Sunday School

[stemelbow]

1 hour ago, thesometimesaint said:

It wasn't good for Eve. She was cast out of the Garden of Eden along with Adam.

Wasn't that the plan that needed to happen?  Is there not good in fulfilling the plan?  Of coruse it was good for Eve, even she said so. 

1 hour ago, thesometimesaint said:

You can obey with exactness the law of tithing, the law of chastity, etc., etc., etc.. The hard ones are like the law to "love one another as I have loved you".

I doubt it. 

[stemelbow]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

I've never seen stemelbow rant. 

I have.  Most of my rants come when I'm peering at myself in the mirror, that lousy SOB. 

[stemelbow]

42 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Sometimes, sure.  The verse says that they obeyed every command (of Helaman's) with exactness.  Is it possible to obey a general with exactness?  Is it possible to obey the directions of a prophet with exactness?  I don't see why not.

 

Well that's fine, but that's not what I meant.  no one obeys all the commandments with exactness.  Part of the reason why no one does is because there is contradiction.  Eve saw it good for not obeying with exactness. 

[stemelbow]

10 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

It wasn't "good." It was "necessary." In other words we all agreed to come to this world in a fallen state - that we may experience good and evil. Experiencing evil may not be good, but it is apparently necessary to progress. Otherwise there would be nothing to overcome, and no reason to be here. As the "mother" of the Church Eve made that decision for us. It is classic BoM theology.

Would it all have turned out good if she did that which was unnecessary and not partaken of the fruit?  It had to happen.  I call that means she did something good for the sake of everyone. 

[bluebell]

Just now, stemelbow said:

Well that's fine, but that's not what I meant.  no one obeys all the commandments with exactness.  Part of the reason why no one does is because there is contradiction.  Eve saw it good for not obeying with exactness. 

But that's what the lesson is about.  It's about obeying the prophet with exactness.  I thought we were discussing the lesson?

And no, i don't think that the reason that people don't obey with exactness is because they believe that sometimes God doesn't want them to obey Him.  I would say that pretty much 100% of the time, when people don't obey God with exactness, it's because we are weak, are good at justifying disobedience, and that our disobedience leads to the need to repent. 

Eve saw some of the consequences of her sin as being beneficial.  The sin itself was not 'good'.  It would have separated her forever from God without God mercifully providing a Savior.    Without serious intervention to overcome her disobedience, Eve's disobedience would have destroyed her.

[thesometimesaint]

2 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Wasn't that the plan that needed to happen?  Is there not good in fulfilling the plan?  Of coruse it was good for Eve, even she said so. 

I doubt it. 

No. The Plan was for Adam and Eve to follow God whatever he Commanded. That they would not eat of the Fruit of Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil without Command from God. They followed Satan rather than God. First Eve and then Adam violated that law. It wasn't good for Eve, she and Adam were cast out and eventually died. It was good for us in that we were able to be born, but inherited death from their violation.

Sorry you feel that way. I'm far from perfect and need to repent constantly for the sins I've committed. But I have some commandments down. I'm working on the hard ones.

12 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I have.  Most of my rants come when I'm peering at myself in the mirror, that lousy SOB. 

What a horrible thing to say about yourself. You are a noble son of God from what I've seen. Not perfect yet, but working on it. 

[stemelbow]

8 minutes ago, bluebell said:

But that's what the lesson is about.  It's about obeying the prophet with exactness.  I thought we were discussing the lesson?

We cant' obey the prophet with exactness, both because we simply can't maintain all commands due to our carnality and because the commands can contradict. 

8 minutes ago, bluebell said:

And no, i don't think that the reason that people don't obey with exactness is because they believe that sometimes God doesn't want them to obey Him.  I would say that pretty much 100% of the time, when people don't obey God with exactness, it's because we are weak, are good at justifying disobedience, and that our disobedience leads to the need to repent.

I'm not saying Eve disobeyed beucase she thought God wanted her to.  I said she did disobey and it was good.  Of course some are struggling with calling it good, but it was necessary (which I'd say it good so feel free to view it that way if you like). 

8 minutes ago, bluebell said:

 

Eve saw some of the consequences of her sin as being beneficial.  The sin itself was not 'good'.  It would have separated her forever from God without God mercifully providing a Savior.    Without serious intervention to overcome her disobedience, Eve's disobedience would have destroyed her.

I'm not sure what you mean.  Are you saying if she did not partake of the fruit that she would have been blissfully with God forever?  I thought the separation from God and the subsequent path to get back was outlined before her decision to partake ever occurred, and as it was her decision to partake had to happen otherwise we'd all be lost.  As it is the fall was as necessary as the atonement in keeping us from being separated from God for forever.  So if you are stuck on the word good, then just think the word necessary in it's place.  I think that'll help you. 

[bluebell]

Just now, stemelbow said:

We cant' obey the prophet with exactness, both because we simply can't maintain all commands due to our carnality and because the commands can contradict. 

Maybe if you provided some examples I'd understand better what you meant.  Which commands have Pres. Monson given us since he's been a prophet that you believe we would be unable to obey with exactness?  

Quote

I'm not sure what you mean.  Are you saying if she did not partake of the fruit that she would have been blissfully with God forever?  I thought the separation from God and the subsequent path to get back was outlined before her decision to partake ever occurred, and as it was her decision to partake had to happen otherwise we'd all be lost.  As it is the fall was as necessary as the atonement in keeping us from being separated from God for forever.  So if you are stuck on the word good, then just think the word necessary in it's place.  I think that'll help you. 

We can use necessary if you prefer.  Let's broaden the subject a little wider as well as change the words used.  You keep using Eve as the example to prove that God does not always want us to obey with exactness.  

Can you come up with other examples besides Eve?  (sincere question because i haven't thought about so i really don't know if there are any).  If we can find other examples, then it's probably something worth pondering.

If Eve is our only example out of thousands and thousands of years of theological history and teachings, then maybe we should consider that Eve, in regards to disobedience, was an exception and not an example of how God wants us to behave.

[mfbukowski]

47 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

It wasn't "good." It was "necessary." In other words we all agreed to come to this world in a fallen state - that we may experience good and evil. Experiencing evil may not be good, but it is apparently necessary to progress. Otherwise there would be nothing to overcome, and no reason to be here. As the "mother" of the Church Eve made that decision for us. It is classic BoM theology.

This Doctrine alone revolutionizes Christianity.

The Book of Mormon also teaches about the Melchizedek priesthood and other Cornerstone doctrines like opposition in all things.

The idea of opposition in all things also solves the old classic Christian problem of evil which was invented by neoplatonism

Edited September 1, 2016 by mfbukowski

[Calm]

14 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

We cant' obey the prophet with exactness, both because we simply can't maintain all commands due to our carnality and because the commands can contradict. 

I'm not saying Eve disobeyed beucase she thought God wanted her to.  I said she did disobey and it was good.  Of course some are struggling with calling it good, but it was necessary (which I'd say it good so feel free to view it that way if you like). 

I'm not sure what you mean.  Are you saying if she did not partake of the fruit that she would have been blissfully with God forever?  I thought the separation from God and the subsequent path to get back was outlined before her decision to partake ever occurred, and as it was her decision to partake had to happen otherwise we'd all be lost.  As it is the fall was as necessary as the atonement in keeping us from being separated from God for forever.  So if you are stuck on the word good, then just think the word necessary in it's place.  I think that'll help you. 

Many think that everything still would have been possible if they had chosen to wait until God commanded them to eat.  Otoh I don't know why we would need a redeemer in that case as there would have been no sin, though perhaps there would have been death anyway, becoming mortal by command rather than sin.  And that would eventually lead to someone sinning among billions of people...likely all of us sinning.  Our 'fallen nature' isn't necessarily inherited from Adam and Eve, but simply inherent in a mortal body.  

I think Eve's joy could be much like that of the joy of a new mother in her child, a child conceive out of wedlock.  Even while recognizing the act of conception was wrong and spiritually harmful, there is no reason the parents shouldn't take full joy in the birth, especially if they have done all they could to repent and create a good environment in which to raise the child.

All that is to point out Eve's disobedience might not have been necessary or good.  God says he can turn all things to our good in the end (though I believe much of that will occur in the next life) so even horrible actions like torture and genocide which few have any trouble labeling as wrong will ultimately have good consequences.  And since they were part of the sequence of events that leads to salvation, one might say with your reasoning if I understand it correctly that these horrors are necessary, but I suspect you don't believe that and it is the assumption that Eve's action was the only way for us to show up on earth that makes it necessary for you.  But unless that can be demonstrated as fact and not assumption, the line of reasoning is problematic.

Edited September 1, 2016 by Calm

[waveslider]

3 hours ago, stemelbow said:

"well we must obey with exactness".  Obey what?

I think the mix up here is that we are trying to jump through all the hoops by ourselves, taking each commandment by the letter. Instead we should be striving to be led by the Holy Ghost, and obey His voice as perfectly as we can. When we mess up, we will feel it very much and immediately want to repent and have the Spirit back again as our guide, which He will if we are truly doing our best to obey His voice and are sincere in our hearts and minds to obey with exactness. The individual commandments will end up being taken care of automatically this way. We won't be over burdened with trying to obey, all at once, every single commandment. Instead we will be led and guided, sometimes even waiting until we are ready to follow a particular commandment until the proper time when we are ready to. As long as we obey His voice with exactness we will find that it is not only possible, but that it isn't as hard as we imagined as long as we humble ourselves as a little child, willing to submit to all things that God sees fit to inflict upon us. Just my two cents worth anyway.

[stemelbow]

4 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Maybe if you provided some examples I'd understand better what you meant.  Which commands have Pres. Monson given us since he's been a prophet that you believe we would be unable to obey with exactness?  

That's not really what I'm saying.  What commands has Pres Monson given us since he's been called as prophet that hasn't been given already? 

I'm thinking more along the lines of, we are to love one another.  And yet it's been taught we are to avoid hanging out with those who are not lifting us up.  I suppose we can do both of these to some extent, but it's hard to imagine one whom we avoid feeling the love from us. 
As I've seen it, one or the other seems to take priority with individuals.  Some either eschew the notion of avoiding hanging out with those who are not lifting us up in favor of just being loving and stuff, while others compromise the love lest he/she fall into a bad spot. 

4 minutes ago, bluebell said:

We can use necessary if you prefer.  Let's broaden the subject a little wider as well as change the words used.  You keep using Eve as the example to prove that God does not always want us to obey with exactness.  

Can you come up with other examples besides Eve?  (sincere question because i haven't thought about so i really don't know if there are any).  If we can find other examples, then it's probably something worth pondering.

If Eve is our only example out of thousands and thousands of years of theological history and teachings, then maybe we should consider that Eve, in regards to disobedience, was an exception and not an example of how God wants us to behave.

I don't see why one example isn't enough to be a lesson to us. Should we really say that though scripture teaches us that it's necessary (see I didn't use the word good for your sakes) to disobey, or at least can be, then we should not really believe scripture in this instance because it's only one instance and you know....God wouldn't do that to us. 

I'm also thinking of applying it differently.  God works on the individual and will, it seems, command in the face of established laws.  Nephi killing a passed out laban, or Abraham beign commanded to offer up his son, are two extreme examples. Though Nephi felt awful at the prospect of killing another, he did it, because he felt inspired to.  Abraham must have felt some extreme contradiction in tricking his son to be sacrificed.  These extreme cases mean a lot to me--not that I actually think God will command to kill. 

[stemelbow]

43 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

No. The Plan was for Adam and Eve to follow God whatever he Commanded. That they would not eat of the Fruit of Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil without Command from God. They followed Satan rather than God. First Eve and then Adam violated that law. It wasn't good for Eve, she and Adam were cast out and eventually died. It was good for us in that we were able to be born, but inherited death from their violation.

Adam and Eve had to be cast out and die or else they'd be lesser than they could become.  How is a necessary step to progress not good, is beyond me.  But people are getting hung up on it, so I'll let you guys wallow around stuck on that word. 

 

43 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

Sorry you feel that way. I'm far from perfect and need to repent constantly for the sins I've committed. But I have some commandments down. I'm working on the hard ones.

What a horrible thing to say about yourself. You are a noble son of God from what I've seen. Not perfect yet, but working on it. 

 

[stemelbow]

19 minutes ago, Calm said:

Many think that everything still would have been possible if they had chosen to wait until God commanded them to eat.  Otoh I don't know why we would need a redeemer in that case as there would have been no sin, though perhaps there would have been death anyway, becoming mortal by command rather than sin.  And that would eventually lead to someone sinning among billions of people...likely all of us sinning.  Our 'fallen nature' isn't necessarily inherited from Adam and Eve, but simply inherent in a mortal body.

We can think anything we want, I guess.  I'm still not sure why anyone would argue with Eve about how to classify things.  It's a word.  Calling Jesus good was something he didn't like either, I guess.  I read it as necessary.  Other's don't and make up other possible scenarios, I guess.  But I don't know if that means much, in the end.  It's still a lesson in scripture for us to gain from.  We might as well use it as is and not pretend we know more than we do. 

19 minutes ago, Calm said:

 

I think Eve's joy could be much like that of the joy of a new mother in her child, a child conceive out of wedlock.  Even while recognizing the act of conception was wrong and spiritually harmful, there is no reason the parents shouldn't take full joy in the birth, especially if they have done all they could to repent and create a good environment in which to raise the child.

All that is to point out Eve's disobedience might not have been necessary or good.  God says he can turn all things to our good in the end (though I believe much of that will occur in the next life) so even horrible actions like torture and genocide which few have any trouble labeling as wrong will ultimately have good consequences.  And since they were part of the sequence of events that leads to salvation, one might say with your reasoning if I understand it correctly that these horrors are necessary, but I suspect you don't believe that and it is the assumption that Eve's action was the only way for us to show up on earth that makes it necessary for you.  But unless that can be demonstrated as fact and not assumption, the line of reasoning is problematic.

huh?  I'm not saying anything near it is necessary that certain horrible actions like torture and genocide had to happen.  I'm referencing a scriptural story in which we learn that the one who sinned said it was good to do so.  This may mean there are other instances in which we may sin and it is good to do so.  Contradictory commands tend to make that question pertinent. 

[Tacenda]

I don't understand why we have this theology about Adam and Eve and the rest of Christianity think differently. Such as Eve, really doing the right thing. 

Non LDS Christianity, have it that she didn't really do the right thing, they believe God really wanted them to be in the GoE. And that she really did sin, and listened to Satan, and disobeyed father. 

Why is it that our church believes Satan was right and God was wrong, or was sort of using trickery?

This is something that has bothered me, and makes me worry that I'm listening to false prophets as told in the Bible. And that if I am, I will be damned, or I won't be saved. 

Does this not worry any LDS? Or is this church so hunky dory some will stay in it even if it's wrong, because they love the way it's set up, or they love the organization and how well it helps them raise a family, and how family is everything.

Please forgive me Stemelbow if I've derailed. 

[stemelbow]

1 minute ago, Tacenda said:

I don't understand why we have this theology about Adam and Eve and the rest of Christianity think differently. Such as Eve, really doing the right thing. 

Non LDS Christianity, have it that she didn't really do the right thing, they believe God really wanted them to be in the GoE. And that she really did sin, and listened to Satan, and disobeyed father. 

Why is it that our church believes Satan was right and God was wrong, or was sort of using trickery?

This is something that has bothered me, and makes me worry that I'm listening to false prophets as told in the Bible. And that if I am, I will be damned, or I won't be saved. 

Does this not worry any LDS? Or is this church so hunky dory some will stay in it even if it's wrong, because they love the way it's set up, or they love the organization and how well it helps them raise a family, and how family is everything.

Please forgive me Stemelbow if I've derailed. 

I don't mind derails, only when people do it when responding to questions I have or in the middle of us talking about something in particular.  That makes derail no fun.  But derails like this rule.  We should be happy to run off with our thoughts as we each say things. 

As per your concern, for me, the story of Adam and Eve is not real.  it si the stuff of myths, included in our scriptures to teach us certain things.  I don't think Eve at a piece of fruit and damned humanity.  That's just silly.  It's a representation of what we each are.  We each get faced with doing right and/or wrong and sometimes we choose wrong, and sometimes while even choosing wrong good comes of it.  There's a lesson there, I'd say, for each of us, as simple as it may seem. 

As far as the traditional view of Adam and Eve in Christianity...I have nothing to add.  I've had so many discussions with so many maintstream Christians, but I still don't really see consistency or point in their view.  I mean not that the LDS view of it all literally happening that way is the best.  It's still problematic too. 

[Calm]

11 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

We can think anything we want, I guess.  I'm still not sure why anyone would argue with Eve about how to classify things.  It's a word.  Calling Jesus good was something he didn't like either, I guess.  I read it as necessary.  Other's don't and make up other possible scenarios, I guess.  But I don't know if that means much, in the end.  It's still a lesson in scripture for us to gain from.  We might as well use it as is and not pretend we know more than we do. 

huh?  I'm not saying anything near it is necessary that certain horrible actions like torture and genocide had to happen.  I'm referencing a scriptural story in which we learn that the one who sinned said it was good to do so.  This may mean there are other instances in which we may sin and it is good to do so.  Contradictory commands tend to make that question pertinent. 

Or you could be misreading and Eve is meaning the Lord was able to turn a bad (sin) into a good and she has joy in that good.  The conditions of what might have been are not fully given to us.  Therefore imo using it to reason and even justify acting out a sin because you think it may lead to good is problematic as a general rule.

Eve's action may be so out of the realm of our own lives, such a unique circumstance that extrapolating to our own sins might be inappropriate.

How many commandments are actually contradictory as opposed to needing to be fulfilled in the right time and place (family history/temple work is a general commandment that is not required of the young, young mothers, etc)?

There will be times that something is usually a sin won't be such as lying to protect someone from immediate harm.  Otoh, I don't think those are actual sins and thus labeling them sins confuses the issue.  The question would be, imo, if they break one law by fulfilling a higher law so that one is still held accountable to the consequence of the lower law.  I am iffy on that.  The social world makes exceptions, you can kill someone in self defense, that is not viewed as breaking a law.  But the physical world doesn't weigh the value of the deed, running into a burning building to save a child will get you the same burns as running in to loot while the home is unprotected.  So do we say it is not a sin or that the Atonement pays the debt on 'good sins' for us?

I think it will be more effective to use the language of it is not a sin rather than saying God wants us to sin in some cases.  The latter doesn't make sense to me.

I think it is important to be careful of the language in discussing sin because it is so easy to rationalize the breaking of them, whether by looking at the results (if I cheat on this exam, I will get into a better school, make more money and be able to afford giving lots to charity or pay for that hip surgery for Grandma), by committing to repent later (we have eternity to repent and progress so a few years of breaking the Law of Chastity is no big deal as long as I am careful to not 'procreate'), or by putting all the burden on God (God is infinite love so there is no way he can hold anything against me no matter what choices I make).

[Tacenda]

26 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I don't mind derails, only when people do it when responding to questions I have or in the middle of us talking about something in particular.  That makes derail no fun.  But derails like this rule.  We should be happy to run off with our thoughts as we each say things. 

As per your concern, for me, the story of Adam and Eve is not real.  it si the stuff of myths, included in our scriptures to teach us certain things.  I don't think Eve at a piece of fruit and damned humanity.  That's just silly.  It's a representation of what we each are.  We each get faced with doing right and/or wrong and sometimes we choose wrong, and sometimes while even choosing wrong good comes of it.  There's a lesson there, I'd say, for each of us, as simple as it may seem. 

As far as the traditional view of Adam and Eve in Christianity...I have nothing to add.  I've had so many discussions with so many maintstream Christians, but I still don't really see consistency or point in their view.  I mean not that the LDS view of it all literally happening that way is the best.  It's still problematic too. 

Well, I'd love a response, if any, to go to my PM.

Thanks Stemelbow.

[waveslider]

35 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I don't understand why we have this theology about Adam and Eve and the rest of Christianity think differently. Such as Eve, really doing the right thing. 

Non LDS Christianity, have it that she didn't really do the right thing, they believe God really wanted them to be in the GoE. And that she really did sin, and listened to Satan, and disobeyed father. 

Why is it that our church believes Satan was right and God was wrong, or was sort of using trickery?

This is something that has bothered me, and makes me worry that I'm listening to false prophets as told in the Bible. And that if I am, I will be damned, or I won't be saved. 

Does this not worry any LDS? Or is this church so hunky dory some will stay in it even if it's wrong, because they love the way it's set up, or they love the organization and how well it helps them raise a family, and how family is everything.

Please forgive me Stemelbow if I've derailed. 

The church doesn't believe that Satan was right and God was wrong. The church believes that in spite of Eve choosing to disobey God in lieu of obeying Satan, God was still able to make it so that His purposes wouldn't be thwarted. This whole premise is what the Atonement and gospel are all about, that Christ is the Savior and that God's will always wins out in the end. We don't know if there would have become a time when Adam and Eve would have been allowed to partake of the fruit at a later date, when they would be more ready to take on a fallen state, and become mortal so that they could have children, without the extra punishments attached to sinning that first sin. A controlled fall is always better than a premature fall, which Satan caused to happen earlier than necessary, by convincing Eve to sin.

[Tacenda]

7 minutes ago, waveslider said:

The church doesn't believe that Satan was right and God was wrong. The church believes that in spite of Eve choosing to disobey God in lieu of obeying Satan, God was still able to make it so that His purposes wouldn't be thwarted. This whole premise is what the Atonement and gospel are all about, that Christ is the Savior and that God's will always wins out in the end. We don't know if there would have become a time when Adam and Eve would have been allowed to partake of the fruit at a later date, when they would be more ready to take on a fallen state, and become mortal so that they could have children, without the extra punishments attached to sinning that first sin. A controlled fall is always better than a premature fall, which Satan caused to happen earlier than necessary, by convincing Eve to sin.

But the Christians I've heard speak about it, say that Adam and Eve could have had children in the garden.

[stemelbow]

14 minutes ago, Calm said:

Or you could be misreading and Eve is meaning the Lord was able to turn a bad (sin) into a good and she has joy in that good.  The conditions of what might have been are not fully given to us.  Therefore imo using it to reason and even justify acting out a sin because you think it may lead to good is problematic as a general rule.

Well we have what we have.  All I know is it is presented to us that Eve calls it good that they can now see good and evil because of the sin or disobeying.  We can certainly assume that means something other than what she says and is trying to say even though I did bad God made it good for some reason.  we can try, but that doesn't work too well, in my estimation. 

14 minutes ago, Calm said:

Eve's action may be so out of the realm of our own lives, such a unique circumstance that extrapolating to our own sins might be inappropriate.

Sure, if scripture wasn't meant to teach us lessons so we can extrapolate into our own lives. 

14 minutes ago, Calm said:

How many commandments are actually contradictory as opposed to needing to be fulfilled in the right time and place (family history/temple work is a general commandment that is not required of the young, young mothers, etc)?

Beats me how many, but there's enough confusion from our various sources, all the prophets and apostles in our latter-days and canonized scripture, we're just picking and choosing anyway. 

14 minutes ago, Calm said:

There will be times that something is usually a sin won't be such as lying to protect someone from immediate harm.  Otoh, I don't think those are actual sins and thus labeling them sins confuses the issue.  The question would be, imo, if they break one law by fulfilling a higher law so that one is still held accountable to the consequence of the lower law.  I am iffy on that.  The social world makes exceptions, you can kill someone in self defense, that is not viewed as breaking a law.  But the physical world doesn't weigh the value of the deed, running into a burning building to save a child will get you the same burns as running in to loot while the home is unprotected.  So do we say it is not a sin or that the Atonement pays the debt on 'good sins' for us?

I think it will be more effective to use the language of it is not a sin rather than saying God wants us to sin in some cases.  The latter doesn't make sense to me.

I think it is important to be careful of the language in discussing sin because it is so easy to rationalize the breaking of them, whether by looking at the results (if I cheat on this exam, I will get into a better school, make more money and be able to afford giving lots to charity or pay for that hip surgery for Grandma), by committing to repent later (we have eternity to repent and progress so a few years of breaking the Law of Chastity is no big deal as long as I am careful to not 'procreate'), or by putting all the burden on God (God is infinite love so there is no way he can hold anything against me no matter what choices I make).

Ok.  I guess we can ask whether it is always sin if we disobey, then. 

[waveslider]

7 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

But the Christians I've heard speak about it, say that Adam and Eve could have had children in the garden.

And where do these mainstream Christians get that information from? I certainly haven't seen it stated in the Bible.

[stemelbow]

31 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Well, I'd love a response, if any, to go to my PM.

Thanks Stemelbow.

Hi tacenda.  I tried.  That's really all I have though.  I don't think the story really happened.  I think it is something made up in a sense to teach us a little something.  That suggests to me that I don't think God was wrong and Satan was right, because there was never any such occurrence.  But I do think the story is trying to tell us that no matter what we're each going to end up doing something wrong and that that's not necessarily a bad thing.  It's our path and in traveling it we learn.  yes, I do think God will save us. 

[cdowis]

58 minutes ago, waveslider said:

And where do these mainstream Christians get that information from? I certainly haven't seen it stated in the Bible.

They were commanded to have children, so the assumption is that they had the capability to do so.  That assumption was incorrect in the sense that they were physically able to do so, but they had not discovered their nakedness, so, like children, they did not have the desire to do so.

At least, so says cdowis who has figured this out.

Edited September 1, 2016 by cdowis

[Atheist Mormon]

6 hours ago, stemelbow said:

Sunday school isn't the funnest. 

This is another "absolute horror story" a mental torture which lasts couple hours week after week, year after year....

It is like me watching several games every week (which I do) but they are the same games and I know the results...imagine that...I would throw away every TV in my room (have 8 screens). I even hated watching Groundhog Day...Which was cute & charming.