Apostasy And Satan

[JLHPROF]

So do you believe that when we read God "forbid" them to eat of the fruit it is a slight translation error or misquote and that God actually just explained the consequences of eating the fruit?

 

Or do you believe that God "forbid" something that He actually wanted to happen?

 

The Fall has always been fascinating to me, because it all seems like this weird set up, a long con with a trick question by God in order to get a mortal environment without actually creating anything mortal.  

 

I believe as Brigham Young said, that much of the story is fairytale imagery of real events - Eve was not actually made from Adam's rib.  Adam was not actually made out of dirt.  Satan wasn't actually a snake/serpent.

But all of those symbols are significant of actual items and events.

 

I don't believe that God actually "forbid" the eating of the fruit.  I think God explained to them the eternal law that he upholds - that when immortal beings partake of mortal element over a period of time that they give up immortality and that ANY law that leads to life and eternal life is God's work and ANY law or transgression of law that leads to death or loss of life is prohibited.

I think it went against the eternal laws of nature for Adam and Eve to transgress the law that kept them immortal.  I think God warned them of this and as a lawful being enforced the law with the fall.  I think they transgressed that law putting themselves in a position going against the laws of life in order that we would have the opportunity to progress in our lives.  They sacrificed their lives for ours much as the Savior did.  They did it so we could receive mortal life.  The Savior did it so we could receive eternal life.

 

This is pretty much what Brigham taught, but from today's perspective I suppose much of it is speculation.

[telnetd]

I believe as Brigham Young said, that much of the story is fairytale imagery of real events - Eve was not actually made from Adam's rib.  Adam was not actually made out of dirt.  Satan wasn't actually a snake/serpent.

But all of those symbols are significant of actual items and events.

 

I don't believe that God actually "forbid" the eating of the fruit.

 

Do you believe God allowed them to eat from any of the trees? If

Eve was not formed from Adam's rib, then do you believe she was

also created on earth like Adam was? (and how?).

 

Gail

[rongo]

Brigham Young taught (and I agree with JLHPROF) that there is only one way mortals are born, and that is through birth from parents with bodies. According to him, Adam and Eve were born just like we were, on another world and brought to earth to begin earth's history. Interestingly, this is one of scores of places where he teaches directly against what people think he was teaching in his Adam-God statements.

 

It also goes against the evangelical parlor topic of whether Adam and Eve had belly buttons. According to Brigham Young, "Of course they did!"

[JLHPROF]

 

Do you believe God allowed them to eat from any of the trees? If

Eve was not formed from Adam's rib, then do you believe she was

also created on earth like Adam was? (and how?).

 

Gail

 

I believe God expected them to eat from any of the trees.  I believe God was required to explain to them that it was against the eternal law for them to eat from the "tree of knowledge of good and evil" and that there would be a curse (mortality) as the natural consequence.  But since it was required for God's plan to move forward, and Eve gave thanks for doing it, then I don't believe it was "forbidden".

 

As for Eve and the rib, it was explained in the Lecture at the Veil from the temple endowment from the 1870's to around 1900 as administered by Presidents Young, Taylor, and Woodruff.  But I don't believe I'm allowed to post the direct quote.

[name]

Hi Storm Rider!

 

When I think of apostasy or any activity that would cause an individual to be excommunicated I equate whatever their actions were that merited such an action by the Church to be influenced and motivated by several things:

• That the individual has lost their sense of right and wrong
• their desire to listen to the Spirit has been forfeited in favor of alternative influences
• the carnal world, regardless of the specific passion involved, have the focus of the individual
• a desire to fight against God, his Kingdom, and Zion
• an unrepentant heart - no recognition of wrong doing and no desire to change their ways
• a desire for wickedness - anything that conflicts with the teachings of God (I don't think this is absolute, but more often it begins with one area and then may grow to encompass all areas, thus it is a range of degrees of desire for wickedness)

​Excommunication for some is accompanied with immediate and profound regret and sorrow.  Others remain adamant that they are right and all others are wrong.  Should we equate those who experience with profound sorrow with those who declare that they are right and will not change their ways?  How should we view them?  How should the Church view them?  

 

What concerns me is that there are some members of the Church who see an excommunication as punitive.  That is not its intention or the Church's desire when such action is merited. As someone said elsewhere, an individual excommunicates themselves long before the Church takes action.

 

In addition, there are others who believe that any description of such behavior that merits excommunication to be over the top or unrealistic.  They refuse the descriptions as being in the thrall of Satan.  If not Satan exactly what influence is involved that causes one to be excommunicated?  Is Satan involved or is it the independent actions of a sole individual acting without influence?

Wow!

 

Those who reject describing such actions as being under the influence of Satan necessarily condone the actions of these individuals who have been excommunicated and attempt to dress their behavior in silk.

Nonsense!

There is a plethora of reasons (other than projecting satan's influence) that are in play and none of them demand that you are condoning anything, or anyone.

 

As my mother always said, "You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear,"

My mother always said, "Person who go to bed with itchy butt, wake up with smelly finger."

 

Why are some so reticent to condemn the behavior of those that were excommunicated?

There are probably a variety and wide range of reasons - a mere few of them being: they don't find the behavior to be something they should condemn, they find the behavior to be understandable/acceptable, they simply don't think condemning is something they ought to be doing, period. (or at least to their LDS brethren)

 

What motivates such a reticence?

Compassion, humility, understanding, love, kindness?

 

Worse, infinitely worse, are those who react badly because these actions of the excommunicated are identified as being influenced by Satan and motivated by the passions of this carnal world.  Where does this discomfort come from and how is it best handled?

Although I don't know for sure, I would imagine that the discomfort of identifying someones actions/behavior is being influenced by satan, is largely rooted in the reality and understanding that they (mere human beings) should not be casting such labels and/or projecting these identifiers upon and to others.

How is it best handled? IMO, the best way to handle it would be to abort the practice of "identifying satan's influence in others" and bury it forever.

Edited July 12, 2014 by name

[Storm Rider]

My, aren't we full of "see no evil, speak no evil, hear no evil".  It is that "tra, la, la evil does not exist" in the world that causes so many problems.  That is a nice, rose colored glasses way to talk and live, but it has nothing to do with reality.  It may not be PC to admit that there is evil in the world and that Satan is at the base of that evil influence, but the sad thing is that is what the scriptures teach.  

 

Judging behaviors is just plain smart, "don't touch that hot stove you will get burned" for example.  Individuals are not behaviors and judging individuals is not a charitable act.  You seem to have a lot of the fundamental principles of the gospel all messed up, but to each his own.  

 

Hope that philosophy works for you.  

Edited July 12, 2014 by Storm Rider

[name]

Hey again, Storm!

My, aren't we full of "see no evil, speak no evil, hear no evil".  In fact, it is that "tra, la, la evil does not exist" in the world.  That is a nice, rose colored glasses way to talk and live, but it has nothing to do with reality.

Might I suggest the possibility that this part of your post to me "has nothing to do with reality?"

Can you point out where I suggested that evil doesn't exist?

It may not be PC to admit that there is evil in the world and that Satan is at the base of that evil influence, but the sad thing is that is what the scriptures teach.

No, my new friend, the sad thing is when people (you or I) start "identifying" other people "that are influenced by satan" and other people "who are not influenced by satan."  

 

Hope that philosophy works for you.

You're not "identifying" my philosophy without even ever hearing any of my philosophies are you?

[name]

Judging behaviors is just plain smart, "don't touch that hot stove you will get burned" for example.

Did we really just go from "identifying satan's influence in others" to "don't touch that hot stove?"

Seriously?

 

judging individuals is not a charitable act.

No, it sure isn't!

Nor is it charitable to "identify the influence of satan" in or upon others.

 

You seem to have a lot of the fundamental principles of the gospel all messed up,

One of us sure seem to. I'm just not convinced it's me.

Edited July 12, 2014 by name