How Did We End Up Here?

[Grundelwalken]

According to Alma 7:12, He had to take on the infirmities of mortality in order to succor us according to the flesh and so that His bowels would be filled with mercy.

And, according to Alma 7:13, he had to do it personally, not by the power of the Spirit. He had to experience just as we must. MW

Edited September 2, 2012 by Grundelwalken

[zerinus]

I think suffering is relative. A paradisiacal condition with only one commandment and one forbidden choice, with powerful enticements to partake of the fruit of the two trees (one to live without multiplying and one to die and multiply) produced a form of suffering in teh form of a quandary, in opposition to the form of joy they had in the stability of sharing an existence together.

I am not sure that is an accurate description of the conditions in the Garden of Eden. In the Garden God commands Adam and Eve, on the one hand to "multiply and replenish the earth," and on the other hand strictly forbids them to partake of the forbidden fruit. If Mormon doctrine is correct that they could not have kept the first commandment without breaking the second, then that means that God gave Adam and Eve two starkly contradictory commandments, which I don't think that God would ever do. It just doesn't make sense, and goes contrary to the character and attributes of God that we know. The only conclusion that I can draw is that there is more to it that we do not know. God hasn't told us the full story yet. But the way that Mormons understand it, or the way you are portraying it, simply doesn't make sense.

[Tacenda]

I am not sure that is an accurate description of the conditions in the Garden of Eden. In the Garden God commands Adam and Eve, on the one hand to "multiply and replenish the earth," and on the other hand strictly forbids them to partake of the forbidden fruit. If Mormon doctrine is correct that they could not have kept the first commandment without breaking the second, then that means that God gave Adam and Eve two starkly contradictory commandments, which I don't think that God would ever do. It just doesn't make sense, and goes contrary to the character and attributes of God that we know. The only conclusion that I can draw is that there is more to it that we do not know. God hasn't told us the full story yet. But the way that Mormons understand it, or the way you are portraying it, simply doesn't make sense.

The non lds christians believe that they definitely could have children in the garden. He wasn't giving a mixed message. Also God thoroughly did want them to stay in the Garden and not leave it. This is the non lds christian belief.

Edited September 2, 2012 by Tacenda

[zerinus]

The non lds christians believe that they definitely could have children in the garden. He wasn't giving a mixed message. Also God thoroughly did want them to stay in the Garden and not leave it. This is the non lds christian belief.

Well I already knew where you were coming from; you didn't need to tell me. I am discussing what appears to me to be an internal theological difficulty within Mormonism with a fellow Mormon.

Edited September 2, 2012 by zerinus

[zerinus]

The non lds christians believe that . . .

And by the way, there are no "non-LDS Christians". All true Christians are LDS. The rest are Apostate Christians!

[CV75]

I am not sure that is an accurate description of the conditions in the Garden of Eden. In the Garden God commands Adam and Eve, on the one hand to "multiply and replenish the earth," and on the other hand strictly forbids them to partake of the forbidden fruit. If Mormon doctrine is correct that they could not have kept the first commandment without breaking the second, then that means that God gave Adam and Eve two starkly contradictory commandments, which I don't think that God would ever do. It just doesn't make sense, and goes contrary to the character and attributes of God that we know. The only conclusion that I can draw is that there is more to it that we do not know. God hasn't told us the full story yet. But the way that Mormons understand it, or the way you are portraying it, simply doesn't make sense.

While doing so might fit into your worldview that Mormons don’t really understand things, I’m not suggesting that commanding to multiply on the one hand, and forbidding the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil on the other hand, were contradictory at all. The two commandments were not equally as great, which they would have to be in order to actually be contradictory.

Eve points this out when she observes that, in order to fulfill the greater commandment (the one that continues into the eternities) they had to transgress the lesser commandment (the one that had a Savior prepared to counteract it in the eternities). Thus faith was exercised in the Garden of Eden in an intuitive manner: an intuitive decision to partake of the fruit (transgress a lesser law) led to greater knowledge (obedience of a greater law).

What would have been contradictory would be eating freely of the fruit of the tree of life and of the forbidden fruit (simultaneously engaging in opposing principles), and God removed this contradiction (Genesis 3:24). This is how the Atonement works as well: mortal death and immortal resurrection are no longer contradictions. After the Fall, immortality follows death, and death cannot follow immortality except under precise conditions in Paradise.

But what I am actually saying is that the “form of a quandary” for Adam and Eve was the tension of temptation, their respective attitudes towards the temptation, and then what to do once one of them partook. This serves as a form of “suffering” for innocent souls in Paradise.

[zerinus]

While doing so might fit into your worldview that Mormons don’t really understand things, I’m not suggesting that commanding to multiply on the one hand, and forbidding the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil on the other hand, were contradictory at all.

I am suggesting that they are contradictory; I didn't say that you were saying that it is contradictory.

The two commandments were not equally as great, which they would have to be in order to actually be contradictory.

A commandment is a commandment. All commandments need to be kept. I don't see how you can distinguish between a greater and lesser commandment.

Eve points this out when she observes that, in order to fulfill the greater commandment (the one that continues into the eternities) they had to transgress the lesser commandment (the one that had a Savior prepared to counteract it in the eternities). Thus faith was exercised in the Garden of Eden in an intuitive manner: an intuitive decision to partake of the fruit (transgress a lesser law) led to greater knowledge (obedience of a greater law).

What would have been contradictory would be eating freely of the fruit of the tree of life and of the forbidden fruit (simultaneously engaging in opposing principles), and God removed this contradiction (Genesis 3:24). This is how the Atonement works as well: mortal death and immortal resurrection are no longer contradictions. After the Fall, immortality follows death, and death cannot follow immortality except under precise conditions in Paradise.

But what I am actually saying is that the “form of a quandary” for Adam and Eve was the tension of temptation, their respective attitudes towards the temptation, and then what to do once one of them partook. This serves as a form of “suffering” for innocent souls in Paradise.

The rest appears irrelevant to the point I was making. I do not make sense of the idea of God giving people starkly contradictory commandments.

Edited September 3, 2012 by zerinus

[Tacenda]

I am suggesting that they are contradictory; I didn't say that you were saying that it is contradictory.

A commandment is a commandment. All commandments need to be kept. I don't see how you can distinguish between a greater and lesser commandment.

The rest appears irrelevant to the point I was making. I do not make sense of the idea of God giving people starkly contradictory commandments.

Check into what the apostate christian (your words) believes about this. I've been listening to their sermons and I'm LDS.

Edited September 3, 2012 by Tacenda

[CV75]

I am suggesting that they are contradictory; I didn't say that you were saying that it is contradictory.

A commandment is a commandment. All commandments need to be kept. I don't see how you can distinguish between a greater and lesser commandment.

The rest appears irrelevant to the point I was making. I do not make sense of the idea of God giving people starkly contradictory commandments.

The first commandment to multiply and replenish the earth is ultimately a celestial law (for this is what God does), and the second commandment not to partake of the forbidden fruit is a lesser, paradisiacal law (for this is what God once did to get the knowledge to do what He does). Adam and Eve could choose which law to live by, and it finally dawned upon them that they could remain in Paradise or proceed to do what the Gods do. They had tried the second commandment; it came time to try the first.

I can distinguish between the God-given law against murder and the God-given law to love my enemy. These are no more contradictory than the commandments mentioned above: you may refrain from killing an enemy you hate and go to the terrestrial kingdom, or you can love an enemy and give your life for him and go to the celestial kingdom.

I cannot make sense of the idea of God giving people starkly contradictory commandments, but only because I have not seen a single example where He does.

[Maidservant]

What is sometimes taken as contradiction is, rather, paradox.

And truth and reality always contain paradox, as I understand anyway.

[Zakuska]

I cannot make sense of the idea of God giving people starkly contradictory commandments, but only because I have not seen a single example where He does.

Nephi sure seems to have encountered an example of it. Edited September 3, 2012 by Zakuska

[cdowis]

If Adam and Eve had a physical body before ever passing through mortality, why not us?

He had a mortal body, but was not a celestial, resurrected person. He was spiritually completely like a child, having no knowledge of right and wrong.

An infant has a moral body but we would not expect him drive a car to work, or fly to the moon.That could only occur thru a maturation process.

And, were we not tested in the previous life when Satan tempted us to follow Him and, just so you see how strong his temptation was, a full third followed him?

And we passed that first test, which allowed us to gain a body and come to mortality -- to be resurrected and gain the opportunity to become like our Father in Heaven. This life is where we have the veil of forgetfulness placed over our memory, and we freely make the choice between good and evil. Not possessing that memory, the decision between good and evil is equally balanced, and Satan has the opportunity to make his plan equally enticing to us.

Therefore, there is precedent that we can both have bodies and be tempted and 'fall from grace' without having to suffer famine, death of our children, bullying, poverty, etc.

You really ought to become acquainted with the scriptures on the subject.

[cdowis]

As you acknowledge, every 3 year old Primary child is taught that we lived in heaven and that we are here to return to live with our Heavenly Father. The connotation is that we will be restored to a previous condition (with additional gifts).

OK, and consider my above example of the infant driving a car. You would agree that "Heaven" is not just a location, but we are participants in celestial activities.

[zerinus]

The first commandment to multiply and replenish the earth is ultimately a celestial law (for this is what God does), and the second commandment not to partake of the forbidden fruit is a lesser, paradisiacal law (for this is what God once did to get the knowledge to do what He does). Adam and Eve could choose which law to live by, and it finally dawned upon them that they could remain in Paradise or proceed to do what the Gods do. They had tried the second commandment; it came time to try the first.

I can distinguish between the God-given law against murder and the God-given law to love my enemy. These are no more contradictory than the commandments mentioned above: you may refrain from killing an enemy you hate and go to the terrestrial kingdom, or you can love an enemy and give your life for him and go to the celestial kingdom.

I cannot make sense of the idea of God giving people starkly contradictory commandments, but only because I have not seen a single example where He does.

Sorry, but I don't see a valid argument there.

[cdowis]

CV75 appears to be unfamiliar with the scriptures when he posts

I cannot make sense of the idea of God giving people starkly contradictory commandments, but only because I have not seen a single example where He does.

Let's see. How about "Thou shalt not kill", and then the Lord commands the Israelites to go out and kill everyone and to take over their land, even though the Israelites were unprovoked.

[zerinus]

Let's see. How about "Thou shalt not kill", and then the Lord commands the Israelites to go out and kill everyone and to take over their land, even though the Israelites were unprovoked.

I don't believe God gives contradictory commandments. That is not an example of a contradictory commandant (although superficially it might seem so). And likewise I don't believe God gave Adam and Eve contradictory commandments.

[CV75]

Nephi sure seems to have encountered an example of it.

Only according to his youthful understanding.

[CV75]

Let's see. How about "Thou shalt not kill", and then the Lord commands the Israelites to go out and kill everyone and to take over their land, even though the Israelites were unprovoked.

These were two different commandments under two different sets of circumstances, and not contradictory at all in relation to each other. A contradiction would be "Thou shalt not kill, and thou shalt kill" as a general principle, or, "Thou shalt kill your enemies in this instance, and thou shalt not kill your enemies in this insatnce."

[CV75]

I don't believe God gives contradictory commandments. That is not an example of a contradictory commandant (although superficially it might seem so). And likewise I don't believe God gave Adam and Eve contradictory commandments.

I agree with this of course.

[Deborah]

The choice Adam and Eve had is reflective of the kinds of choices many of us have, not having to choose between good and evil, but having to choose between two things neither of which is bad but which still may have significant consequences for our futures. Questions like should I take this job or this other one and we have to weigh the pros and cons of each.

I think that is what Eve did in taking the fruit. She was deceived in the sense that she was told she would not surely die but perhaps she did not understand exactly what that meant. As it was had they partaken of the Tree of Life they would not have died physically but would have spiritually. God knowing the choice he gave them had already provided the way out. No other choice could have been made in the end.

[Alan]

Interesting contributions.

I must admit that I have always been troubled by our (LDS) interpretation of the garden incident. I cannot understand why God would command our first parents to multiply while also commanding them not to take the forbidden fruit. It really doesn't make sense to me.... and I'm mortal!

Perhaps Adam and Eve would have worked out how to multiply eventually without the fruit. They only had to watch the animals as they had received the same commandment without the counter commandment.

[Maidservant]

OK, and consider my above example of the infant driving a car. You would agree that "Heaven" is not just a location, but we are participants in celestial activities.

I do agree that celestial is what we do, not necessarily or only secondarily, where we are.

And while I mainly think that we are not complete, nor completely refined, in our quest for eternal adulthood, thus the need for mortality to accomplish this progression (or get a little farther at least), I sometimes nevertheless allow my mind to think on HOW progressed we were before we arrived here. I don't think we were children in the sense of small children. I think we were adults as far as we could be before coming here--prepared, and practiced, and having shown our agency, etc. Or at least some of us. I don't necessarily think we were all the same condition; and have different callings and parts to play here. Ultimately, I don't know for sure. But I do think a lot of different things about this "earth project" and come up with a lot of possible implications and ponder on them for a time at least.

And I do actually think on the analogy of infancy to adulthood (i.e. with the example of car driving) often enough with various applications and I like it. (When you are a child it is right to stay in the backseat, because driving is dangerous. However, if you are a 41 year old who refuses to drive and insists on being in the back seat, that is not right. You make the passage of learning how to handle the car at a point of youth but still old enough to learn and understand enough. This analogy has lots of applications, yes!)

[CV75]

Nephi sure seems to have encountered an example of it.

Maybe I should give a better answer than the one above. 1 Nephi 4:10-18 shows that Nephi was not weighing the 6^th general commandment on the tablets with the specific one he just received by way of inspiration. His reticence was over the fact that he had not done such a thing before.

[Zakuska]

Only according to his youthful understanding.

So let's see... A good law of Moses abiding "youth" (and prophet of God) is told to kill a man. And comes to the conclusion that it was contradictory yet you know better than he?

[Zakuska]

Maybe I should give a better answer than the one above. 1 Nephi 4:10-18 shows that Nephi was not weighing the 6^th general commandment on the tablets with the specific one he just received by way of inspiration. His reticence was over the fact that he had not done such a thing before.

He hadn't done it before precisely because of what was written on the tablets but then he spends the next four verses justifying it. He totally recognized the contradiction and that's why he had to justify it. The Lord even had to push him further 3 times with the contradiction. Edited September 3, 2012 by Zakuska