Jehovah and His Premortal Ministry

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

But there are no "words" involved. I think there might be a bit of equivocation to say word = language = communication = ineffable communication.

I have definitely felt communication during mystical moments, but I would never say that words or language are involved.

Yes, that is why I called it non-verbal  .

 I could call it interaction but that word does not convey the receipt of a message.

As I said we have no words to speak of what cannot be said.

 

Edited September 14, 2019 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, Kevin Christensen said:

Regarding our Book of Abraham, one of Nibley's last articles has this:

https://judaicaworld.wordpress.com/2013/11/16/abrahams-temple-drama/

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

Thanks for that. 

In some ways it's unfortunate that we now have films, because they direct us to a single way of seeing what is happening in the narrative.

Speaking of the materials becomes defined in our minds as the dust clouds in space , for example, and tends to exclude other ways of understanding it, as perhaps spiritual matter or plasma fields or anything else that those words could evoke in our minds through revelation. "Materials" might even be information and mental content itself, but how does one illustrate that in a film? How does one show "spheres of knowledge", or the instructions for how to create planets in a film? Yet of course this instruction would be crucial in showing others how to do what Father is doing, which is the object of having his helpers in the story

So we need to use Revelation and not simply rely on the pictures provided in front of us.

Practically speaking of course as a temple worker, I cannot imagine all of that working with actors except in the few temples in which actors are still used.

In our modern world people just don't have the time to memorize all that is required even to be Temple workers today.  Working one shift a week it takes some folks several months to learn the ordinances which are spoken verbally. That means you have two workers doing the job of one person, which also brings to life the film content of Father training his helpers in creation of worlds.  It may be inefficient but teaching is not measured by efficiency but by effectiveness. 

What is happening in the film is simultaneously happening in real life among the temple workers as they learn and help to do the ordinances.

" Peter James and John go and do the 7:30 session" 

So the film is indispensable but we need to make sure that we are allowing our minds to create our own illustrations of the narrative as we grow in wisdom. The materials can  include mental content as well as physical content

Again I think of the Perry scheme.

Edited September 14, 2019 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

5 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

I have definitely felt communication during mystical moments, but I would never say that words or language are involved.

I think you were stuck in this sentence in the same place I was.

Dang it. Now we don't have Clark to straighten us out anymore.

It's all in there somewhere between signals and signs.

Edited September 14, 2019 by mfbukowski

[CV75]

6 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

But there are no "words" involved. I think there might be a bit of equivocation to say word = language = communication = ineffable communication.

I have definitely felt communication during mystical moments, but I would never say that words or language are involved.

Where language is a system of communication, it needn't be spoken or even verbal. I think an emotional or mystical system conveys feelings, and any system is organized into discernible packets of exchange (transmission and reception) that can be referred to as "words." Translating them into speech is one way to bring another to feel the same things.

Edited September 14, 2019 by CV75

[mfbukowski]

54 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Where language is a system of communication, it needn't be spoken or even verbal. I think an emotional or mystical system conveys feelings, and any system is organized into discernible packets of exchange (transmission and reception) that can be referred to as "words." Translating them into speech is one way to bring another to feel the same things.

Speaking of words,  then we also have the usage "the universal language of music" which arguably is direct non-verbal conveyance of emotion.

In his exploration of language, Wittgenstein wrote extensively about music.   Others in the same philosophical school, like John Dewey spoke of how we interact with art.

Unless someone has had a course or two on non-representational art, people are confused about what it is about. That itself is kind of fascinating because it has become as abstract as linguistic symbols- to learn about art today is to learn another language and way of thinking, and questioning the relationship between meaning and context.   Oddly enough, that challenge of context is precisely sometimes what it IS about.  It questions the very definitions of what "Art" with a capital A, is, and how and why it evokes emotional response.

Art like text can be taken literally and judged on its merits that way, "OH! Look at the detail- why it's just like a photograph!" or in a more abstract, academic sense in a more relativist point of view,  to see it within a context of expectations about what makes "Art", art.  For me, all human creation is "art" but that is a discussion for a different time and place I think. 

But suffice it to say, it DOES communicate on one level or another, non-verbally as an object "out there" to be interpreted or felt directly and without words.  On one level it can be like stepping on a Lego in the middle of the night- and I see a parallel there.   

Quote

The British philosopher and theorist of conceptual art Peter Osborne suggests that among the many factors that influenced the gravitation toward language-based art, a central role for conceptualism came from the turn to linguistic theories of meaning in both Anglo-American analytic philosophy, and structuralist and post structuralist Continental philosophy during the middle of the twentieth century. This linguistic turn "reinforced and legitimized" the direction the conceptual artists took.[17] Osborne also notes that the early conceptualists were the first generation of artists to complete degree-based university training in art.[18] Osborne later made the observation that contemporary art is post-conceptual[19] in a public lecture delivered at the Fondazione Antonio Ratti, Villa Sucota in Como on July 9, 2010. It is a claim made at the level of the ontology of the work of art (rather than say at the descriptive level of style or movement).

 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conceptual_art

Yet even in this example, below, there is still a painted object on canvas, which has not gone as abstract as say an installation piece or a conceptual art event.   All of reality can be seen as a conceptual art event, in my opinion

Mark Rothko, Orange and Yellow, 1956

 

Edited September 15, 2019 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

When one starts seeing humans and glorified Humans creating universes for other humans, if one is a true Humanist, it seemed to me that the metaphors of Mormonism definitely beat medieval substance theology, and here I am.    So why do I quote Rorty and others of the same ilk?   Because that is what made me a Mormon.  The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints has nothing to fear from humanism as long as Christ remains a glorified Human with his Father in their doctrine.  And I don't see that going anywhere, it is what makes us totally unique.

Whether or not it scares some members is another matter.     

 

 

[Stargazer]

12 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

But there are no "words" involved. I think there might be a bit of equivocation to say word = language = communication = ineffable communication.

I have definitely felt communication during mystical moments, but I would never say that words or language are involved.

Well, yes, that does happen, perhaps even most of the time.  But I've "heard" words on a few occasions. 

[CV75]

18 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

 

Now that we’re on a roll, the US EPA, using workgroups comprised of geologists, anthropologists, archaeologists, graphic artists, astronomers, linguists, ethicists, etc., is trying to come up with a language to effectively warn future (as in scores of millennia from now!) generations to stay away from buried radioactive waste. They are looking at symbols and signs, architecture and structural forms, sounds, etc. that work on a visceral level. The Egyptians tried to do the same thing by posting curses for disturbing their burial sites.

ETA: One of the biggest hurdles is that everything that hits the "sweet spot" on a "psychic" level comes across as much as an invitation and enticement to explore as to not! Sounds a lot like the tree of knowledge episode...

Edited September 15, 2019 by CV75

[CV75]

17 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

When one starts seeing humans and glorified Humans creating universes for other humans, if one is a true Humanist, it seemed to me that the metaphors of Mormonism definitely beat medieval substance theology, and here I am.    So why do I quote Rorty and others of the same ilk?   Because that is what made me a Mormon.  The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints has nothing to fear from humanism as long as Christ remains a glorified Human with his Father in their doctrine.  And I don't see that going anywhere, it is what makes us totally unique.

Whether or not it scares some members is another matter.     

I think fundamentally a humanist, like anyone else, has to become as a little child to see as you did.

Edited September 15, 2019 by CV75

[mfbukowski]

17 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I think fundamentally a humanist, like anyone else, has to become as a little child to see as you did.

Well if you mean just a simpleton I will plead guilty

It doesn't take a genius to figure out that the human mind can only know what the human mind is capable of knowing and perceiving.

Sounds pretty basic to me.

But that doesn't mean that's all there is. I still want to know what "color" gamma rays are but we will never know because our eyes, mind, and brain don't need those frequencies of the electromagnetic spectrum. Their perception is irrelevant to our survival. Some creatures who need to can see in the infrared spectrum. 

"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy." 

And science.

And those things are just like the color of gamma rays. We can never know because in a sense words really don't even make sense. Gamma rays have "no color" because we cannot perceive them with our natural eyes.

 

 

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

 

ETA: One of the biggest hurdles is that everything that hits the "sweet spot" on a "psychic" level comes across as much as an invitation and enticement to explore as to not! Sounds a lot like the tree of knowledge episode...

Great example!

The way my simple brain works I see that as another way to tell the garden story to beings who are so removed from Gardens that would not even make sense.

It underlines well the idea that we need to get to the sense of the story without worrying about the literal details.

If there were real Martians how would you tell the garden story to someone who lives on a desert planet with no water?

Literalists might take that as confirmation that the gospel can only be preached on planets with water. All that is actually needed in telling the story is something which is "delicious and very desirable" which in one context can be seen as "good" and in another context can be seen as "bad"

This is yet another example of  how context gives meaning, and literal details can be irrelevant to what is important, or if "Adamic" even existed except as a metaphor for human communication itself.

On the other hand in that context it can be said that "Adamic" DOES exist!

Context is everything.

Edited September 15, 2019 by mfbukowski

[CV75]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Well if you mean just a simpleton I will plead guilty

It doesn't take a genius to figure out that the human mind can only know what the human mind is capable of knowing and perceiving.

I enjoyed your plug for proselyting with respect to humanism. Don’t sell yourself short: innocent children pursue that language which older folk tend to lose (D&C 93: 8-9, 38-39): “…in the beginning the Word was, for he was the Word, even the messenger of salvation—The light and the Redeemer of the world; the Spirit of truth, who came into the world, because the world was made by him, and in him was the life of men and the light of men… Every spirit of man was innocent in the beginning; and God having redeemed man from the fall, men became again, in their infant state, innocent before God. And that wicked one cometh and taketh away light and truth, through disobedience, from the children of men, and because of the tradition of their fathers.”

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

And those things are just like the color of gamma rays. We can never know because in a sense words really don't even make sense. Gamma rays have "no color" because we cannot perceive them with our natural eyes.

We cannot perceive them, so far. I take “natural” to describe the laws of the kingdom we currently inhabit, upon which we stand and reckon (per Pearl of Great Price). I think God just might be able to see gamma rays because His sight is perfectly fine and pure, which has become natural to Him. Perspective can change for the better with context, and vice-versa.

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Great example!

The way my simple brain works I see that as another way to tell the garden story to beings who are so removed from Gardens that would not even make sense.

It underlines well the idea that we need to get to the sense of the story without worrying about the literal details.

If there were real Martians how would you tell the garden story to someone who lives on a desert planet with no water?

Literalists might take that as confirmation that the gospel can only be preached on planets with water. All that is actually needed in telling the story is something which is "delicious and very desirable" which in one context can be seen as "good" and in another context can be seen as "bad"

This is yet another example of  how context gives meaning, and literal details can be irrelevant to what is important, or if "Adamic" even existed except as a metaphor for human communication itself.

On the other hand in that context it can be said that "Adamic" DOES exist!

Context is everything.

This touches on an idea I shared that God uses the finest and purest of matter (which He can see because of His perspective) to design laws corresponding to the kingdoms (or worlds) He organizes. I’m sure there is a good deal of variety in them, but they all complete His work and glory. These kingdoms, upon which His children are placed or stand and by which we reckon, define both our perspective and context, at least initially. His perspective and context penetrate them and provide our better vision.

You mentioned music earlier and then I read this in the Ensign: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/2019/09/latter-day-saint-voices/the-sweet-sound-of-family-history?lang=eng . I might not have done that if not for the new 2-hour block!  So I'm sure Adam used music in his holy walk and conversation.

 

Edited September 15, 2019 by CV75

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

I enjoyed your plug for proselyting with respect to humanism. Don’t sell yourself short: innocent children pursue that language which older folk tend to lose (D&C 93: 8-9, 38-39): “…in the beginning the Word was, for he was the Word, even the messenger of salvation—The light and the Redeemer of the world; the Spirit of truth, who came into the world, because the world was made by him, and in him was the life of men and the light of men… Every spirit of man was innocent in the beginning; and God having redeemed man from the fall, men became again, in their infant state, innocent before God. And that wicked one cometh and taketh away light and truth, through disobedience, from the children of men, and because of the tradition of their fathers.”

We cannot perceive them, so far. I take “natural” to describe the laws of the kingdom we currently inhabit, upon which we stand and reckon (per Pearl of Great Price). I think God just might be able to see gamma rays because His sight is perfectly fine and pure, which has become natural to Him. Perspective can change for the better with context, and vice-versa.

This touches on an idea I shared that God uses the finest and purest of matter (which He can see because of His perspective) to design laws corresponding to the kingdoms (or worlds) He organizes. I’m sure there is a good deal of variety in them, but they all complete His work and glory. These kingdoms, upon which His children are placed or stand and by which we reckon, define both our perspective and context, at least initially. His perspective and context penetrate them and provide our better vision.

You mentioned music earlier and then I read this in the Ensign: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/2019/09/latter-day-saint-voices/the-sweet-sound-of-family-history?lang=eng . I might not have done that if not for the new 2-hour block!  So I'm sure Adam used music in his holy walk and conversation.

 

Man, we are really on the same wavelength here.  I appreciate the encouragement but also what is just plain weird is that you linked to this article.

When I was in college, it was in the middle of the folk-music era of the early '60's, and I was heavily involved in that whole thing- I did not get famous but began to get some recognition and worked with a guy named Sam Radding  https://www.sandiegoreader.com/news/2015/jul/01/cover-guitars-banjos-and-american-dream/# during my first two college years at San Diego State U.  Doing what?   Building Appalachian dulcimers!

I designed and built them and made enough money to get through school, still with my parents help- but It was a fun experience.  I sold one to the group Ten Years After and later I heard that one got passed on to Mike Seeger, a gen-u-eyene semi-famous folk singer. 

But yes I agree with you that God of course "sees" or can comprehend fully "all things" and the evidence for that is that NOW we see through a glass darkly, but THEN face to face.

I find that to be perhaps one of the most profound quotes in scripture because it uses the image of a mirror- "through a glass darkly"

A mirror always shows our own image, especially if a "dark" mirror - and I take that metaphor to mean that when we look out at the world we do not see the world "as it is" but as we would see it in a mirror- with our OWN image/perceptions getting in the way of seeing what is really there.

God however sees without a mirror and can see "face to face"

It was also ironic that Rorty made the point about science being more about how WE see reality than how reality "really is," by writing a book called "Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature"   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_and_the_Mirror_of_Nature

Quote

 

Rorty argues that philosophy has unduly relied on a representational theory of perception and a correspondence theory of truth, hoping our experience or language might mirror the way reality actually is. In this he continues a certain controversial Anglophone tradition, which builds upon the work of philosophers such as Quine, Sellars, and Donald Davidson. Rorty opts out of the traditional objective/subjective dialogue in favor of a communal version of truth. For him, "true" is simply an honorific knowers bestow on claims, asserting them as what "we" want to say about a particular matter.

Rorty explains how philosophical paradigm shifts and their associated philosophical "problems" can be considered the result of the new metaphors, vocabularies, and mistaken linguistic associations which are necessarily a part of those new paradigms.

 

And so because there are physical "substances" we get confused that there are spiritual "substances" too.  How does this lead to theological error?  If we see different "substances" as cookie dough,  we can take that cookie cutter and stamp out cookies or theoretically I suppose hamburgers shaped like Christmas trees.  The cookie cutter is the "form" and the "substance" is the substrate stuff which might change.  So changing the substance while keeping the form of the Christmas tree is easy!  

Unfortunately we have confused physical substances with spiritual meanings and their significance.  The spiritual meaning and importance to us of what the sacrament IS is confused with how one makes cookies because the word "substance" with its many meanings, could be used in both descriptions of what is happening.  The "substance" of an argument has nothing to do with the "substance" of cookie dough, or anything like it.  Being of one "substance" with the Father ought not be be about whether or not both are made of cookie dough or anything like it.  That is what confusion results by using the word "substance" in both contexts.

So we speak in symbols ABOUT "reality" without ever being able to get outside of language and see reality "as it is"- the same point- in my interpretation- as the scripture speaking about "through a glass darkly".  And each area of knowledge develops its own vocabularies and sphere of operation- again from section 93- a great section! 

Of course Rorty was an atheist but also a humanist and so he knew how humans thought and how we see the world.  But again if Christ and his Father are Human and we postulate that God is an infinitely superior and glorified Human- there has to be something there that we share in comprehending the world.

So why as LDS do we need to think so much about language?  

Seriously? 

What is the difference between a name, a sign, or a token?  How do they "represent" spiritual principles- or DO they? 

Why are they important to our spiritual progression?  What is the importance of the idea that since Babel our language is "confounded"?

Clearly it is- and that is exactly where the mirror to reality becomes "through a glass darkly"

 

Edited September 15, 2019 by mfbukowski

[CV75]

49 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Man, we are really on the same wavelength here. 

***

Clearly it is- and that is exactly where the mirror to reality becomes "through a glass darkly"

Thrilling! Thank you for a great conversation! (Not that it's over).

I often think of the Lord telling Joseph Smith about the form of godliness not necessarily corresponding to the power of godliness (JS-H 1:19). In the resurrection our bodies have the perfect form of God, but our power reflects the glory by which we are quickened, whether that is greater or lesser (clearer or darker mirror). Exalted people have the power (i.e. the Priesthood) to continue the lives or seed (also priesthood per Abraham); lesser glories entail lesser power. Yet all bodies will have perfect form (Alma 11:43). Interesting to me that 1 Corinthians 15 follows 1 Corinthians 13 (3 cheers for Come Follow Me!): what we see of faith, hope and charity (chapter 13) follows us by grace into the spiritual gifts in this world (described in chapter 14) and onto the temple covenants (as alluded to in baptism for the dead (chapter 15) and resurrection (chapter 15).

In this instance, the cutter is perfect but some dough follows a better recipe than others. The first man is natural by assignment, the second man is spiritual by choice and grace, which in turn becomes natural to him.

Edited September 15, 2019 by CV75

[mfbukowski]

54 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Thrilling! Thank you for a great conversation! (Not that it's over).

I often think of the Lord telling Joseph Smith about the form of godliness not necessarily corresponding to the power of godliness (JS-H 1:19). In the resurrection our bodies have the perfect form of God, but our power reflects the glory by which we are quickened, whether that is greater or lesser (clearer or darker mirror). Exalted people have the power (i.e. the Priesthood) to continue the lives or seed (also priesthood per Abraham); lesser glories entail lesser power. Yet all bodies will have perfect form (Alma 11:43). Interesting to me that 1 Corinthians 15 follows 1 Corinthians 13 (3 cheers for Come Follow Me!): what we see of faith, hope and charity (chapter 13) follows us by grace into the spiritual gifts in this world (described in chapter 14) and onto the temple covenants (as alluded to in baptism for the dead (chapter 15) and resurrection (chapter 15).

In this instance, the cutter is perfect but some dough follows a better recipe than others. The first man is natural by assignment, the second man is spiritual by choice and grace, which in turn becomes natural to him.

Yes, that's a great progression illustrated there. Thanks for pointing that out.

[Ahab]

On 9/12/2019 at 4:52 PM, marineland said:

I had a question about this part.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/bc/content/ldsorg/manual/institute/jesus-christ-and-the-everlasting-gospel-teacher-manual_eng-new.pdf

This is from Lesson 3.

God himself, finding he was in the midst of spirits and glory, because 
he was more intelligent, saw proper to institute laws whereby the rest 
could have a privilege to advance like himself.  The relationship we 
have with God places us in a situation to advance in knowledge. He has 
power to institute laws to instruct the weaker intelligences, that 
they may be exalted with himself (Teachings of Presidents of the 
Church: Joseph Smith [2007], 210).

Is this God a reference to the Father or the Son?

Generally when we say God we are referring to our Father in heaven, so in this case I would read it that way.  Our Father creating laws, basically making rules, whereby we as his children could become perfect like him.  Which is basically by following those rules he gave us.

On 9/12/2019 at 4:52 PM, marineland said:

Did this God create laws himself whereby spirits could progress towards
exaltation or did he just learn from experience and institute the same 
ones that were already in place before he was born and which, if obeyed, 
would give him the opportunity to become a God?

Thanks

Tony

He, our Father, created those laws but he didn't create them from out of nothing or nowhere.  Everything that is created is always created from something that already exists in some state.  In this case I'd say our Father created laws based on what he knew would actually work to enable us to become perfect like him.

And please realize that we believe we were already the same kind of being he is, even back then.  We just weren't as perfect as he was then, so he created laws/gave us rules/told us the "gospel" plan that would enable us to become as perfect as he is, if we will follow him.

[theplains]

On 9/12/2019 at 10:32 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

There is a law, irrevocably decreed in heaven before the foundations of this world, upon which all blessings are predicated—And when we obtain any blessing from God, it is by obedience to that law upon which it is predicated. (D&C 130:20–21)

The church's Gospel Topics (Fall of Adam and Eve) says "Adam and Eve expressed their gratitude
for the blessings that came as a result of the Fall"with a reference to Moses 5:10-11.

What specific law (s) did Adam and Eve obey to get these mentioned blessings?

Thanks,
Jim

[mfbukowski]

On 9/13/2019 at 2:21 PM, RevTestament said:

 you got me...

Just read the August Ensign - the article on "Revelation".

Clearly the General Authorities have been stealing my material. 

just kidding.  

I feel great though that I am on the right wavelength and seeing what they see before it is published and they put it into "Mormonese" so much better than I do.

You have to remember that Mormonese is not my first philosophical language.

[mfbukowski]

8 minutes ago, theplains said:

The church's Gospel Topics (Fall of Adam and Eve) says "Adam and Eve expressed their gratitude
for the blessings that came as a result of the Fall"with a reference to Moses 5:10-11.

What specific law (s) did Adam and Eve obey to get these mentioned blessings?

Thanks,
Jim

"Thou shalt obey personal revelation" even though you think you know what God wants you to do. 

They lacked wisdom and Eve had the personal revelation that it was actually God's plan to eat the fruit, regardless of what was said in the (unwritten) "Bible"

She had the knowledge but not the wisdom necessary to see what was necessary for her to do to accomplish God's "bigger" plan, prayed about it, then SAW the right path for humanity in the loophole God provided with the words "yet it is given unto thee" to eat the fruit.

The commandment was ambiguous= "Thou shalt not eat....yet it is given unto thee"

She lacked wisdom. prayed, and received the answer and was blessed for doing so.

James 1:5 among other places.

[Robert F. Smith]

43 minutes ago, theplains said:

The church's Gospel Topics (Fall of Adam and Eve) says "Adam and Eve expressed their gratitude
for the blessings that came as a result of the Fall"with a reference to Moses 5:10-11.

What specific law (s) did Adam and Eve obey to get these mentioned blessings?....................

There may have been more than one specific law involved, but the most obvious right decisions Eve and Adam made were (1) to boldly exercise free agency while on the horns of a dilemma, and (2) to obey the command to reproduce (multiply and replenish the Earth) by staying together.

The dilemma of two choices was entailed by a command not to eat of the Tree of Knowledge (clearly a figurative tree) along with a command to reproduce.  The innocence of the former prevented the ability to do the latter.

The dramatic presentation of that dilemma and its outcome is part of LDS temple liturgy in which Eve and Adam themselves participated.  In other words, the LDS endowment is an ordinance of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.  And that was so when the original Eve & Adam performed it, along with other dramatis personae.  It is part of the eternal law of God.

[JLHPROF]

2 hours ago, theplains said:

The church's Gospel Topics (Fall of Adam and Eve) says "Adam and Eve expressed their gratitude
for the blessings that came as a result of the Fall"with a reference to Moses 5:10-11.

What specific law (s) did Adam and Eve obey to get these mentioned blessings?

The same as on every previous earth.  They shed their immortality in order to provide mortal bodies for us.  They became subject to natural temporal law.  They sacrificed for us.  

And sacrifice brings forth the blessings of heaven.

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

There may have been more than one specific law involved, but the most obvious right decisions Eve and Adam made were (1) to boldly exercise free agency while on the horns of a dilemma, and (2) to obey the command to reproduce (multiply and replenish the Earth) by staying together.

The dilemma of two choices was entailed by a command not to eat of the Tree of Knowledge (clearly a figurative tree) along with a command to reproduce.  The innocence of the former prevented the ability to do the latter.

The dramatic presentation of that dilemma and its outcome is part of LDS temple liturgy in which Eve and Adam themselves participated.  In other words, the LDS endowment is an ordinance of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.  And that was so when the original Eve & Adam performed it, along with other dramatis personae.  It is part of the eternal law of God.

A Catholic analogy would be to see it as a liturgy or "Mass" which follow various formats in various traditions called "Rites" which are performed differently, but all Catholics see those Rites as still having a valid "Mass".  

And of course there are other variations even in Protestantism which Catholics have at least in the past, recognized as "valid"

If I recall correctly, according to Catholics, Anglicans, which are a Protestant group, still have "valid orders" meaning that Catholics acknowledge to some extent the validity of some Protestant sacraments.

Perhaps that has changed- I have not kept up with it, but changes to the temple ceremony and its format of presentation including masonic elements, is no more questionable than the Byzantine Rite mass or even the Anglican Mass mutually recognizing each other as "valid".

Again perhaps someone more acquainted with these issues as they are today may comment on this- but at least it was this way in the past.

Evidence of tremendous diversity:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine_Rite#Society_for_Eastern_Rite_Anglicanism

Edited September 17, 2019 by mfbukowski

[Robert F. Smith]

39 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

The same as on every previous earth.  They shed their immortality in order to provide mortal bodies for us.  They became subject to natural temporal law.  They sacrificed for us.  

And sacrifice brings forth the blessings of heaven.

Sounds like the Law of Sacrifice to me.

[teddyaware]

10 hours ago, theplains said:

The church's Gospel Topics (Fall of Adam and Eve) says "Adam and Eve expressed their gratitude
for the blessings that came as a result of the Fall"with a reference to Moses 5:10-11.

What specific law (s) did Adam and Eve obey to get these mentioned blessings?

Thanks,
Jim

Reading between the lines, facilitated by having a fairly good idea about how you think (I’ve read many of your posts), I’m fairly sure you’re one who believes the fall of our first parents was a tragic mistake and that if they only hadn’t partaken of the forbidden fruit the human race would be living forever in an earthly paradise closely connected to the glory of heaven. If this presumption is a correct one, I have five easy to answer questions for you:

1) Do you believe God knows all things from the beginning? 

2) If your answer to question one is in the affirmative, do you believe God knew Adam and Eve were going to fall before he created them? 

3) If your answer to question two is in the affirmative, why would a perfect God go ahead and proceed to create Adam and Eve when he knew beforehand the horrific tragedy that inevitably awaited them?

4) If Adam and Eve had not fallen, do you believe you would have ever existed in some form?

 

Edited September 17, 2019 by teddyaware

[RevTestament]

I have some additional questions.

Did God create the tree of the knowledge of good and evil?

If not, how did it get in the garden?

If so, does God know evil?

If so, why is it bad for man to know evil?

How can we be like Yeshua, if we don't know evil?

Edited September 17, 2019 by RevTestament