Predestination. You Asked For It Here It Is.

[bluebell]

The question of did Satan thwart God's plan (in my view). 

 

No. In reality there is no "plan" as you and I make plans. OR as the LDS teach that there were two competing plans. Nope. No plan in that sense. Why is that? 

 

God is all knowing, so the moment he decided to create us (free-willed beings), he knew in that moment all of what would happen (down to every finite little detail of every nano second), and how it would play out.

I think I get what you are saying.  God didn't mind the Fall, it didn't impede His will at all, so He let it happen, even though it was a bad thing.

 

Since you see no purpose for the fall, I can understand why you believe what you do about it.

 

So the supposed "fight" between Satan and his followers and God is really God allowing Satan to do his thing for a while. When God is done allowing it, it will be done. It's sort of similar to a Father playing with a bunch of 2 year olds. The 2 year olds might think they are getting the upper hand in the fight, and "thwarting" the Fathers plan, and they might tell each other this. But the reality is the Father is in control the whole time and at no time is out of control. In essence, Satan is infinitely outmatched on every level.

I agree.

 

But I still have to ask, if God actually wanted us to live in a pre-fallen world, then wouldn't that mean that satan, regardless of being outmatched, actually did bring about an existence for God's creations that God never wanted them to have?

 

So, the plan, if you want to call it that, is exactly how God expected it to work out, and is reaching his ultimate goal in the end.

 

I agree that this is all exactly how God expected it to work out. 

 

What I hear you saying is that God expected His creation to fall, and therefore get an existence that was second best to what He had actually wanted for them, but He is o.k. with that so He allowed it to happen. 

 

In my belief system, God expected His creation (or children, as I would refer to us as) to fall, but the existence that followed the fall was not the second best to what He actually wanted for them.  It was actually His will all along.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Since the beginning of this thread I have thought much on this topic and two things occurred to me and living here in the South, where there are 2 Protestant Churches for almost everyone living...of course a little much.

1. I have never known any anti-Mormon in person or the net who were not Calvinists who believe predestination. I am sure there are exceptions, but I have found none.

2. Of one calls themselves "Evangelical" they are more likely to be Calvinists, and those who identify themselves as Protestants or by denomination are not. They believe in "partial depravity" and that all men can come unto Christ if they choose.

Edited August 30, 2013 by Bill “Papa” Lee

[danielwoods]

I hear you.

 

My point is that the Fall was absolutely necessary for our salvation (as in, it was necessary for Adam and Eve to fall so that Eve could have children, and so that we could learn knowledge of good and evil and learn to choose the good), and since salvation is good, so must the fall be considered good.

I disagree with a number of things, but I think in the end (below) they may not matter for the most part (in essence it may not matter much what I'm about to say). 

 

The fall wasn't necessary for our salvation or for us to choose good. Adam and Eve had both (and were able to bear children), in my view, before the fall. The fall records their first moral failure. It doesn't record the many moral good things they did. Salvation equals direct communion with God. They had that. They walked and talked with him, directly before the fall. The fall adds nothing to that in my view. 

 

I think I get what you are saying.  God didn't mind the Fall, it didn't impede His will at all, so He let it happen, even though it was a bad thing.

 

Since you see no purpose for the fall, I can understand why you believe what you do about it.

 

I agree.

 

But I still have to ask, if God actually wanted us to live in a pre-fallen world, then wouldn't that mean that satan, regardless of being outmatched, actually did bring about an existence for God's creations that God never wanted them to have?

 

 

I agree that this is all exactly how God expected it to work out. 

 

What I hear you saying is that God expected His creation to fall, and therefore get an existence that was second best to what He had actually wanted for them, but He is o.k. with that so He allowed it to happen. 

 

In my belief system, God expected His creation (or children, as I would refer to us as) to fall, but the existence that followed the fall was not the second best to what He actually wanted for them.  It was actually His will all along.

 

I wouldn't describe our redemption as "second best" either. Rather, I'd call it equal to his original paradisiacal creation (or better). That being a perfect paradise, when we arrive in the new Heaven and new Earth. The difference being that we all choose to be there. And that's a huge difference. 

[Calm]

 The difference being that we all choose to be there. And that's a huge difference. 

And a necessary one in LDS view.

[Vance]

So, what you are saying it that there wasn't a plan, even though God planned for the fall in advance of its happening.

 

Is that correct?

[Vance]

The fall wasn't necessary for our salvation or for us to choose good. Adam and Eve had both (and were able to bear children), in my view, before the fall. The fall records their first moral failure.

 

 And yet you can't provide a single Biblical verse to support these claims.

 

And here I thought you believed in "sola scriptura".

[Vance]

 Ravi Zacharizus says that there's only one thing that will create wonder in the heart of a grown man/woman. And that is an infinite God. 

Well I guess if Ravi Zacharizus says it, it must be true.

 

An infinite universe must not be able to do it.  The miracle of life must not be able to do it.  The beauties of the Earth must not be able to do it.

 

Who is Ravi Zacharizus any way?

[bluebell]

The fall wasn't necessary for our salvation or for us to choose good. Adam and Eve had both (and were able to bear children), in my view, before the fall. The fall records their first moral failure. It doesn't record the many moral good things they did. Salvation equals direct communion with God. They had that. They walked and talked with him, directly before the fall. The fall adds nothing to that in my view.

 

I don't have a problem with those beliefs in the least, as long as you don't try to tell me that they are proven by the bible while mine are the opposite of what the bible account says.

 

I wouldn't describe our redemption as "second best" either. Rather, I'd call it equal to his original paradisiacal creation (or better). That being a perfect paradise, when we arrive in the new Heaven and new Earth. The difference being that we all choose to be there. And that's a huge difference.

If the post-fall redemption was as good as, or even better, than the pre-fall existence, then how can the Fall be called 'bad'?  If it brought about consequences that were as good as or better than what would have been, how can it be an evil thing?

[danielwoods]

 

I don't have a problem with those beliefs in the least, as long as you don't try to tell me that they are proven by the bible while mine are the opposite of what the bible account says.

 

If the post-fall redemption was as good as, or even better, than the pre-fall existence, then how can the Fall be called 'bad'?  If it brought about consequences that were as good as or better than what would have been, how can it be an evil thing?

 

Your first point. When I hear the doctrines coming from the LDS that don't square up with the bible, I wonder where they originated? The Bible? Then upon investigation, I read/hear they originated from an LDS prophet, not the Bible. Which is fine, however, the claims, like the ability to become pregnant are an LDS claim, not a biblical one. The Bible is silent, yet it's silence doesn't lend any  support to the idea that they couldn't. So, as one who believes the Bible only, some of the LDS teachings I hear/read sound antithetical to what the Bible says/implies/and is silent about. I hear Eve couldn't bear children (for example), Oh where? Not in the biblical text. 

 

The LDS make large claims to restoration and progressive revelation. And again that's fine. It's just that to a bible [only] believer many of the teachings sound opposite to what the bible teaches. Again, this is just my opinion. 

 

Your second point. The fall itself was a negative, God's overall plan/goal is achieved. As Joseph said to his brothers. What you meant for evil, God used for good. It was a bad thing his brothers did (put him in a well to be captured). But, God is greater and our redeemer. Does that make the bad thing they did, actually a good thing? No. No more than sinning is good for the soul. It isn't. No more than eating poison is good. The fact that God's overall plan/goal is achieved is a testament to his greatness not the goodness of our evil acts. 

 

This is also another spot where the Bible taken alone, disagrees with what the LDS prophets have taught, or even the BoM. Was the fall good? According to them it was, and necessary, as we've been talking about. Man couldn't be truly "free" if he didn't fall (according to the LDS). I don't see this teaching anywhere in the Bible. 

Edited August 29, 2013 by danielwoods

[danielwoods]

Well I guess if Ravi Zacharizus says it, it must be true.

 

An infinite universe must not be able to do it.  The miracle of life must not be able to do it.  The beauties of the Earth must not be able to do it.

 

Who is Ravi Zacharizus any way?

 

http://www.rzim.org

 

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/595105580/Evangelical-preaches-at-Salt-Lake-Tabernacle.html?pg=all

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

And a necessary one in LDS view.

Some days I find myself calling for a recount.

[Vance]

http://www.rzim.org

 

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/595105580/Evangelical-preaches-at-Salt-Lake-Tabernacle.html?pg=all

Ok, so he is just another preacher.  So what makes him so special?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

 

 

The LDS make large claims to restoration and progressive revelation. And again that's fine. It's just that to a bible [only] believer many of the teachings sound opposite to what the bible teaches. Again, this is just my opinion. 

 

But if the Bible is silent on a particular matter then you cannot claim that is against biblical teaching. Such as Adam and Eve not being able to have have kids in the garden. You can interpret certain passaged a certain way. BUt at the end of the day all we have is an interpretation.

[danielwoods]

But if the Bible is silent on a particular matter then you cannot claim that is against biblical teaching. Such as Adam and Eve not being able to have have kids in the garden. You can interpret certain passaged a certain way. BUt at the end of the day all we have is an interpretation.

 

It's an interesting question. The Bible isn't completely silent, as I made that little list (a while ago). Where there are hints are in the text that indicate they very well could have had children (anatomically/physically/emotionally....etc.). 

 

But, let's say that it was completely silent on the matter. It would still be strange to claim that they couldn't have had children before the fall. The fall had nothing to do with having children or not. It's sort of like saying, before the fall we couldn't do cartwheels, then after the fall we could do cartwheels.... really makes no sense to connect the two. The fall had everything to do with moral choices, and nothing to do with having children. 

[Vance]

It's an interesting question. The Bible isn't completely silent, as I made that little list (a while ago). Where there are hints are in the text that indicate they very well could have had children (anatomically/physically/emotionally....etc.). 

Yes, and I provided a longer list with stronger hints that indicate otherwise.

 

So, now what?

 

But, let's say that it was completely silent on the matter. It would still be strange to claim that they couldn't have had children before the fall. The fall had nothing to do with having children or not. It's sort of like saying, before the fall we couldn't do cartwheels, then after the fall we could do cartwheels.... really makes no sense to connect the two. The fall had everything to do with moral choices, and nothing to do with having children. 

Nothing of substance in there.

 

By your method, we must assume that Adam had a father and a mother, after all he did say, "This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh."

[Calm]

 Ravi Zacharizus says that there's only one thing that will create wonder in the heart of a grown man/woman. And that is an infinite God. 

I disagree.  I find wonder time and time again in just simple expressions of love by my family and friends and even total strangers.  And science is a huge source of wonder as well.  Humanity in all its variations....  The taste of fresh picked grapes...

 

I could go on and on....

Edited August 30, 2013 by calmoriah

[danielwoods]

I disagree.  I find wonder time and time again in just simple expressions of love by my family and friends and even total strangers.  And science is a huge source of wonder as well.  Humanity in all its variations....  The taste of fresh picked grapes...

 

I could go on and on....

 

I don't disagree with you at all. Ravi's statement is directed at skeptics I think, mostly. Since that is his main audience. I find wonder everywhere I look, however I'm looking for it as well. And sensitive to it. But, skeptics aren't. 

[BlueDreams]

I moved this summer, and am finally starting to relax a little... tiring.

 

Just about finished. I didn't have to move very far and don't have a lot of stuff. It was just time consuming and it's been a busy week anyways. But I have to thank you, it's been nice to think about your questions as I go about my week and to ponder what is, for LDS, a very pertinent action.

 

I'm at a quandary here. A choice (made by A&E) which resulted in death, judgement, etc is what? Good or bad?

 

 

Death, judgement…. mercy and freedom and the potential for eternal life. It is a choice that opened up a world of choices. In a sense their choice was both good and bad depending on what we individually choose to make of it.

 

In the beginning you argued that they weren't capable of comprehending good (moral) so they did "no good". So, the flip side would also be true if that's the case, correct? That they weren't able to comprehend moral evil and not able do evil either.

 

 

I’m not sure if placing it in the parameters of good v evil is correct, to be honest. They had extremely limited capacity for moral decision and the decision given opened up the opportunity/freedom for them to choose freely good or evil. From what we know, they had exactly one meaningful choice to make: whether to eat of the forbidden fruit or not. That’s it. I think the partaking of the fruit represented an entrance into the realm of moral decisions. What they decided to do with it after that would decide whether it was a good or evil decision.

 

I was reading a verse in D&C 84 that I found pertinent to this discussion:

46 And the Spirit giveth light to every man that cometh into the world; and the Spirit enlighteneth every man through the world, that hearkeneth to the voice of the Spirit.

 

Notice the interesting phrasing, that the world is a specific conduit to enlightenment from the Spirit, with the caveat that people hearken to the Spirit. It also later describes the world, in contrast, groaning under sin and darkness. This dichotomy is familiar in all LDS scripture and, I would argue the bible as well.....especially in its use of fire imagery as either a destroyer or refiner. To have pains, sorrows, weaknesses, etc is neither good nor bad. Rather, it is what we make of this earth that defines are experiences as either something ennobling or damning; whether good or evil.

Yet, the basis for all judgment and curses are because, "for the sake of" these decisions that you appear to claim they didn't comprehend.

 

 

I think we’re reading the passage and interpreting that verse very differently. when I read this:

"cursed is the ground for thy sake"

I interpret sake as “ benefit, advantage, good, well-being, interest, etc.” I think you’re reading it as more of “reason.”  So I see it as for your advantage or interest, I will curse the ground. You’re reading it, “For the reason of your decision the earth will be cursed.” Both definitions are usable

 

Is that just? To condemn someone that doesn't fully comprehend what they are doing?

 

Based on the definition that I use and see in the Bible of "for thy sake" mixed with the fact that it opened a larger range of capacities for both good and evil, that in LDS theology it acted as a catalyst to the rest of God's commands and purposes, and all that i mentioned above, I do not see this as a condemnation or cursing in the usual sense. This transgression was unique do to their lack or knowledge of good and evil, their capacities, and the necessity for it. 

 

The fact that God has a plan is irrelevant to the question because the question is aimed at A&E specifically. 

 

 

I disagree, for LDS the decision and consequences for A&E are linked to who we are now. What it means for them, effects how we view ourselves now and our relationship with God. The LDS faith, especially for those endowed, has a deep and integral connection to A+E

 

 

With luv,

BD

[danielwoods]

Just about finished. I didn't have to move very far and don't have a lot of stuff. It was just time consuming and it's been a busy week anyways. But I have to thank you, it's been nice to think about your questions as I go about my week and to ponder what is, for LDS, a very pertinent action.

 

 

Death, judgement…. mercy and freedom and the potential for eternal life. It is a choice that opened up a world of choices. In a sense their choice was both good and bad depending on what we individually choose to make of it.

 

I’m not sure if placing it in the parameters of good v evil is correct, to be honest. They had extremely limited capacity for moral decision and the decision given opened up the opportunity/freedom for them to choose freely good or evil. From what we know, they had exactly one meaningful choice to make: whether to eat of the forbidden fruit or not. That’s it. I think the partaking of the fruit represented an entrance into the realm of moral decisions. What they decided to do with it after that would decide whether it was a good or evil decision.

 

I was reading a verse in D&C 84 that I found pertinent to this discussion:

46 And the Spirit giveth light to every man that cometh into the world; and the Spirit enlighteneth every man through the world, that hearkeneth to the voice of the Spirit.

 

Notice the interesting phrasing, that the world is a specific conduit to enlightenment from the Spirit, with the caveat that people hearken to the Spirit. It also later describes the world, in contrast, groaning under sin and darkness. This dichotomy is familiar in all LDS scripture and, I would argue the bible as well.....especially in its use of fire imagery as either a destroyer or refiner. To have pains, sorrows, weaknesses, etc is neither good nor bad. Rather, it is what we make of this earth that defines are experiences as either something ennobling or damning; whether good or evil.

 

I think we’re reading the passage and interpreting that verse very differently. when I read this:

"cursed is the ground for thy sake"

I interpret sake as “ benefit, advantage, good, well-being, interest, etc.” I think you’re reading it as more of “reason.”  So I see it as for your advantage or interest, I will curse the ground. You’re reading it, “For the reason of your decision the earth will be cursed.” Both definitions are usable

 

Based on the definition that I use and see in the Bible of "for thy sake" mixed with the fact that it opened a larger range of capacities for both good and evil, that in LDS theology it acted as a catalyst to the rest of God's commands and purposes, and all that i mentioned above, I do not see this as a condemnation or cursing in the usual sense. This transgression was unique do to their lack or knowledge of good and evil, their capacities, and the necessity for it. 

 

 

I disagree, for LDS the decision and consequences for A&E are linked to who we are now. What it means for them, effects how we view ourselves now and our relationship with God. The LDS faith, especially for those endowed, has a deep and integral connection to A+E

 

 

With luv,

BD

 

I moved twice due to having to rent a basement, after selling our house, and then purchasing again. Whew... I agree with you though. Discussions such as these help me as well. Not only does it give me something else to think about, but it also helps refine my own beliefs, and I learn about what others believe, which is fascinating.  

There's a couple of things that are interesting to pursue. One is the capacity level of knowledge that A&E had related to the judgement they received. The other is the seemingly lack of acknowledgement or wanting to acknowledge the negativeness of the fall.

 

 

You made a claim above, "They had extremely limited capacity for moral decision..." which is an interesting claim. I'm curious where it comes from? In other words, how do we know what their copacity for a moral decision was? And what does one base such a judgement? 

For example. A child (we would agree) has a limited capacity for moral decision making. Are you equating their moral capacity to that of a child? If so what age, and based on what evidence?

 

 

 

One of the verses you seem to hang on is whether it says "for the sake of" Or "because of" in 3:17. Earlier in this thread, calmoriah posted this link which allows one to look at the verse in many different versions:

http://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/Genesis%203:17

After looking at the list, it seems pretty plain to me that the wording "for the sake of" is more of a KJV poetic license thing than a literal translation of the Hebrew meaning.

 

The fact that the fall is a negative event in the history of human kind is proven by the fact that someone had to redeem us. In essence, someone had to pay for the price of our sin. We went from A&E walking and talking and communing with God directly, to not doing that. To being banished from the Garden. 

[Calm]

I haven't been able to pay as much attention to this thread as I would have liked the past few days, but came across something I felt was relevant.  Hopefully it has not be posted before.  It is from a review of books on evolutionary biology from pro to cons but this was a bit off the main topic:

 

Since everything is created by God [ex nihilo, from nothing], a will that turns against God is one of his creations. But a good God presumably created a good will. How, then, could a good will turn against God? I’m not sure that any final answer can be given to this question. Invoking freedom of the will is little help here. Certainly, freedom of the will contains within it the logical possibility of a will turning against God. But why should a good will created by a good God exercise its freedom in that way…? 

 

But this solves nothing—God could have a created a will uninterested in such questions, or one inclined toward sufficient trust to decide that such worries were of no moment. “Turning back to God cannot be coerced” (28), according to Dembski. But what does it mean to have a contingent, created will that is not coerced? Lilith will still respond to God’s entreaties or hints based upon her character and nature, which are ultimately entirely dependent upon God’s previous creative act. To turn back is no credit to her, any more than turning away was ultimately her moral responsibility but instead is due to God’s ex nihilo creative decision. At any rate, these issues are mentioned and dispensed in only two pages (27–28). Dembski’s failure—and, I am convinced, conventional theism’s incapacity—to answer this problem is fatal.

http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/endless-forms-most-beautiful-the-uses-and-abuses-of-evolutionary-biology-in-six-works/

 

It would be better to read the whole section dealing with this so as to avoid possible confusion, but I felt it is easier due to the formatting to read it at the link and not here.

 

 

 

For Dembski, there is a stark choice: “If you’re going to blame evil on something besides God, you’ve got two choices: conscious rebellion of creatures (as in humans or the devil disobeying God) or autonomy of the world (as in the world doing its thing and God, though wringing his hands, unable to make a difference)” (9). He opts for the first—to absolve God, all natural evil is due to human sin. The alternative, in traditional creedal Christianity, is unacceptable.

Now this might seem a huge burden to lay upon us. But Dembski assures us that “humanity, in becoming captive to evil, gave its consent. Humans are complicit in the evil from which God is striving to deliver us” (44). Really? We all gave our consent to every evil? How about my newborn son? Did he? Did I? Did I approve the Indian tsunami, guinea worms, and chimpanzees that kill infant chimps? And if I didsomehow accede to all the evil in the world, if God created me, isn’t he responsible for making me inclined to do so? This seems rather like a forced contract because God is the ultimate determiner of whether I will be disposed to sign on the dotted line. And for Dembski, Adam and Eve (or some representative group of earlier humans) were the ones that spoiled it all in the first place. Am I to be made responsible for their choices? And if so, could I not in justice complain that if God had only made Adam and Eve of a more responsible disposition, none of this would have happened?

Dembski also rejects the idea that God might permit natural evils, or even create them, because his purposes for humanity require them:

According to Whorton’s Perfect Purpose Paradigm, God creates a world of suffering not in response to human sin but to accomplish some future end… But this, again, makes human suffering a means to an end. And even if this end is lofty, we are still being used. [Page 143]Used is used, and there is no way to make this palatable, much less compatible with human dignity

 

(79).

 

 

[bluebell]

Your first point. When I hear the doctrines coming from the LDS that don't square up with the bible, I wonder where they originated? The Bible? Then upon investigation, I read/hear they originated from an LDS prophet, not the Bible. Which is fine, however, the claims, like the ability to become pregnant are an LDS claim, not a biblical one.

I agree. The bible is silent on the ability to become pregnant. However, that silence affects your beliefs to the exact same extent that it affects mine. After all, the bible is not only silent on whether or not they couldn't have children in the garden, it is just as silent on whether or not they could.

In this regard, neither of our beliefs on the subject are biblical, and your inability to see that is the issue.

 

The Bible is silent, yet it's silence doesn't lend any  support to the idea that they couldn't.

Actually, it does.

I can give you two verses which can be used as evidence to support the LDS belief that Eve could not have children in the garden. These are verses which are specific to Eve and motherhood.

Genesis 3:20-And Adam called his wife’s name Eve; because she was the mother of all living.

Note that Eve is not called a mother until after the Fall. Before the fall she is specifically called 'woman' and not 'mother'.

Genesis 4:1-And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the Lord.

Note that the Bible does not speak of Adam 'knowing' Eve until after the Fall. Also note that no posterity of Adam and Eve is recorded in the bible until after the Fall as well.

Can you give me a verse which is specific to Eve and motherhood which can be used as evidence to support the idea that Adam and Eve could have children before the Fall?

 

So, as one who believes the Bible only, some of the LDS teachings I hear/read sound antithetical to what the Bible says/implies/and is silent about.

You keep saying that, but you can't support it.

 

I hear Eve couldn't bear children (for example), Oh where? Not in the biblical text.

 I hear that Eve could bear children (for example), Oh where?  Not in the biblical text.

 

Your second point. The fall itself was a negative, God's overall plan/goal is achieved. As Joseph said to his brothers. What you meant for evil, God used for good. It was a bad thing his brothers did (put him in a well to be captured). But, God is greater and our redeemer. Does that make the bad thing they did, actually a good thing? No. No more than sinning is good for the soul. It isn't. No more than eating poison is good. The fact that God's overall plan/goal is achieved is a testament to his greatness not the goodness of our evil acts.

Fair enough. 

 

This is also another spot where the Bible taken alone, disagrees with what the LDS prophets have taught, or even the BoM. Was the fall good? According to them it was, and necessary, as we've been talking about. Man couldn't be truly "free" if he didn't fall (according to the LDS). I don't see this teaching anywhere in the Bible.

I agree.   One sign that a restoration was not actually needed would be if everything the restoration taught was already believed by the Christian world.

 

However, there are ancient texts which support the LDS interpretation.  I don't expect you to take them as an authority on the subject (I certainly don't) but they show that the ideas about the Fall which the LDS have are not unique to our religion.  Neither are they a modern day invention.

 

http://www.fairlds.org/fair-conferences/2006-fair-conference/2006-adam-in-ancient-texts-and-the-restoration

[danielwoods]

I agree. The bible is silent on the ability to become pregnant. However, that silence affects your beliefs to the exact same extent that it affects mine. After all, the bible is not only silent on whether or not they couldn't have children in the garden, it is just as silent on whether or not they could.

In this regard, neither of our beliefs on the subject are biblical, and your inability to see that is the issue.

Whether they could have children or not is largely irrelevant to the text. It just doesn't matter. The sin wasn't about sex or anything connected to it. The fact that the LDS point to this as one reason the fall was necessary is why it's an issue at all in this discussion. The LDS point not to the Bible as it's reference but to further revelation. As far as the Bible is concerned, they were fully functional right from the get go. There's no evidence other wise, but let's analyze your points.

 

Actually, it does.

I can give you two verses which can be used as evidence to support the LDS belief that Eve could not have children in the garden. These are verses which are specific to Eve and motherhood.

Genesis 3:20-And Adam called his wife’s name Eve; because she was the mother of all living.

Note that Eve is not called a mother until after the Fall. Before the fall she is specifically called 'woman' and not 'mother'.

It doesn't say she couldn't have children until after the fall. I agree it calls her 'woman' for she was taken out of man, and then it states later that her name would be Eve because she would be mother of all living. I agree. However, I disagree that this is evidence of a limitation placed on them before the fall that then after the fall they were changed somehow to allow them to bear children. For example, what changed exactly? And why? What bearing did the fall have on their relationship with respect to function? Where is this limitation mentioned at all? Even once?

The timing of naming Eve in your example doesn't indicate she couldn't have kids before, she was always going to be the mother of all living, because they were given the command to be fruitful, before the fall.

 

Genesis 4:1-And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the Lord.

Note that the Bible does not speak of Adam 'knowing' Eve until after the Fall. Also note that no posterity of Adam and Eve is recorded in the bible until after the Fall as well.

Right on both counts. However, again there is missing any evidence that the fall somehow allowed them to "know" each other, where before they weren't able to "know" each other. Juxtapose this with the command to fill the earth. If they were unable to understand the command or follow it, what's the point of the command? Seems to me the timing is in your favor, but it is mitigated by other evidence, because there is nothing specific to the fall that expanded their ability with regards to having kids. Now let's look at the list I posted earlier.

 

Can you give me a verse which is specific to Eve and motherhood which can be used as evidence to support the idea that Adam and Eve could have children before the Fall?

You keep saying that, but you can't support it.

 I hear that Eve could bear children (for example), Oh where?  Not in the biblical text.

danielwoods, on 20 Aug 2013 - 09:46 AM, said:

The question of contention is were they able to have children before the fall?

Points for:

1) God created them perfect and fully formed and functional.

2) God indicated that the pain of child birth would increase. Something that increases must have existed (at least in theory) before, other wise it doesn't make sense.

3) God commanded that they be fruitful and multiply. God doesn't command something that isn't possible. (before the fall)

4) Adam's statement, "bone of my bone, flesh of my flesh" followed by the statement, "They become one flesh..." (before the fall)

Edited August 31, 2013 by danielwoods

[Vance]

Daniel,

 

I am so glad that you are here and presenting your position.

 

It never ceases to amaze me how much stronger the LDS position is that any of the "traditional Christian" ones are.  I thank you for helping to show it.

 

Here you are reduced to repeating your previous claims that have already been addressed in such a way that you haven't yet put forth a coherent response.

 

danielwoods, on 20 Aug 2013 - 09:46 AM, said:
The question of contention is were they able to have children before the fall?

Points for:

1) God created them perfect and fully formed and functional.
2) God indicated that the pain of child birth would increase. Something that increases must have existed (at least in theory) before, other wise it doesn't make sense.
3) God commanded that they be fruitful and multiply. God doesn't command something that isn't possible. (before the fall)
4) Adam's statement, "bone of my bone, flesh of my flesh" followed by the statement, "They become one flesh..." (before the fall)

 

1) So, God could create them perfectly sexually mature but couldn't create them perfectly obedient?  Who is to say that a prepubescent can't be physically perfect?

 

This is PURE assumption on your part.

 

2) We looked at the Hebrew, and the Hebrew does NOT support your intrepretation.

 

3) Yes and they did fullfil that command AFTER the fall.  The fall of Adam and Eve was all about choice and for a choice to be, there must be options in conflict.

 

4) Why not provide more context?  And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

 

So, in the chronological sequence, which you seem to think is important, a man must FIRST leave his father and his mother.  Did Adam do that?  If not then your whole chronological premise is laid to waste.

 

Besides, making a statement before the fall doesn't require it to be fullfilled before the fall.

 

Your 4 weak arguments have been addressed, yet you have not addressed the more numerous arguments we have put forth.

 

So, again, I thank you for being here to show how strong the LDS position is compared to others.

[danielwoods]

Daniel,

 

I am so glad that you are here and presenting your position.

 

It never ceases to amaze me how much stronger the LDS position is that any of the "traditional Christian" ones are.  I thank you for helping to show it.

 

Here you are reduced to repeating your previous claims that have already been addressed in such a way that you haven't yet put forth a coherent response.

I don't usually respond to things that I don't think are persuasive. I simply don't have the time to respond to everything. But here we go:

 

 

1) So, God could create them perfectly sexually mature but couldn't create them perfectly obedient?  Who is to say that a prepubescent can't be physically perfect?

 

This is PURE assumption on your part.

How does your doubt about God's ability to create have anything to do with what is in the text? If you wish to support your position, that they weren't physically able to "Know" each other, then show where it is in the text. Otherwise it's not just my assumption you are disagreeing with, it's the text, or lack of evidence supporting your idea. Further, if you are arguing that they were prepubescent (currently 11-12 or so years old?) then evidence for this is also needed.

 

2) We looked at the Hebrew, and the Hebrew does NOT support your intrepretation.

False. Increasing one's pain in childbirth is the same in Hebrew as it is in english and mentioning it as a judgement to a person not able to have children is meaningless. Sort of like saying, I'm going to take away your drivers license, that you are unable to have yet.

 

3) Yes and they did fullfil that command AFTER the fall.  The fall of Adam and Eve was all about choice and for a choice to be, there must be options in conflict.

The command to be fruitful and multiply doesn't make sense to a being that can't do it. It's like telling a person too young to drive to drive safely and obey the speed limit.

All choices or options aren't always in conflict, this is one of those cases. The choice between painting a wall yellow or blue aren't in conflict, and the choice to have children (fill the earth) isn't juxtaposed to eating the fruit. Neither have anything to do with each other. They aren't connected in the text anywhere. It doesn't say, oh you can only have children if you eat this fruit. This is a false connection not made by the text alone. Sort of like saying you can't get a drivers license unless you eat rocky road ice cream, they have nothing to do with each other.

 

4) Why not provide more context?  And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

 

So, in the chronological sequence, which you seem to think is important, a man must FIRST leave his father and his mother.  Did Adam do that?  If not then your whole chronological premise is laid to waste.

 

Besides, making a statement before the fall doesn't require it to be fullfilled before the fall.

It doesn't change the meaningfulness of the statement, "bone of my bone" and "one flesh". If Adam and Eve were unable to "Know" each other before the fall, the statement is meaningless. Your question about their parents is irrelevant and another topic (a red herring) and doesn't change the meaningfulness of the statement concerning their ability to have children.

 

Your 4 weak arguments have been addressed, yet you have not addressed the more numerous arguments we have put forth.

 

So, again, I thank you for being here to show how strong the LDS position is compared to others.

Weak or not depends on whether one believes the LDS point of view already. From a Bible only point of view, the whole idea that this is even an issue is not even worth talking about, because it's clear the fall didn't add any abilities to A&E. It was sin and judgement, which always takes away from the perfection God created.

Edited September 2, 2013 by danielwoods

[Stone holm]

It's an interesting question. The Bible isn't completely silent, as I made that little list (a while ago). Where there are hints are in the text that indicate they very well could have had children (anatomically/physically/emotionally....etc.). 

 

But, let's say that it was completely silent on the matter. It would still be strange to claim that they couldn't have had children before the fall. The fall had nothing to do with having children or not. It's sort of like saying, before the fall we couldn't do cartwheels, then after the fall we could do cartwheels.... really makes no sense to connect the two. The fall had everything to do with moral choices, and nothing to do with having children.

In Mormon theology and teachings it does. Adam and Eve would not have been able to make the choice for all humankind had there been others running loose in the Garden.