Jump to content

Agency and children who die before the age of accountability


BBDD

Recommended Posts

On 11/28/2020 at 3:32 AM, Stargazer said:

And again, if the temple presentation is any guide, their initial reaction was sorrow at the need to disobey. Their subsequent reaction of shame and fear was due to the trepidation at facing the music, as it were, something that Satan may have exacerbated, but did not originate.

Any theatrical interpretation (it varies) of their feeling sorrow at the need to disobey is not remorse of conscience, for the action is still justified, with rejoicing in its eternal implications, rather than repenting of it (Moses 5: 10, 11). Feeling shame (Moses 3:25) and fear (Moses 4:16) are not elements of remorse, which is why the devil capitalizes on them.

Link to post
3 hours ago, Stargazer said:

I know what the scripture says.

But your implication has been that Adam and Eve were not accountable until they were tossed out of the GoE. Which implies that God created two adults who were incapable of sinning. And if that were so, He gave two commandments to people who had no accountability for obedience. And then, the first time they inevitably violated the commandments, He tossed them out on their ears. And that is justice?

If you had a puppy, and the first time it messed on the carpet you tossed it out into the backyard, and didn't let it back in, what would you be?

God was not dealing with two clueless dolts who had no idea what the difference was between right and wrong. They knew the difference, and deliberately chose to do what they had been told was wrong, and they were justly punished for it. They were fully accountable, even if they were in a state of innocence.

This "state of innocence" does not mean you are a blank slate. All it means is that you lack experience.  Let me illustrate. I have never killed anyone.  I am in a state of innocence with regard to killing another human being. I can imagine what it might do to me, I can dread the very idea, but I simply have no experience to fully appreciate it. A female acquaintance of mine was forced to kill a home invader (a man she didn't know who, it turned out, had a criminal record a mile long who had invaded her home, not two weeks after he was released from prison on parole) with her legally-owned firearm. She was genuinely in fear for her life, the man approached her threateningly and failed to be put off by the raised weapon, and so she shot and killed him. The DA pronounced her clear of all charges, everyone agreed that she was in the right, but nevertheless she felt horrible. It took her quite some time to come to terms with the whole event. She was formerly in a "state of innocence" with regard to taking another's life, but she is not so now. 

Yes, Adam and Eve were in a state of innocence. But they were accountable for the laws God gave them, because they knew what was right and what was wrong. Once they were out of the Garden they began to appreciate life and find joy in it -- because they had by then experienced misery first-hand. Before that, they were just comfortable.

I agree with some of what you are saying but... sorry but yes there needs to be a but here... you are not conveying the truth of their situation.  Remember the tree of knowledge of good and evil and think about what it represents.  Yes Adam and Eve were accountable for whatever choice they made regarding that tree but up until the moment they ate from that tree they were free from sin... and therefore they had no sin to be accountable for... and they also lacked knowledge of good and evil before they ate from that tree.  And the knowledge they lacked regarding good and evil was to such a degree that they did not know who Satan was or that he was evil, and I think also did not know who their Father was or that he was good.  So with that lack of knowledge they had someone telling them not to eat from that tree and if they chose to eat from it despite that person's instructions they would then die on that day, whatever that meant and since they had never experienced death they had no knowledge of what that was either, while on the other hand they had some other person tell them that the other person who told them they would die if they ate from that tree was telling a lie, that they would not in fact die and instead they would be like God, whatever that meant, gaining knowledge of good and evil.  And yes, in that situation they then made their choice and were held accountable for the choice they made.  And then they knew what was evil, and that that person who had told them to eat from that tree was evil, and that he was their brother Satan/Lucifer who had been cast out of heaven for disobedience to their/our Father in heaven, who was that other guy who had told them not to eat from that tree and that if they did they would die.

Link to post
3 hours ago, Ahab said:

I agree with some of what you are saying but... sorry but yes there needs to be a but here... you are not conveying the truth of their situation.  Remember the tree of knowledge of good and evil and think about what it represents.  Yes Adam and Eve were accountable for whatever choice they made regarding that tree but up until the moment they ate from that tree they were free from sin... and therefore they had no sin to be accountable for... and they also lacked knowledge of good and evil before they ate from that tree.  And the knowledge they lacked regarding good and evil was to such a degree that they did not know who Satan was or that he was evil, and I think also did not know who their Father was or that he was good.  So with that lack of knowledge they had someone telling them not to eat from that tree and if they chose to eat from it despite that person's instructions they would then die on that day, whatever that meant and since they had never experienced death they had no knowledge of what that was either, while on the other hand they had some other person tell them that the other person who told them they would die if they ate from that tree was telling a lie, that they would not in fact die and instead they would be like God, whatever that meant, gaining knowledge of good and evil.  And yes, in that situation they then made their choice and were held accountable for the choice they made.  And then they knew what was evil, and that that person who had told them to eat from that tree was evil, and that he was their brother Satan/Lucifer who had been cast out of heaven for disobedience to their/our Father in heaven, who was that other guy who had told them not to eat from that tree and that if they did they would die.

I dispute that Adam and Eve weren't clear about who the Father was. Maybe they didn't fully understand everything about Him, but He was not some funny old guy with a beard who popped in now and then. Both Adam and Eve were well aware that what Lucifer was asking them to do was against Father's command. And they resisted the temptation until Eve realized that commandment or not, it was a necessary step. I am going to continue to contend that they did not enter into mortality as some kind of oopsie. They understood enough about it to make them completely culpable, whether or not they understood all the implications.

That was before eating the fruit. After eating the fruit, they suddenly jumped into completely new territory.

I know that many authorities in the Church say that the fruit represents an actual physical fruit, and I will not dispute it. However, I will say that in my opinion the fruit did nothing more than change their bodies from immortal to mortal, and it was the disobedience itself that advanced them from ignorance to knowledge. So, other than now being in a mortal body (big change as it was), nothing changed for them physically or mentally. 

If you disagree, you're entitled to your opinion on the matter. But that's how I see it.

 

Link to post
59 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

I dispute that Adam and Eve weren't clear about who the Father was. Maybe they didn't fully understand everything about Him, but He was not some funny old guy with a beard who popped in now and then. Both Adam and Eve were well aware that what Lucifer was asking them to do was against Father's command. And they resisted the temptation until Eve realized that commandment or not, it was a necessary step. I am going to continue to contend that they did not enter into mortality as some kind of oopsie. They understood enough about it to make them completely culpable, whether or not they understood all the implications.

That was before eating the fruit. After eating the fruit, they suddenly jumped into completely new territory.

I know that many authorities in the Church say that the fruit represents an actual physical fruit, and I will not dispute it. However, I will say that in my opinion the fruit did nothing more than change their bodies from immortal to mortal, and it was the disobedience itself that advanced them from ignorance to knowledge. So, other than now being in a mortal body (big change as it was), nothing changed for them physically or mentally. 

If you disagree, you're entitled to your opinion on the matter. But that's how I see it.

 

It’s interesting to note that the transgression of Adam and Eve, which we are so often told wasn’t actually a sin but a rational and rather benign step forward in the initiation of God’s plan of eternal progression, had the most terrible consequences imaginable unleashed as a result of it. It’s difficult to understand why an act that is putatively more of a wise choice than a malignant sin could have resulted in God meting out the severest of all his punishments. 

7 Wherefore, it must needs be an infinite atonement—save it should be an infinite atonement this corruption could not put on incorruption. Wherefore, the first judgment which came upon man (the punishment given to Adam ad Eve) must needs have remained to an endless duration. And if so, this flesh must have laid down to rot and to crumble to its mother earth, to rise no more.

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

9 And our spirits must have become like unto him, and we become devils, angels to a devil, to be shut out from the presence of our God, and to remain with the father of lies, in misery, like unto himself; yea, to that being who beguiled our first parents, who transformeth himself nigh unto an angel of light, and stirreth up the children of men unto secret combinations of murder and all manner of secret works of darkness. (2Nephi 9)

Edited by teddyaware
Link to post
13 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

It’s interesting to note that the transgression of Adam and Eve, which we are so often told wasn’t actually a sin but a rational and rather benign step forward in the initiation of God’s plan of eternal progression, had the most terrible consequences imaginable unleashed as a result of it. It’s difficult to understand why an act that is putatively more of a wise choice than a malignant sin could have resulted in God meting out the severest of all his punishments. 

Well, yes, but it was also the greatest of all blessings, as well. It made all of us possible, after all!

Link to post
26 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Well, yes, but it was also the greatest of all blessings, as well. It made all of us possible, after all!

Yes it did. But to dismiss this violation of God’s law as an innocent transgression when an infinite and eternal sacrifice of incomprehensible suffering was required in order to counteract its cataclysmically destructive effects seems unappreciative.

Link to post
12 hours ago, teddyaware said:

Yes it did. But to dismiss this violation of God’s law as an innocent transgression when an infinite and eternal sacrifice of incomprehensible suffering was required in order to counteract its cataclysmically destructive effects seems unappreciative.

I wasn't dismissing it as "an innocent transgression". I believe that was someone else. That's because there is no such thing as an innocent transgression. Every transgression is mortal, no matter how small it seems to be.

To man, there are degrees of sin. A shoplifter is punished by a fine and perhaps a short time in jail. Automobile theft gets an heftier fine, and perhaps even a year in prison for a subsequent offense. Bernie Madoff got 150 years in prison for stealing $65 billion. But to Justice, there are no degrees. Every theft, no matter how small, or who commits it, requires either the ultimate punishment ("But if they would not repent they must suffer even as I" [DC 19:17]), or be satisfied by repentance through the Lord's "infinite and eternal sacrifice".

There are those transgressors, however, who need not repent to receive the benefit of the Lord's sacrifice. Those are the ones who are not accountable, such as little children, those of insufficient mental capacity, and those who transgress innocently (in ignorance of the laws of God). But our first parents were not among those, because they were accountable, and chose to disobey.

Link to post
50 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

I wasn't dismissing it as "an innocent transgression". I believe that was someone else. That's because there is no such thing as an innocent transgression. Every transgression is mortal, no matter how small it seems to be.

To man, there are degrees of sin. A shoplifter is punished by a fine and perhaps a short time in jail. Automobile theft gets an heftier fine, and perhaps even a year in prison for a subsequent offense. Bernie Madoff got 150 years in prison for stealing $65 billion. But to Justice, there are no degrees. Every theft, no matter how small, or who commits it, requires either the ultimate punishment ("But if they would not repent they must suffer even as I" [DC 19:17]), or be satisfied by repentance through the Lord's "infinite and eternal sacrifice".

There are those transgressors, however, who need not repent to receive the benefit of the Lord's sacrifice. Those are the ones who are not accountable, such as little children, those of insufficient mental capacity, and those who transgress innocently (in ignorance of the laws of God). But our first parents were not among those, because they were accountable, and chose to disobey.

I wasn’t speaking of you but off the general impression one gets when members of the Church often speak of ‘the fortunate fall.” Well the scriptures make it perfectly clear that the fall wasn’t fortunate at all but the worst possible calamity for the human race in every imaginable way. The only thing that turned the tables on the fall’s totally destructive onslaught is an infinite and eternal sacrifice of unimaginable suffering. For this reason it would be more appropriate to speak of a fortunate rescue from the fall rather than the fall itself being fortunate.

If God could have prevented the totally destructive effects of the fall on the human race by mere divine decree, then speaking of a fortunate fall might be more appropriate; but because the prevention of the inevitable and very real descent of every human being into total perdition was only made possible by an infinite and eternal sacrifice of holy agony, we might be better served to speak of a fortunate rescue from the fall by means of the greatest price of ransom ever paid. An awful monster left to his own devices hardly seems fortunate...

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

Link to post
1 hour ago, teddyaware said:

Well the scriptures make it perfectly clear that the fall wasn’t fortunate at all but the worst possible calamity for the human race in every imaginable way.

I don't see how you can say that this was the worst possible calamity. And the scriptures talk about this as a perilous calamity only because it is a very risky thing to have to go through. No wonder one-third of Father's children violently rebelled against going through it -- they wanted an absolutely guarantee that they would succeed, which for Father's purposes was out of the question. He is looking to bring to pass immortality and eternal life for His children, and the only way to do so is to plunge them into the uncertainty and danger of this mortal test.  It is vital that the testees be able to fail, or the test would not fulfill its design. God is looking to produce, through the refiner's fire, beings able to come up to His level. Bringing them all through without the possibility of failure is to produce a generation of beings with participation trophies, and that's all. And that's what would have happened if our first parents had not partaken of the fruit of that tree. By doing wrong, Adam and Eve did right.

The worst possible calamity was not being permitted to go through this mortality with all it's vicissitudes.

If God had not wanted Adam and Eve to eat the forbidden fruit, that tree would have been on some other planet, not in the Garden of Eden. In short, they were put into a situation which was explicitly designed to bring about the Fall. Failure to Fall would have been the calamity.

Link to post
9 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

I don't see how you can say that this was the worst possible calamity. And the scriptures talk about this as a perilous calamity only because it is a very risky thing to have to go through. No wonder one-third of Father's children violently rebelled against going through it -- they wanted an absolutely guarantee that they would succeed, which for Father's purposes was out of the question. He is looking to bring to pass immortality and eternal life for His children, and the only way to do so is to plunge them into the uncertainty and danger of this mortal test.  It is vital that the testees be able to fail, or the test would not fulfill its design. God is looking to produce, through the refiner's fire, beings able to come up to His level. Bringing them all through without the possibility of failure is to produce a generation of beings with participation trophies, and that's all. And that's what would have happened if our first parents had not partaken of the fruit of that tree. By doing wrong, Adam and Eve did right.

The worst possible calamity was not being permitted to go through this mortality with all it's vicissitudes.

If God had not wanted Adam and Eve to eat the forbidden fruit, that tree would have been on some other planet, not in the Garden of Eden. In short, they were put into a situation which was explicitly designed to bring about the Fall. Failure to Fall would have been the calamity.

The worst possible calamity if there had been no atonement made after the fall. 

Link to post
19 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

The worst possible calamity if there had been no atonement made after the fall. 

OK, failure to fall would have been the second worst, then.

Link to post
1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

OK, failure to fall would have been the second worst, then.

Here’s my point: Members of the Church often speak of a “fortunate fall.” Well that’s easy for them to say except for the fact that one individual, the Savior, had to pay the severest of all prices by making an infinite and eternal atoning sacrifice of unimaginable suffering in order to make the fall into something that could be called fortunate. It is a most solemn thing. When members speak blithely of the fortunate fall, it bothers me somewhat because when the Lord was in the midst of his atoning sorrows I’m sure he wasn’t thinking that much about how blessed and fortunate he was. In other words, the fall shouldn’t be spoken of in a casual way that doesn’t also immediately factor in Christ’s unimaginable sufferings that were endured in order to bring good out of the otherwise totally destructive fall.

Edited by teddyaware
Link to post
1 hour ago, teddyaware said:

Here’s my point: Members of the Church often speak of a “fortunate fall.” Well that’s easy for them to say except for the fact that one individual, the Savior, had to pay the severest of all prices by making an infinite and eternal atoning sacrifice of unimaginable suffering in order to make the fall into something that could be called fortunate. It is a most solemn thing. When members speak blithely of the fortunate fall, it bothers me somewhat because when the Lord was in the midst of his atoning sorrows I’m sure he wasn’t thinking that much about how blessed and fortunate he was. In other words, the fall shouldn’t be spoken of in a casual way that doesn’t also immediately factor in Christ’s unimaginable sufferings that were endured in order to bring good out of the otherwise totally destructive fall.

I understand what you're saying, but it was understood from the beginning that the Fall was going to happen, that it wasn't happenstance but planned, and Christ was going to suffer, and knew it from the beginning. In one sense, the Fall was indeed fortunate, because without the Fall there would be no exaltation and no progression. But in another sense, it wasn't fortunate at all, because He knew well in advance what he had volunteered to do, knew it was going to happen, knew "how hard to bear" it would be, and nevertheless followed through. "Fortunate" implies chance; but there was no chance. It was planned.

 

Link to post
20 hours ago, Stargazer said:

I understand what you're saying, but it was understood from the beginning that the Fall was going to happen, that it wasn't happenstance but planned, and Christ was going to suffer, and knew it from the beginning. In one sense, the Fall was indeed fortunate, because without the Fall there would be no exaltation and no progression. But in another sense, it wasn't fortunate at all, because He knew well in advance what he had volunteered to do, knew it was going to happen, knew "how hard to bear" it would be, and nevertheless followed through. "Fortunate" implies chance; but there was no chance. It was planned.

 

You seem to be assuming some things about what was discussed before Adam and Eve came down here and I do not see a good reason to assume what I think you may be assuming.  We don't really know the level of detail about what was discussed.

Perhaps we were only told that the plan was for us to come down here to be tested to see if we would do whatever our Father in heaven commanded us to do, and that if we did not obey in some instance we would have a Savior sent down here to tell us what we needed to do to be saved\redeemed from our disobedience.  

Adam and Eve "fell" because they did not obey our Father's will.  He told them to not eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil and they then chose to eat from that tree anyway despite the fact that he had told them to not eat from that tree. And Eve thought she did the right thing when in fact she chose to disobey and disregard the counsel from our Father in heaven.  So she was beguiled into thinking she was doing a good thing when what she was doing was not what our Father told her to do. 

What a precedent!  What a concept! Hey everyone, let's learn from Eve's example to see that it is good to disregard and disobey counsel from our Father in heaven!  If our Father tells us not to do something and tells us that certain things will happen to us if we disobey him, and Satan/Lucifer tells us that what our Father has told us is not true, let's disobey our Father and instead do what Satan/Lucifer wants us to do!  And then let's tell ourselves that we did a good thing by disobeying our Father in heaven!

That would be good, right?  And no I am not going to rely on what you tell me is good because I know who I should rely on for good spiritual guidance.

Link to post
30 minutes ago, Ahab said:

And no I am not going to rely on what you tell me is good because I know who I should rely on for good spiritual guidance.

I should hope not. Although I do give good spiritual guidance, I have to admit.

Link to post
3 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

I should hope not. Although I do give good spiritual guidance, I have to admit.

I'm sure you think so.  And I'm sure most other people think they do, too.

Link to post
35 minutes ago, Ahab said:

You seem to be assuming some things about what was discussed before Adam and Eve came down here and I do not see a good reason to assume what I think you may be assuming.  We don't really know the level of detail about what was discussed.

Perhaps we were only told that the plan was for us to come down here to be tested to see if we would do whatever our Father in heaven commanded us to do, and that if we did not obey in some instance we would have a Savior sent down here to tell us what we needed to do to be saved\redeemed from our disobedience.  

Adam and Eve "fell" because they did not obey our Father's will.  He told them to not eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil and they then chose to eat from that tree anyway despite the fact that he had told them to not eat from that tree. And Eve thought she did the right thing when in fact she chose to disobey and disregard the counsel from our Father in heaven.  So she was beguiled into thinking she was doing a good thing when what she was doing was not what our Father told her to do. 

What a precedent!  What a concept! Hey everyone, let's learn from Eve's example to see that it is good to disregard and disobey counsel from our Father in heaven!  If our Father tells us not to do something and tells us that certain things will happen to us if we disobey him, and Satan/Lucifer tells us that what our Father has told us is not true, let's disobey our Father and instead do what Satan/Lucifer wants us to do!  And then let's tell ourselves that we did a good thing by disobeying our Father in heaven!

That would be good, right?  And no I am not going to rely on what you tell me is good because I know who I should rely on for good spiritual guidance.

Since you are still insistent upon how wonderful it would have been if A&E had not fallen, darn them, and are resisting my perfectly logical and scripturally-based statements on the subject, apparently because you are of the opinion that what I have said is just the Gospel According to Stargazer, you force me to bring out the "big guns".

I did not write the following. Read it, and then I will show you where I got it:

    "Some people believe Adam and Eve committed a serious sin when they ate of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. However, latter-day scriptures help us understand that their Fall was a necessary step in the plan of life and a great blessing to all of us. Because of the Fall, we are blessed with physical bodies, the right to choose between good and evil, and the opportunity to gain eternal life. None of these privileges would have been ours had Adam and Eve remained in the garden.
    "After the Fall, Eve said, “Were it not for our transgression we never should have had seed [children], and never should have known good and evil, and the joy of our redemption, and the eternal life which God giveth unto all the obedient” (Moses 5:11).
    "The prophet Lehi explained:
    '“And now, behold, if Adam had not transgressed he would not have fallen [been cut off from the presence of God], 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 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.
    '“But behold, all things have been done in the wisdom of him who knoweth all things.
    '“Adam fell that men might be; and men are, that they might have joy” (2 Nephi 2:22–25)."

I did not write this. I copy/pasted it directly out of Chapter 6 of the Gospel Principles manual, which was published by the Church, and presumably therefore contains sound doctrine.

And so I repeat myself: Adam's fall was foreseen and planned for. It was not a tragedy which doomed his children to a miserable mortal existence. This is because if they had not fallen and had remained in the GoE, they would have had no children, would have had no joy, done no good, and so on.  They would still be in there to this day, and all of us would have been waiting in vain to receive mortal bodies.

But if you still choose to believe otherwise, that's up to you.

 

Link to post
13 minutes ago, Ahab said:

I'm sure you think so.  And I'm sure most other people think they do, too.

I was being snarky, there, by the way, since you seemed to have missed it.

Link to post
13 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Since you are still insistent upon how wonderful it would have been if A&E had not fallen, darn them, and are resisting my perfectly logical and scripturally-based statements on the subject, apparently because you are of the opinion that what I have said is just the Gospel According to Stargazer, you force me to bring out the "big guns".

I did not write the following. Read it, and then I will show you where I got it:

    "Some people believe Adam and Eve committed a serious sin when they ate of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. However, latter-day scriptures help us understand that their Fall was a necessary step in the plan of life and a great blessing to all of us. Because of the Fall, we are blessed with physical bodies, the right to choose between good and evil, and the opportunity to gain eternal life. None of these privileges would have been ours had Adam and Eve remained in the garden.
    "After the Fall, Eve said, “Were it not for our transgression we never should have had seed [children], and never should have known good and evil, and the joy of our redemption, and the eternal life which God giveth unto all the obedient” (Moses 5:11).
    "The prophet Lehi explained:
    '“And now, behold, if Adam had not transgressed he would not have fallen [been cut off from the presence of God], 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 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.
    '“But behold, all things have been done in the wisdom of him who knoweth all things.
    '“Adam fell that men might be; and men are, that they might have joy” (2 Nephi 2:22–25)."

I did not write this. I copy/pasted it directly out of Chapter 6 of the Gospel Principles manual, which was published by the Church, and presumably therefore contains sound doctrine.

And so I repeat myself: Adam's fall was foreseen and planned for. It was not a tragedy which doomed his children to a miserable mortal existence. This is because if they had not fallen and had remained in the GoE, they would have had no children, would have had no joy, done no good, and so on.  They would still be in there to this day, and all of us would have been waiting in vain to receive mortal bodies.

But if you still choose to believe otherwise, that's up to you.

 

I think you have neglected to think about Option B.  Sure, God can make lemonade from lemons, and can find a way to fix every mistake we make before we ever make a mistake, but Option B would have been well worth considering.  Consider it now.

God to Adam and Eve:  Don't eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil.  You may choose to eat from it, essentially disobeying my will, but if you do eat from it you are going to die.

Satan: Eh, you won't die if you choose to eat from that tree.  You will be as God if you eat from it, knowing good and evil.

Adam and Eve to God:  God, that tree is very attractive.  Would it be good for us to eat from that tree even though you say we will die on the day we choose to eat from that tree?  Would eating from it be a good thing even if it is against your will? 

Consider what God might have said to Adam and Eve if they had asked him that question.  You've heard from Satan, and from Eve, and maybe from Adam too, but what do you think?  Was it good for Adam and Eve to disobey God?

Edited by Ahab
Link to post
8 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Was it good for Adam and Eve to disobey God?

The scriptures seem to say that it was imperative that they disobey.

Or was Father Lehi just deluded about the whole thing?

Link to post
Just now, Stargazer said:

The scriptures seem to say that it was imperative that they disobey.

Or was Father Lehi just deluded about the whole thing?

Please just find the correct answer to the question I asked.  Was it good for Adam and Eve to disobey God?  After you find the correct answer to that question, consider the ramifications of that as a precedent to any other command of God. 

Is it ever good to disobey God?

Link to post
22 hours ago, Stargazer said:

I understand what you're saying, but it was understood from the beginning that the Fall was going to happen, that it wasn't happenstance but planned, and Christ was going to suffer, and knew it from the beginning. In one sense, the Fall was indeed fortunate, because without the Fall there would be no exaltation and no progression. But in another sense, it wasn't fortunate at all, because He knew well in advance what he had volunteered to do, knew it was going to happen, knew "how hard to bear" it would be, and nevertheless followed through. "Fortunate" implies chance; but there was no chance. It was planned.

 

I can argue for the other side of this discussion just as well as the side I’ve deliberately chosen to focus on in order to stimulate interesting conversation.

Two interesting corollaries that spin off of the doctrinal point of view I’ve chosen to focus on are doctrinal concepts that I’m sure the average Latter-Day Saint would instantly insist are pure heresy:

1) The Book of Mormon teaches a doctrine of the total depravity of man after the fall. In 2 Nephi 9, the prophet Jacob teaches that if there had been no atoning sacrifice of Christ we would all unavoidably descend into total spiritual darkness and become devils. This means that without Christ’s sacrifice there would be nothing within fallen man that could elevate him upward toward God — not even his noble spiritual birthright as a preexistent son of heavenly parents.

2) The Book of Moses in the Pearl of Great Price does in fact teach a doctrine of original sin that’s very similar to the one taught by the Catholics. Where the Book of Moses departs from Catholic teaching on this point is we are told that through his sacrifice Christ atoned for the original guilt of Adam and Eve, thereby negating the otherwise unavoidable necessity that would have caused the sins of the parents to indeed be visited upon their descendants.

Edited by teddyaware
Link to post
2 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

I can argue for the other side of this discussion just as well as the side I’ve deliberately chosen to focus on in order to stimulate interesting conversation.

Two interesting corollaries that spin off of the doctrinal point of view I’ve chosen to focus on are doctrinal concepts that I’m sure the average Latter-Day Saint would instantly insist are pure heresy:

1) The Book of Mormon teaches a doctrine of the total depravity of man after the fall. In 2 Nephi 9, the prophet Jacob teaches that if there had been no atoning sacrifice of Christ we would all unavoidably descend into total spiritual darkness and become devils. This means that without Christ’s sacrifice there would be nothing within fallen man that could elevate him upward toward God — not even his noble spiritual birthright as a preexistent son of heavenly parents.

2) The Book of Moses in the Pearl of Great Price does in fact teach a doctrine of original sin that’s very similar to the one taught by the Catholics. Where the Book of Moses departs from Catholic teaching on this point is that we are told that through his atoning sacrifice Christ atoned for the original guilt of Adam and Eve, thereby negating the otherwise very real decree that the sins of the parents would be visited upon their descendants.

1.  Other than a desire to be like him as much as we can be, I agree.

2. I don't agree with your assessment of Catholic doctrine because I think they understand that as well as we do.  I could be wrong about that, I suppose, but I believe they do based on what I have had Catholics tell me they believe.

Link to post
5 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Please just find the correct answer to the question I asked.  Was it good for Adam and Eve to disobey God?  After you find the correct answer to that question, consider the ramifications of that as a precedent to any other command of God. 

Is it ever good to disobey God?

The Socratic Method from someone who looks askance at philosophers? You surprise me, Ahab.

I quote scriptural and doctrinal authority, and you start asking leading questions. If you don't know what I'm talking about, check this out: Socratic Method

But I'll bite. Of course it is not good to disobey God.

Your next step is of course to proclaim that Adam and Eve should not have disobeyed God and left that darned tree alone.

Unfortunately for your argument, in the case of Adam and Eve's situation in the Garden of Eden, God gave them TWO commandments, not just one. 

They were (as you know):

  • Be fruitful and multiply
  • Don't partake of that fruit over there

As Father Lehi said, however, they could not have children while remaining in the Garden. So, by remaining in a state of innocence in the Garden, they could not obey the first (and arguably the more important) commandment of multiplying. So, they were caught in a carefully laid trap. They could not obey one law without breaking the other.

And they chose to break the less important law, and thus keep the more important.

Now, you are correct in that it is not good to disobey God. But you will and I will. We cannot avoid it. There is no escape from the trap, whether you are Adam, Eve, or Ahab. You are quite specifically here in mortality in order to disobey God. The only child of Heavenly Father ever capable of not sinning here in mortality was Jesus the Christ. 

And I repeat: it was imperative that Adam and Eve fall. They literally had no choice in whether they sinned; their only choice was which commandment to break. And they chose wisely.

Link to post
1 minute ago, Stargazer said:

The Socratic Method from someone who looks askance at philosophers? You surprise me, Ahab.

I quote scriptural and doctrinal authority, and you start asking leading questions. If you don't know what I'm talking about, check this out: Socratic Method

But I'll bite. Of course it is not good to disobey God.

Your next step is of course to proclaim that Adam and Eve should not have disobeyed God and left that darned tree alone.

Unfortunately for your argument, in the case of Adam and Eve's situation in the Garden of Eden, God gave them TWO commandments, not just one. 

They were (as you know):

  • Be fruitful and multiply
  • Don't partake of that fruit over there

As Father Lehi said, however, they could not have children while remaining in the Garden. So, by remaining in a state of innocence in the Garden, they could not obey the first (and arguably the more important) commandment of multiplying. So, they were caught in a carefully laid trap. They could not obey one law without breaking the other.

And they chose to break the less important law, and thus keep the more important.

Now, you are correct in that it is not good to disobey God. But you will and I will. We cannot avoid it. There is no escape from the trap, whether you are Adam, Eve, or Ahab. You are quite specifically here in mortality in order to disobey God. The only child of Heavenly Father ever capable of not sinning here in mortality was Jesus the Christ. 

And I repeat: it was imperative that Adam and Eve fall. They literally had no choice in whether they sinned; their only choice was which commandment to break. And they chose wisely.

Option B is essentially all about asking God what to do in a situation.  Ignorance can be overcome with knowledge.  Need to know how to have children?  Ask God and he can help you to know how to do that.  Just as he could have told Adam and Eve.

And if you think philosophy is all about asking God how to do things or how to know things including how to know whether or not something is true or good then I am totally onboard with that definition of philosophy.

Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...