The Fall of Adam, Ancient Lie, and Redemption of Zion

[Calm]

7 minutes ago, Obehave said:

Not in, but from, and in my view him accepting us into his church or kingdom doesn't automatically make us right about everything we believe.  I believe we still need to pray and study to find out what is right. 

Being saved doesn't mean being perfect, at least not automatically in every way.

But it sounds like we are forced into his kingdom whether we want to be or not if he accepts us without us accepting him, which implies even if we reject him. When you use the word “accept”, do you mean in the sense of “enrolled” and “become a part of” or “invited”, “open to”?

Edited June 14, 2022 by Calm

[MiserereNobis]

So, I'm a bit lost and am skimming a bunch because I don't know the LDS context of a lot of this. I am going to say that there is a thread talking about the board being boring, so maybe a thread like this will keep you LDS folk talking about doctrine instead of social issues. I do think having Obeone and Obehave show up is a bit funny. I'm waiting for Obelieve next. Maybe the Prophet Shiloh will come back!

I've heard many say that the LDS faith is more orthopraxis than orthodoxy. Can someone believe what Obeone is saying and still be in good standing? Or is his view too heterodox to get into the temple?

[Calm]

5 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Can someone believe what Obeone is saying and still be in good standing? Or is his view too heterodox to get into the temple?

Publicly teaching the prophets are under condemnation could get him in trouble imo.  If this is the limit of his unusual beliefs, I doubt much would happen even if public if he isn’t claiming any actual authority.  If he is claiming some sort of authority or if this is the tip of the iceberg of his beliefs….

Edited June 14, 2022 by Calm

[Calm]

6 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

I do think having Obeone and Obehave show up is a bit funny.

I want to know why Obehave started posting, lol.

[teddyaware]

1 hour ago, Obeone said:

The commandment to multiply was given to Adam and Eve in the garden. It is clear from the scripture and the Temple.

Be fruitful, multiply, be happy and have joy therein (in the Garden).

It would make for a psychopathic God who told them to have "joy" in the garden, while making it impossible for them to have "joy" unless they were kicked out of it! 

Don't you think? Remember the "Having no joy...." argument?

You completely missed my point. The fact is that Moses 2 makes it perfectly clear the commandment to multiply and replenish the earth was given to ALL of God’s spirit children while they were yet unembodied spirits living in heaven, spirits without bodies with no possible way to fulfill the commandment while they continued to remain without bodies in that sate of existence. This means that God can indeed give a commandment to the children of men that cannot be obeyed until those thus commanded are brought into a new state of existence where keeping the commandment is made possible, in this case it’s in mortality.

Your whole premise sinks or swims on whether or not God can give a commandment to people who will not able to obey that commandment until they are brought into a new and functionally different state of existence. The fact that God gave ALL his preexistent spirit children the commandment to multiply and replenish the earth, while they were spirits in heaven who were absolutely incapable of obeying the commandment, blows your whole premise out of the water. What I’m showing here is that God does give commandments to people who cannot fulfill those commands until they enter a new state of existence where obedience to the commandment is made possible.

You say that God cannot give a commandment to the children of men unless their is a way to keep that commandment in the state of existence in which the commandment was first given, but I’ve just devastatingly demonstrated that that simply isn’t true. But my fear is that you are so in love with your own incorrect idea that you won’t even bother to seriously test the validity of what I’m saying.

Edited June 14, 2022 by teddyaware

[Bernard Gui]

2 hours ago, pogi said:

I think there is a difference between having a choice between success and failure and choosing failure of our own agency vs not even having the option of successfully fulfilling commandments.  One has agency and the option to choose obedience, the other doesn't even have agency to choose obedience.  They don't even have the choice.     

I think you keep forgetting that I believe that they would have eventually partaken of the fruit in righteousness and had children.

Thanks. It does seem to me that Lehi’s comments are clear. We’ll agree to disagree.

[Bernard Gui]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

If Adam does the setting up himself, is it an issue?  They had the choice then, before they entered the garden.  Like someone making an unreachable goal because for them that provides inspiration.  Adam and Eve wanted the experience of mortality…how are they going to get it?  Get together with God and hear the options and they agreed to transgression as the most efficient, effective…maybe even the only way to achieve this.  I don’t see it as qualifying as a set up in that case.

I am responding to previous comments by another participant when I say “set up.” They made a choice before entering the garden, but afterwards all memories were removed so they could exercise agency.

[Bernard Gui]

🎶“While trolling through the park one day….they were taken by surprise by a pair of funny guys….” 🎶

Edited June 14, 2022 by Bernard Gui

[MiserereNobis]

4 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

🎶“I was trolling through the park one day…..” 🎶

Hey, speaking of music, are you a fan of new grass? Sam Bush, Jerry Douglas, Bela Fleck, John Hartford, etc.? You know, Telluride Bluegrass Festival folk. Peter Rowan just released a new album that's pretty good: "Calling You From My Mountain"

 

[pogi]

30 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Thanks. It does seem to me that Lehi’s comments are clear. We’ll agree to disagree.

And I think Nephi's testimony, Paul's words, Joseph Smiths prophetic comments in the D&C are also clear and true.  

I think Eve's and Lehi's comments (as previously noted) were based on what they knew, but were limited by what they didn't know...and that includes what further instruction the Lord had in store for them. 

I think there are far fewer core and fundamental principles that need to be subverted by suggesting that Nepi was correct, and not the other way around. 

If you want to believe that both are correct as written, I am yet to see a reasonable way to reconcile them.  

[pogi]

21 minutes ago, Obehave said:

Finding a reasonable understanding doesn't necessarily mean finding the correct understanding.  Many ideas are reasonable while not being true.

The idea Obeone proposed is reasonable, and so is the idea of teddyaware. 

I think you are missing my point about reconciling these seemingly contradicting scriptures.  Obeone is not trying to reconcile these two passages, he is stating that one of them is wrong.  I don't think teddyware has given a reasonable attempt at reconciling them that I can see.  

Quote

It is reasonable to think God could have told Adam and Eve how to have children both before and after they ate fruit from that tree.  God can tell us how to do anything we can do.

You can believe whatever you want, but again, this doesn't help me reconcile these two passages.  What you are suggesting contradicts rather than reconciles the Lehi passage. 

[CV75]

16 minutes ago, Obehave said:

Finding a reasonable understanding doesn't necessarily mean finding the correct understanding.  Many ideas are reasonable while not being true.

The idea Obeone proposed is reasonable, and so is the idea of teddyaware.  It is reasonable to think God could have told Adam and Eve how to have children both before and after they ate fruit from that tree.  God can tell us how to do anything we can do.

He could have told them, but given Abraham 3:19, no immortal being such as Adam and Eve could be intelligent enough to advance in intelligence a) without the trial of, and error in, exercising agency and b) the most intelligent showing the way and correction. Constant immortal progress is not progress; even Christ, given Abraham 3:19, had to progress from grace to grace with the challenges of a fallen body that enticed His soul to stray.

So, I think immortal beings such as Adam and Eve could not have passed on a genealogy that would enable the reconciliation of physical death on one hand and inseparably connected spirit and element life on the other. Neither could perfectly obedient (intelligent) beings have passed on a mortal milieu that would enable the reconciliation of spiritual death on one hand and eternal life on the other. Both the genealogy and moral mortal milieu are necessary for the Most Intelligent of all to descend below and ascend above all things. I hate this expression, but, "It is what it is!" -- we are that we are, just as I am is that I am.

[CV75]

10 minutes ago, pogi said:

I think you are missing my point about reconciling these seemingly contradicting scriptures.  Obeone is not trying to reconcile these two passages, he is stating that one of them is wrong.  I don't think teddyware has given a reasonable attempt at reconciling them that I can see.  

You can believe whatever you want, but again, this doesn't help me reconcile these two passages.  What you are suggesting contradicts rather than reconciles the Lehi passage. 

What are the two passages again? Thank you.

[pogi]

25 minutes ago, CV75 said:

What are the two passages again? Thank you.

This compellation of scriptures:

Quote

1 Corinthians 10:13 
There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it.

Quote

D&C 5:34
Stop, and stand still until I command thee, and I will provide means whereby thou mayest accomplish the thing which I have commanded thee

Quote

Philippians 4:13
I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me.

Quote

Genesis 18:14
Is any thing too hard for the Lord? At the time appointed I will return unto thee, according to the time of life, and Sarah shall have a son.

Quote

1 Nephi 3:7
I will go and do the things which the Lord hath commanded, for I know that the Lord giveth no commandments unto the children of men, save he shall prepare a way for them that they may accomplish the thing which he commandeth them.

 vs.

Quote

 “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.
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

Quote

“And Eve, his wife, heard all these things and was glad, saying: Were it not for our transgression we never should have had seed, and never should have known good and evil, and the joy of our redemption, and the eternal life which God giveth unto all the obedient.” - Moses 5:11

On the one hand is the idea that God does not provide commandments without providing a way to fulfill them.  On the other hand is the idea that God gave conflicting commandments without a way to fulfill both.  I know you gave it a shot, but it was honestly lacking for me.  
 

[pogi]

Nevermind

 

Edited June 14, 2022 by pogi

[pogi]

39 minutes ago, Obehave said:

What Obeone said on page 1 cleared that up, for me.  Here it is again (i don't know how to quote a post like this yet, so I will use bold for what he said):

I think you would agree that all scriptures must be taken in context with all the other words of God.

So if you take Eve's words in context they actually say:

"[We were so disobedient and foolish, that] Were it not for our transgression [which forced us to learn obedience through a punishment of a curse] we never should have had seed, and never should have known good and evil, and the joy of our redemption, and the eternal life which God giveth unto all the obedient. [For there verily was a better way for us in the garden were we willing to listen to God more than to the devil]."

This just sounds like a convoluted mess.  It doesn't change the fact that she is stating that her transgression was the only way.  The last sentence in brackets contradicts the rest which says "were it not for...we NEVER should have had seed or known good and evil..."  In other words, there was no other way.  This doesn't address Lehi's words either. 

Edited June 14, 2022 by pogi

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Obehave said:

What did I write that gave you that sound or idea? 

Because you did not put any conditions as you have in this post on what type of acceptance by Christ was happening whether someone accepted him or not.  I didn’t know if you were a traditional/typical Latter-day Saint in your beliefs, a nonmember, a member with unusual beliefs, or whatever.  The way you phrased it reminded me of some Calvinists I have known with a broader, more universalist version of unconditional election where God saves those who he has created to be saved and leaves the rest to damnation, so I asked a question to avoid assuming incorrectly.  Now you have filled in the details, I know you do not have a hint of Calvinism in there after all.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Obehave said:

Obeone inspired me, to some extent, I believe.

So have you been reading the board and just not bothering to post?  I was wondering if you had followed Obeone from another venue or knew him offline.  Just curious.  You aren’t agreeing with him enough or setting him up to present more of his wisdom to make me suspicious, lol.

Edited June 14, 2022 by Calm

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Obehave said:

Why is it that asking a question on a message board is seen as somehow related to fishing?  And I wonder if Jesus taught his apostles to troll when he taught them to become fishers of men?

Past experiences. We don’t usually get several new posters at once or in near proximity.  When it has happened, there have been sock puppets involved.

[halconero]

21 hours ago, pogi said:

I don't see why not. 

This transgression would have truly disrupted the plan of God.  Probably would have required a new Adam and Eve to take their place.

And yet the scriptures suggest this would not happen:

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.

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.

Quote

By "upheld", do you mean "fulfilled"?  Not if the fruit was required for them to procreate, and thus "multiply".   Do you have any ideas?

Fulfilled. If the violating the commandment means death, that implies that keeping it means life. Someone who kept the commandment would be entitled to such. Imagine if that someone could be proxy for others.

21 hours ago, pogi said:

 Yes, Christ removed the consequences of the violation, but he did not remove the violation itself. The law was transgressed and a way of redemption was provided.

Christ does more than undo the consequences of a violation. The scriptures say that he "takes away" sin itself. In the celestial ledger there isn't a note of sins or transgressions with a note that says "forgiven" and "not forgiven." Instead, Christ says, "I, even I, am he that blotteth out thy transgressions for mine own sake, and will not remember thy sins." Christ not only atones for the sin, but then forgets them on behalf of the repentant such that they are "restored" to a state where the violation did not occur.

In fact, I'm not sure you can separate the concept of redemption from removal of the violation itself. In other contexts, redemption is precisely the act of fulfilling something that someone else could not fulfill. In levirate marriage, the kinsman of the dead is called the "kinsman-redeemer" and their role is provide a child for the dead as if the dead had not died at all, thereby fulfilling laws of inheritance as if they had not been broken by death.

The above is patterned in our own work in the temples. When we stand as proxies for others, and they accept it, it is considered as being as it if had been done in mortality. The scriptures call Christ the second Adam. Why? Because Christ, who was in violation of no law, whether sin or transgression, stood as proxy for Adam, and restored humanity to a state of immortality as if the violation of that law had not occurred.

21 hours ago, pogi said:

That is very different from providing a way to fulfill the law, as Nephi testified God would do with every commandment. 

Not really. May I suggest D&C 117 and D&C 124:49 as companion studies to 1 Nephi 3:7? The first details the mission of Oliver Granger. He was commanded by God to return to Kirtland as the church's agent to sell church property there. And yet, the Lord adds this:

Quote

Therefore, let him contend earnestly for the redemption of the First Presidency of my Church, saith the Lord; and when he falls he shall rise again, for his sacrifice shall be more sacred unto me than his increase, saith the Lord.

Meanwhile, D&C 124 says the following:

Quote

Verily, verily, I say unto you, that when I give a commandment to any of the sons of men to do a work unto my name, and those sons of men go with all their might and with all they have to perform that work, and cease not their diligence, and their enemies come upon them and hinder them from performing that work, behold, it behooveth me to require that work no more at the hands of those sons of men, but to accept of their offerings.

There is an apparent contradiction between 1 Nephi 3:7 and the above. One says that children of men don't get commandments without having a way to fulfill them. The other says that children of men can go forth to do a work in righteousness, and still be stymied. Which is it?

Both. As the Saints found out, Zion can only be built through redemption.

To go back to 1 Nephi 3:7

Quote

And it came to pass that I, Nephi, said unto my father: I will go and do the things which the Lord hath commanded, for I know that the Lord giveth no commandments unto the children of men, save he shall prepare a way for them that they may accomplish the thing which he commandeth them.

What if the way is literally "The Way." What if the only way Adam could fulfill both those commandments was by allowing another to recapitulate his choice by proxy? It is no coincidence that, in a very chiasmus-like style 2 Nephi 2:26-27 is contrasted by the verses that preceed it or that Moses 6:59-60 puts the transgression and the redemption together as context on how to "keep the commandment."

Edited June 14, 2022 by halconero

[Calm]

24 minutes ago, Obehave said:

.  Or do you suppose no immortal men and women will ever reproduce to form children

We re told exalted couples produce spirit children.  Have you read anything that claims or suggests their children will also have physical bodies?

[Obeone]

1 hour ago, teddyaware said:

You completely missed my point. The fact is that Moses 2 makes it perfectly clear the commandment to multiply and replenish the earth was given to ALL of God’s spirit children while they were yet unembodied spirits living in heaven, spirits without bodies with no possible way to fulfill the commandment while they continued to remain without bodies in that sate of existence. This means that God can indeed give a commandment to the children of men that cannot be obeyed until those thus commanded are brought into a new state of existence where keeping the commandment is made possible, in this case it’s in mortality.

Your whole premise sinks or swims on whether or not God can give a commandment to people who will not able to obey that commandment until they are brought into a new and functionally different state of existence. The fact that God gave ALL his preexistent spirit children the commandment to multiply and replenish the earth, while they were spirits in heaven who were absolutely incapable of obeying the commandment, blows your whole premise out of the water. What I’m showing here is that God does give commandments to people who cannot fulfill those commands until they enter a new state of existence where obedience to the commandment is made possible.

You say that God cannot give a commandment to the children of men unless their is a way to keep that commandment in the state of existence in which the commandment was first given, but I’ve just devastatingly demonstrated that that simply isn’t true. But my fear is that you are so in love with your own incorrect idea that you won’t even bother to seriously test the validity of what I’m saying.

As for heaven: He could say, WHEN you get to the earth do this and that. That makes sense.

That was not however what happened to Adam and Eve in this context. That was not what He told them.

 

 

[Calm]

Quote

And all thingswhich 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.

This scripture is what makes me think immortals can’t produce children the way mortals do.  A perfect body may mean an unchanging one (as in no aging, no illness or damage done to it, no decomposition).  Will our skin cells need to fall off to keep our skin healthy.  Will our hair continue to grow (it is basically dead once it is out of the hair root) and need to be cut or will it be alive and always at one length…and maybe even able to move? Or something else?  There are a lot of changes that happens to a woman’s body to produce a baby, including decomposition.  Maybe physical pregnancies are impossible in immortal, perfect beings.

Edited June 14, 2022 by Calm

[Calm]

5 minutes ago, Obeone said:

As for heaven: He could say, WHEN you get to the earth do this and that. That makes sense.

That was not however what happened to Adam and Eve in this context. That was not what He told them.

 

 

Do you really believe that scripture includes everything that passed between God and Adam and Eve?  How long of a conversation would that amount to?  15 minutes maybe?  

[Obeone]

58 minutes ago, pogi said:

Obeone is not trying to reconcile these two passages, he is stating that one of them is wrong.

Not necessarily. Technically Lehi's and Eve's statements are correct (though misleading out of context). 

I simply bring int the context of the entire Canon and of Reason, to show that popular interpretation of their statements is dead wrong. Pun intended.