Predestination. You Asked For It Here It Is.

[bluebell]

 

 

Same reason that our nature needs to be exposed. To turn us to God, so we trust in him instead of ourselves.

 

O.k., thanks for sharing your thoughts on that.

[bluebell]

I haven't heard any of our Calvinists defend this aspect yet.

According to the 5 points (?) of Calvinism, one of them states that he doesn't save people based on his foreknowledge of what they will do, rather based on his own sovereignty. And I agree with you that this presents a problem. If God is just, on what bases does he condemn some, if it's solely based on his will and not the will of the person he created?

I believe it was MrG (though it could have been djholmes) who answered and said that it was because God could not show His justice without damning some of His creations.

 

I'll try to go back and look for it when I have the chance.

[danielwoods]

Good questions. I don't think there is any answer that isn't speculation but it's interesting to ponder.

 

 

Yes, I think the fall was beneficial to mankind (in many ways), and I'll explain why.

 

LDS believe that God told Adam and Eve what would happen if they ate the fruit, forbade them to eat it, but let them choose for themselves what they would do.  There would be consequences to that choice, but the negative consequences would be overcome through a Messiah, and I think it is the plan for a Messiah that reveals whether or not the Fall was original to God's plan for this world. 

 

LDS don't believe that the need for a Savior to redeem mankind was a 'back up plan' (as Jeff Lindsay calls it).  We don't believe that needing a Messiah was God's second "in case of Fall pull this cord" choice for His children.  We believe that it had always been THE plan--the ONLY plan--that God created for Adam and Eve and their posterity. After all, Christ was foreordained to be the Savior before the Fall even occurred. 

 

God didn't plan for Adam and Eve and their children to live in a paradisiacal existence for forever, only to watch satan thwart His intentions.   And if that's true, if satan did not thwart God's original plan, then that means that the fall had to have been a part of God's plan from the beginning.

 

And since I don't believe that God would make a plan from the beginning which did not bring about good, even if there were negative consequences which would need to be overcome, then my only logical conclusion is that the Fall, though a transgression of His law, was beneficial to mankind.  

 

As for how it was beneficial...well, that's a different question, and one I'll be glad to give my thoughts on if you want them.

 

 

It's an interesting question. 

 

The choice made in the garden was a unique experience in the history of mankind, and as such, I don't believe that it easily translates to the rest of us.

 

I think that the best way to be is to be like Christ, never sinning and knowing good and evil because we are smart enough and strong enough and good enough on our own to know those things based on our knowledge alone (the knowledge of good and evil which we get through the Fall).  But none of us are like that, are we?  We all fall short of the glory of God.  And that's not a good thing.  It's not something to strive for.

 

But that doesn't mean that good cannot come out of our struggles.  Think of the difference in the attitudes of the prodigal son and the older 'righteous' brother.  Are we capable of recognizing the full mercy and glory of God without having experienced the bitterness of sin?  Theoretically, I believe that yes, that must be possible (just like theoretically, being perfect like Christ must be possible) but is it probable?  I don't believe so. 

 

So while I don't believe we should sin to gain knowledge or understanding, I think that this world was set up specifically by God to enable us to gain knowledge and understanding through both our good and bad choices.

 

The idea that Adam and Eve would be "having no joy, for they knew no misery; doing no good, for they knew no sin." to me is antithetical to what I read in the biblical text. 

 

I do appreciate your explaining it though, thanks. 

[bluebell]

The idea that Adam and Eve would be "having no joy, for they knew no misery; doing no good, for they knew no sin." to me is antithetical to what I read in the biblical text. 

 

I do appreciate your explaining it though, thanks. 

As far as I can tell, the creation story in genesis is silent on the issue of opposition.  

 

There is the existence of both the tree of knowledge of good and evil and the tree of life, which are in opposition to each other (one takes eternal life away and one gives it), but I can see why many Christians would not conclude that that means anything specific.

 

And thanks to you for explaining your beliefs. 

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

The idea that Adam and Eve would be "having no joy, for they knew no misery; doing no good, for they knew no sin." to me is antithetical to what I read in the biblical text. 

 

I do appreciate your explaining it though, thanks. 

Please explain how that could be at all possible to be antithetical to the biblical text?

[cdowis]

The idea that Adam and Eve would be "having no joy, for they knew no misery; doing no good, for they knew no sin." to me is antithetical to what I read in the biblical text. 

 

I do appreciate your explaining it though, thanks. 

 

That is why we need the Book of Mormon, the stick of Joseph, in association with the stick of Judah.

 

Read 2 Nephi chapter 2 for an explanation of Adam and Eve's role in the plan of salvation.

[danielwoods]

Please explain how that could be at all possible to be antithetical to the biblical text?

 

 

Thank you for asking.

 

The statement, "having no joy, for they knew no misery; doing no good, for they knew no sin." 

 

So, where in the Biblical text does it indicate that there was no joy, because they didn't know misery? Or how can anyone claim that they did no good, because they knew no sin, when God said it was "good" when he had completed his creative actions. 

 

What is in the text is pure joy experienced by both Adam and Eve, and pure good at every moment, until they fell. 

[bluebell]

Thank you for asking.

The statement, "having no joy, for they knew no misery; doing no good, for they knew no sin."

So, where in the Biblical text does it indicate that there was no joy, because they didn't know misery? Or how can anyone claim that they did no good, because they knew no sin, when God said it was "good" when he had completed his creative actions.

What is in the text is pure joy experienced by both Adam and Eve, and pure good at every moment, until they fell.

The BOM isn't saying that good didn't exist before the fall. It is saying that Adam and Eve could not do good because they had no knowledge of what good was. They had no understanding of it because the had nothing 'ungood' to compare it to.

Think of it this way, if you had never been sick, could you know what being healthy is? Sure you would have health, but without sickness to compare it to you would not be able to recognize it. Being healthy wouldn't mean anything to you. You wouldn't have any understanding of what 'healthy' was.

That's what the BOM is saying about the need for opposition.

[danielwoods]

The BOM isn't saying that good didn't exist before the fall. It is saying that Adam and Eve could not do good because they had no knowledge of what good was. They had no understanding of it because the had nothing 'ungood' to compare it to.

Think of it this way, if you had never been sick, could you know what being healthy is? Sure you would have health, but without sickness to compare it to you would not be able to recognize it. Being healthy wouldn't mean anything to you. You wouldn't have any understanding of what 'healthy' was.

That's what the BOM is saying about the need for opposition.

 

If they couldn't do good, then what did they do before the fall? What do you call it?

[bluebell]

If they couldn't do good, then what did they do before the fall? What do you call it?

Sorry about the blank post. I had this forum open on my phone and somehow it replied and posted while in my pocket!

The bible is pretty silent on what Adam and Eve were doing.

 

We know they were in the garden (because being banished from the garden was one of the effects of the Fall). Leaving out the issue of whether or not they could have children in the garden, according to the Bible Adam didn't 'know' Eve, and Eve did not have any children, until after the Fall so they weren't parenting.  Maybe they were gardening?  I don't know.  It seems like we know a lot of what Adam and Eve did after the Fall, but not much of what they did before it. 

 

Before the Fall we know they were innocent, and were able to be in the presence of God, and were immortal, and I think that's about it, especially as far as the bible is concerned. 

 

I think though that you are getting hung up on the difference between 'being' good and 'doing' good (and maybe i'm just misunderstanding the issue, so if so, I apologize). 

 

Just because Adam and Eve were innocent and able to be in the presence of God doesn't mean they were doing 'good'.  Toddlers are also innocent and 'good' but they are not capable of doing good.  Without knowledge of what is good and what is evil, there is no way for a toddler to purposefully do good. 

 

Likewise, it's not illogical to assume that Adam and Eve were like children while in the garden (since 'innocence' can very reasonably be interpreted as being child like) and as such, did not possess the ability to purposefully do good, even though they were good.

Edited August 23, 2013 by bluebell

[Stone holm]

If they couldn't do good, then what did they do before the fall? What do you call it?

 

Lukewarm, tepid sex combined with a vegetarian diet, but plenty of time to get a healthy tan without tan lines.

[Vance]

What is in the text is pure joy experienced by both Adam and Eve, and pure good at every moment, until they fell. 

 Well, THAT isn't in the text either.  If what they were experiencing was "pure joy" then how was it that Satan was able to tempt them, because there would be no reason to make a change from the status quo.

 

Seriously, I think you just make stuff up on the fly.

[Vance]

Lukewarm, tepid sex combined with a vegetarian diet, but plenty of time to get a healthy tan without tan lines.

Just like a couple of prepubescent children. 

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Thank you for asking.

 

The statement, "having no joy, for they knew no misery; doing no good, for they knew no sin." 

 

So, where in the Biblical text does it indicate that there was no joy, because they didn't know misery? Or how can anyone claim that they did no good, because they knew no sin, when God said it was "good" when he had completed his creative actions. 

 

What is in the text is pure joy experienced by both Adam and Eve, and pure good at every moment, until they fell. 

No one claimed the could not do good. What we are saying is the if all they knew was good or experienced was good did they really know it was good? Think of your experiance with an orange or your fav fruit. If all you ever had was a sweet juicy orange aka a good orange would you really know what it meant to have a good orange with out tasting of a bad orange? IOW could you fully appreciate a good orange? No. Of course not. Not it gets more complex when we are talking about good vs evil. Could you fully comprehen good if there was no evil? No. That is what we are talking about. Adam and Eve might have experiance pure joy and pure good at every moment in the Garden but with out the experiance of pure bad and pure misery I dare say that they could not comprehend that joy and that good.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

If they couldn't do good, then what did they do before the fall? What do you call it?

I think it important to note that "not knowing good from evil" is not the same as "doing no good". No one once made that argument.

Edited August 23, 2013 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[danielwoods]

Sorry about the blank post. I had this forum open on my phone and somehow it replied and posted while in my pocket!

The bible is pretty silent on what Adam and Eve were doing.

 

We know they were in the garden (because being banished from the garden was one of the effects of the Fall). Leaving out the issue of whether or not they could have children in the garden, according to the Bible Adam didn't 'know' Eve, and Eve did not have any children, until after the Fall so they weren't parenting.  Maybe they were gardening?  I don't know.  It seems like we know a lot of what Adam and Eve did after the Fall, but not much of what they did before it. 

 

Before the Fall we know they were innocent, and were able to be in the presence of God, and were immortal, and I think that's about it, especially as far as the bible is concerned. 

 

I think though that you are getting hung up on the difference between 'being' good and 'doing' good (and maybe i'm just misunderstanding the issue, so if so, I apologize). 

 

Just because Adam and Eve were innocent and able to be in the presence of God doesn't mean they were doing 'good'.  Toddlers are also innocent and 'good' but they are not capable of doing good.  Without knowledge of what is good and what is evil, there is no way for a toddler to purposefully do good. 

 

Likewise, it's not illogical to assume that Adam and Eve were like children while in the garden (since 'innocence' can very reasonably be interpreted as being child like) and as such, did not possess the ability to purposefully do good, even though they were good.

 

So, when Adam named the animals it was not a good thing he did? 

[danielwoods]

No one claimed the could not do good. What we are saying is the if all they knew was good or experienced was good did they really know it was good? Think of your experiance with an orange or your fav fruit. If all you ever had was a sweet juicy orange aka a good orange would you really know what it meant to have a good orange with out tasting of a bad orange? IOW could you fully appreciate a good orange? No. Of course not. Not it gets more complex when we are talking about good vs evil. Could you fully comprehen good if there was no evil? No. That is what we are talking about. Adam and Eve might have experiance pure joy and pure good at every moment in the Garden but with out the experiance of pure bad and pure misery I dare say that they could not comprehend that joy and that good.

 

 

I think it important to note that "not knowing good from evil" is not the same as "doing no good". No one once made that argument.

 

Someone posted a link to an LDS explaination, and I was reading it, and came along to a reference to 

2 Nephi 2:23 where the statement was made, "having no joy, for they knew no misery; doing no good, for they knew no sin." 

 

 

 

So, in light of the idea that the fall was a "good thing" and coupled with that this idea that Adam and Eve were 

'Doing no good, and having no joy." It appeared antithetical to what is actually in the text of the Bible. That's all. 

[Stone holm]

Just like a couple of prepubescent children.

Or a couple old geezers with high cholesterol in Aruba.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Someone posted a link to an LDS explaination, and I was reading it, and came along to a reference to 

2 Nephi 2:23 where the statement was made, "having no joy, for they knew no misery; doing no good, for they knew no sin." 

 

 

 

So, in light of the idea that the fall was a "good thing" and coupled with that this idea that Adam and Eve were 

'Doing no good, and having no joy." It appeared antithetical to what is actually in the text of the Bible. That's all. 

Oh I see. I think my points still stand in light of what you think the scriptures say. I would say they were doing no good because they were ignorant of it, which was the point of my orange analogy. They simply could not comprehend good or bad until they tasted of the fruit.  Or perhaps they were not given a chance to good or bad until God gave them the choice to eat of the tree.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

So, when Adam named the animals it was not a good thing he did? 

The scripture don't say that it was good or bad. I wager it was a good thing.

 

And further more the Scriptures never once say that Adam had knowledge that it was a good thing or that he could comprehend it. OF coruse we know he didn't have knowledge of good or bad because he had not eaten the fruit yet.

[Five Solas]

So having refreshed my memory by talking to my friends, the experts in biblical language (experts compared to me and most people that is) it looks like the differentiation between sin and transgression is a modern understanding at least taught by Joseph Fielding Smith and possibly before. This is like the usage of Urim and Thumim and Jehovah and Elohim.

Fine by me, I have no issue with continuing revelation or even just changing language as long as we stay aware of the changes.

Wow.  Beginning w/ post #374 (Vance) and quickly piled-on by Mola Ram Suda Ram & mfbukowski--MrG gets taken to the woodshed for his failing to make differentiation between sin and transgression.  The beating reaches its zenith with what is hands-down the thread's most condescending post, mfbukowski, #408.  (MrG's restraint shown in #409 is for the ages.)

 

And then we learn said distinction is a late 20th century LDS understanding, taught by Joseph Fielding Smith.  I don't know how other readers feel, but kinda seems to me the aforementioned worthies owe MrG an apology.  Not holding my breath, of course. 

;0)

 

What do you think, calmoriah?

 

--Erik

 

Clean up the attitude and start contributing substance or you will be removed from threads.

[danielwoods]

Oh I see. I think my points still stand in light of what you think the scriptures say. I would say they were doing no good because they were ignorant of it, which was the point of my orange analogy. They simply could not comprehend good or bad until they tasted of the fruit.  Or perhaps they were not given a chance to good or bad until God gave them the choice to eat of the tree.

 

God gave them that choice right after they were created. What they knew or not isn't really the question, given the quote from Nephi.

 

The scripture don't say that it was good or bad. I wager it was a good thing.

 

And further more the Scriptures never once say that Adam had knowledge that it was a good thing or that he could comprehend it. OF coruse we know he didn't have knowledge of good or bad because he had not eaten the fruit yet.

 

So, if you think that Adam did a good thing, yet the BoM states they did no good thing, are you disagreeing with the BoM?

Edited August 23, 2013 by danielwoods

[bluebell]

So, when Adam named the animals it was not a good thing he did? 

When you give your animals a name, do you consider that to be 'doing good'?  Do you believe if Adam hadn't have named them, it would have been a sin?

 

These questions aren't meant to be snarky.  I'm just thinking that your definition of what it means to 'do good' is different than mine, and different than the one the BOM is using.  The BOM, in the verse in question, defines 'doing good' as the opposite of committing sin.   You might be having such a problem with this concept because you are defining 'doing good' much more broadly than that verse.

[danielwoods]

When you give your animals a name, do you consider that to be 'doing good'?  Do you believe if Adam hadn't have named them, it would have been a sin?

 

These questions aren't meant to be snarky.  I'm just thinking that your definition of what it means to 'do good' is different than mine, and different than the one the BOM is using.  The BOM, in the verse in question, defines 'doing good' as the opposite of committing sin.   You might be having such a problem with this concept because you are defining 'doing good' much more broadly than that verse.

 

Well, the verse in question, "having no joy, for they knew no misery; doing no good, for they knew no sin."  States they have no joy, and are doing no good. The reasons are that they knew no misery, and knew no sin. 

 

My point is that certainly they had Joy (given the context of the Bible), if they were at all connected with the author of joy. And they certainly did good, because they obeyed God's commands, until the fall. So, if that's true, then the BoM and the Bible are at odds on this point. Or so it seems to me. 

[bluebell]

 

Well, the verse in question, "having no joy, for they knew no misery; doing no good, for they knew no sin."  States they have no joy, and are doing no good. The reasons are that they knew no misery, and knew no sin. 

 

My point is that certainly they had Joy (given the context of the Bible), if they were at all connected with the author of joy. And they certainly did good, because they obeyed God's commands, until the fall. So, if that's true, then the BoM and the Bible are at odds on this point. Or so it seems to me. 

 

Can you know joy if it's all you've EVER experienced?  If there was a person who had NEVER had anything but sugar, and another person who had had both sugar and salt, which person would be qualified to explain what sugar tastes like, or how it makes them feel? 

 

We have to have something different to compare our experiences to, or they mean nothing to us.  That's what the Book of Mormon is trying to teach.

 

Have you ever been in a room that had a really strong smell, but you had no idea that it smelled like it did until someone came in from outside (or you left and came back)?  When our bodies are exposed to the same experience repeatedly, they loose the ability to recognize it.  If it's all we've ever been exposed to, then our bodies react as if it's not even there. 

 

Because Adam and Eve had nothing else to compare it to, they had no way to recognize joy.  For them, it would have been like the strong smell in a room that they had never been outside of.  It could be the strongest smell in the world but they would not be able to 'smell' it because it was all they've ever known.  In such an existence, it is reasonable to describe them has 'having no joy' because if you don't know that you have something, it's the same as not having it.

 

And I've already talked about why it doesn't really make sense to try to argue that being obedient is always the same as doing good.  A toddler can be obedient.  Heck, even a dog or a cat can be obedient.  That doesn't mean they are doing good.  At least, I've never thought that my pet was doing good when they came when I called-not in the way the scriptures define doing good anyway.

 

But like I said, you might feel differently about that. 

Edited August 24, 2013 by bluebell