Original Sin. What does it mean to you?

[pogi]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Perception really is everything.  

No doubt.  The question we have to ask is, what was the perception of Adam and Eve in regards to the command to not eat the fruit?  Did Eve really perceive her actions as "clever" and "wise", or did she learn that she was beguiled and deceived?  There is no wisdom in deception.  Their next move is telling - they hid themselves in shame.

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Can't do both.

Are you sure?

Be fruitful, and don’t eat of the fruit – two seemingly simple commandments. To Eve, however, there was nothing simple about it. The result of not partaking of the fruit of knowledge, as far as Eve was concerned, was fruitless. Literally! She could neither eat of the fruit of knowledge, nor rejoice in the fruit of her womb, leaving her unable to fulfill the first commandment.

The consequence for not fulfilling the first commandment to be fruitful was never specified in scripture. The consequence for disobedience to the second, however, was clear: "…thou shalt surely die" (Genesis 2:17). "How?" they must have thought. "How do we fulfill the first without disobeying the second?" or, "how do we remain true to the second without leaving the first undone?"

In a later answer to a similarly difficult question, Adam revealed his devout and doubtless trust in the Lord when he said, "I know not, save the Lord commanded me." Only, this response was to the question "why obey?" instead of "how?" Either way, Adam’s patience in obedience was unquestionable…so long as his wife was by his side. Surely, Adam would have answered this problematic and faith-shaking question as to how to keep both commandments in similar fashion: "I know not, save the Lord commanded me."

Similar patience and trust was found many generations later in a prophet who was equally troubled at the "how" of obedience. After trying and failing twice to retrieve the brass plates from Laban (a seemingly impossible task), Nephi acted on his previous words, "I will go and do the things which the Lord hath commanded, for I know that the Lord giveth no commandments unto the children of men, save he shall prepare a way for them that they may accomplish the thing which he commanded them" (1 Nephi 3:7). Like Adam, Nephi responded in similar fashion - I know not how, I know not why, but the Lord will always provide the way, the means, and the blessings of obedience. Of such was the faith of both Adam and Nephi.

For now, Adam was to wait upon the Lord. In similar fashion, the Lord declared to the prophet Joseph Smith in the latter days, "Stop, and stand still until I command thee, and I will provide means whereby thou mayest accomplish the thing which I have commanded thee" (D&C 5:34).

From these three prophets, we learn that the "how" of obedience is not always clear; nor is it immediate. However, two things are clear: Patience on the Lord and trust in his word are both required for perfect obedience. Patience to endure and withstand the desire for immediate gratification of the fruit, whether it be good or evil, and complete trust that "the Lord giveth no commandments… save he shall prepare a way" to fulfill them.

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Lehi's Law of Opposition reigns supreme.

I agree, but the Lord does not present himself in opposition to himself as the popular interpretation goes.

 

Edited December 30, 2016 by pogi

[JLHPROF]

5 minutes ago, pogi said:

I agree with this, except that I can't find the literal and relatable "same course" of having to decide between two conflicting and paradoxical commandments in this life.  It offers an obscure and distorted view of God and the simplicity, constancy, and purity of his word.  It offers a false scenario for real life.

Our innocence is not lost because God did not prepare a way for us to obey.  It is not a rigged system and a forced fall, where we have no choice but to be disobedient one way or the other.  God does not present himself in opposition to himself.  I feel like much of the meaning of the ritual and symbolism is lost with such an interpretation.  We were born innocent like Adam and Eve.  The tree is symbolic in so many ways.  It represents the much more relatable choice and opposition between patience and obedience vs. instant gratification.  It also represents the gift of knowledge of good as we choose obedience, vs. the knowledge of evil as we choose disobedience.  Through disobedience, Adam (and all of us) came to know evil as he hid himself from the Lord, and only later came to know the good as he sought reconciliation in answering the call of God by presenting himself before the Lord. 

It is the story of our lives and much more relatable to our personal falls.  This interpretation preserves the dignity of God's word.

Very well thought out.

In the end for me I just don't believe Adam and Eve were actually truly "disobedient" to God.
I believe God's warning about "eating the fruit" was informing Adam and Eve that there was a law in place and what the results would be if they chose to transgress that law.  I would even go so far to say that God as the upholder of all law had to forbid the breaking of it.
But I firmly believe that the law was always going to be transgressed.  God knew it, expected it, and wanted it.

I agree with you that "it is not a rigged system and a forced fall, where we have no choice but to be disobedient one way or the other."
And like you I also don't believe God would give '"two conflicting and paradoxical commandments".  I believe God commanded them to multiply and replenish the earth and warned them of the results of the transgression and told him nevertheless, thou mayest choose for thyself.  I believe the law that was transgressed was one of natural law, not a moral one.

1. Yes according to scripture God forbade the eating of the tree.  2. God also commanded them to multiply which Eve said they couldn't do without eating.  3. God also chose Christ to redeem Adam and Eve and all of us millennia before Adam and Eve fell.

To quote Sesame Street "one of these things is not like the other, one of these things doesn't belong".
For me, #1 is the anomaly and needs a better explanation than "Adam and Eve disobeyed and God was mad."

 

[pogi]

4 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

 I believe the law that was transgressed was one of natural law, not a moral one.

I believe this scripture addresses this point:

Quote

 

34 Wherefore, verily I say unto you that all things unto me are spiritual, and not at any time have I given unto you a law which was temporal; neither any man, nor the children of men; neither Adam, your father, whom I created.

 35 Behold, I gave unto him that he should be an agent unto himself; and I gave unto him commandment, but no temporal commandment gave I unto him, for my commandments are spiritual; they are not natural nor temporal, neither carnal nor sensual.

 36 And it came to pass that Adam, being tempted of the devil—for, behold, the devil was before Adam, for he rebelled against me, saying, Give me thine honor, which is my power; and also a third part of the hosts of heaven turned he away from me because of their agency;

 37 And they were thrust down, and thus came the devil and his angels;

 38 And, behold, there is a place prepared for them from the beginning, which place is hell.

 39 And it must needs be that the devil should tempt the children of men, or they could not be agents unto themselves; for if they never should have bitter they could not know the sweet—

 40 Wherefore, it came to pass that the devil tempted Adam, and he partook of the forbidden fruit and transgressed the commandment, wherein he became subject to the will of the devil, because he yielded unto temptation.

 41 Wherefore, I, the Lord God, caused that he should be cast out from the Garden of Eden, from my presence, because of his transgression, wherein he became spiritually dead, which is the first death, even that same death which is the last death, which is spiritual, which shall be pronounced upon the wicked when I shall say: Depart, ye cursed.

 

4 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

To quote Sesame Street "one of these things is not like the other, one of these things doesn't belong".
For me, #1 is the anomaly and needs a better explanation than "Adam and Eve disobeyed and God was mad."

No, it follows much more like real life.  We, like Adam and Eve, disobey.  God is always merciful but cannot tolerate transgression of His commandments to the least degree.  We suffer any natural and spiritual consequences of transgression according to the justice of God, and then God covers our nakedness (shame) in the skins of the atonement as he walks us through the repentance process. It is no "anomaly", it is the plan of salvation. 

 

Edited December 31, 2016 by pogi

[JLHPROF]

15 minutes ago, pogi said:

I believe this scripture addresses both of these points:

No, it follows much more like real life.  We, like Adam and Eve, disobey.  God is always merciful but cannot tolerate transgression of His commandments to the least degree.  We suffer any natural and spiritual consequences of transgression according to the justice of God, and then God covers our nakedness (shame) in the skins of the atonement as he walks us through the repentance process. It is no "anomaly", it is the plan of salvation.

 

This still doesn't explain why the fall was the plan.

[pogi]

53 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

This still doesn't explain why the fall was the plan.

It was a package deal.  It came included with the plan of salvation and being human.  It is not that God "willed" for Adam to transgress his word (a strange but popular belief in Mormon culture), as much as it is that God knew that they would.  My theory gives true agency to chose between obedience and disobedience vs. disobedience and disobedience.   I think it follows much more true to God's character.  The fall didn't have to happen the way it did, it could have come about due to a transgression to any further instruction that they were promised.   There was no wink, wink, nod, nod when God said "I forbid it!"  "My will is my word and I say don't eat it!...cough, eat it, cough, cough, wink, nod".  

It gets to be absurd.

Edited December 31, 2016 by pogi

[Glenn101]

8 hours ago, pogi said:

I admit that 2 Nephi 2:22-23 is difficult to reconcile with my theory.  I am not entirely satisfied with any explanations of that passage yet, but I have some ideas that I need to develop, so hold out for that.  Either way, I still feel more comfortable with a theory that only has one or two challenging scriptures.  I don't have to entirely uproot the eternal, unchanging, and non-contradictory nature of God, and dismiss an unspeakable amount of scripture in regards to obedience.  

Maybe it is because you are looking at the Bible message only. Compare what Genesis 2:17 says against what Moses 3:17 says.

Genesis 2:17: " But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die."

Moses 3:17: " But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it, nevertheless, thou mayest choose for thyself, for it is given unto thee; but, remember that I forbid it, for in the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die."

I perceive a key difference there. Do you? God clearly told Adam that he had a choice. This does add a bit of ambiguity there. A lot less authoritarian and a more nuanced "I forbid it because you will surely die."

And in Moses 5:11, Eve tells us essentially the same thing that Lehi taught: "And Eve, his wife, heard all these things and was glad, saying: Were it not for our transgression we never should have had seed, and never should have known good and evil, and the joy of our redemption, and the eternal life which God giveth unto all the obedient."

This is just my two cents worth, but my wife actually finally did give me a penny for my thoughts recently.

Glenn

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, pogi said:

No doubt.  The question we have to ask is, what was the perception of Adam and Eve in regards to the command to not eat the fruit?  Did Eve really perceive her actions as "clever" and "wise", or did she learn that she was beguiled and deceived?  There is no wisdom in deception.

Eve did not know that she was clever anymore than a child understands what cleverness is, but her first response was telling:  She tried to shift the blame to the archetypal serpent, the old blame game so characteristic of children.  In her innocence, she did not realize that she was not blameworthy anyhow.

Quote

  Their next move is telling - they hid themselves in shame.

Yes, but because they were naked, and they didn't even know it until told by Lucifer.  It was not shame for eating the "fruit."

Quote

..........................

Be fruitful, and don’t eat of the fruit – two seemingly simple commandments. To Eve, however, there was nothing simple about it. The result of not partaking of the fruit of knowledge, as far as Eve was concerned, was fruitless. Literally! She could neither eat of the fruit of knowledge, nor rejoice in the fruit of her womb, leaving her unable to fulfill the first commandment.

The consequence for not fulfilling the first commandment to be fruitful was never specified in scripture. The consequence for disobedience to the second, however, was clear: "…thou shalt surely die" (Genesis 2:17). "How?" they must have thought. "How do we fulfill the first without disobeying the second?" or, "how do we remain true to the second without leaving the first undone?"

Yes.  A puzzling quandary even for an experienced adult.  But the script was already in place and had to be enacted as written, as it always is.

Quote

In a later answer to a similarly difficult question, Adam revealed his devout and doubtless trust in the Lord when he said, "I know not, save the Lord commanded me." Only, this response was to the question "why obey?" instead of "how?" Either way, Adam’s patience in obedience was unquestionable…so long as his wife was by his side. Surely, Adam would have answered this problematic and faith-shaking question as to how to keep both commandments in similar fashion: "I know not, save the Lord commanded me."

Similar patience and trust was found many generations later in a prophet who was equally troubled at the "how" of obedience. After trying and failing twice to retrieve the brass plates from Laban (a seemingly impossible task), Nephi acted on his previous words, "I will go and do the things which the Lord hath commanded, for I know that the Lord giveth no commandments unto the children of men, save he shall prepare a way for them that they may accomplish the thing which he commanded them" (1 Nephi 3:7). Like Adam, Nephi responded in similar fashion - I know not how, I know not why, but the Lord will always provide the way, the means, and the blessings of obedience. Of such was the faith of both Adam and Nephi.

For now, Adam was to wait upon the Lord. In similar fashion, the Lord declared to the prophet Joseph Smith in the latter days, "Stop, and stand still until I command thee, and I will provide means whereby thou mayest accomplish the thing which I have commanded thee" (D&C 5:34).

From these three prophets, we learn that the "how" of obedience is not always clear; nor is it immediate. However, two things are clear: Patience on the Lord and trust in his word are both required for perfect obedience. Patience to endure and withstand the desire for immediate gratification of the fruit, whether it be good or evil, and complete trust that "the Lord giveth no commandments… save he shall prepare a way" to fulfill them.

The event in the Garden is a prelude or prequel to our life in the dark and dreary world.  It is not life in the Telestial World, but a necessary ritual of introduction in which we take oaths and make covenants and then leave sacred time and enter upon the acid test of life in this world.  The two states are not the same.

Quote

.........., but the Lord does not present himself in opposition to himself as the popular interpretation goes.

The Law of Opposition is a universal law, in both morals and physics.  God is the master of natural law and manages it.  I know of no popular interpretation that he opposes himself , except within normative Judeo-Christian-Muslim theology -- which is why it is a self-contradictory and failed theology.

Edited December 31, 2016 by Robert F. Smith

[pogi]

2 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

Moses 3:17: " But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it, nevertheless, thou mayest choose for thyself, for it is given unto thee; but, remember that I forbid it, for in the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die."

I perceive a key difference there. Do you? God clearly told Adam that he had a choice. This does add a bit of ambiguity there. A lot less authoritarian and a more nuanced "I forbid it because you will surely die."

This is the wink, wink, nod, nod, stuff that I was talking about in my response to JLHPROF.  I honestly don't see it.  His will and commandment is pretty unambiguous to me.  I see it as God simply teaching Adam about the basics of the plan of salvation.  This whole commandment thing was new to him.  This was actually the first commandment where he had a choice and God was teaching him about choices, consequences, and expectations.  God made it beyond clear - "but, remember that I forbid it" 

[Okrahomer]

On 12/29/2016 at 10:20 PM, boblloyd91 said:

Interesting, thanks for sharing. This is part of the doctrine of "Total Depravity" found in the "T" in TULIP that Reformed folk adhere to theologically. One way I personally think LDS are misinformed is thinking infant damnation is a Catholic thing, when in reality I think one who adheres to Calvinism is more likely to espouse this. I'm not saying all Reformed believe this but I've seen several people who adhere to Calvinism openly state that babies may go to hell.

I had a similar experience at a mall in Tulsa, Oklahoma several years ago.  I stopped to chat with a representative of Oral Roberts University who was manning a booth there.  We had a very pleasant exchange.  We seemed to surprise each other with how similar our beliefs were.  We found we both had an affinity for the writings of C. S. Lewis and spent some time talking about the books we had read.  But the more deeply we delved into “doctrine”, the more difficult it became to find common ground.  When she began to explain her belief in “Total Depravity”, I was dumbfounded by her clear-eyed affirmation of its consequences.  

We ended the conversation there, as neither of us wanted to debate; but bridging the gaps was simply no longer possible.  Had I been more familiar with his writings, I might have pointed her toward this C. S. Lewis statement in The Problem Of Pain:

“Any consideration of the goodness of God at once threatens us with the following dilemma.  On the one hand, if God is wiser than we His judgement must differ from ours on many things, and not least on good and evil. What seems to us good may therefore not be good in His eyes, and what seems to us evil may not be evil.  On the other hand, if God's moral judgement differs from ours so that our "black" may be His "white", we can mean nothing by calling Him good; for to say "God is good," while asserting that His goodness is wholly other than ours, is really only to say "God is we know not what". And an utterly unknown quality in God cannot give us moral grounds for loving or obeying Him. If He is not (in our sense) "good" we shall obey, if at all, only through fear - and should be equally ready to obey an omnipotent Fiend. The doctrine of Total Depravity - when the consequence is drawn that, since we are totally depraved, our idea of good is worth simply nothing - may thus turn Christianity into a form of devil-worship.”

[Bobbieaware]

9 hours ago, Okrahomer said:

I had a similar experience at a mall in Tulsa, Oklahoma several years ago.  I stopped to chat with a representative of Oral Roberts University who was manning a booth there.  We had a very pleasant exchange.  We seemed to surprise each other with how similar our beliefs were.  We found we both had an affinity for the writings of C. S. Lewis and spent some time talking about the books we had read.  But the more deeply we delved into “doctrine”, the more difficult it became to find common ground.  When she began to explain her belief in “Total Depravity”, I was dumbfounded by her clear-eyed affirmation of its consequences.  

We ended the conversation there, as neither of us wanted to debate; but bridging the gaps was simply no longer possible.  Had I been more familiar with his writings, I might have pointed her toward this C. S. Lewis statement in The Problem Of Pain:

“Any consideration of the goodness of God at once threatens us with the following dilemma.  On the one hand, if God is wiser than we His judgement must differ from ours on many things, and not least on good and evil. What seems to us good may therefore not be good in His eyes, and what seems to us evil may not be evil.  On the other hand, if God's moral judgement differs from ours so that our "black" may be His "white", we can mean nothing by calling Him good; for to say "God is good," while asserting that His goodness is wholly other than ours, is really only to say "God is we know not what". And an utterly unknown quality in God cannot give us moral grounds for loving or obeying Him. If He is not (in our sense) "good" we shall obey, if at all, only through fear - and should be equally ready to obey an omnipotent Fiend. The doctrine of Total Depravity - when the consequence is drawn that, since we are totally depraved, our idea of good is worth simply nothing - may thus turn Christianity into a form of devil-worship.”

On this thread, I've been attempting to help members of the LDS Church to understand that there IS a version of the concept of total depravity found in the Book of Mormon, and it's the Nephite teaching that if there had been no infinite and eternal atonement to temper and mitigate the effects fall, all mankind would be unavoidably lost to physical death, hell and the devil. Why? Because the Nephite prophets clearly and unambiguously understood that if it weren't for the atonement of Christ not a single good thing would be able to dwell within our bodies, minds and spirits. This is why the Book of Mormon says, "and all things which are good cometh of Christ, otherwise men were fallen AND THERE COULD NO GOOD THING COME UNTO THEM." That is about as clear a declaration of total depravity as one can imagine. Mormon is saying that if there is any good at all found in man after the fall, that goodness can only come to fallen man through the atonement of Christ. In other words, after the fall there is no good that could exist in man apart from the blessings extended to man through the atoning sacrifice of Christ. This means after the fall we are made totally dependent on Christ for our salvation because without his infinite and eternal sacrifice there could exist within us nothing worthy or meritorious of salvation. Before I move on, please read the following words of the Nephite prophet Jacob who plainly sets forth what I've just said...

 8 O the wisdom of God, his mercy and grace! For behold, if the flesh should rise no more our spirits must become subject to that angel who fell from before the presence of the Eternal God, and became the devil, to rise no more.

 9 And our spirits must have become like unto him, and we become devils, angels to a devil, to be shut out from the presence of our God, and to remain with the father of lies, in misery, like unto himself; yea, to that being who beguiled our first parents, who transformeth himself nigh unto an angel of light, and stirreth up the children of men unto secret combinations of murder and all manner of secret works of darkness.

 10 O how great the goodness of our God, who prepareth a way for our escape from the grasp of this awful monster; yea, that monster, death and hell, which I call the death of the body, and also the death of the spirit. (2 Nephi 9)

Can we not admit Jacob here makes it perfectly clear that after the fall we are totally depraved without the salvative intervention of Christ?

 I'm trying to make this point with the hope that we Latter-Day Saints will understand there is some sound theological logic and reason that underlies the non-LDS Christian concept of total depravity, and this so that we might be able to find some common ground with our non-LDS Christian friends as we try to bring them to the Restored Gospel. Now it's obvious that where our non-LDS Christian friends go wrong on this point is while there is room for a concept of post-fall total depravity within the theoretical framework of the Restored Gospel, the fact is that the virtues of Christ's atoning sacrifice are applied and available retroactively, and that right from the start the dreadful potential for mankind having to exist in a post-fall state of total depravity is at least partially muted and mitigated by the great and final sacrifice of our Lord.

But here's the most important point: When discussing with our non-LDS Christian friends the theological concept of total depravity, it's of utmost importance they be helped to understand (HERE IT IS...) we believe THE ONLY REASON WHY WE ARE NOT NOW LIVING IN A STATE OF TOTAL DEPRAVITY IS BECAUSE OF THE GRACE AND MERCY OF CHRIST EXTENDED TO US THROUGH THE ATONEMENT. In other words, after the fall there is nothing good that can exist within man apart from the atonement of Christ. The Book of Mormon makes it clear the only reason why we are not now totally depraved is because of Christ; after the fall there is nothing good or meritorious that can exist within us apart from the atonement of Christ. So in our discussions with our Non-LDS Christian friends there is no need to deny the concept of post-fall total deoravity (there's the common ground) but we need to make it clear we also believe God is too loving and merciful to leave us utterly bereft of his light and holy influence while we sojourn in mortality.

Finally, there is a way within LDS soteriology to prove that a state of post-fall total depravity is a very real thing, and that is that the sons of perdition live in a state of total depravity because they have totally cut themselves off from the salvative blessing of Christ's atonement. So what this pointedly illustrates is that there is no good that can exist within post-fall man apart from Christ. After the Spirit of Christ separates from the sons of perdition, there is not even the slightest scintilla of anything good that remains. So you see there really is a state of total depravity without Christ.

Edited December 31, 2016 by Bobbieaware

[LittleNipper]

What is the Gospel?

For I delivered to you as of first/primary importance what I also received/accepted: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that He was buried, that He was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures.
-1 Corinthians 15:3-4 

Edited December 31, 2016 by LittleNipper

[Okrahomer]

2 hours ago, Bobbieaware said:

On this thread, I've been attempting to help members of the LDS Church to understand that there IS a version of the concept of total depravity found in the Book of Mormon, and that is the Nephite teaching that if there had been no infinite and eternal atonement to temper and mitigate the effects fall, all mankind would be unavoidably lost to physical death, hell and the devil.

I understand what you're saying and have no disagreement.  I can't say that I had ever thought of it this way before, so I appreciate you taking pains to explain it here.  If the setting had been different, and I had been more knowlegable and spiritually mature, perhaps we might have been able to bridge this gap as well; but in that moment, my overriding concern was to avoid argument and debate--and I sensed a growing potential for that.  At the time, it seemed important to part company as friends rather than adversaries.

[Bobbieaware]

23 minutes ago, Okrahomer said:

I understand what you're saying and have no disagreement.  I can't say that I had ever thought of it this way before, so I appreciate you taking pains to explain it here.  If the setting had been different, and I had been more knowlegable and spiritually mature, perhaps we might have been able to bridge this gap as well; but in that moment, my overriding concern was to avoid argument and debate--and I sensed a growing potential for that.  At the time, it seemed important to part company as friends rather than adversaries.

I understand. During your discussion there was a good spirit and some positivity. Only a clod would risk turning that good experience of mutual understanding and good will into a heated scripture bash.

[Okrahomer]

1 hour ago, Bobbieaware said:

I understand. During your discussion there was a good spirit and some positivity. Only a clod would risk turning that good experience of mutual understanding and good will into a heated scripture bash.

Yes...exactly.

[boblloyd91]

9 hours ago, Okrahomer said:

I had a similar experience at a mall in Tulsa, Oklahoma several years ago.  I stopped to chat with a representative of Oral Roberts University who was manning a booth there.  We had a very pleasant exchange.  We seemed to surprise each other with how similar our beliefs were.  We found we both had an affinity for the writings of C. S. Lewis and spent some time talking about the books we had read.  But the more deeply we delved into “doctrine”, the more difficult it became to find common ground.  When she began to explain her belief in “Total Depravity”, I was dumbfounded by her clear-eyed affirmation of its consequences.  

We ended the conversation there, as neither of us wanted to debate; but bridging the gaps was simply no longer possible.  Had I been more familiar with his writings, I might have pointed her toward this C. S. Lewis statement in The Problem Of Pain:

“Any consideration of the goodness of God at once threatens us with the following dilemma.  On the one hand, if God is wiser than we His judgement must differ from ours on many things, and not least on good and evil. What seems to us good may therefore not be good in His eyes, and what seems to us evil may not be evil.  On the other hand, if God's moral judgement differs from ours so that our "black" may be His "white", we can mean nothing by calling Him good; for to say "God is good," while asserting that His goodness is wholly other than ours, is really only to say "God is we know not what". And an utterly unknown quality in God cannot give us moral grounds for loving or obeying Him. If He is not (in our sense) "good" we shall obey, if at all, only through fear - and should be equally ready to obey an omnipotent Fiend. The doctrine of Total Depravity - when the consequence is drawn that, since we are totally depraved, our idea of good is worth simply nothing - may thus turn Christianity into a form of devil-worship.”

Interesting quote by Lewis. This is pretty deep stuff, and I highly enjoy discussions like this. I have always been fascinated by Eastern Orthodox theology, and it's interesting that from what I've read, they don't hold to a theology of Total Depravity, which seems to have its roots in Augustine. Rather it seems closer to what we believe in. Granted it's not the same. I think the two opposing theological concepts at play here are synergism versus monergism. Synergism means that salvation is cooperation between God and man, in that man accepts God's grace and kindness, and grows in that grace, whereas from what I understand Monergism is where man plays no part whatsoever in his salvation, and even faith itself is something God decides to give someone. Obviously LDS, Catholics and Orthodoxy holds to the first in various forms, whereas a Protestant would most likely hold to the second in various forms. 

[Glenn101]

5 hours ago, Bobbieaware said:

THE ONLY REASON WHY WE ARE NOT NOW LIVING IN A STATE OF TOTAL DEPRAVITY IS BECAUSE OF THE GRACE AND MERCY OF CHRIST EXTENDED TO US THROUGH THE ATONEMENT.

I would like to know your definition of total depravity. I agree with that statement with my understanding of "total depravity." If not for the atonement, there would be no resurrection, no forgiveness for sins, no repentance because there would be no teaching about repentance, faith, etc. Whatever sins any individual would commit would be on our heads and we would have to pay the full price, in hell. But the Atonement was as inevitable as sin. Nephi was talking about something that could not exist unless the basic theology about God that he taught was incorrect.

Glenn

[Glenn101]

11 hours ago, pogi said:

This is the wink, wink, nod, nod, stuff that I was talking about in my response to JLHPROF.  I honestly don't see it.  His will and commandment is pretty unambiguous to me.  I see it as God simply teaching Adam about the basics of the plan of salvation.  This whole commandment thing was new to him.  This was actually the first commandment where he had a choice and God was teaching him about choices, consequences, and expectations.  God made it beyond clear - "but, remember that I forbid it" 

But, according to all that I have ever read, we would not be here.

Glenn

[Bobbieaware]

1 hour ago, Glenn101 said:

I would like to know your definition of total depravity. I agree with that statement with my understanding of "total depravity." If not for the atonement, there would be no resurrection, no forgiveness for sins, no repentance because there would be no teaching about repentance, faith, etc. Whatever sins any individual would commit would be on our heads and we would have to pay the full price, in hell. But the Atonement was as inevitable as sin. Nephi was talking about something that could not exist unless the basic theology about God that he taught was incorrect.

Glenn

That is all true as far as it goes, Glenn. But because our reconciliation with the Lord was made possible only through the infinite and eternal physical and spiritual suffering of the Son of God, the Book of Mormon prophets repeatedly underscore the fact that all is lost without the Savior's sacrifice, time and again reminding us of this solemn eternal verity so we don't make the mistake of falling into the spirit-deadening trap of taking the atonement for granted as a fait accompli. If all the Lord had to do to atone and save us from everlasting physical and spiritual death was wave a magic wand, then I suppose we could take the whole process for granted without having to fall down at the sight of our Savior and bathe his feet with gut-wrenching tears of indescribable gratitude. Conversely, If all he had to do was wave that magic wand, I suppose a polite thank you would suffice.

Edited December 31, 2016 by Bobbieaware

[pogi]

16 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

In her innocence, she did not realize that she was not blameworthy anyhow.

She was non longer innocent (which has obvious implications) by that time.  God certainly held her accountable, and justice was administered.  Eve transgressed the law, and while Satan certainly played a role (as he always does), we cannot blame him for our transgressions. 

16 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Yes.  A puzzling quandary even for an experienced adult.  But the script was already in place and had to be enacted as written, as it always is.

It was more than puzzling, obedience was an impossible quandary in such a scenario. That the script had to be enacted as written sounds too much like determinism and predestination.  The reenactment of a prewritten script cannot be reconciled with agency.  I have very good reason to believe that the story did not play out the same in other worlds.  I believe that the fruit was given to Adam and Eve by God in other worlds, perhaps I will share more later. 

Quote

I know of no popular interpretation that he opposes himself.

The popular read-between-the-lines interpretation of the following scripture shows God opposing himself in the same breath. 

Quote

Moses 3:17: " But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it, nevertheless, thou mayest choose for thyself, for it is given unto thee; but, remember that I forbid it, for in the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die."

If God's word is his will, then there is some major internal opposition with such an interpretation. 

The most obvious example of God opposing himself within the popular interpretation:  The command to not eat of the fruit is in direct opposition to the command to multiply.  Obedience to one command requires disobedience to the opposing command.  Does God want us to be obedient to all of his commandments, or not?  There is only one possible outcome in this scenario - disobedience.  This is in direct opposition to his promise that he does not give commands without first providing a way to obey. 

 

Edited December 31, 2016 by pogi

[pogi]

3 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

But, according to all that I have ever read, we would not be here.

Glenn

One of the most iconic of all Book of Mormon passages assures us otherwise: 1 Nephi 3:7.  This passage is further corroborated in the D&C and New Testament.  According to this scripture, a way was first prepared to fulfill both commandments, which means that we would be here had they been patient on the Lord.  If Lucifer ever asked "what other way is there?", the best answer is - "I know not save the Lord commanded me."  It really clears things up and makes it much less messy. 

In regards to Moses 5:11, Eve didn't know that they were being prepared to partake of the fruit.  The Lord promised further instruction, she doesn't know what that instruction might have been had she obeyed.  She never learned that there was indeed another way prepared.  Without that knowledge, her comments in Moses 5:11 make sense.  Her remarks likely became oral tradition passed down to Lehi who wrote a similar sentiment. That is one possible explanation any way.

It really boils down to this - both 1 Nephi 3:7 and Moses 5:11 cannot be true as presently interpreted by most members.  There is a misunderstanding somewhere.  When you apply both passages to the garden of Eden, 1 Nephi makes it simple, beautiful, pure, and preserves the dignity of God's word and will - making them constant and non-contradictory, while Moses 5:11 makes it an impossible paradox of confusion and contradiction.  When you apply both passages to the garden and compare the results, I think the outcome and implications make it obvious where the misunderstanding lies.  As the common saying goes - The simplest answer is usually the right one.  Nephi delighted in simplicity, and so do I.

Edited December 31, 2016 by pogi

[Okrahomer]

3 hours ago, boblloyd91 said:

Interesting quote by Lewis. This is pretty deep stuff, and I highly enjoy discussions like this. I have always been fascinated by Eastern Orthodox theology, and it's interesting that from what I've read, they don't hold to a theology of Total Depravity, which seems to have its roots in Augustine. Rather it seems closer to what we believe in. Granted it's not the same. I think the two opposing theological concepts at play here are synergism versus monergism. Synergism means that salvation is cooperation between God and man, in that man accepts God's grace and kindness, and grows in that grace, whereas from what I understand Monergism is where man plays no part whatsoever in his salvation, and even faith itself is something God decides to give someone. Obviously LDS, Catholics and Orthodoxy holds to the first in various forms, whereas a Protestant would most likely hold to the second in various forms. 

 

I think it’s interesting too, though I can’t claim any real familiarity with the discipline of “Theology” or the terminology that has grown up around it.  I had no idea what “TULIP” was when I met my friend from ORU.  My (unexpressed) reaction to what I now know is “Reformed theology” was purely emotional—my Heavenly Father is not a monster!  He does not pre-determine to damn innocent people!  Fortunately, we had other less theologically-driven things in common:  love of God, love of family and country; and C. S. Lewis.  But had it not been for his nascent popularity at BYU during my freshman year, I would not have known anything about him either.

[Glenn101]

6 hours ago, Bobbieaware said:

That is all true as far as it goes, Glenn. But because our reconciliation with the Lord was made possible only through the infinite and eternal physical and spiritual suffering of the Son of God, the Book of Mormon prophets repeatedly underscore the fact that all is lost without the Savior's sacrifice, time and again reminding us of this solemn eternal verity so we don't make the mistake of falling into the spirit-deadening trap of taking the atonement for granted as a fait accompli. If all the Lord had to do to atone and save us from everlasting physical and spiritual death was wave a magic wand, then I suppose we could take the whole process for granted without having to fall down at the sight of our Savior and bathe his feet with gut-wrenching tears of indescribable gratitude. Conversely, If all he had to do was wave that magic wand, I suppose a polite thank you would suffice.

You will get no disagreement with me on those points.

 

[Glenn101]

6 hours ago, pogi said:

One of the most iconic of all Book of Mormon passages assures us otherwise: 1 Nephi 3:7.  This passage is further corroborated in the D&C and New Testament.  According to this scripture, a way was first prepared to fulfill both commandments,

Okay, what way was being prepared for them to keep both commandments? Was the Atonement a backup plan? You said in another post, if I am remembering correctly, that Adam and Eve were being prepared to partake of the fruit at some later time. But no matter when they partook of it, they would have become subject to death. They would have mortal, and they would have had their eyes opened to know right from wrong. (And to realize that they were naked.)

Your belief's in this matter directly contradict the information divulged by Lehi in 2 Nephi 2:23 that Adam and Eve would have remained that state of innocence forever had they not partaken of that fruit.

God does sometimes provide conflicting problems, according to our mortal understanding. In one place He told us thou shalt not kill, then in another place He instructed Nephi to kill Laban, which apparently was the way that God had prepared for Nephi to accomplish the commandment that had been given to obtain the Brass Plates.

Now, I also ask, what would have been the moral equivalent of God telling Adam to eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge and thus bring death and sin into the world?

Glenn

Edited January 1, 2017 by Glenn101
Left something out

[Robert F. Smith]

7 hours ago, pogi said:

She was non longer innocent (which has obvious implications) by that time.  God certainly held her accountable, and justice was administered.  Eve transgressed the law, and while Satan certainly played a role (as he always does), we cannot blame him for our transgressions. 

They went through the motions as they always do, according to the script, but I see no reason to count her accountable.  In any case, I don't see any fault in performing a ritual according to script.

7 hours ago, pogi said:

It was more than puzzling, obedience was an impossible quandary in such a scenario. That the script had to be enacted as written sounds too much like determinism and predestination.  The reenactment of a prewritten script cannot be reconciled with agency.  I have very good reason to believe that the story did not play out the same in other worlds.  I believe that the fruit was given to Adam and Eve by God in other worlds, perhaps I will share more later. 

I see the script as being played out everywhere and at all times in the same way, because it is a necessary ritual.  One can change the trappings or scenery, but the essential elements always remain.  They get us where we need to be, into a Telestial existence, cut off from our Father, having to negotiate the cruel world on our own, only because it has to be that way for our development as gods-in-embryo.  We need the experience.  But without a Savior none of it would work out properly at the end-time.  We are headed for glory together in the eschaton, where the great Banquet of Salvation awaits us.

7 hours ago, pogi said:

The popular read-between-the-lines interpretation of the following scripture shows God opposing himself in the same breath. 

If God's word is his will, then there is some major internal opposition with such an interpretation. 

The most obvious example of God opposing himself within the popular interpretation:  The command to not eat of the fruit is in direct opposition to the command to multiply.  Obedience to one command requires disobedience to the opposing command.  Does God want us to be obedient to all of his commandments, or not?  There is only one possible outcome in this scenario - disobedience.  This is in direct opposition to his promise that he does not give commands without first providing a way to obey. 

God our Father is the ultimate Riddler, clever as all get out, and with an amazing, even puckish sense of humor.  He has pulled some fast ones on me, and I put nothing past him -- nothing outside the realm of possibility.  One day I expect to laugh about all this with you and the rest of my brothers and sisters.  I think that I'll be smiling for the rest of eternity, just as God is laughing up his sleeve right now.

[boblloyd91]

6 hours ago, Okrahomer said:

 

I think it’s interesting too, though I can’t claim any real familiarity with the discipline of “Theology” or the terminology that has grown up around it.  I had no idea what “TULIP” was when I met my friend from ORU.  My (unexpressed) reaction to what I now know is “Reformed theology” was purely emotional—my Heavenly Father is not a monster!  He does not pre-determine to damn innocent people!  Fortunately, we had other less theologically-driven things in common:  love of God, love of family and country; and C. S. Lewis.  But had it not been for his nascent popularity at BYU during my freshman year, I would not have known anything about him either.

If you get a second look up the writings of George Macdonald, he was a major influence on C.S. Lewis and wrote some beautiful fiction and nonfiction.