Adam and Eve - blessings for disobedience

[thesometimesaint]

On 3/24/2016 at 1:21 PM, bluebell said:

My thoughts too. 

If a deceiver enticing an eve to eat the fruit was what had been done in other worlds, Satan would not have been surprised and angry at the punishment that he received. 

It makes me question if there is way for Eve and Adam to receive the fruit that had nothing to do with the way Satan did it. 

It is Gods' responsibility for when the fruit was to be given. Lucifer took that responsibility upon himself.

[halconero]

13 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

It is Gods' responsibility for when the fruit was to be given. Lucifer took that responsibility upon himself.

Which to me goes with the probability that Lucifer was presenting himself as a Messiah/Saviour in the garden.

The serpent appears just as often if not more in scripture as a symbol of the Messiah. Isaiah, Moses, and Nephi point to it as a symbol of Christ. 

In Moses' encounter with Lucifer in the Pearl of Great Price the latter rants and raves about being worshipped as the Only Begotten of the Father and the Saviour. He fought for that acknowledgement in the War in Heaven.

Combined with Hebrew act of Atonement meaning "to cover" it combines nicely with Temple symbolism that he presents himself as a False Messiah to Adam and Eve, usurps Jehovah's authority to give them the fruit, and then offers them a false covering for their sins, later to be removed and then replaced with the true covering offered via genuine repentance and atonement.

[halconero]

Duplicate

Edited March 26, 2016 by halconero

[Duncan]

On 3/23/2016 at 6:09 PM, theplains said:

I had a question on the January 2004 Ensign article "Book of Mormon Principles: Favored of the Lord."

"The God of heaven has never made covenants that are independent of obedience and righteousness."

This seems to be a contradiction in what the teaching manual Gospel Principles says; that God 
bestowed great blessings on Adam and Eve for their disobedience.

Is this the first time God ever gave people blessings for disobeying Him or are there other
examples?

Thanks,
Jim

You're forgetting God forgave them as they repented and as the manual says   "Because of the Fall, we are blessed with physical bodies, the right to choose between good and evil, and the opportunity to gain eternal life. None of these privileges would have been ours had Adam and Eve remained in the garden. " I can't speak for others but I see these things as good things. God can make lemons and all that as we repent, like Adam and Eve did

Edited March 26, 2016 by Duncan

[theplains]

On 24/03/2016 at 4:41 PM, Bobbieaware said:

As I've already said, the curse that came upon Adam and Eve, as a consequence oftheir disobedience, was physical death and and being cut off from the presence of God forever. The blessings that came to Adam and Eve -- and to us -- after the fall were due 100% to the mercy of God through Jesus Christ.

From a biblical perspective, what were the other direct consequences that occured as a 
result of their disobedience?  Do you believe procreation is a blessing for disobedience?

Thanks,
Jim

[theplains]

On 24/03/2016 at 5:30 PM, JLHPROF said:

Adam did not sin, he transgressed.

The meaning of the word transgress is "to step across".

Now THAT is an interesting choice of words.

So it seems to disagree with one particular set of quotes I posted.

Regards,Jim

[theplains]

On 24/03/2016 at 5:42 PM, CV75 said:

Their marriage covenant was in place prior to the commandment to multiply and replenish.

What commandments do you think were in place prior to marriage? Marriage took place in the paradisaical world, but certain other commandments and covenants preceded it and were set in the pre-paradise spirit world (See Alma 13 -- the "holy order" that was in place from the foundation of the world is built upon the oath and covenant of the priesthood with attendant commandments in which to place our faith and good works, even in the pre-mortal / pre-paradise spirit world).

Prior to marriage, Adam was tasked with taking care of the garden and naming the animals. I 
understand the LDS concept of a pre-mortal life in the first estate, but I don't believe it.

Do you believe procreation is a covenant based on Adam and Eve's obedience or disobedience?  
Or do you believe procreation is not a covenant?

Thanks,
Jim

[thesometimesaint]

10 minutes ago, theplains said:

From a biblical perspective, what were the other direct consequences that occured as a 
result of their disobedience?  Do you believe procreation is a blessing for disobedience?

Thanks,
Jim

The punishment was that they were subject to death.

[Bobbieaware]

1 hour ago, theplains said:

From a biblical perspective, what were the other direct consequences that occured as a 
result of their disobedience?  Do you believe procreation is a blessing for disobedience?

Thanks,
Jim

Some Latter-day Saints might erroneously express it that way, but that would be technically incorrect. The reality is that ability to have children came to fallen as a blessing of mercy through the atonement of Christ, AFTER the original acts of disobedience that caused the fall had been repented of and forgiven. God does not bless men for there disobedience, anymore than he can save them in their sins; but he can -- and does -- show mercy after disobedience has been followed by genuine faith and sincere repentence. In The religion of the Latter-day Saints, it's only through the mercy of Christ, by the virtue of his atoning sacrifice, that any good can come into man or woman's life. and the ability to have children is one of those good things.

 24 And behold, there were divers ways that he did manifest things unto the children of men, which were good; and all things which are good cometh of Christ; otherwise men were fallen, and there could no good thing come unto them. (Moroni 7)

 

Edited March 26, 2016 by Bobbieaware
Highlighting

[CV75]

3 hours ago, theplains said:

Prior to marriage, Adam was tasked with taking care of the garden and naming the animals. I 
understand the LDS concept of a pre-mortal life in the first estate, but I don't believe it.

Do you believe procreation is a covenant based on Adam and Eve's obedience or disobedience?  
Or do you believe procreation is not a covenant?

Thanks,
Jim

Adam tended the garden and named the animals. If you believe in the Garden of Eden, then you certainly believe in a pre-mortal state. And in some earlier point, before it rained and before man could till, “every plant …and every herb” were created but not manifest on the very ground Adam was commanded to tend and till, and which the animals he named needed to eat…"before it grew.”

Why is the Garden of Eden not a pre-mortal estate? Why are the creations prior to its being worked by Adam not counted as a first estate, or spiritual, with paradise being the second?

 

Procreation is not a covenant since all life procreates without making one. Marriage on the other hand is a covenant between two people and God, but many people procreate without it. Adam and Eve were married before they were “disobedient.”

What human or animal is incapable of procreating without a covenant (as far as this world is concerned at least)?

[mfbukowski]

On 3/24/2016 at 4:43 AM, halconero said:

Really? I'd say it's in direct accordance with the temple accounts. Though perhaps the word beguiled might be better used than deceived.

That word is used, but I don't think it describes the circumstances accurately as described in that description.

[mfbukowski]

On 3/24/2016 at 8:32 AM, ALarson said:

I believe this is also stated in the temple (I know we can't quote or link to anything with temple content).  But, if you listen closely to the covenants made (look up "Law of Obedience"), you'll see what I'm speaking of here (and it was even more clearly stated prior to the 1990 changes, IMO).  Women obey or listen to their husbands (as long as he is righteous) and men obey or listen to God.

"Counsel" is not "obey".  There is a huge difference.

[mfbukowski]

On 3/24/2016 at 8:20 AM, bluebell said:

I'm not taking it personally as a woman, it's just not anything that i've ever heard taught in church before.

But if it's true, it is negative though, isn't it?  It means that women are kept removed from God (and that their husbands must serve as their intermediary) because of Eve's choice in the garden.  That doesn't seem like a positive thing. It seems like punishment.

Not the case.  The covenant for men is stronger.

And women have superior initiatory blessings.

Edited March 28, 2016 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

I am amazed that those here do not know this stuff by heart.

How many times have you heard these words?  Next time, do not take it as nap time.

Do some initatories, go into the celestial room and compare with your spouse.

Don't criticize what you do not know.

Edited March 28, 2016 by mfbukowski

[bluebell]

8 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I am amazed that those here do not know this stuff by heart.

How many times have you heard these words?  Next time, do not take it as nap time.

Do some initatories, go into the celestial room and compare with your spouse.

Don't criticize what you do not know.

Don't assume that we haven't done all of these things.  And don't insult people by assuming they nap during the endowment.

Last year I spent two months trying to understand the differences between the men and women's initiatories. I spoke with two different temple presidencies. One told me it was inappropriate to even ask what the differences were. The other said that he wouldn't have a problem telling someone in person if they asked and really felt they needed to know. He lives out of state though. 

Most men and women don't even know there are differences in the initiatories. They only reason I know is because of a bishop trying to be helpful with a friend. The temple matron told me later he should not have said anything to her about it. 

[ALarson]

9 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

"Counsel" is not "obey".  There is a huge difference.

If you read what I stated, I said:

"and it was even more clearly stated prior to the 1990 changes, IMO".   The word "obey" was used and then changed to "hearken" after that. 

And hearken means "to give heed to".  So it is just as I stated, "listen or obey".   It is the "Law of Obedience", after all.  Do you believe it was incorrect before the change?

Or, do you believe that man is not to "listen and obey" God's commands him to do?  That is also a part of this law.

.

 

Edited March 28, 2016 by ALarson

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, bluebell said:

Don't assume that we haven't done all of these things.  And don't insult people by assuming they nap during the endowment.

Last year I spent two months trying to understand the differences between the men and women's initiatories. I spoke with two different temple presidencies. One told me it was inappropriate to even ask what the differences were. The other said that he wouldn't have a problem telling someone in person if they asked and really felt they needed to know. He lives out of state though. 

Most men and women don't even know there are differences in the initiatories. They only reason I know is because of a bishop trying to be helpful with a friend. The temple matron told me later he should not have said anything to her about it. 

Fair enough, but I don't see how you could miss the wording of that one covenant the sisters make.

You can talk to anyone in the celestial room about anything.  Go with your spouse or a trusted male friend after doing initiatories and being especially attentive, trying to memorize what is happening.  The differences are quite obvious when you compare them.  Focus on the first two ordinances.

The fact that two different presidents told you two different things proves that there is no policy regarding the matter.    Temple workers are routinely aware of the differences- speak with a male and female temple worker, sit down and compare the wording which they have memorized to perform the ordinances.  In the celestial room of course.

I think it is essential to know this especially when discussion women and the priesthood.  There are perfectly logical reasons for why women do not have the priesthood, except as a couple, a "divine pair" with their husbands.  We hear the phrase bandied about that "women don't need the priesthood" which is usually discounted and scoffed at.  There is much more to that assertion when these principles are understood.

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, ALarson said:

If you read what I stated, I said:

"and it was even more clearly stated prior to the 1990 changes, IMO".   The word "obey" was used and then changed to "hearken" after that. 

And hearken means "to give heed to".  So it is just as I stated, "listen or obey".   It is the "Law of Obedience", after all.  Do you believe it was incorrect before the change?

Or, do you believe that man is not to "listen and obey" God's commands him to do?  That is also a part of this law.

.

 

If it has been changed, why are you complaining?

And it is clearly the law of "obedience" for men.  But don't go implying it is somehow oppressive to women.

Men and women need to counsel together about major decisions, period, and yes, both need to obey the commandments.  It should not be  an oppressive sacrifice for those who have already gotten a temple recommend.

[bluebell]

34 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

You can talk to anyone in the celestial room about anything.  Go with your spouse or a trusted male friend after doing initiatories and being especially attentive, trying to memorize what is happening.  The differences are quite obvious when you compare them.  Focus on the first two ordinances.

It's not so easy to compare without having both of them memorized.

Quote

The fact that two different presidents told you two different things proves that there is no policy regarding the matter.    Temple workers are routinely aware of the differences- speak with a male and female temple worker, sit down and compare the wording which they have memorized to perform the ordinances.  In the celestial room of course.

I realize there is no policy-that's part of the problem.  No one (not even temple presidencies apparently) know what they can actually share and what they can't.  And going to the temple with someone who works there is not that easy either.  I don't actually know any in my temple area.

Quote

I think it is essential to know this especially when discussion women and the priesthood.  There are perfectly logical reasons for why women do not have the priesthood, except as a couple, a "divine pair" with their husbands.  We hear the phrase bandied about that "women don't need the priesthood" which is usually discounted and scoffed at.  There is much more to that assertion when these principles are understood.

I really couldn't care less about women and the priesthood at this point.  I would like to better understand why men are promised a specific relationship with God in the eternities that women are not promised.  We are promised to have it with our husbands, but not God.  My questions are not doubts, just questions.  

[ALarson]

59 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

If it has been changed, why are you complaining?

Where did I complain?  Please supply the quote.

[ksfisher]

37 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I really couldn't care less about women and the priesthood at this point.  I would like to better understand why men are promised a specific relationship with God in the eternities that women are not promised.  We are promised to have it with our husbands, but not God.  My questions are not doubts, just questions.  

I've always understood the part of the temple ceremony that I believe you are referring to as dealing with mortality only.  Perhaps I just need to listen better.

Edited March 28, 2016 by ksfisher

[Calm]

Since there are women making that covenant that aren't married and won't be married in mortality, I am not sure that is a logical assumption though I know many who assume that.

[ksfisher]

5 minutes ago, Calm said:

Since there are women making that covenant that aren't married and won't be married in mortality, I am not sure that is a logical assumption though I know many who assume that.

I understand what you are saying, but I still believe it has reference only to mortality.  It's hard to explain why, in greater detail, outside the temple.

[theplains]

On 26/03/2016 at 0:20 PM, thesometimesaint said:

The punishment was that they were subject to death.

How do you understand these verses?  Which do you see as punishments and which are blessings?

"Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou 
shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee. 
And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of 
the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for 
thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life; Thorns also and thistles 
shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field; In the sweat of thy face 
shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust 
thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return."

Thanks,
Jim

[theplains]

On 26/03/2016 at 3:29 PM, CV75 said:

Why is the Garden of Eden not a pre-mortal estate? Why are the creations prior to its being worked by Adam not counted as a first estate, or spiritual, with paradise being the second?

Procreation is not a covenant since all life procreates without making one. Marriage on the other hand is a covenant between two people and God, but many people procreate without it. Adam and Eve were married before they were “disobedient.”

What human or animal is incapable of procreating without a covenant (as far as this world is concerned at least)?

 

By pre-mortal state, I thought you were referring to their celestial home.  But if your context 
is the Garden of Eden, then yes, they had this pre-mortal estate. I believe Adam and Eve had a 
physical body and that they ate physical food in the garden before the Fall.

From God's perspective in LDS theology,  was it his desired will that Adam and Eve become 
disobedient?

We might have different ideas on whether procreation is a covenant but I believe God did not 
bless Adam and Eve with the power to procreate when they disobeyed him. 

Besides Adam and Eve, were there other people which God blessed for disobedience?

Thanks,
Jim