Adam's Choice to Remain with Eve--The keeping of a commandment and blessing.

[Jay53]

Jay53,
I sincerely think Larkin31 has shown more insight in looking at the situation in the garden of Eden with an honest perspective, than to say those two commandments are the same as the 10 commandments.

The 10 commandments are about gaining personal and societal happiness through obedience to God. They give a foundation for the best way (only way) to gain happiness.

I certainly agree that “be fruitful and multiply” is a way to move toward gaining happiness if one also has a compatible and “help meet” marriage. But “do not eat of the tree of knowledge” does not imply that that leads to gaining happiness. It actually implies a restriction against gaining true and honest happiness. To have no knowledge yet think one is truly happy is to be living in either an imaginary world or be living like Eliza Doolittle, in a garden oblivious to the outside world and the greater knowledge that is in the outside world, including the understanding that language and its proper use bring a whole set of opportunities for gaining wisdom by reading and thinking about the experiences and ideas of the human race over the centuries. To think of the loss of wisdom that would be extent in a world with no pain, no real work, no challenges to the intellect as to overcoming painful or frustrating circumstances or growing from them, no literary greatness through the minds of men and women dealing with the complexities of life–I just don’t look at that kind of a world as one that appeals to me.

So choosing knowledge and wisdom is a far different thing than choosing the happiness that comes from obeying the 10 commandments. I don’t think a valid comparison can be made that says they are similar situations, if one seriously considers the implications.

I did not say that the 10 commandments and Adam & Eve’s commandments were the same. I simply made the observation that they are all commandments from God.

You cannot separate out God’s commandments and say - well these commandments are against joy and wisdom so they are OK to break. That is something that Satan would say to us to rationalize sin.

You also seem to be making huge assumptions about what life would have been like without the fall, which I can only assume is based on Mormon scripture.

 

[Jay53]

Jay53,
I would be interested in your observation of what the words “thy desire shall be to thy husband” mean in the context of Genesis 3:16.

Exactly what it says. Even though there is the horrible pain in childbirth, women still desire their husbands. Thus why not every woman stops at having one child.

As far as the other translations you cited, I don’t use those nor would I now that I have looked up the Hebrew to English translations that are available online. The word “conception” could be rendered “travail” but it wouldn’t be left out entirely in a true-to-the-Hebrew translation. (Maybe some of the modern translators left it out because it created ambiguity in that “travail” can mean “parturition” or “act of giving birth” or it can mean “intense pain and agony” or it can mean “toil”. They instead focused entirely on the first word, using the translation “pain” which is indeed true to the Hebrew in lieu of “sorrow” but there is still the separate word to deal with.)

I didn’t say you had to use the other translations, but they certainly give a different picture that what you are trying to portray using only the words in your translation. I gave you the other translations to help you see how your interpretation of your own translation is wrong.

If you didn’t think I had been very much aware of the word “sorrow” and that there is pain in childbirth, then that was not a correct thought. I focused on the word “conception” because the two are joined together as being “greatly multiplied” so one needs to spend time figuring out the meaning whereas the word “sorrow” or “pain” has a pretty clear meaning in and of itself.

No, I think you focused on it because you thought it would support the idea that Adam & Eve couldn’t/wouldn’t have children without sinning.

In any case, if when a woman is having her baby, she is thinking something along the lines of “if Eve hadn’t sinned, this would be so much easier!” then I think she would resent God as much as she would resent Eve, since the consequence of “death” did not necessarily imply “pain” but “gaining wisdom” may be logically assumed to mean it would involve pain since someone who experiences a lot of pain will logically be more compassionate and perhaps more tender-hearted than someone who has had minimal pain in their life. Having had kidney stones a few times, I can attest of the intense pain but can also attest that I can feel more compassion toward someone who says they are suffering intense pain.

Trust me, when a woman is in labor, Adam & Eve are probably the last thing on her mind.

I don’t know what you mean by "since the consequence of “death” did not necessarily imply “pain” but “gaining wisdom”…

If you or anyone believes that a serious goal of this life is to become like Christ, then it would seem that having to undergo a great deal of pain in life would be “part of the package”. I sense that women are generally more compassionate than men: perhaps one learns one of the reasons why in Genesis 3:16.

OK.

An LDS belief is that Christ bore our pains, sorrows, weaknesses and travails, as well as our sins during His atoning sacrifice, and that He has all the more compassion for us and helps us endure our pains and sorrows by helping us get through them through His succor as well as sometimes lifting them from us, and that ultimately He will “wipe away all tears” from our eyes through His atoning grace.

I don’t think Christ’s sacrifice gives Him more compassion. He is God. To imply that needed to learn more compassion would imply that He was somehow less to begin with.

I think these experiences increase our gratitude for Him and for what He went through for us, besides enabling increased compassion and sensitivity to the pains and trails of others. (That would be gaining wisdom.)

But would there have been any pain/suffering for which we needed compassion/empathy if the fall had never happened.

 

[ParkerD]

Parker

I think I’ve exhausted trying to help you understand. I realize that you have Mormon doctrines that you believe and have to defend which influences your reasoning. There is no evidence in the Bible that Adam and Eve would not have had children without disobeying God. Your assertions regarding that come from “other” scripture.

The bottom line that I keep coming back to is that you think it is acceptable to disobey God if the ends are worthy enough. You think it is OK that Adam & Eve disobeyed God’s commandment because you think they wanted wisdom. You also seem to think that God intentionally wanted Adam & Eve to sin - either by disobeying the commandment to eat of the tree or disobeying the commandment to be fruitful and multiply. Sin is not OK with God. He would not deliberately put Adam & Eve in that position. The ends don’t justify the means for any of us. (Thus my example about embryonic stem cell research which I don’t think you understood.)

I’ve tried different ways to help you see this, but obviously to no avail. After seeing the actual passages in Nephi that were quoted, I understand your reluctance better - you have that scripture to defend.

Have a good day.

Jay53,
I didn’t post the verses from the Book of Mormon to “defend” them. I posted them so that anyone who happened to read what Questioner had written would know what he was writing about.

I have “defended” the Bible and its use of words–the words translated from the writings of Moses who was inspired by (according to my belief) God to write exactly what God wanted us to know, even on the subject of Adam and Eve and their fall.

I have “defended” that God gave commandments to Adam about his relationship with Eve that ended up giving him a dilemma situation.

I have “defended” that the 10 commandments are given to us not as arbitrary laws to make God happy, but as bedrock commandments that bring us happiness individually and as societies if we live them willingly, voluntarily, with love in our heart for God and for others and actually for ourselves and even for Adam and Eve whom God loved and loves.

I have “defended” the opportunity of making a choice about whether to enter a world of difficult choices and therefore choosing the gaining of wisdom by the opportunity to make those choices.

I have “defended” the need for death including spiritual death so that there could be spiritual rebirth (the “quickening” as described in Psalm 119) and also physical rebirth (resurrection) in a perfected body to regain the physical presence of God but with far greater happiness (true joy) and meaning than what was our prior experience in the presence of God.

Every concept I have defended is supported by the Bible. We could look at supporting verses all day long.

I have not written “God intentionally wanted Adam and Eve to sin.” God did put Adam and Eve into a situation where He knew what they would choose (which Catholics have agreed with), but that did not mean He was doing the choosing–they were doing the choosing. He wanted to give them a very significant choice to make, and He did so in His perfect way of doing things. The choices was theirs to make.

 

[ParkerD]

I did not say that the 10 commandments and Adam & Eve’s commandments were the same. I simply made the observation that they are all commandments from God.

You cannot separate out God’s commandments and say - well these commandments are against joy and wisdom so they are OK to break. That is something that Satan would say to us to rationalize sin.

You also seem to be making huge assumptions about what life would have been like without the fall, which I can only assume is based on Mormon scripture.

Jay53,
I have asked several Catholics to describe what this world was intended to have been like in a specific description rather than generalities, and none have obliged. Would you care to oblige since you have said I “seem to be making huge assumptions about what life would have been like without the fall”?

I have written that I accept the consequences of the fall, and can see that good things come from it–the gaining of wisdom, the gaining of compassion and empathy which means a huge increase in love and charity; being able to be “spiritually reborn” and have Christ change us to “new creatures” and to be sanctified by the Holy Spirit; being able to be resurrected with a perfected body, being able to enjoy complex literary treasures in the world we have been given, with all the mind-stretching questions about the complexities of life.

 

[Jay53]

Jay53,
I didn’t post the verses from the Book of Mormon to “defend” them. I posted them so that anyone who happened to read what Questioner had written would know what he was writing about.

I have “defended” the Bible and its use of words–the words translated from the writings of Moses who was inspired by (according to my belief) God to write exactly what God wanted us to know, even on the subject of Adam and Eve and their fall.

OK. I just think you have interpreted the words of the Bible wrongly - based on Mormon doctrine. You are twisting the Bible’s words to fit what you understand from Mormon doctrine.

Actually, you posting the BoM verses helps clarify why you hold the position you do and why you are clinging to that position in spite of evidence to the contrary.

I have “defended” that God gave commandments to Adam about his relationship with Eve that ended up giving him a dilemma situation.

That’s where you go astray in your thinking. There was no “dilemma situation”. God gave them commandments. He expected them to be obeyed. God does not create “dilemmas” for us with the only choice being to commit a sin. God does not approve of sin - in any form.

I have “defended” that the 10 commandments are given to us not as arbitrary laws to make God happy, but as bedrock commandments that bring us happiness individually and as societies if we live them willingly, voluntarily, with love in our heart for God and for others and actually for ourselves and even for Adam and Eve whom God loved and loves.

I would agree. So why were the commandments God gave Adam & Eve NOT for their happiness? Why do you keep presenting the commandments that Adam & Eve had as somehow worthy of being broken? As I mentioned before, you keep presenting the position that “gaining wisdom” is worth disobedience to God.

If God wasn’t specific in His wording of the commandment “Do not eat…”, then I would be more inclined to consider your position, but the wording is very clear throughout Genesis;
(all emphasis mine)

When He gives the commandment:

Genesis 2:16-17 The LORD God commanded the man, saying, “From any tree of the garden you may eat freely; but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die.”

Adam & Eve’s understanding of it:

Genesis 3:2-3 The woman said to the serpent, “From the fruit of the trees of the garden we may eat; but from the fruit of the tree which is in the middle of the garden, God has said, 'You shall not eat from it or touch it, or you will die.’”

and God’s response to Adam after he disobeyed God:

Genesis 3:17 Then to Adam He said, "Because you have listened to the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree about which I commanded you, saying, ‘You shall not eat from it’;

It is very clear from the Scripture that God expected Adam & Eve to obey Him and that Adam & Eve understood that commandment to the point to telling Satan what the commandment was. Satan then tempted them to disobey God, which they did.

I have “defended” the opportunity of making a choice about whether to enter a world of difficult choices and therefore choosing the gaining of wisdom by the opportunity to make those choices.

Again, that is where your thinking goes astray. There was no “choice” other than the choice to obey God or disobey God. Satan is the one who tempted Adam & Eve to disobey God. God did not outline the choices and explain the myriad of consequences of each of them for Adam & Eve and tell them to pick one. The wording in the Scripture is clear that it was a commandment.

I have “defended” the need for death including spiritual death so that there could be spiritual rebirth (the “quickening” as described in Psalm 119) and also physical rebirth (resurrection) in a perfected body to regain the physical presence of God but with far greater happiness (true joy) and meaning than what was our prior experience in the presence of God.

This is based on our reality after the fall. And there is no evidence that our existence without the fall would have been somehow “lacking” or “unhappy”. That is your pure speculation. Again, just because God, in His infinite Love and Mercy, has given us Redemption and given us a chance to return to His presence does NOT mean that He approved of the original sin.

Every concept I have defended is supported by the Bible. We could look at supporting verses all day long.

I disagree. Particularly your belief that Adam & Eve were unable to have children without sin.

I have not written “God intentionally wanted Adam and Eve to sin.” God did put Adam and Eve into a situation where He knew what they would choose (which Catholics have agreed with), but that did not mean He was doing the choosing–they were doing the choosing. He wanted to give them a very significant choice to make, and He did so in His perfect way of doing things. The choices was theirs to make.

Yes, in so many words, you have said that “God intentionally wanted Adam & Eve to sin”. You keep saying that God specifically and deliberately gave them a dilemma. They had to either disobey the commandment to “Be fruitful and multiply” or disobey the commandment “Do not eat of the tree of knowledge”. This sets up a situation where God wants them to make a choice as to which commandment to disobey. If they were, in fact, unable to have children without eating from the tree of knowledge, then even if they did nothing at all they would be disobeying the “be fruitful and multiply” commandment.

 

[Jay53]

Jay53,
I have asked several Catholics to describe what this world was intended to have been like in a specific description rather than generalities, and none have obliged. Would you care to oblige since you have said I “seem to be making huge assumptions about what life would have been like without the fall”?

No, because anything I write will equally be speculation and making assumptions.

I have written that I accept the consequences of the fall, and can see that good things come from it–the gaining of wisdom, the gaining of compassion and empathy which means a huge increase in love and charity; being able to be “spiritually reborn” and have Christ change us to “new creatures” and to be sanctified by the Holy Spirit; being able to be resurrected with a perfected body, being able to enjoy complex literary treasures in the world we have been given, with all the mind-stretching questions about the complexities of life.

Again, just because God has infinite Love and Mercy for us and has given us this chance at redemption, DOES NOT mean that He ever approved of sin. Our redemption is simply evidence of God’s Love and Mercy.

I will say it again: The ends do not justify the means.

On a side note, and just out of curiosity, why are you the only Mormon on here defending this position? Since your thinking is clearly as a result of the BoM, I just wonder why many of the other Mormons who are so vocal on here are not contributing to this thread?
Or is this issue a contentious one among the general Mormon population?

 

[Jay53]

I’d like to also offer further Biblical evidence that Adam’s sin was not viewed as a “good” or “necessary” choice.

I will bold the words that I think are important in understanding the fact that Adam’s “choice” was not approved of by God. (Even though, in the end we are redeemed by God.)

Romans 5:15-19

15But the free gift is not like the transgression. For if by the transgression of the one the many died, much more did the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abound to the many.

16The gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned; for on the one hand the judgment arose from one transgression resulting in condemnation, but on the other hand the free gift arose from many transgressions resulting in justification.

17For if by the transgression of the one, death reigned through the one, much more those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.

18So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men.

19For as through the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous.

I think St. Paul’s use of the word “condemnation” portrays the view that God had of Adam’s sin. Yet, through Christ Jesus we are Redeemed from that sin.

 

[larkin31]

Jay53,
I sincerely think Larkin31 has shown more insight in looking at the situation in the garden of Eden with an honest perspective, than to say those two commandments are the same as the 10 commandments.

The 10 commandments are about gaining personal and societal happiness through obedience to God. They give a foundation for the best way (only way) to gain happiness.

I certainly agree that “be fruitful and multiply” is a way to move toward gaining happiness if one also has a compatible and “help meet” marriage. But “do not eat of the tree of knowledge” does not imply that that leads to gaining happiness. It actually implies a restriction against gaining true and honest happiness. To have no knowledge yet think one is truly happy is to be living in either an imaginary world or be living like Eliza Doolittle, in a garden oblivious to the outside world and the greater knowledge that is in the outside world, including the understanding that language and its proper use bring a whole set of opportunities for gaining wisdom by reading and thinking about the experiences and ideas of the human race over the centuries. To think of the loss of wisdom that would be extent in a world with no pain, no real work, no challenges to the intellect as to overcoming painful or frustrating circumstances or growing from them, no literary greatness through the minds of men and women dealing with the complexities of life–I just don’t look at that kind of a world as one that appeals to me.

So choosing knowledge and wisdom is a far different thing than choosing the happiness that comes from obeying the 10 commandments. I don’t think a valid comparison can be made that says they are similar situations, if one seriously considers the implications.

I don’t mean to be redundant, and I don’t know anything about Mormonism (I am indifferent to it), but I consider Adam and Eve’s choice to eat and gain knowledge their first truly human act. It even precedes sex, which makes sense. God exiles them, in part, because, as was the case for David Carradine in Kung Fu, “It was time for them to go.”

 

[ParkerD]

I don’t mean to be redundant, and I don’t know anything about Mormonism (I am indifferent to it), but I consider Adam and Eve’s choice to eat and gain knowledge their first truly human act. It even precedes sex, which makes sense. God exiles them, in part, because, as was the case for David Carradine in Kung Fu, “It was time for them to go.”

Larkin31,
Thanks for participating in this discussion, and bringing the insights you have brought up.

I also look at the situation of Eve as one in which self-honesty would lead her to have thought to herself “Hey, I’m not perfect–I lack something that I deeply long for (to be wise), and I have been told there is a way to get there but only by eating that forbidden fruit.” Her self-awareness was that she was lacking and Adam was lacking, and what they lacked was something they had been told how to get–(wisdom)–
so, yes, she decided to become “human” and accept an imperfect self in an imperfect world where wisdom was going to be available to satisfy her innate longing and allow her self-honesty and greater self-awareness, and actually allow her husband and their posterity those same qualities.

 

[ParkerD]

On a side note, and just out of curiosity, why are you the only Mormon on here defending this position? Since your thinking is clearly as a result of the BoM, I just wonder why many of the other Mormons who are so vocal on here are not contributing to this thread?
Or is this issue a contentious one among the general Mormon population?

Hi, Jay53,
I suspect Zerinus has discussed this topic long before I ever came onto this website–perhaps Dianaiad also. Actually, it makes for a simpler conversation when many don’t jump in, and they often interject when a topic presents LDS doctrine in a wrong way from someone who pretends to “know” LDS doctrine, so they help to clarify for the curious.

I don’t think one would find many disagreements on this general subject among active LDS, although the question of why Eve didn’t conceive in the garden of Eden leads to different points of view (all speculation since we don’t really know).

 

[ParkerD]

I’d like to also offer further Biblical evidence that Adam’s sin was not viewed as a “good” or “necessary” choice.

I will bold the words that I think are important in understanding the fact that Adam’s “choice” was not approved of by God. (Even though, in the end we are redeemed by God.)

Romans 5:15-19
15But the free gift is not like the transgression. For if by the transgression of the one the many died, much more did the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abound to the many.

16The gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned; for on the one hand the judgment arose from one transgression resulting in condemnation, but on the other hand the free gift arose from many transgressions resulting in justification.

17For if by the transgression of the one, death reigned through the one, much more those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.

18So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men.

19For as through the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous.

I think St. Paul’s use of the word “condemnation” portrays the view that God had of Adam’s sin. Yet, through Christ Jesus we are Redeemed from that sin.

Jay53,

I agree that Romans 5 is an important chapter about this subject. Note that Paul writes “we glory in tribulations also: knowing that tribulation worketh patience; and patience, experience, and experience, hope:” (v. 3,4)

Note also from verse 21 that the death which Paul is talking about in that entire chapter is “spiritual death” or the separation from God that results from sin, but that “grace reigns through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord.” Paul continues the theme of gaining spiritual renewal in chapter 6, saying that “we also should walk in newness of life” “in the likeness of his resurrection.” (6:4,5) That theme is reiterated in chapter 8:1 in the phrase “walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit,” and again in verse 6, “for to be carnally minded is death, but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.” Always, Christ is at the center of this change to spiritual life and “newness of life.”

This is what I meant when I was writing about the need for humankind to be aware of their own “spiritual death” and letting that spiritual death happen as noted by Paul in Romans 6:6, 7 so that “spiritual life” and “spiritual renewal” through Christ and His atoning grace, can happen.

So I disagree as to whether Paul was saying that Adam’s sin did not result in a good process for humankind. He speaks of the resulting spiritual newness of life as a good thing. It also resulted in “tribulation,” (which brings patience), and it resulted in the need to acknowledge “spiritual death” so that we could indeed be renewed into a “newness of life” and thus gain “the likeness of his resurrection.”

 

[TheQuestioner]

Questioner,
I chose to ignore you because you did not deal with the issues that I presented in answer to your assertion that Solomon gained wisdom without observation of the world around him.

I have dealt with the issues. Solomon did not ask for wisdom and then go through struggle thus receiving wisdom. Solomon went through struggle, then asked for wisdom and received it from God. This is clear in the Kings text. He did not receive wisdom because of his struggles, his struggles helped him to realize his need for it (in other words, disposed him to it). It is you who choose to ignore the chronology of the events that took place.

The dilemma presented in the Bible is there for the reading. Just because you don’t “get it” doesn’t mean it isn’t there. I realize that it isn’t there for you to find–which is just fine. I have been trying to convey that the most important of God’s gifts is the gift of free will and choice–so choose as you wish.

There is no dilemma within the bible, and it is not our dilemma.

The Book of Mormon does not say the fall had to happen in order for there to be children. It says (2 Nephi 2):
22 And now, behold, if Adam had not transgressed he would not have fallen, but he would have remained in the garden of Eden. And all things which were created must have remained in the same state in which they were after they were created; and they must have remained forever, and had no end.
23 And they would have had no children; wherefore they would have remained in a state of innocence, having no joy, for they knew no misery; doing no good, for they knew no sin.
24 But behold, all things have been done in the wisdom of him who knoweth all things.
25 Adam fell that men might be; and men are, that they might have joy.
26 And the Messiah cometh in the fulness of time, that he may redeem the children of men from the fall. And because that they are redeemed from the fall they have become free forever, knowing good from evil; to act for themselves and not to be acted upon, save it be by the punishment of the law at the great and last day, according to the commandments which God hath given.
27 Wherefore, men are free according to the flesh; and all things are given them which are expedient unto man. And they are free to choose liberty and eternal life, through the great Mediator of all men, or to choose captivity and death, according to the captivity and power of the devil; for he seeketh that all men might be miserable like unto himself.
28 And now, my sons, I would that ye should look to the great Mediator, and hearken unto his great commandments; and be faithful unto his words, and choose eternal life, according to the will of his Holy Spirit;

The words are “would have had no children”. This is similar to an expression Eve made as recorded in Moses 5:11, that she was glad in that they knew the “joy of our redemption” and otherwise “never should have had seed.”

The words “would” or “should” do not mean the same thing as the word “could”. The words “would” or “should” leave out the “why”, so the “why” could be that Eve was not menstruating until after the fall, or that they did not experience puberty until after the fall, or that Eve had no “desire toward being with Adam in a knowing way, and he with her, until after the fall when they were given those desires.”

This is a good Mormon explanation to why the fall had to happen, except that God said not the eat from the tree. It was not an option but a commandment, as was to be fruitful and multiply. If Eve could only start menstruating after the fall or hit puberty then you run into another problem, that being that God still gave them two contradictory commandments. Even if Eve would not have desired to Adam and so “would” not have had children then the problem still exist, because she couldn’t desire Adam unless the fall happened. Again, same problem.

The verse in Nephi implies that children could not have happened when read in context, it was not a simple choice or an issue of Eve hitting puberty.
“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.” Either children remove innocence or the removal of innocence was needed.

However this explanation does not branch into those who only use the bible because again, the dilemma does not exist for us. We will stick to the traditional explanation to this verse: the excessive desire or obsession of women for their men, male domination over women and sexual inequality. Freeing the human race from these consequences of original sin constitute Christ’s gender mission.

But the most important thing you have said is that no one feels any sense of the kind of dilemma I have written about on this thread, so it would seem this thread should be about two pages long, right? (In other words, if people stop asking questions or making comments, I will certainly stop trying to answer the questions.)

The reason people keep responding (and use the same responses over and over again) is because we keep trying to show you that, at least for us, there is no dilemma and that it is a Mormon problem. But instead of listening to them and you keep repeating old arguments, making outrageous claims (like sin is OK with God and the fall was God-willed) and we keep trying to combat those claims. Instead of admitting your faults you do scriptural acrobatics to avoid the issues. It is better to be honest and admit that this “dilemma” is on one’s problem but your own.

 

[TheQuestioner]

Now here is **my **question:

1. If God had willed that man multiply, why was the Fall needed for this to happen? Why couldn’t He have logically given them that ability and the desire to use it (because these in and of themselves are not evil and since he told them to multiply they would in fact be good) before the fall?
2. If Eve had to have fallen for her to desire Adam why wasn’t a similar commandment (you shall have the desire for your wife) given to Adam? How would Adam and Eve been Husband and Wife before the fall if they weren’t een romantically involved?

Genesis 2
25Wherefore a man shall leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they shall be two in one flesh. 25 And they were both naked: to wit, Adam and his wife: and were not ashamed.

You may point to Genesis 2 to answer the first question of 2 (though this would not work out too well), But then I will ask you: why would Eve require the fall to desire Adam but Adam needed no fall to desire her?

 

[ParkerD]

Now here is **my **question: If God had willed that man multiply, why was the Fall needed for this to happen? Why couldn’t He have logically given them that ability and the desire to use it (because these in and of themselves are not evil and since he told them to multiply they would in fact be good) before the fall?

Questioner,
Thanks for asking these questions. I agree that they are important, and useful. Why didn’t they have children before the Fall, since they had been commanded to multiply and replenish the earth? Clearly, if God wanted them to have children in the garden of Eden before the Fall, He would have given them the ability to have them and the knowledge of how to do it plus the length of time necessary so that the text would tell us they had children in that condition they were in within the garden of Eden.

So I agree with the implicit logic to those questions, and I don’t have a good answer.

All in all, this thread can just sort of stop, as far as I’m concerned, and we can all forget these conversations ever happened (other than that I for one have gained insights about different perspectives on these subjects, and have enjoyed once again loving the Bible for its insights and how it is always consistent in its teachings to humankind).

Much peace to you in your life.

 

[ParkerD]

Now here is **my **question:

1. If Eve had to have fallen for her to desire Adam why wasn’t a similar commandment (you shall have the desire for your wife) given to Adam? How would Adam and Eve have been Husband and Wife before the fall if they weren’t even romantically involved?

Genesis 2
25Wherefore a man shall leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they shall be two in one flesh. 25 And they were both naked: to wit, Adam and his wife: and were not ashamed.

You may point to Genesis 2 to answer the first question of 2 (though this would not work out too well), But then I will ask you: why would Eve require the fall to desire Adam but Adam needed no fall to desire her?

Good questions. The evidence is not clear that they were “romantically involved”, even though they had the commandment to multiply and replenish the earth. Maybe it was one of those things that Adam would eventually get around to doing, but not as a first priority.

As far as Eve and her desire for Adam leading to having children, that does lead to something within women called flirting and flirting leads to something called desire in the man who is being flirted with.

 

[TheQuestioner]

Questioner,
Thanks for asking these questions. I agree that they are important, and useful. Why didn’t they have children before the Fall, since they had been commanded to multiply and replenish the earth? Clearly, if God wanted them to have children in the garden of Eden before the Fall, He would have given them the ability to have them and the knowledge of how to do it plus the length of time necessary so that the text would tell us they had children in that condition they were in within the garden of Eden.

So I agree with the implicit logic to those questions, and I don’t have a good answer.

All in all, this thread can just sort of stop, as far as I’m concerned, and we can all forget these conversations ever happened (other than that I for one have gained insights about different perspectives on these subjects, and have enjoyed once again loving the Bible for its insights and how it is always consistent in its teachings to humankind).

Much peace to you in your life.

I agree. This thread needs to end. I’m glad I learned so much about Mormon doctrine though. Thank you for dealing with me, even when I was a bit frustrating.

 

[larkin31]

The reason people keep responding (and use the same responses over and over again) is because we keep trying to show you that, at least for us, there is no dilemma and that it is a Mormon problem. But instead of listening to them and you keep repeating old arguments, making outrageous claims (like sin is OK with God and the fall was God-willed) and we keep trying to combat those claims. Instead of admitting your faults you do scriptural acrobatics to avoid the issues. It is better to be honest and admit that this “dilemma” is on one’s problem but your own.

As a general point, I would like to note that I have heard the claim “fortunate Fall” hundreds of times by very devout folks, so to tell Parker his claim is “outrageous” or a form of “fault” in his character or faith is rather surprising to me. The possibility that God knew this would/might happen and perhaps even permitted it or condoned it (leading to Christ) is an idea that has existed for a long time, and many Christian thinkers have pondered it. So, too, many Christian thinkers have pondered which “sins” God may deem greater and lesser, which commandments, etc. This is very common theological talk.

I see no reason to get up one’s dander over such a reasonable line of questioning, especially when done as politely as Parker did.

 

[Jay53]

Jay53,

I agree that Romans 5 is an important chapter about this subject. Note that Paul writes “we glory in tribulations also: knowing that tribulation worketh patience; and patience, experience, and experience, hope:” (v. 3,4)

Note also from verse 21 that the death which Paul is talking about in that entire chapter is “spiritual death” or the separation from God that results from sin, but that “grace reigns through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord.” Paul continues the theme of gaining spiritual renewal in chapter 6, saying that “we also should walk in newness of life” “in the likeness of his resurrection.” (6:4,5) That theme is reiterated in chapter 8:1 in the phrase “walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit,” and again in verse 6, “for to be carnally minded is death, but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.” Always, Christ is at the center of this change to spiritual life and “newness of life.”

This is what I meant when I was writing about the need for humankind to be aware of their own “spiritual death” and letting that spiritual death happen as noted by Paul in Romans 6:6, 7 so that “spiritual life” and “spiritual renewal” through Christ and His atoning grace, can happen.

So I disagree as to whether Paul was saying that Adam’s sin did not result in a good process for humankind. He speaks of the resulting spiritual newness of life as a good thing. It also resulted in “tribulation,” (which brings patience), and it resulted in the need to acknowledge “spiritual death” so that we could indeed be renewed into a “newness of life” and thus gain “the likeness of his resurrection.”

Yes, but this is all AFTER the fall. Our reality today is that our struggles and tribulations and afflictions bring us closer to God. God uses them to humble us and bring us closer to Him - to trust in Him; which Adam & Eve should have done in the first place.

You need to acknowledge that St. Paul does, in fact, say that condemnation was a result of Adam’s sin.

As I have said numerous times already, just because God, in His infinite Love and Mercy, has allowed a good outcome from Adam & Eve’s sin DOES NOT IN ANY WAY mean that Adam & Eve made a “good” choice or that God condoned their sin.

 

[larkin31]

Yes, but this is all AFTER the fall. Our reality today is that our struggles and tribulations and afflictions bring us closer to God. God uses them to humble us and bring us closer to Him - to trust in Him; which Adam & Eve should have done in the first place.

You need to acknowledge that St. Paul does, in fact, say that condemnation was a result of Adam’s sin.

As I have said numerous times already, just because God, in His infinite Love and Mercy, has allowed a good outcome from Adam & Eve’s sin DOES NOT IN ANY WAY mean that Adam & Eve made a “good” choice or that God condoned their sin.

I find the “God” of the Eden story to be a limited character. Honestly, I think that the writer(s) of Genesis were more sophisticated than the “God” character and that they weave into this tale more understanding of humanity and its relation to the divine than the “God” character exhibits.

 

[ParkerD]

Yes, but this is all AFTER the fall. Our reality today is that our struggles and tribulations and afflictions bring us closer to God. God uses them to humble us and bring us closer to Him - to trust in Him; which Adam & Eve should have done in the first place.

You need to acknowledge that St. Paul does, in fact, say that condemnation was a result of Adam’s sin.

As I have said numerous times already, just because God, in His infinite Love and Mercy, has allowed a good outcome from Adam & Eve’s sin DOES NOT IN ANY WAY mean that Adam & Eve made a “good” choice or that God condoned their sin.

Jay53,
I agree that “judgment came upon all men to condemnation” because of the partaking of the forbidden fruit. But Paul emphasized both the spiritual death that is meant by that “condemnation” and separation from God, and the opposite condition–the “abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness” … “unto justification of life” through the physical and spiritual agony and death suffered by the Savior.

Paul is writing to the Romans to emphasize that the law of Moses and the practices of “circumcision” and of the law of sacrifice are not sufficient to rescue humankind from the fall of Adam and Eve, and that the Roman Jews needed to realize that just as Christ died and was resurrected, taking His body up in a newness of life, they needed to be “buried with him by baptism into death” and thus be “planted together in the likeness of his death” so that they could “be also in the likeness of his resurrection, knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin. For he that is dead is freed from sin.” (See Romans 6:4-7) Through this reconciliation wrought by Christ, humankind can be “alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord.” (v. 8)

Paul never says Adam and Eve made a “bad choice”, but he does say they were under “condemnation” because of their choice which was “one sin”. Yet he says they were rescued from that condemnation, and that we can all be rescued from that condemnation, through Christ and through following the likenesses of laying our spiritually dead body down so that He can take it up again and we gain the “newness of life” that is likened to the resurrection.

One does well to think about Isaiah 64:8, “But now, O lord, thou art our father; we are the clay, and thou our potter; and we all are the work of thy hand.”

We need to place our lives into the hands of the potter, that He may mold us into the “new creature” as Paul wrote that we should become.

Have a beautiful day.