Agency and the Fall

[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?

Now the second sentence which I promised earlier to give a response.

If someone is "unaccountable" one cannot be praised of blamed for their actions.

Perhaps they are too old, or too young, mentally incompetent, under the influence etc.

Before the "fall" A&E were so innocent that they simply did not have the ability to do anything but what the Father told them to do.  They were "robots" in the sense that they would always do exactly what God told them to do without even thinking about it.

There WAS nothing to think about except what they were commanded to do.

Eve recognized that God gave them an ambiguous instruction: 

 

Quote

 

16 And I, the Lord God, commanded the man, saying: Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat,

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.

 

"Thou mayest choose for thyself"

For the first time they understood that they had to ability to choose something God could not warrant, but that was necessary for their own progression- OR instead they would continue to be irresponsible for their conduct!

Before this, like children, they would not be "agents" able to be praised of blamed for their actions- their actions were NOT predetermined by what God wanted

But what was God's REAL purpose in the creation of the world- according to the LDS paradigm?

"This is my work and my glory to bring to pass the immortality AND Eternal Life of Man"

Two separate things- Immortality= living forever, and God knew that that would be taken care of by the Atonement.

Eternal Life is NOT taken care of by the atonement- it is becoming AS GOD IS through his grace AND our efforts!!

And so, since we are human beings, we will make mistakes, experimenting our way through life.  And so that requires the ability to repent AND learn the proper way to "BE" like God in small aspects, and then become better and better through trial and error.

Otherwise we could never MERIT becoming anything like God!!   Again, we would be irresponsible for the good and bad we did!

Remember: No choice, No merit or condemnation 

God GAVE us choice through the fall!

So when did God give us agency?   Clearly before birth according to our view since we all chose to follow God, BUT we were "still under His influence" and ignorant of the effects of sin.

So in the scenario that the fall was a historical event, the first opportunity to repent was given to A&E after they ate the fruit of the tree.

 

[mfbukowski]

On 4/26/2020 at 1:51 PM, CV75 said:

Those with less scope of operation are relatively more robotic than those with more.

Whole post is great- thanks!  But this becomes the basis of it all- if all you have is a hammer, you see everything as a nail. 

 

[CV75]

13 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.

And if it makes you feel any better, the "figurative-ness" (or "representative-ness", or "type-ness") of a story doesn't mean it isn't more than a reasonable facsimile or report of an actual event. That is what the products of art and science are, for example.

[mfbukowski]

On 4/26/2020 at 1:52 PM, 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.

I think I confused folks by not making a distinction between "agency" and "accountability"

Clearly anyone who has had a child in the "terrible twos" can see the difference!  They do anything they want, but are hardly accountable!

[mfbukowski]

On 4/26/2020 at 5:27 PM, RevTestament said:

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

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. 

Yep- I agree that that works well too, and is a good explanation of how belief in A&E can be compatible with that horrible word "evolution".

And if you really want to get philosophical, you could say that there was "no death before the fall" because they/we did not have to ability to communicate the idea to others and could not actually ponder the effects/affects of "death".  They could not relate someone else's death to the death of one of their loved ones, much as certain animals cannot understand that their reflection is THEM and not another animal.

So in that context, dinosaurs did not "die" because "death" as we understand it, did not even exist.   An afterlife could not be comprehended or discussed!  Do gorillas pray?  Do they understand "thou shalt surely die"?  

Edited April 28, 2020 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

On 4/26/2020 at 6:00 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

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").

WOW!  I knew that but never put it together!!   Thanks!!!

[mfbukowski]

21 hours ago, teddyaware said:

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. 

I agree!  The only problem is that some people have no idea of  what spirituality IS, AND consequently do not understand how it is that the statement "murder is wrong" can be "true".

To me those who demand that religious events think similarly to those who think that morality cannot be "true" because it cannot be proven by objective evidence, empirically, or that the idea of "unalienable rights" are an illusion.

It is like condemning the value of the art of Michelangelo because he was a homosexual.   His personal history has nothing to do with his ability to communicate some of the highest principles of mankind in his work.

"Joseph could not be a prophet if he was a polygamist" is another example.  How many have left the spiritual principles of the church behind because they could not forgive aspects of Joseph's history??

And so I conclude history is irrelevant to spirituality on both sides.  History cannot prove it and an "unacceptable history" has nothing to do with the value of the work.

 

[teddyaware]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

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.

Of course, Mark. Isn’t it maddening how the tyranny of language so often creates discord where none needs to exist?

[teddyaware]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

And if it makes you feel any better, the "figurative-ness" (or "representative-ness", or "type-ness") of a story doesn't mean it isn't more than a reasonable facsimile or report of an actual event. That is what the products of art and science are, for example.

I agree with this as well. It will be intensely interesting to see how it all pans out.

[teddyaware]

33 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

I agree!  The only problem is that some people have no idea of  what spirituality IS, AND consequently do not understand how it is that the statement "murder is wrong" can be "true".

To me those who demand that religious events think similarly to those who think that morality cannot be "true" because it cannot be proven by objective evidence, empirically, or that the idea of "unalienable rights" are an illusion.

It is like condemning the value of the art of Michelangelo because he was a homosexual.   His personal history has nothing to do with his ability to communicate some of the highest principles of mankind in his work.

"Joseph could not be a prophet if he was a polygamist" is another example.  How many have left the spiritual principles of the church behind because they could not forgive aspects of Joseph's history??

And so I conclude history is irrelevant to spirituality on both sides.  History cannot prove it and an "unacceptable history" has nothing to do with the value of the work.

 

I agree, Mark.But isn’t it also true that one fine day we’ll be in a position to know what really did and what really did not occur in what we now call history?

[Bernard Gui]

14 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I think I confused folks by not making a distinction between "agency" and "accountability"

Clearly anyone who has had a child in the "terrible twos" can see the difference!  They do anything they want, but are hardly accountable!

Sometimes I wish I were two again.

Edited April 28, 2020 by Bernard Gui

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, teddyaware said:

I agree, Mark.But isn’t it also true that one fine day we’ll be in a position to know what really did and what really did not occur in what we now call history?

Now through a glass darkly, but then...

But what we made of what we believed will always be more important. We are organizing worlds right now, you know!

 

[CV75]

9 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Now through a glass darkly, but then...

But what we made of what we believed will always be more important. We are organizing worlds right now, you know!

 

...at least what we made of ourselves is what we live with, which synthesizes our perspective/perception and belief.

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

...at least what we made of ourselves is what we live with, which synthesizes our perspective/perception and belief.

It's our time to experiment in world making, so we don't mess up when it really counts

 

[mfbukowski]

On 4/26/2020 at 9:36 AM, 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.

Just FYI that is actually backwards.

Without the philosophy I would never have had a rational belief in visions and religious experience.  There would be no sense in which I could consider them "real" but simply Illusions instead.

It was philosophy that allowed me to see those experiences as just as "real" chairs and tables.

Ask a physicist.

He can't tell you what is "real" anymore than a philosopher can, in fact the two disciplines are growing together.

That which we experience is what we call "real" but when you get down to the bottom line no one can describe it.

For me religious experience is as real as anything else we experience is real.

All experiences are equally given by God to enable us to navigate in this world in which we live. Scientific observations are still observations which are experiences in our minds.

Religious experiences are just as much experiences in our minds

The causes of those experiences are out there but we cannot know what the causes are because all we have is our experience which clouds everything.

In this world we can just see and know what humans are capable of seeing and knowing.  Though they are part of the electromagnetic spectrum as much as light, we cannot see the color of cosmic rays, for example.  To navigate in the world we do not need to be able to see cosmic rays and so we cannot experience them.

But we can experience both "things in the world" and how God wants us to live.

We have the answer both to how things work and why things work. Different questions different answers.

But none of these kinds of ideas are mine.

Without philosophy I wouldn't be here.

I would just be your usual run-of-the-mill atheist who only believes in what he sees, and who misses the whole reason why we are here.

[Islander]

18 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

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.

I suggest that you decided to ignore my argument since it does not sync with your theory.

In the first place, I said I would skip the argument of agency/free will vs. self determination since that is what appears to me is happening. Which rather muddles the argument of the Fall unnecessarily. 

When it came to articulating about The Fall, I believe I shared a very simple and transparent explanation of why and how it happened, with scriptures to backup my argument. There was no devotional there. God so LOVED the world that He offered His perfect, ONLY begotten, righteous and eternal Son as a sacrifice for the sin of the world. Without agency and the ability/possibility of the opposite, love can not exist. If somebody HAS to love by force or design that is NOT called nor can it be love. I offered you scriptures where it clearly states that we have agency and are free to chose. The Savior said (and I paraphrase) if you love me you will obey my commandments. So, people are free NOT TO obey and thus demonstrating that they have no love for the Savior. The word of God is absolute truth to the exclusion of all other claims. Now, if you believe that a philosophical argument is superior to scripture I can't help you. 

We are not called to persuade the world with philosophical arguments or appealing to humanistic theories. We are called to proclaim the Gospel truth in its simplicity, in the power of the Spirit and without apology. Paul's presentation begins at Mars Hill with a reference to the "unknown god" and moves on to say that they can all come to know the ONE true GOD and cast aside the idolatry and false beliefs and be reconciled to the true God of creation. He goes back to Genesis to demonstrate that they had it all wrong. The word of God is sufficient for us to present a solid, sound and articulate defense of the faith. No need to dabble into philosophy for that, and Paul knew it.

"And I, brethren, when I came to you, came not with excellency of speech or of wisdom, declaring unto you the testimony of God." 1 Cor. 2:1

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Islander said:

I suggest that you decided to ignore my argument since it does not sync with your theory.

Sorry, I can't find it. Could you cut and paste it, or put in a link? You stated that you were skipping it because it was "extensive" and now I am IGNORING your unstated "argument"?

You are obviously avoiding the issues.

I am also not sure what you mean by my "theory". Could you state where you disagree with my "theory "? 

I will leave it to any readers to judge what you have posted. Thanks for your reply 

What is your view of Compatiblism in the freedom/ determinism dialogue as it relates to the gospel? Would you agree that it effectively eliminates any perceived conflict between the two positions?

Edited April 28, 2020 by mfbukowski

[teddyaware]

4 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Just FYI that is actually backwards.

Without the philosophy I would never have had a rational belief in visions and religious experience.  There would be no sense in which I could consider them "real" but simply Illusions instead.

It was philosophy that allowed me to see those experiences as just as "real" chairs and tables.

Ask a physicist.

He can't tell you what is "real" anymore than a philosopher can, in fact the two disciplines are growing together.

That which we experience is what we call "real" but when you get down to the bottom line no one can describe it.

For me religious experience is as real as anything else we experience is real.

All experiences are equally given by God to enable us to navigate in this world in which we live. Scientific observations are still observations which are experiences in our minds.

Religious experiences are just as much experiences in our minds

The causes of those experiences are out there but we cannot know what the causes are because all we have is our experience which clouds everything.

In this world we can just see and know what humans are capable of seeing and knowing.  Though they are part of the electromagnetic spectrum as much as light, we cannot see the color of cosmic rays, for example.  To navigate in the world we do not need to be able to see cosmic rays and so we cannot experience them.

But we can experience both "things in the world" and how God wants us to live.

We have the answer both to how things work and why things work. Different questions different answers.

But none of these kinds of ideas are mine.

Without philosophy I wouldn't be here.

I would just be your usual run-of-the-mill atheist who only believes in what he sees, and who misses the whole reason why we are here.

Well then, Mark, what I say is, VIVE L.A  PHIOSOPHIE!!! Your point of view becomes all the more accessible when one considers the possibility that some of our quantum physicists are correct when they postulate that, at the essential level, anything and everything that exists is a manifestation of intelligence or thought.

[Islander]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Sorry, I can't find it. Could you cut and paste it, or put in a link? You stated that you were skipping it because it was "extensive" and now I am IGNORING your unstated "argument"?

You are obviously avoiding the issues.

I am also not sure what you mean by my "theory". Could you state where you disagree with my "theory "? 

I will leave it to any readers to judge what you have posted. Thanks for your reply 

What is your view of Compatiblism in the freedom/ determinism dialogue as it relates to the gospel? Would you agree that it effectively eliminates any perceived conflict between the two positions?

Let's stay close to the original argument; The Fall. When you state things like (in a post above)

"Before the "fall" A&E were so innocent that they simply did not have the ability to do anything but what the Father told them to do.  They were "robots" in the sense that they would always do exactly what God told them to do without even thinking about it.There WAS nothing to think about except what they were commanded to do."...That is a theory or, at best, a rather haphazardly composed theological position not supported by scripture and at odds with Latterday Saints theology (see below from the Church's scripture study manual)

War in Heaven 

This term arises out of Rev. 12:7 and refers to the conflict that took place in the premortal existence among the spirit children of God. The war was primarily over how and in what manner the plan of salvation would be administered to the forthcoming human family upon the earth. The issues involved such things as agency, how to gain salvation, and who should be the Redeemer. The war broke out because one-third of the spirits refused to accept the appointment of Jesus Christ as the Savior. Such a refusal was a rebellion against the Father’s plan of redemption. It was evident that if given agency, some persons would fall short of complete salvation; Lucifer and his followers wanted salvation to come automatically to all who passed through mortality, without regard to individual preference, agency, or voluntary dedication (see Isa. 14:12–20; Luke 10:18; Rev. 12:4–13; D&C 29:36–38; Moses 4:1–4). The spirits who thus rebelled and persisted were thrust out of heaven and cast down to the earth without mortal bodies, “and thus came the devil and his angels” (D&C 29:37; see also Rev. 12:9; Abr. 3:24–28).

The warfare is continued in mortality in the conflict between right and wrong, between the gospel and false principles, etc. The same contestants and the same issues are doing battle, and the same salvation is at stake.

Although one-third of the spirits became devils, the remaining two-thirds were not all equally valiant, there being every degree of devotion to Christ and the Father among them. The most diligent were chosen to be rulers in the kingdom (Abr. 3:22–23). The nature of the conflict, however, is such that there could be no neutrals, then or now (Matt. 12:30; 1 Ne. 14:10; Alma 5:38–40).

In my original post response, I explained how and why agency is indispensable for a true relationship with our Father in Heaven and Savior. I used scripture to validate my point. I just wanted to illustrate, and perhaps my choice of words tends to be too hat times, tat the concept of agency predates the creation and that the Fall is a byproduct of it. 

 

[JLHPROF]

 

21 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Before the "fall" A&E were so innocent that they simply did not have the ability to do anything but what the Father told them to do.  They were "robots" in the sense that they would always do exactly what God told them to do without even thinking about it.

There WAS nothing to think about except what they were commanded to do.

Eve recognized that God gave them an ambiguous instruction: 

"Thou mayest choose for thyself"

For the first time they understood that they had to ability to choose something God could not warrant, but that was necessary for their own progression- OR instead they would continue to be irresponsible for their conduct!

Before this, like children, they would not be "agents" able to be praised of blamed for their actions- their actions were NOT predetermined by what God wanted

God GAVE us choice through the fall!

So when did God give us agency?   Clearly before birth according to our view since we all chose to follow God, BUT we were "still under His influence" and ignorant of the effects of sin.

Well there's my mind expansion moment of the day.

So despite having agency premortally Adam and Eve didn't fully have it in their immortal state due to lack of knowledge. The Lord restored it to them by giving them choice.  The adversary helped the process along by pushing them to make the choice thus opening their eyes and restoring the ability to tell good from evil.

Lack of agency was actually how they were created on earth, and God and Lucifer (ironically Light Bringer) together restored their premortal knowledge and agency to them.

 

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, teddyaware said:

Well then, Mark, what I say is, VIVE L.A  PHIOSOPHIE!!! Your point of view becomes all the more accessible when one considers the possibility that some of our quantum physicists are correct when they postulate that, at the essential level, anything and everything that exists is a manifestation of intelligence or thought.

Things AS WE KNOW THEM are ALL created by human intelligence, if you think about it a little, because it takes a human MIND/Intelligence to KNOW anything!!

It is as straightforward as A=A when you see it.   Everything YOU personally know is-- where?  IN YOUR MIND, because even seeing colors are given to you by your intelligence.   Science tries to describe light- but has trouble defining it.  Photons- waves or particles?? - enter your eyes, reflected off of - what?  some kind of "surface out there- the "CAUSE" of the perception- and your brain/mind/ intelligence INTERPRETS the signals it is receiving and your brain /mind/intelligence tells you "OH- I am seeing something called "brown".

And your intelligence continues to construct what it is "seeing" from those waves/particles coming into your eyes, and you realize that it is not just a "brown thing" but what humans have created to be what is called in human language - English to be precise-  a "deck chair" that is close to a "swimming pool"- AND you had better navigate carefully or you will fall.

OF COURSE the pool and the deck chair and everything else we see is "real"- it is "out there" as a CAUSE of the perception, but it takes our intelligence to construct those impressions in our minds as "pools" and "deck chairs" and "the sky" and my friend "Bob".

Those things are OUT THERE but PERCEIVING them requires an intelligence!!

Again- it is "through a glass darkly"- how is it "through a glass"?  It is like we are seeing through permanent sunglasses that let in whatever our minds allow to be let in, and leave out what is not necessary for survival etc.   We don't need a color name for radio waves or cosmic rays- so our intelligence has no need to even see them.   We call them "invisible" yet they are as "real" as anything that exists.

But who can see what is "invisible" to us?    Someone with more "intelligence" who can see what to us is invisible, with a body infinitely beyond ours!

Not too hard for a believer to figure out WHO that is!! 

Can you imagine what it would be like to see ALL the colors of what we call "the electromagnetic spectrum?"  Colors no one has ever seen?  Could we even "hear" their vibrations, as our intelligence turns vibrations in the air into "sounds"- and gloriously- MUSIC?

I learned all this from philosophy, I did not figure it out for myself!

So NOW "through a glass darkly"- these "things", as causes of our perceptions but THEN, "face to face".   We will see the CAUSES of our present perceptions with intelligence unfettered by our bodily limits and see it "AS IT IS"!

And so yes, intelligence constructs everything we can KNOW in our intelligence or else it is does not exist!

DC 93:29-31

Quote

 

29 Man was also in the beginning with God. Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be.

30 All truth is independent in that sphere in which God has placed it, to act for itself, as all intelligence also; otherwise there is no existence.

31 Behold, here is the agency of man, and here is the condemnation of man; because that which was from the beginning is plainly manifest unto them, and they receive not the light.

 

Can you imagine how I saw this (and many other LDS scriptures) after learning the philosophy I had learned??   I was cooked.   Done, stick a fork in me.

I found a missionary and said "Hi.  I'd like to be baptized. Can you tell me how we can do that?"

 

 

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

 

Well there's my mind expansion moment of the day.

So despite having agency premortally Adam and Eve didn't fully have it in their immortal state due to lack of knowledge. The Lord restored it to them by giving them choice.  The adversary helped the process along by pushing them to make the choice thus opening their eyes and restoring the ability to tell good from evil.

Lack of agency was actually how they were created on earth, and God and Lucifer (ironically Light Bringer) together restored their premortal knowledge and agency to them.

 

Emphasis added.

Thanks and a great compliment.

I am glad you understood the argument despite perhaps my typo where I said 

Quote

So when did God give us agency?   Clearly before birth according to our view since we all chose to follow God, BUT we were "still under His influence" and ignorant of the effects of sin.

I think it is quite clear that,  I said "before birth" when I intend to say "before the fall" because I had already said "despite having agency premortally".  

In the portion I quoted in bold, it is clear that I said that they had agency "premortally", which should have been enough to convey the idea, and of course you did understand it perfectly

Islander seems to be making a big deal about the fact that they had agency since they chose the right side before the "War in Heaven", while simultaneously being vague about his apparently non-existent "extended argument".

The key to my point is that even though they theoretically had agency, as you say, it was not fully expressible due to lack of knowledge - precisely lack of knowledge of "good AND evil".

Perhaps more importantly those who are "not accountable" cannot be praised for the right things they do, nor for what might be considered wrong.  https://www.iep.utm.edu/praise/

So before having knowledge of good and evil it would have been impossible for sin to exist- as made clear in why we discuss the fall as a "transgression" and not a "sin" - since partaking of the fruit itself was not strictly speaking a "sin" because of those words "yet it is given unto thee"- it was not clearly prohibited.  So the term "Original Sin" is actually logically incorrect.  One must learn that murder, for example, is possible BEFORE one can commit the sin of murder.

As you point out, it is an issue of "knowledge"

So straightforward Adam cannot even conceive of NOT following God when Eve asks "Do you intend to keep all of God's commands?" and Adam answers, incredulously, "Yes, all of them!" as if he cannot even conceive of NOT following the commandments.

Then Eve, Woman, being more subtle, explains the ambiguity of their situation

Blake Ostler maintains that the first real "sin" was not eating the fruit- but hiding from  God after the discovery of their nakedness, and that makes some sense to me, because before that, it never occurred to them that there were other options.

[teddyaware]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Things AS WE KNOW THEM are ALL created by human intelligence, if you think about it a little, because it takes a human MIND/Intelligence to KNOW anything!!

It is as straightforward as A=A when you see it.   Everything YOU personally know is-- where?  IN YOUR MIND, because even seeing colors are given to you by your intelligence.   Science tries to describe light- but has trouble defining it.  Photons- waves or particles?? - enter your eyes, reflected off of - what?  some kind of "surface out there- the "CAUSE" of the perception- and your brain/mind/ intelligence INTERPRETS the signals it is receiving and your brain /mind/intelligence tells you "OH- I am seeing something called "brown".

And your intelligence continues to construct what it is "seeing" from those waves/particles coming into your eyes, and you realize that it is not just a "brown thing" but what humans have created to be what is called in human language - English to be precise-  a "deck chair" that is close to a "swimming pool"- AND you had better navigate carefully or you will fall.

OF COURSE the pool and the deck chair and everything else we see is "real"- it is "out there" as a CAUSE of the perception, but it takes our intelligence to construct those impressions in our minds as "pools" and "deck chairs" and "the sky" and my friend "Bob".

Those things are OUT THERE but PERCEIVING them requires an intelligence!!

Again- it is "through a glass darkly"- how is it "through a glass"?  It is like we are seeing through permanent sunglasses that let in whatever our minds allow to be let in, and leave out what is not necessary for survival etc.   We don't need a color name for radio waves or cosmic rays- so our intelligence has no need to even see them.   We call them "invisible" yet they are as "real" as anything that exists.

But who can see what is "invisible" to us?    Someone with more "intelligence" who can see what to us is invisible, with a body infinitely beyond ours!

Not too hard for a believer to figure out WHO that is!! 

Can you imagine what it would be like to see ALL the colors of what we call "the electromagnetic spectrum?"  Colors no one has ever seen?  Could we even "hear" their vibrations, as our intelligence turns vibrations in the air into "sounds"- and gloriously- MUSIC?

I learned all this from philosophy, I did not figure it out for myself!

So NOW "through a glass darkly"- these "things", as causes of our perceptions but THEN, "face to face".   We will see the CAUSES of our present perceptions with intelligence unfettered by our bodily limits and see it "AS IT IS"!

And so yes, intelligence constructs everything we can KNOW in our intelligence or else it is does not exist!

DC 93:29-31

Can you imagine how I saw this (and many other LDS scriptures) after learning the philosophy I had learned??   I was cooked.   Done, stick a fork in me.

I found a missionary and said "Hi.  I'd like to be baptized. Can you tell me how we can do that?"

 

 

A truly excellent and eye opening (pun intended) exposition, Mark. But why couldn’t you have picked a more cheerful color than brown?

[teddyaware]

3 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Things AS WE KNOW THEM are ALL created by human intelligence, if you think about it a little, because it takes a human MIND/Intelligence to KNOW anything!!

It is as straightforward as A=A when you see it.   Everything YOU personally know is-- where?  IN YOUR MIND, because even seeing colors are given to you by your intelligence.   Science tries to describe light- but has trouble defining it.  Photons- waves or particles?? - enter your eyes, reflected off of - what?  some kind of "surface out there- the "CAUSE" of the perception- and your brain/mind/ intelligence INTERPRETS the signals it is receiving and your brain /mind/intelligence tells you "OH- I am seeing something called "brown".

And your intelligence continues to construct what it is "seeing" from those waves/particles coming into your eyes, and you realize that it is not just a "brown thing" but what humans have created to be what is called in human language - English to be precise-  a "deck chair" that is close to a "swimming pool"- AND you had better navigate carefully or you will fall.

OF COURSE the pool and the deck chair and everything else we see is "real"- it is "out there" as a CAUSE of the perception, but it takes our intelligence to construct those impressions in our minds as "pools" and "deck chairs" and "the sky" and my friend "Bob".

Those things are OUT THERE but PERCEIVING them requires an intelligence!!

Again- it is "through a glass darkly"- how is it "through a glass"?  It is like we are seeing through permanent sunglasses that let in whatever our minds allow to be let in, and leave out what is not necessary for survival etc.   We don't need a color name for radio waves or cosmic rays- so our intelligence has no need to even see them.   We call them "invisible" yet they are as "real" as anything that exists.

But who can see what is "invisible" to us?    Someone with more "intelligence" who can see what to us is invisible, with a body infinitely beyond ours!

Not too hard for a believer to figure out WHO that is!! 

Can you imagine what it would be like to see ALL the colors of what we call "the electromagnetic spectrum?"  Colors no one has ever seen?  Could we even "hear" their vibrations, as our intelligence turns vibrations in the air into "sounds"- and gloriously- MUSIC?

I learned all this from philosophy, I did not figure it out for myself!

So NOW "through a glass darkly"- these "things", as causes of our perceptions but THEN, "face to face".   We will see the CAUSES of our present perceptions with intelligence unfettered by our bodily limits and see it "AS IT IS"!

And so yes, intelligence constructs everything we can KNOW in our intelligence or else it is does not exist!

DC 93:29-31

Can you imagine how I saw this (and many other LDS scriptures) after learning the philosophy I had learned??   I was cooked.   Done, stick a fork in me.

I found a missionary and said "Hi.  I'd like to be baptized. Can you tell me how we can do that?"

 

 

Another thought. In light of your remarkable conversion experience, perhaps  you should approach the Church leaders with the idea of what might be called the ‘Mars Hill Brigade Missionary Initiative!’ You know, send out highly trained LDS philosophers to convert all those philosophers out there who would love to embrace the truth but know not where to find it. 

Edited April 29, 2020 by teddyaware

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, teddyaware said:

Another thought. In light of your remarkable conversion experience, perhaps  you should approach the Church leaders with the idea of what might be called the ‘Mars Hill Brigade Missionary Initiative!’ You know, send out highly trained LDS philosophers to convert all those philosophers out there who would love to embrace the truth but no not where to find it. 

Great idea. I have tried that on a local level, but usually get the same kind of reaction you gave me, just for an example, before you could understand my point.

The trick I think that using the physics model to start off is a good way to do it.

I have been hesitant to do that because physics is very bad philosophy, and philosophy is very bad physics.

Church leaders are seldom philosophers or physicists!!

One can instantly lose both real physicists and real philosophers at the same time!  I have not solved that one yet!

As a young Catholic I know that I felt the spirit strongly, then went through a period of atheism. But in my atheism, what I was really looking for was a way that I could show that spiritual experience is "real", so I kept looking for ways that philosophers found religious statements to be justifiable. ("true")

I found the philosophy that worked to do that but not a church.

Then through some very remarkable circumstances I found this church, and had some profound experiences.

I really do appreciate your encouragement thank you.