with his children, even if he knows what they will do. But this was the whole plan of salvation- he would not allow that to be frustrated- it was too important. So in his foresight, I think both their choice was real, and his intention for them to do what was necessary to bring about the plan.

Ultimately I think it was a "heads I win, tails you lose" for God- the situation was set up so that the plan would come about no matter what happened, and stupid Satan just played right into it.

It's not that God wanted them to "follow Satan"- it was just set up in such a way that whatever choice they made, the plan would come about anyway.

[Zeta-Flux]

I think the following quotation from Joseph Smith might clarify what Zakuska has said (and with which I agree):

I believe that God foreknew every thing; but did not fore ordain every thing; I deny that foreordain and foreknow is the same thing. He foreordained the fall of man; but all merciful as he is, he foreordained at the same time, a plan for Redemption for all mankind.

[KevinG]

I have instructed my children not to do dumb things behind the wheel of a car. I also know my children well enough to keep my auto insurance current.

[Facsimile 3]

Did the spirits in the pre-earth life also follow Satan in their limited progression

there before coming to earth?

When considering the role of Satan in the Plan of Salvation, I believe the first thing that is most important is to move away from thinking about it as theatre. Theatre and symbols are great for Spiritual learning and for basic remembrance, but not so much for systematic theology.

If we think of the Plan of Salvation like it’s theatre, then you run into questions like the ones some of my former missionary companions would ask me like, “Elder, is Satan really that bad if he’s just playing an essential role in the Plan of Salvation?” “If Heavenly Father is the architect (director) of this plan (play) isn’t the extreme evil of Satan and the extreme good of Jesus both manifestations of Heavenly Father?”

We can avoid most of our headaches over the existence of sin and Satan by simply holding fast to the LDS theological bedrock that everything is based on sociality (relationships and communities we form with each other and with God).

We have the freedom to choose between following our Heavenly Father’s plan for us or departing from it while on this earth, and we had the freedom to accept or reject His plan for us to come and receive bodies on this Earth. Both instances require / required our desires and will to be in line with Heavenly Father’s. So even though, it may not be as explicit in LDS teachings, I believe it then follows that none of us would have been elevated from the level of intelligences to spirits without our desires and will being in line with Heavenly Father’s (i.e. we, the whole host of heaven, desired to be able to act and no longer simply to be acted upon; to have a spirit body). And it would be easy enough to conceive of a story where other intelligences did not desire to be spirits and thus simply did not progress.

The whole host of Heaven was on the same page with becoming spirits (we all obviously wanted to be able to act on things). And because we are beings that have never been created, only organized and elevated in our subjective experience, each of our preferences are going to be directed toward increasing that subjective experience based on our own desires and actions informed by experience. Spirits, like human beings, form relationships with each other based on shared preferences and similar narratives and they vary in their compatibility with Heavenly Father’s preferences and narrative for what He would have His children become once they are given physical bodies.

After we became spirits, experience accrued and preferences and narratives pluralized and opposed each other, and looming in the background was Heavenly Father’s next invitation to elevate our ability to act with a physical body (specifically with a new ability to reproduce). Like plate tectonics, tension had built up to a point where finally those with radically differing preferences and narratives from Heavenly Father’s ceased being able to coexist in the same realm and chose someone who was powerful out of their group, Satan, to be their leader. They could not overthrow God’s power and were cast out to live on the Earth.

What I gleaned from this is that evil can be defined as anything that departs from Heavenly Father’s preferences and narrative for us. Another way of saying this would be: Evil is that which goes against God’s laws that exist to elevate us closer to His way of experiencing the Universe. Also, that evil can be graded in levels of severity based on how much it directly opposes God’s preferences and narrative for us. As we saw in the Pre-Mortal realm example, at some point those who followed Satan out of God’s kingdom of spirits could no longer have pursued their narratives collectively without either making serious revisions or destroying God’s narrative. That is not to say that those who stayed in the Kingdom of Spirits had no preferences for sin or even a necessary interest in Spiritual things.

It then follows that spirits existing outside of Satan’s influence still have the propensity to sin. Therefore God doesn’t need Satan nor his whole lot to elevate us closer to His way of experiencing the Universe. So Satan’s role is not a counter balance, but rather, he is a symptom of a universe that allows agency of spirits.

Spirits are predisposed to sin by their preferences and so are human bodies. And so the only thing that Satan and his spirits can do is to build on that and to speed up the process. This means that the only dimension they add to this earth is an ability to mobilize willing human beings and to magnify their ability to pursue their most ungodlike preferences. I think evil is necessary in God’s plan involving agency, but I don’t believe Satan and his host are necessary.

Did God want Adam and Eve to choose to follow Satan in order to progress?

If the forbidden fruit is necessary for God's plan, it was only necessary for Adam and Eve to eventually sin on their own. Satan offering them the fruit in the pretense of officiating was simply mockery of the Holy Priesthood. If there is any lesson to be learned from it, it is that Satan and ilk imitate the Holy Priesthood and that they manipulate human beings on this earth; this serves to remind us that we make covenants with God to sanctify us and to protect us from much more than our own hard hearts and weak flesh.

Edited September 13, 2011 by Facsimile 3

[Zakuska]

Well I see your point and I think maybe that wording was bad.

Remember the line about "doing what has been done on other worlds"? I think perhaps as nofear suggested the plan was that they eventually would have eaten of the fruit, perhaps as it had been done on other worlds, whatever that means. Perhaps on this world it was different because this is also where the savior would come forth.

I think there is a difference between God knowing what will happen and actually making it happen- so in this case they made their choice, but which ever way it happened, it was according to God's will.

I believe that God really does interact with his children, even if he knows what they will do. But this was the whole plan of salvation- he would not allow that to be frustrated- it was too important. So in his foresight, I think both their choice was real, and his intention for them to do what was necessary to bring about the plan.

Ultimately I think it was a "heads I win, tails you lose" for God- the situation was set up so that the plan would come about no matter what happened, and stupid Satan just played right into it.

It's not that God wanted them to "follow Satan"- it was just set up in such a way that whatever choice they made, the plan would come about anyway.

This leads to some more questions...

Was the Savior Jesus Christ of Galelea the Savior of fallen men on just this world, since he was made of the seed of a woman from this world and he took on him the seed of Abraham (another man from this world). Or was he the sacrifice and paid for the sins of the entire universe once and for all?

I guess what Im getting at is... if the same plan is being executed on this planet that has been executed on those before. Perhaps each one of those worlds would need a Savior from each of those planets made of the seed of a female draknid or Cligon or what ever to expiate for that planet and take on the seed of the Prophet Vulcan and raise them up (exalt) them as well.

In the words of Peter... "And not for our sins only but the for the sins of the whole world." He never says the "sins of all the Worlds" (Plural) nor "worlds without end" either does he? I know the whole "Infinite atonement" once and for all... but...

Thats the whole imagry of the scape goat, and dieing outside the camp.

(See my next post because I think it addresses some of the other points you bring up)

Edited September 13, 2011 by Zakuska

[T-Shirt]

If Lucifer was doing what had been done in other worlds, and if what he was referring to was other "Lucifers" giving the fruit to other "Adams and Eves" in other worlds, then why did he get angry for being cursed, when, presumably, those other "Lucifers" would have been cursed as well?

This only makes sense if, in other worlds, God was the one giving the fruit to Adam and Eve. In other words, Lucifer is saying, "In other worlds, you gave the fruit to the humans, so why are you angry with me for giving it to them, I was only trying to help?", while in reality, he was trying to upstage God. He was still trying to take His place by imitating Him and getting the humans to follow him.

I believe that God's plan was perfect, it would work no matter what happened. I believe that if Adam and Eve had remained completely obedient, (which is what, I think, God would have preferred) God would have instructed Adam and Eve, when the time was right, to partake of the fruit, in order to bring about the next stage of the plan. To me this is the only thing that makes sense. I have never been able to wrap my mind around the belief that God would absolutely forbid something, while secretly hoping for the opposite. As parents, while our children are growing and learning, we forbid many things which, when they are sufficiently mature, are allowed and even encouraged . I see the scenario in the Garden of Eden the same way. It is what makes sense to me and I can see no contradiction in LDS doctrine by believing such a thing. And most of all I do not have to try and force a square peg into a round hole.

That's my story, and I'm sticking to it. For now anyway. I can be pretty dense.

Best,

T-Shirt

Edited September 13, 2011 by T-Shirt

[Zakuska]

If the forbidden fruit is necessary for God's plan, it was only necessary for Adam and Eve to eventually sin on their own. Satan offering them the fruit in the pretense of officiating was simply mockery of the Holy Priesthood. If there is any lesson to be learned from it, it is that Satan and ilk imitate the Holy Priesthood and that they manipulate human beings on this earth; this serves to remind us that we make covenants with God to sanctify us and to protect us from much more than our own hard hearts and weak flesh.

I would have to add a qualifier to this. After reading the Bible the only conclusion I can come up with is the ultimate Puppeteer isn't Satan and his minions, But God himself.

Some examples of this:

1) Job

2) 2 Chron 18:22

18 Again he said, Therefore hear the word of the Lord; I saw the Lord sitting upon his throne, and all the host of heaven standing on his right hand and on his left.

19 And the Lord said, Who shall entice Ahab king of Israel, that he may go up and fall at Ramoth-gilead? And one spake saying after this manner, and another saying after that manner.

20 Then there came out a spirit, and stood before the Lord, and said, I will entice him. And the Lord said unto him, Wherewith?

21 And he said, I will go out, and be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets. And the Lord said, Thou shalt entice him, and thou shalt also prevail: go out, and do even so.

22 Now therefore, behold, the Lord hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of these thy prophets, and the Lord hath spoken evil against thee.

God allows us to be tempted. He put the tree in the Garden in the first place.Thats like putting a loaded gun in the playpen with the child. Then watching to see what will happen, even though you already know what will happen.

But the plan couldn't have been executed any other way.

Edited September 13, 2011 by Zakuska

[thesometimesaint]

God does not force, or tempt, any one to do evil. We are quite capable of doing evil all on our own.

[mfbukowski]

This leads to some more questions...

Was the Savior Jesus Christ of Galelea the Savior of fallen men on just this world, since he was made of the seed of a woman from this world and he took on him the seed of Abraham (another man from this world). Or was he the sacrifice and paid for the sins of the entire universe once and for all?

I guess what Im getting at is... if the same plan is being executed on this planet that has been executed on those before. Perhaps each one of those worlds would need a Savior from each of those planets made of the seed of a female draknid or Cligon or what ever to expiate for that planet and take on the seed of the Prophet Vulcan and raise them up (exalt) them as well.

In the words of Peter... "And not for our sins only but the for the sins of the whole world." He never says the "sins of all the Worlds" (Plural) nor "worlds without end" either does he? I know the whole "Infinite atonement" once and for all... but...

Thats the whole imagry of the scape goat, and dieing outside the camp.

(See my next post because I think it addresses some of the other points you bring up)

Taking it all literally, we are taught that the sacrifice of the savior was an infinite one- ie: for those on all worlds. I have seen that more than once in GA statements, conference talks etc.

On this interpretation, perhaps on other planets they tell the same story as a legend, or perhaps it even starts with "Long ago on a galaxy far away......"

Or perhaps the story is told in their Bible as the story of Adam and Eve is told as a story which "really happened", but the historicity of which cannot be known.

[mfbukowski]

If Lucifer was doing what had been done in other worlds, and if what he was referring to was other "Lucifers" giving the fruit to other "Adams and Eves" in other worlds, then why did he get angry for being cursed, when, presumably, those other "Lucifers" would have been cursed as well?

This only makes sense if, in other worlds, God was the one giving the fruit to Adam and Eve. In other words, Lucifer is saying, "In other worlds, you gave the fruit to the humans, so why are you angry with me for giving it to them, I was only trying to help?", while in reality, he was trying to upstage God. He was still trying to take His place by imitating Him and getting the humans to follow him.

I believe that God's plan was perfect, it would work no matter what happened. I believe that if Adam and Eve had remained completely obedient, (which is what, I think, God would have preferred) God would have instructed Adam and Eve, when the time was right, to partake of the fruit, in order to bring about the next stage of the plan. To me this is the only thing that makes sense. I have never been able to wrap my mind around the belief that God would absolutely forbid something, while secretly hoping for the opposite. As parents, while our children are growing and learning, we forbid many things that are allowed and even encouraged when they are sufficiently mature. I see the scenario in the Garden of Eden the same way. It is what makes sense to me and I can see no contradiction in LDS doctrine by believing such a thing. And most of all I do not have to try and force a square peg into a round hole.

That's my story, and I'm sticking to it. For now anyway. I can be pretty dense.

Best,

T-Shirt

It seems like you think that I disagree with you- I don't.

[Zakuska]

Taking it all literally, we are taught that the sacrifice of the savior was an infinite one- ie: for those on all worlds. I have seen that more than once in GA statements, conference talks etc.

I as well... but Im wondering where this comes from. Because I don't see it in the Bible (as of yet but will be looking). Perhaps its the book of Abraham that this doctrine come from. I guess I have my reading assigment for tonight.

[mfbukowski]

When considering the role of Satan in the Plan of Salvation, I believe the first thing that is most important is to move away from thinking about it as theatre. Theatre and symbols are great for Spiritual learning and for basic remembrance, but not so much for systematic theology.

Great stuff!

I want to make a longer reply a little later when I have more time

[T-Shirt]

It seems like you think that I disagree with you- I don't.

No, I agree with what you said. I was just adding my two cents. Which is probably what it is worth.

Best,

T-Shirt

Edited September 13, 2011 by T-Shirt

[Zakuska]

God does not force, or tempt, any one to do evil. We are quite capable of doing evil all on our own.

I agree. This is inevitable by the very nature of having free will.

1 Corinthians 10:13

13 There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it.

Like I said... God allows us to be tempted, but plans ahead for both contingencies.

Whats the motto? "Be Prepared"

[HeatherAnn]

I agree. This is inevitable by the very nature of having free will.

1 Corinthians 10:13

13 There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it.

Like I said... God allows us to be tempted, but plans ahead for both contingencies.

Whats the motto? "Be Prepared"

God doesn't just allow us to be tempted, but it's an essential part of his plan.

Remember - "There must be opposition in all things."

Or like Sherri Dew wrote, "If life were easy it wouldn't be hard."

Just as to build muscle, you must have some resistance... you can't get in shape by taking the path of least resistance, letting gravity fall you into bed. lol

The story of Adam & Eve is about being born again... dying to old beliefs & realizing new ones. (gospel=good news)

It's a given that we're imperfect & will be with sin out entire lives... so it's not so much sin that is evil, as the lack of the realization that it's evil.

Adam & Eve started becoming more aware... & as one of our Leaders said, "We believe in being born again & again..."

[Nofear]

No, I agree with what you said. I was just adding my two cents. Which is probably what it is worth.

My two cents are that your two cents are worth quite a bit more. Your elaboration on the argument is a good one -- one that's I use myself.

[Nofear]

I as well... but Im wondering where this comes from. Because I don't see it in the Bible (as of yet but will be looking). Perhaps its the book of Abraham that this doctrine come from. I guess I have my reading assigment for tonight.

The question of one savior for many or even all worlds or one savior per world is far from a question of settled doctrine. Opinions from the Brethren exist but nothing authoritative/binding. Certainly a topic worthy of discussion in my opinion. Perhaps a separate thread?

[mfbukowski]

We have the freedom to choose between following our Heavenly Father’s plan for us or departing from it while on this earth, and we had the freedom to accept or reject His plan for us to come and receive bodies on this Earth. Both instances require / required our desires and will to be in line with Heavenly Father’s. So even though, it may not be as explicit in LDS teachings, I believe it then follows that none of us would have been elevated from the level of intelligences to spirits without our desires and will being in line with Heavenly Father’s (i.e. we, the whole host of heaven, desired to be able to act and no longer simply to be acted upon; to have a spirit body). And it would be easy enough to conceive of a story where other intelligences did not desire to be spirits and thus simply did not progress.....

What I gleaned from this is that evil can be defined as anything that departs from Heavenly Father’s preferences and narrative for us. Another way of saying this would be: Evil is that which goes against God’s laws that exist to elevate us closer to His way of experiencing the Universe. Also, that evil can be graded in levels of severity based on how much it directly opposes God’s preferences and narrative for us. As we saw in the Pre-Mortal realm example, at some point those who followed Satan out of God’s kingdom of spirits could no longer have pursued their narratives collectively without either making serious revisions or destroying God’s narrative. That is not to say that those who stayed in the Kingdom of Spirits had no preferences for sin or even a necessary interest in Spiritual things.

It then follows that spirits existing outside of Satan’s influence still have the propensity to sin. Therefore God doesn’t need Satan nor his whole lot to elevate us closer to His way of experiencing the Universe. So Satan’s role is not a counter balance, but rather, he is a symptom of a universe that allows agency of spirits.

Spirits are predisposed to sin by their preferences and so are human bodies....

Yes- I totally agree. The mere fact that we have choice as independent spirits makes sin a possibility and it is that agency itself which allows it. For me, I think a "propensity" to sin is really no more or less that the ability to choose it, which agency itself implies.

And this, as you show very well, implies that we can "choose our narratives" (implying of course a society which creates such "narratives" ), acting as little mini-gods going about our own business of creating our mini-worlds.

I think this nails it, because that Rorty discussion I have mentioned hinges on the fact that his view of an "ironist" is wrong- and in fact, his view is flawed not because it is only an "irony" but at its base I think it is contradictory. One cannot have a contingent self AND yet see oneself as what he calls a "strong poet". One is either a strong poet, without a contingent self, or one who has a contingent self and gives up on being a "strong poet", because after all, one is contingent and cannot BE a "strong poet".

So I think where Rorty goes wrong is precisely here, that after you strip away everything and take away all the narratives and vocabularies, there is still a self which experiences oneself as oneself. There is always a "speaker" of the narrative- of the vocabulary. There is one who "finds the words" to construct one's vocabulary.

So if we are not contingent at the core, there is also a chooser - the experience of choice I think is "properly basic" and subjectively impossible to doubt. I hope that ultimately doesn't make me Cartesian in a new way, but I think it is true regardless.

There is always an organism in the environment- the self vs the other- the "out there" which must be modified which in turn sets up the dialectic on one hand with the passive environment (the need to provide shelter etc) and on the other hand with other beings with whom we as the "speaker" interact to create our narratives together.

I think that is where Rorty goes wrong ultimately in collectivizing everything- and ultimately why he ends up as a "liberal" in a modern political sense- it is ultimately the denial of the individual who gets lost in the affirmation of the collective narrative.

But I think as you say, seeing this theologically, this is the essence of "intelligences becoming spirits" narrative- we come as individuals who have choice in choosing our particular narratives.

I remember my mom before she passed- with severe dementia- she became stripped of all her narratives, but she was still an individual who invented narratives, I was not her son, she thought, because she never married nor had any children. She believed herself to be 25 years old when in fact she was 87. But yet she fought death until her final surrender; she was always a person, and individual, who invented narratives, the last thing to go was the desire to survive itself.

THAT to me is ultimately what defines us- we have an innate desire to survive and fight death- and that is which is under all the narratives, vocabularies, metaphors- everything.

And ultimately, of course I think that survival mechanism is what gives us "The Way of Life" when we acknowledge it in others.

But I just wanted to tell you that about my analysis of Rorty because it fit so well with your post.

[Maidservant]

Are there other examples in LDS theology where God wants disobedience to help

his sons and daughters progress?

I remember the day when I, distraught, cried to my mother over the phone because I realized that my life had long since stopped being about choices between good and evil; and also I did not see where my life fit something I may have heard in conference between "good" choices and "better" ones . . . I cried to her, "Why do I have to choose between two bad choices? Where if I choose one way, I am disobeying this, and if I choose this way, I am disobeying that????" And my mom said, "Oh, you mean like Eve?" [for the record, the choice was about working/feeding my kids but not being home with them versus not working/starving kids who I am home with]

Many of these kinds of puzzles of the Genesis portrayal become clearer if we realize that the account represents the choice we all made to leave our heavenly home and enter mortality. Each of the "players" in the account can tell us something about ourselves. I think we worry too much about what and who Satan is and what he "did" and don't take account of our selves and what we've done to our families and our world . . . we are all little satans running around here sometimes. And we can be Christs too. The Genesis drama guides us in seeing this and in making our choices so that we can have the celestial kingdom advent here on the planet eventually (and hopefully sooner than later).

[Zeta-Flux]

T-shirt,

You should take a look at the quotation I gave from Joseph Smith (on page 2).

Cheers,

Pace