Agency and the Fall

[theplains]

 

Hi mfbukowski, you said previously in another thread

What we call the  "FORTUNATE fall" is a story, historical or not, that teaches us the role of 
freedom in our lives, to increase our potential to become better, or worse. Without agency
and freedom, we are unaccountable and might as well be rocks on the hillside to be acted
upon instead of being agents for ourselves.  Without the fall we are robots

Do you believe the fall is a historical event?  When exactly did Adam and Eve obtain agency
and how do you consider them robots before that?

[teddyaware]

2 hours ago, theplains said:

 

Hi mfbukowski, you said previously in another thread

What we call the  "FORTUNATE fall" is a story, historical or not, that teaches us the role of 
freedom in our lives, to increase our potential to become better, or worse. Without agency
and freedom, we are unaccountable and might as well be rocks on the hillside to be acted
upon instead of being agents for ourselves.  Without the fall we are robots

Do you believe the fall is a historical event?  When exactly did Adam and Eve obtain agency
and how do you consider them robots before that?

You must surely be well aware of the fact that the vast majority of testimony bearing Latter-Day Saints believe Adam and Eve were/are real people, the first members of the human family on earth from whom we are all descended, and that as a consequence of choices they made they did indeed literally fall from the presence of God into a lost state of physical and spiritual death, This fallen state of existence can only be escaped by accepting and internalizing the blessings of the redeeming power of God made available to man by virtue of the equally real atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ. Do realize that the bone you appear to want to pick is with Latter-Day Saints who hold a minority opinion that is alien to the thinking of the majority of believing Latter-Day Saints.

Nevertheless, Mark is a very good man with a strong testimony of Christ and his gospel, but I believe it’s his very deep dive into philosophy that has caused him to express his beliefs in nonstandard ways. (If only I could really understand how he thinks, which I apparently lack the intellectual capacity to do, I would probably be a more well rounded individual)

Edited April 26, 2020 by teddyaware

[strappinglad]

It is complex , but I believe that spirits had the agency to choose who to follow in the war in heaven. They were not robots then. However, once that choice was made, it was similar to stepping off a high diving board, y' all are going to hit the water sooner or later. 

I am of the belief that , without a Plan C , there would be no "we" without the Fall. The BoM is quite clear about that. I just believe there was a Plan C in case that Adam and Eve were super obedient. No CFR on that please. 

[CV75]

5 hours ago, theplains said:

 

Hi mfbukowski, you said previously in another thread

What we call the  "FORTUNATE fall" is a story, historical or not, that teaches us the role of 
freedom in our lives, to increase our potential to become better, or worse. Without agency
and freedom, we are unaccountable and might as well be rocks on the hillside to be acted
upon instead of being agents for ourselves.  Without the fall we are robots

Do you believe the fall is a historical event?  When exactly did Adam and Eve obtain agency
and how do you consider them robots before that?

I don't think one's belief in the Fall is an historical event plays into an appreciation of the benefits of human agency. The origins human agency are found in the (his)story, regardless. The conditions for its operation are found in degrees. Those with less scope of operation are relatively more robotic than those with more. Adam was essentially a robot in Genesis 2:21. Without Eve expanding the conditions for agency by her presence and exercise of agency (note that only Adam got the commandment in 2:17), he would have continued ding exactly what he was told without evaluation or initiative, which of course was not good (2:18). Also note there is a distinction between the order and timing of the created realms described in Chapter 1 (before flesh was upon the earth)  and Chapter 2 (after). Without flesh, agency could not be directly exercised in a physical world in quite the same way, just as a robot cannot operate outside its sphere of programming ("does not compute, does not compute..."!).

Edited April 26, 2020 by CV75

[Bernard Gui]

5 hours ago, theplains said:

 

Hi mfbukowski, you said previously in another thread

What we call the  "FORTUNATE fall" is a story, historical or not, that teaches us the role of 
freedom in our lives, to increase our potential to become better, or worse. Without agency
and freedom, we are unaccountable and might as well be rocks on the hillside to be acted
upon instead of being agents for ourselves.  Without the fall we are robots

Do you believe the fall is a historical event?  When exactly did Adam and Eve obtain agency
and how do you consider them robots before that?

I believe it was a real event and that Adam and Eve were real people. Other than a long time ago in a garden far, far away, when and where it happened I do not know.

I believe agency is eternal. We possessed it when we passed from the state of intelligences to the state of spiritual children of God. 

I don't know if we possessed it before as intelligences. As Alma said, this mystery has not yet been revealed to me; therefore, I shall forebear.

We will alway have agency, because if God were to take it from us he would cease to be God. It's that important.

Edited April 26, 2020 by Bernard Gui

[CV75]

24 minutes ago, strappinglad said:

It is complex , but I believe that spirits had the agency to choose who to follow in the war in heaven. They were not robots then. However, once that choice was made, it was similar to stepping off a high diving board, y' all are going to hit the water sooner or later. 

I am of the belief that , without a Plan C , there would be no "we" without the Fall. The BoM is quite clear about that. I just believe there was a Plan C in case that Adam and Eve were super obedient. No CFR on that please. 

This is a good example of the principle that agency does not control the consequences of our choices. We chose as spirits, landed in the world, and now will thus eventually land into one degree of glory or another. Where we land for resurrected glory is not defined/determined by our choice to defend agency in the pre-mortal world (Genesis Ch. 1), but how we defend it in the physical world (Genesis Ch. 2 and then after the Fall).

Edited April 26, 2020 by CV75

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

I believe it was a real event and that Adam and Eve were real people. Other than a long time ago in a garden far, far away, when and where it happened I do not know.

I believe agency is eternal. We possessed it when we passed from the state of intelligences to the state of spiritual children of God. 

I don't know if we possessed it before as intelligences. As Alma said, this mystery has not yet been revealed to me; therefore, I shall forebear.

We will alway have agency, because if God were to take it from us he would cease to be God. It's that important.

We are not told, of course, but it seems clear to me that merely being an intelligence having agency is not terribly meaningful in and of itself.  Intelligence may be coeternal with God, but it must be embodied to be able to act, and that action makes the potential agency come to real life.  First as a spiritual being with a spirit body, then with a physical body, and finally with a glorified body -- the full potential having then been realized.

While it is true that God does not have the power to remove the agency inherent in our intelligence and our bodies, He can banish us to Outer Darkness where it has no value -- except the full realization of our failure to follow the Plan of Salvation, our rejection of the Plan of Happiness.  Forever.

[Robert F. Smith]

9 hours ago, theplains said:

 

Hi mfbukowski, you said previously in another thread

What we call the  "FORTUNATE fall" is a story, historical or not, that teaches us the role of 
freedom in our lives, to increase our potential to become better, or worse. Without agency
and freedom, we are unaccountable and might as well be rocks on the hillside to be acted
upon instead of being agents for ourselves.  Without the fall we are robots

Do you believe the fall is a historical event?  When exactly did Adam and Eve obtain agency
and how do you consider them robots before that?

Mark may be unaware that you have asked this question here.  The best way to get his attention is to use the "at" sign and his name in your post, like so:  @mfbukowski  There, that might bring the beast out of his den.

[RevTestament]

9 hours ago, theplains said:

Hi mfbukowski, you said previously in another thread

I am not Mark, but can I give my perspective please?

9 hours ago, theplains said:

What we call the  "FORTUNATE fall" is a story, historical or not, that teaches us the role of 
freedom in our lives, to increase our potential to become better, or worse. Without agency
and freedom, we are unaccountable and might as well be rocks on the hillside to be acted
upon instead of being agents for ourselves.  Without the fall we are robots

Do you believe the fall is a historical event?  When exactly did Adam and Eve obtain agency
and how do you consider them robots before that?

The fall was an historical event, but it was not as  orthodoxy or even many LDS presume it. It was a fall from the law. Before the fall, the homo sapiens were innocent because they had no law. They had agency, but no law from God from which to knowingly choose the right or wrong. They lived in a state of innocence. As the first "man" of the law, Adam made a conscious decision to break a law from God, thus, causing the fall for all men, and bringing spiritual death. IMHO they were not robots before that, because they acted as free agents, but were just innocent in the law, so the law had no power over them, and thus no spiritual death existed. 

[Robert F. Smith]

7 hours ago, teddyaware said:

You must surely be well aware of the fact that the vast majority of testimony bearing Latter-Day Saints believe Adam and Eve were/are real people, the first members of the human family on earth from whom we are all descended, and that as a consequence of choices they made they did indeed literally fall from the presence of God into a lost state of physical and spiritual death, This fallen state of existence can only be escaped by accepting and internalizing the blessings of the redeeming power of God made available to man by virtue of the equally real atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ. Do realize that the bone you appear to want to pick is with Latter-Day Saints who hold a minority opinion that is alien to the thinking of the majority of believing Latter-Day Saints.

The Brethren, who constitute a very small minority of Latter-day Saints, have long insisted on the figurative, symbolic nature of much that takes place in our temple liturgy.  How the majority of Latter-day Saint rank and file feel about each being an adam and an eve in that liturgy is unknown, but we do know for certain that there are a number of other role-players in that sacred reenactment of what we call the Endowment.  We also know that real people (ourselves included) actually perform that rite of passage for ourselves and for others.  So we have no reason to doubt that others have done the same eons ago.  In fact, we are told explicitly that that is so, in a real Garden of Eden (which was a real temple).  There is even an actual chronology that is insisted upon for that awesome event.  The upshot is that the event we are discussing was an Endowment Rite.  Yep.  The first one on this Earth is still an Endowment Rite.

The problem is that the Hebrew biblical text uses manifestly archetypal terms for the "man" and the "woman," not personal names -- just as is done for us today when we reenact that event.  The KJV translation misleads in that respect, and we can see further expression of that archetypal process in the "man" naming the animals (he is giving them their generic titles, not names like "Bob" and "Jim"), while he himself has just such a generic title, adam "man."  Indeed, just how generic is indicated when the Gods say:  "Let us make man (adam) in our image," including both genders in that one term (Gen 1:26-27 "male and female").

7 hours ago, teddyaware said:

Nevertheless, Mark is a very good man with a strong testimony of Christ and his gospel, but I believe it’s his very deep dive into philosophy that has caused him to express his beliefs in nonstandard ways. (If only I could really understand how he thinks, which I apparently lack the intellectual capacity to do, I would probably be a more well rounded individual)

As Spanish speakers say, ja ja ja ja  😎

[teddyaware]

2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The Brethren, who constitute a very small minority of Latter-day Saints, have long insisted on the figurative, symbolic nature of much that takes place in our temple liturgy.  How the majority of Latter-day Saint rank and file feel about each being an adam and an eve in that liturgy is unknown, but we do know for certain that there are a number of other role-players in that sacred reenactment of what we call the Endowment.  We also know that real people (ourselves included) actually perform that rite of passage for ourselves and for others.  So we have no reason to doubt that others have done the same eons ago.  In fact, we are told explicitly that that is so, in a real Garden of Eden (which was a real temple).  There is even an actual chronology that is insisted upon for that awesome event.  The upshot is that the event we are discussing was an Endowment Rite.  Yep.  The first one on this Earth is still an Endowment Rite.

The problem is that the Hebrew biblical text uses manifestly archetypal terms for the "man" and the "woman," not personal names -- just as is done for us today when we reenact that event.  The KJV translation misleads in that respect, and we can see further expression of that archetypal process in the "man" naming the animals (he is giving them their generic titles, not names like "Bob" and "Jim"), while he himself has just such a generic title, adam "man."  Indeed, just how generic is indicated when the Gods say:  "Let us make man (adam) in our image," including both genders in that one term (Gen 1:26-27 "male and female").

As Spanish speakers say, ja ja ja ja  😎

I’ve believed for many years that the Adam and Eve, and the garden of Eden narratives found in the scriptures, are just as you say. But I also believe that there is, for us, in our own particular creation, an actual first Adam and first Eve who are the literal progenitors of the entire earthly human family. I find this no harder to believe than that I’m a literal of Abraham (I’m 5% Ashkenazi Jewish), or accepting the verifiable fact I’m an literal direct line descendant of Stephen Hopkins, John Alden and Myles Standish (among several others) who were on the Mayflower.

I also find it very easy to believe that a very real man, who was our earth’s first Adam, holds all the priesthood keys of every dispensation and is second only to Christ in authority before the Father. I see no reason to “spiritualized away” away the physical reality of our first parents just because Eden was located within a primeval, archetypal temple. 

Edited April 27, 2020 by teddyaware

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, teddyaware said:

I’ve believed for many years that the Adam and Eve, and the garden of Eden narratives found in the scriptures, are just as you say. But I also believe that there is, for us, in our own particular creation, an actual first Adam and first Eve who are the literal progenitors of the entire earthly human family. ................................

I suppose so, as long as you recognize that the title is not the same as the actual name.  So, if the first guy on Earth to go through the Endowment Rite is named "Fred" or "Mike," I have no problem with that.  However, when he does that he is using the title of "man" and his female companion is doing something similar.  It is a ritual. A real ritual.  The same one we go through today.  The cultural context may be a bit different, and some of the phrasing may be a bit different, but that is the case for all cultures and for all time.  That they have offspring is also true, and that's entirely normal.  However, the mere fact that they go through the same rite we do only makes them the symbolic progenitors of humankind -- just as we are when we go through the very same ritual.  To complicate matters somewhat, it is clear that the description of their creation is also figurative and symbolic (not literal), and both Brigham Young and his successors have pointed out that the couple we are spaking of were created by sexual reproduction, the same all of us are:

Quote

“Though we have it in history that our Father Adam was made of the dust of this earth and that he knew nothing about his God previous to being made here, yet it is not so; and when we learn the truth we shall see and understand that he helped to make this world and was the chief manager in that operation.
    “He was the person who brought the animals and the seeds from other planets to this world and brought a wife with him and stayed here. You may read and believe what you please as to what is found written in the Bible. Adam was made from the dust of an earth, but not from the dust of this earth. He was made as you and I are made, and no person was ever made upon any other principle.”    B. Young, Journal of Discourses, 3:319; First Pres Joseph F. Smith, John R. Winder, and Anthon H. Lund agreed that the first humans began life as embryos same as all of us -- Improvement Era, November 1909, p. 80.

Quote

It is held by some that Adam was not the first man upon this earth and that the original human being was a development from lower orders of the animal creation. These, however, are the theories of men. The word of the Lord declared that Adam was “the first man of all men” (Moses 1:34), and we are therefore in duty bound to regard him as the primal parent of our race.  * * *

True it is that the body of man enters upon its career as a tiny germ embryo, which becomes an infant, quickened at a certain stage by the spirit whose tabernacle it is, and the child, after being born, develops into a man. There is nothing in this, however, to indicate that the original man, the first of our race, began life as anything less than a man, or less than the human germ or embryo that becomes a man.  First Presidency, Nov 1909.

 

Quote

I also find it very easy to believe that a very real man, who was our earth’s first Adam, holds all the priesthood keys of every dispensation and is second only to Christ in authority before the Father. I see no reason to “spiritualized away” away the physical reality of our first parents just because Eden was located within a primeval, archetypal temple. 

The late Pres Spencer Kimball said "The story of the rib, of course, is figurative."    Kimball, “The Blessings and Responsibilities of Womanhood,” Ensign, 6/3 (Mar 1976), 70, https://www.lds.org/ensign/1976/03/the-blessings-and-responsibilities-of-womanhood?lang=eng  .   Elder McConkie agreed -- Mormon Doctrine 2nd ed. (1966), 242.  Moreover, the figurative nature of the entire Endowment applies as well to the tree, the fruit, the serpent, etc.

Edited April 27, 2020 by Robert F. Smith

[teddyaware]

8 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I suppose so, as long as you recognize that the title is not the same as the actual name.  So, if the first guy on Earth to go through the Endowment Rite is named "Fred" or "Mike," I have no problem with that.  However, when he does that he is using the title of "man" and his female companion is doing something similar.  It is a ritual. A real ritual.  The same one we go through today.  The cultural context may be a bit different, and some of the phrasing may be a bit different, but that is the case for all cultures and for all time.  That they have offspring is also true, and that's entirely normal.  However, the mere fact that they go through the same rite we do only makes them the symbolic progenitors of humankind -- just as we are when we go through the very same ritual.  To complicate matters somewhat, it is clear that the description of their creation is also figurative and symbolic (not literal), and both Brigham Young and his successors have pointed out that the couple we are spaking of were created by sexual reproduction, the same all of us are:

 

The late Pres Spencer Kimball said "The story of the rib, of course, is figurative."    Kimball, “The Blessings and Responsibilities of Womanhood,” Ensign, 6/3 (Mar 1976), 70, https://www.lds.org/ensign/1976/03/the-blessings-and-responsibilities-of-womanhood?lang=eng  .   Elder McConkie agreed -- Mormon Doctrine 2nd ed. (1966), 242.  Moreover, the figurative nature of the entire Endowment applies as well to the tree, the fruit, the serpent, etc.

I have no problem with any of the above quotes and am already well familiar with each of them. But despite the fact that the endowment is figurative in nature, that doesn’t mean nothing real and nonfigurative comes out of it. For example, faithful endowed and sealed men and women will be called up to become very real kings and queens, very real priests and priestesses, and the literal divine  progenitors of their own branch of numberless human offspring. And just because the partaking of the forbidden fruit is figurative doesn’t mean that every accountable human being hasn’t actually lived through a very real Edenic period of innocence that lasts from childbirth to the time of their first deliberately committed sin that occurs at the time when they’re old enough to become morally accountable for their actions before the Lord.

Edited April 27, 2020 by teddyaware

[mfbukowski]

16 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Mark may be unaware that you have asked this question here.  The best way to get his attention is to use the "at" sign and his name in your post, like so:  @mfbukowski  There, that might bring the beast out of his den.

Growl, snort snort!  The beast is awakened. 

Thanks Bob- I didn't know this was here, and would have not responded typically to this thread, as a topic it has been re-hashed so much.

As you know, before 1990 as part of the "PRESENTATION" of the endowment- not the liturgy of the endowment itself- it was clearly announced that the presentation was  "simply figurative insofar as the man and woman were concerned", and in my conversations with temple presidents, they are all aware of that statement, of course, and can be questioned about it in the proper way if any have questions.

But after I get a chance to read the thread I will respond.

I really don't know if I want to devote much time to this- since the church itself has already clearly made a statement in the presentation of the endowment itself.  If that's not clear to people I don't know what IS.

If anyone does not believe it, look it up yourself.

Edited April 27, 2020 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

On 4/26/2020 at 8:01 AM, theplains said:

 

Hi mfbukowski, you said previously in another thread

What we call the  "FORTUNATE fall" is a story, historical or not, that teaches us the role of 
freedom in our lives, to increase our potential to become better, or worse. Without agency
and freedom, we are unaccountable and might as well be rocks on the hillside to be acted
upon instead of being agents for ourselves.  Without the fall we are robots

Do you believe the fall is a historical event?  When exactly did Adam and Eve obtain agency
and how do you consider them robots before that?

Since you already linked to it, I will not provide a link, but what I said is this:

Quote

 

What we call the  "FORTUNATE fall" is a story, historical or not, that teaches us the role of freedom in our lives, to increase our potential to become better, or worse

Without agency and freedom, we are unaccountable and might as well be rocks on the hillside to be acted upon instead of being agents for ourselves.

 

The first sentence there is about the nature of "truth" itself, and my understanding of Dewey's "Instrumentalism", which was later modified - that part is a long story- by Kuhn.  Those familiar with Kuhn will instantly recognize it.

Quote

 

In philosophy of science and in epistemology, instrumentalism is a methodological view that ideas are useful instruments, and that the worth of an idea is based on how effective it is in explaining and predicting phenomena.^[1] Instrumentalism is a pragmatic philosophy of John Dewey that thought is an instrument for solving practical problems, and that truth is not fixed but changes as problems change. Instrumentalism is the view that scientific theories are useful tools for predicting phenomena instead of true or approximately true descriptions.^{[citation needed]}

According to instrumentalists, a successful scientific theory reveals nothing known either true or false about nature's unobservable objects, properties or processes.^[2] Scientific theory is merely a tool whereby humans predict observations in a particular domain of nature by formulating laws, which state or summarize regularities, while theories themselves do not reveal supposedly hidden aspects of nature that somehow explain these laws.^[3] Initially a novel perspective introduced by Pierre Duhem in 1906, instrumentalism is largely the prevailing theory that underpins the practice of physicists today.^[3]

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumentalism

That hopefully explains the first sentence in my quote of me, above.  Note I say the story is "historical or not" precisely because I thought that people reading that would understand that I meant what I said- that I do not know nor do I care IF it was an historical statement or not, since its historicity is irrelevant to the importance of the IDEA of the nature of sin, as a decision to go against a commandment (believed to be) God given, and the reason I phrased it that way was to prevent the kind of objection which has been raised here, which I anticipated.

I will say it again if I must.  I do not care if it was an historical event or not- I find that irrelevant to the importance of its value as a religious teaching which "teaches us the role of freedom in our lives, to increase our potential to become better, or worse"

So that puts me squarely in the "It could go either way" camp in the question of whether or not Adam and Eve or the fall were historical events.

I can think of a dozen ways that the story COULD be literal- its very simple to make it a literal story for those who want to take it that way.  I could even believe it IS literal if I wanted to - I just don't know and it doesn't matter to me one iota.  Many church members take it literally and I have no problem with that.  I don't know and I don't care either way.  That is my position about historicity and religion in general- including the historicity of the BOM, the crucifixion, the atonement etc.  No relevance between historical events and religion. 

So hopefully that explains the first sentence.  Now for the second one.

But I need to take a break.  Back later.

[Islander]

On 4/26/2020 at 10:01 AM, theplains said:

 

Hi mfbukowski, you said previously in another thread

What we call the  "FORTUNATE fall" is a story, historical or not, that teaches us the role of 
freedom in our lives, to increase our potential to become better, or worse. Without agency
and freedom, we are unaccountable and might as well be rocks on the hillside to be acted
upon instead of being agents for ourselves.  Without the fall we are robots

Do you believe the fall is a historical event?  When exactly did Adam and Eve obtain agency
and how do you consider them robots before that?

I suggest that Mark's philosophical position weaves a maze where the argument becomes the proverbial branch that he cuts while forgetting he is seating on it. The issue to keep in mind is that there is a difference between our free will (agency) and the omniscient will of God, inside of which we exist and operate (which some call pre-determination). The argument here could be extensive so I will skip it and address only the issue of the Fall.  

Inherent to the Godhead (Trinity) and an essential element of the nature of God is love. That eternal relationship that existed between the members of the Godhead that found its maximum expression in Christ (John 15). Without free will love is not possible thus non-existent. True love is the personification of the essence of God and is expressed rather by an outpouring of devotion, affection, endurance and sacrifice that evidenced love. By contrast, the possibility of "not love" has to exist in juxtaposition. So, as sanctioned, intelligent beings (be it spiritual), from before the human creation, God endowed all in the spiritual realm and later the human domain with the ability to chose to love and obey (Joh 14:15), or to sin/rebel against God. And that is what happened in heaven and later in Eden. Those that sinned/rebelled were "cast out/fell" away from the presence of God (physically and spiritually). Therefore, we are all endowed by our Creator with the ability to chose good or evil, for there most be opposition in all things or there would be no means to differentiate good from evil, wickedness from righteousness, love from hate. 2 Ne. 2:15-16/27 and Hel 14:30-31. Those are clearly stated doctrinal elements in Latterday Saint's Theology. 

As to why Mark has chosen a philosophical argument over revealed truth and well established theology, I can't answer that, my friend. 

[smac97]

On 4/26/2020 at 9:01 AM, theplains said:

Hi mfbukowski, you said previously in another thread

What we call the  "FORTUNATE fall" is a story, historical or not, that teaches us the role of 
freedom in our lives, to increase our potential to become better, or worse. Without agency
and freedom, we are unaccountable and might as well be rocks on the hillside to be acted
upon instead of being agents for ourselves.  Without the fall we are robots

Do you believe the fall is a historical event?  

You didn't ask me, but I'll chime in anyway: I do believe the fall was a historical event.  However, I'm open to further light and knowledge on this topic.

Quote

When exactly did Adam and Eve obtain agency 

Apparently from the get-go.  However, they did not, could not, exercise it in any meaningful sense until they were given a meaningful choice (to obey or disobey).  It seems that until they were tempted, they did not have a choice, and hence could not have meaningfully exercised their agency.

Quote

and how do you consider them robots before that?

I think Lehi addresses this a bit in 2 Nephi 2 (emphases added):

Quote

5 And men are instructed sufficiently that they know good from evil. And the law is given unto men. And by the law no flesh is justified; or, by the law men are cut off. Yea, by the temporal law they were cut off; and also, by the spiritual law they perish from that which is good, and become miserable forever.

6 Wherefore, redemption cometh in and through the Holy Messiah; for he is full of grace and truth.

7 Behold, he offereth himself a sacrifice for sin, to answer the ends of the law, unto all those who have a broken heart and a contrite spirit; and unto none else can the ends of the law be answered.

8 Wherefore, how great the importance to make these things known unto the inhabitants of the earth, that they may know that there is no flesh that can dwell in the presence of God, save it be through the merits, and mercy, and grace of the Holy Messiah, who layeth down his life according to the flesh, and taketh it again by the power of the Spirit, that he may bring to pass the resurrection of the dead, being the first that should rise.

9 Wherefore, he is the firstfruits unto God, inasmuch as he shall make intercession for all the children of men; and they that believe in him shall be saved.

10 And because of the intercession for all, all men come unto God; wherefore, they stand in the presence of him, to be judged of him according to the truth and holiness which is in him. Wherefore, the ends of the law which the Holy One hath given, unto the inflicting of the punishment which is affixed, which punishment that is affixed is in opposition to that of the happiness which is affixed, to answer the ends of the atonement—

11 For it must needs be, that there is an opposition in all things. If not so, my firstborn in the wilderness, righteousness could not be brought to pass, neither wickedness, neither holiness nor misery, neither good nor bad. Wherefore, all things must needs be a compound in one; wherefore, if it should be one body it must needs remain as dead, having no life neither death, nor corruption nor incorruption, happiness nor misery, neither sense nor insensibility.

12 Wherefore, it must needs have been created for a thing of naught; wherefore there would have been no purpose in the end of its creation. Wherefore, this thing must needs destroy the wisdom of God and his eternal purposes, and also the power, and the mercy, and the justice of God.

13 And if ye shall say there is no law, ye shall also say there is no sin. If ye shall say there is no sin, ye shall also say there is no righteousness. And if there be no righteousness there be no happiness. And if there be no righteousness nor happiness there be no punishment nor misery. And if these things are not there is no God. And if there is no God we are not, neither the earth; for there could have been no creation of things, neither to act nor to be acted upon; wherefore, all things must have vanished away.

14 And now, my sons, I speak unto you these things for your profit and learning; for there is a God, and he hath created all things, both the heavens and the earth, and all things that in them are, both things to act and things to be acted upon.

15 And to bring about his eternal purposes in the end of man, after he had created our first parents, and the beasts of the field and the fowls of the air, and in fine, all things which are created, it must needs be that there was an opposition; even the forbidden fruit in opposition to the tree of life; the one being sweet and the other bitter.

16 Wherefore, the Lord God gave unto man that he should act for himself. Wherefore, man could not act for himself save it should be that he was enticed by the one or the other.

17 And I, Lehi, according to the things which I have read, must needs suppose that an angel of God, according to that which is written, had fallen from heaven; wherefore, he became a devil, having sought that which was evil before God.

18 And because he had fallen from heaven, and had become miserable forever, he sought also the misery of all mankind. Wherefore, he said unto Eve, yea, even that old serpent, who is the devil, who is the father of all lies, wherefore he said: Partake of the forbidden fruit, and ye shall not die, but ye shall be as God, knowing good and evil.

19 And after Adam and Eve had partaken of the forbidden fruit they were driven out of the garden of Eden, to till the earth.

20 And they have brought forth children; yea, even the family of all the earth.

21 And the days of the children of men were prolonged, according to the will of God, that they might repent while in the flesh; wherefore, their state became a state of probation, and their time was lengthened, according to the commandments which the Lord God gave unto the children of men. For he gave commandment that all men must repent; for he showed unto all men that they were lost, because of the transgression of their parents.

22 And now, behold, if Adam had not transgressed he would not have fallen, but he would have remained in the garden of Eden. And all things which were created must have remained in the same state in which they were after they were created; and they must have remained forever, and had no end.

23 And they would have had no children; wherefore they would have remained in a state of innocence, having no joy, for they knew no misery; doing no good, for they knew no sin.

24 But behold, all things have been done in the wisdom of him who knoweth all things.

25 Adam fell that men might be; and men are, that they might have joy.

26 And the Messiah cometh in the fulness of time, that he may redeem the children of men from the fall. And because that they are redeemed from the fall they have become free forever, knowing good from evil; to act for themselves and not to be acted upon, save it be by the punishment of the law at the great and last day, according to the commandments which God hath given.

27 Wherefore, men are free according to the flesh; and all things are given them which are expedient unto man. And they are free to choose liberty and eternal life, through the great Mediator of all men, or to choose captivity and death, according to the captivity and power of the devil; for he seeketh that all men might be miserable like unto himself.

Beautiful stuff, IMO.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited April 27, 2020 by smac97

[smac97]

14 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Moreover, the figurative nature of the entire Endowment applies as well to the tree, the fruit, the serpent, etc.

Could you expand upon this?

Thanks,

-Smac

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

Could you expand upon this?.....................

The rib, trees of life & knowledge, the fruit of the trees, the serpent, are all figurative.  The picture that some folks have of Adam & Steve biting an actual apple is just silly.  Something I would expect from the late Jerry Falwell.

Quote

The earthly ordinances of the Gospel are themselves only reflections of heavenly ordinances.  For instance, baptism, the gift of the Holy Ghost and temple work are merely earthly symbols of realities that prevail throughout the universe; but, they are symbols of truths that must be recognized if the Great Plan is to be fulfilled.  The acceptance of these earthly symbols is part and parcel of correct earth life, but being earthly symbols they are distinctly of the earth, and cannot be accepted elsewhere than on earth.  John A. Widtsoe, 1915 Melchizedek Priesthood Manual (“Work for the Dead,” UGHM, 6:33).

 

Quote

What of the trees of Eden? Was there actually a tree whose fruit would make one wise, and another whose fruit would assure everlasting life? The scriptural account, for instance, tells us that the Lord planted "the tree of knowledge of good and evil" in the midst of the garden (Moses 3:9). He then gave Adam and Eve the command: "Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat, 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" (Moses 3:16-17). "Again," wrote Elder Bruce R. McConkie, "the account is speaking figuratively. What is meant by partaking of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is that our first parents complied with whatever laws were involved so that their bodies would change from their state of paradisiacal immortality to a state of natural mortality."  Elder McConkie also wrote elsewhere: "We do not know how the fall was accomplished any more than we know how the Lord caused the earth to come into being and to spin through the heavens in its paradisiacal state."

* * * *

What of the serpent that beguiled Eve into partaking of the forbidden fruit? Did animals in Eden have the capacity to converse in the language of men, as some ancient traditions suggest? Was it then a natural thing for Eve to have a conversation with a serpent? And what of the curse which consigned the serpent to crawl upon its belly and eat of the dust of the earth? Does this suggest that snakes once stood upright, having legs and arms, as they are so commonly depicted in ancient Egyptian drawings? The key question is, Did Satan actually possess the body of a serpent and speak to Eve through that medium, or did Moses choose to describe Eve's confrontation with the father of lies as a discussion with a snake because a snake is such a vivid metaphor to dramatize the subtle, crafty, and dangerous nature of the devil?

Whether a serpent was actually the agent of deception in the Eden story or merely a metaphorical representation of the devil, it matters little. Neither point of view changes or tampers with the integrity of the story. If, however, we assume the partaking of the fruit to have been a figurative representation of what actually brought about the transformation of the earth from a paradisiacal to a natural or mortal sphere, then it might follow that the speaking serpent would also have been figurative.  Robert Millet and Joseph Fielding McConkie, Man Adam, 26-29.

 

Quote

"In antiquity, . . . the Jerusalem Temple was a place where you went to carry out holy acts, sacrifices and the like. I feel that the Mormon experience of the Temple has sort of restored that meaning to the word Temple."
--Krister Stendahl, Dean of Divinity Emeritus, Harvard University, from an interview played in the LDS video, Between Heaven and Earth, 2002.

 

Quote

The Mormon endowment… is frankly a model, a presentation in figurative terms. As such, it is flexible and adjustable; for example, it may be presented in more languages than one, and in more than one medium of communication. But since it does not attempt to be a picture of reality, but only a model or analogue to show how things work, setting forth the pattern of man’s life on earth with its fundamental whys and wherefores, it does not need to be changed or adapted greatly through the years; it is a remarkably stable model, which makes its comparison with other forms and traditions, including the more ancient ones, quite valid and instructive… Those who have been to the temple hundreds of times know that “age cannot wither… nor custom stale [its] infinite variety.”361 What [the] few bits of information [about parallels in other religions and cultures] do is to supply a new dimension to the experience, along with the assurance that a wealth of newly found records confirms the fundamental thesis of its antiquity and genuineness.  H. W. Nibley, Message 2005, p. xxix.

 

[Robert F. Smith]

11 hours ago, teddyaware said:

I have no problem with any of the above quotes and am already well familiar with each of them. But despite the fact that the endowment is figurative in nature, that doesn’t mean nothing real and nonfigurative comes out of it. For example, faithful endowed and sealed men and women will be called up to become very real kings and queens, very real priests and priestesses, and the literal divine  progenitors of their own branch of numberless human offspring. And just because the partaking of the forbidden fruit is figurative doesn’t mean that every accountable human being hasn’t actually lived through a very real Edenic period of innocence that lasts from childbirth to the time of their first deliberately committed sin that occurs at the time when they’re old enough to become morally accountable for their actions before the Lord.

Well  of course, Teddy.  We also partake of the emblems of Christ's body and blood each Sunday (some of us during this interim).  We literally partake of those emblems which represent an actual body which suffered for us.  They have actual cosmic significance for us, even though they (like the unleavened bread and wine of Passover) are merely emblematic of something else.  They accompany an oath and covenant to do certain things, just as we do in the temple, all in preparation for the future.

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, Islander said:

I suggest that Mark's philosophical position weaves a maze where the argument becomes the proverbial branch that he cuts while forgetting he is seating on it. The issue to keep in mind is that there is a difference between our free will (agency) and the omniscient will of God, inside of which we exist and operate (which some call pre-determination). The argument here could be extensive so I will skip it and address only the issue of the Fall.  

Oh my gosh are you serious?

The argument is extensive so you are not giving it?

Then of course I have nothing to answer.

The rest of your post is simply devotional and very nice but there is no argumentation there, it is simply putting forth your personal beliefs- your positions are not even backed up by scripture.  I have no problem with devotional theories- good for you, I appreciate that people are thinking and finding their own way! 

But please leave me out of it if you are not actually responding to my post.

It does not add to your credibility.

Edited April 27, 2020 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

19 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Well  of course, Teddy.  We also partake of the emblems of Christ's body and blood each Sunday (some of us during this interim).  We literally partake of those emblems which represent an actual body which suffered for us.  They have actual cosmic significance for us, even though they (like the unleavened bread and wine of Passover) are merely emblematic of something else.  They accompany an oath and covenant to do certain things, just as we do in the temple, all in preparation for the future.

Agree completely.  Of course their significance is "real" in our lives and is why we pay tithing and come to church and take callings etc etc etc

Actually I agree completely with Teddy here, but he doesn't see it.

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

You didn't ask me, but I'll chime in anyway: I do believe the fall was a historical event. 

If anybody actually cares, so do I !!   But as an IDEA it needs no historic proof to be "true"!!

I am not quite sure why people cannot understand that the SIGNIFICANCE of a belief has nothing to do with its historicity.

Our entire wonderful nation is based on an IDEA- that all men are created equal and endowed by their creator with inalienable rights.

Where is the evidence for those allegedly inalienable rights?   Where is the historic precedent?

And yet brave men and women die for these principles!!!   There is no historical evidence for their veracity.

But if you suggest that the "Fall" does NOT need historical evidence for its veracity, you are instantly a heretic!

Where is the logic of this??

Edited April 28, 2020 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

12 hours ago, teddyaware said:

I have no problem with any of the above quotes and am already well familiar with each of them. But despite the fact that the endowment is figurative in nature, that doesn’t mean nothing real and nonfigurative comes out of it.

This is EXACTLY my position, and if you don't mind I might use it as part of my siggy.

This puts it very well and says it better than anything I have written which just seems to confuse people, at least here.

Edited April 28, 2020 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, Islander said:

As to why Mark has chosen a philosophical argument over revealed truth and well established theology, I can't answer that, my friend. 

Because the world is not LDS and we need to teach them using their belief in humanism.   It's that simple.

It's Paul on Mars Hill using the terms of the philosophers to counter their arguments, and show them how their beliefs could fit in a different context.