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

[TheQuestioner]

Questioner,
If you have sincerely read 1 Kings 1 and 1 Kings 2 before reading 1 Kings 3, then you will have found situations where Solomon was experiencing opposition to his leadership. He also observes in verse 6 that he has learned from the experiences of his father, David, who had “faithfulness” but that means it is because he had choices whether to be “faithful” or no, whether to be “upright of heart” or no. It means Solomon had context for his wisdom by having observed the choices of his father, David.

If you had read 1 Kings 1,2 and 3 sincerely you would have realized that it shows exactly what I was talking about. Notice how God did not come to Solomon before his experiences and asked him if he wanted to gain wisdom, then put him through struggles. God came to Solomon** after** his struggles and Solomon chose wisdom. Solomon’s struggles put him in a state where he was disposed to wisdom (a state where he could accept it), then after those struggles God came to him knowing he would choose wisdom.

If you have read Proverbs 1 including verse 30, “…they despised all my reproof” then you will have noticed that Solomon has context for his wisdom that includes observing the choices made by “sinners” (v. 10), and the results of those choices which included that those “sinners” “despised all my reproof.”

…ok…. So Solomon is writing his life experiences. I have no idea how this could show that wisdom comes directly from struggle and not from God.

Proverbs 2:4 calls knowledge and understanding qualities that need to be sought for “as for hid treasures.”

Proverbs 3:7 says “fear the Lord, and depart from evil.” This means there is an existent choice whether to do evil, or not. Then in verse 11 Solomon writes “despise not the chastening of the Lord; neither be weary of his correction: For whom the Lord loveth he correcteth; even as a father the son in whom he delighteth.”

Job 28:28
28 And he said to man,
‘The fear of the Lord—that is wisdom,
and to shun evil is understanding.’ "
None of this has to come from struggle, though it is perfectly fine if it is re-enforced by the examples of those who have gone wayward.

This means that Solomon had learned about wisdom by observing that the Lord does chasten and does provide correction, and this implies that a person receiving that chastening and that correcting has made some wrong choices during their life and has “listened” when they received chastening but thus there was a situation where they could make a choice and indeed made a wrong choice and learned from it, by listening to the Lord and His correction. This matches Proverbs 9:8 where we read, “rebuke a wise man, and he will love thee.”

This has nothing to do with what we are talking about. Your job is to prove that wisdom comes directly from struggle. If God’s correction infers wisdom then it still comes from God. As per 9:10

Proverbs 9
10 "The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom,
and knowledge of the Holy One is understanding.

And the correction puts fear into mans heart. And fear of the correction can exist without such correction on the person in the first place.

“but thus there was a situation where they could make a choice and indeed made a wrong choice and learned from it, by listening to the Lord and His correction”

Thank you for agreeing with me.

Why does a “wise man” need rebuking in the first place? Because he didn’t do the one perfect thing given a choice or a decision or an opportunity to learn, or whatever. The point is, a “wise man” is one who is willing to be “rebuked” and still love the “rebuker.”

…still has nothing to do with what we are talking about.

Proverbs is full of contrasts between the wicked and the righteous, and never does Proverbs imply that if there had been no fall of Adam and Eve, there would have been a descending of wisdom to humankind with no condition of choices and condition of needing “rebuking” during the process of life.

Proverbs does not even touch on the fall. Proverbs is made within the context of a fallen world. You cannot say to me “proverbs says this and that, and doesn’t say this and that, so therefore it wasn’t like this before the fall”. That is bad scripture reading. Proverbs is advice for the fallen world. It has nothing to do with the world before the fall. The reason for the entire book of proverbs was because of the fall. Solomon struggled with the fallen world and learned from God by his corrections and was inspired by God to write proverbs, Solomon was not put through struggles and then suddenly started writing.

 

[TheQuestioner]

So it appears you disagree with Proverbs and disagree with Solomon who was told by God that he would be given wisdom? (If you have a chance, you could read my response to Questioner.)

Great, bringing my name into your posts to other users allows me to respond to your posts to them as well.

Proverbs says to accept correction. However, correction is not the only way in which we can receive wisdom, as I have shown you in 1 Kings 3 where God was not correcting Solomon in any way, but was in fact rewarding him. In this way wisdom came as a reward, but only if Solomon asked for it, which he did.

 

[Jay53]

Jay53,
So it appears you disagree with Proverbs and disagree with Solomon who was told by God that he would be given wisdom? (If you have a chance, you could read my response to Questioner.)

It would seem important to quote the specific scripture that teaches about the idea of the “sin of presumption” if one is going to base their decision making about how to approach life and its decisions using that idea as its basis. That is certainly not taught by the Savior in Mark 8:36-37.

Have a good day.

Parker,

It is obvious from this response that you have not even tried to understand what I am saying. You appear to be very defensive about this issue.

Perhaps I am not understanding your position correctly and we are just talking around each other.

I am trying to ascertain if you think the ends justify the means: does the desire for wisdom/acquiring wisdom justify being disobedient to God and breaking His commandments? Do you think it is OK to break God’s commandments (acceptable to Him) if the reason is just or noble, because Jesus has atoned for our sins?

Perhaps if you answer those questions directly I (and other posters) will have a better understanding of where you’re coming from.

Hope you have a good day, too!

 

[ParkerD]

Parker,

It is obvious from this response that you have not even tried to understand what I am saying. You appear to be very defensive about this issue.

Perhaps I am not understanding your position correctly and we are just talking around each other.

I am trying to ascertain if you think the ends justify the means: does the desire for wisdom/acquiring wisdom justify being disobedient to God and breaking His commandments? Do you think it is OK to break God’s commandments (acceptable to Him) if the reason is just or noble, because Jesus has atoned for our sins?

Perhaps if you answer those questions directly I (and other posters) will have a better understanding of where you’re coming from.

Hope you have a good day, too!

Jay53,
The answer to your last question is certainly not.

The answer to your first question is that it is apparent from the Bible that it is acceptable to God that humankind will sin and “come short of the glory of God”, and that is why God provided a Savior of the world, with the expectation that humankind will repent and learn wisdom (from Him and from seeing the Savior’s example and the examples of righteous people such as Abraham, and from the Holy Spirit but only after asking for help with getting the wisdom) if they choose to do so.

I suppose if I list the top ten things I struggle with and have struggled with as sinful behaviors in my life, maybe it well help clarify what I think we need to learn “wisdom” about:

1–Being sarcastic with my children or my wife (doing better lately, but not perfect)
2–Getting angry if I get cut off in traffic and feel like someone was inconsiderate
3–Getting frustrated with feeling like I have not been understood when I have tried my best to communicate
4–Forgetting the name of someone whose name I should be able to remember
5–Getting frustrated if a ref makes a bad call in a game my child is playing (such as soccer or basketball)
6–I remember once playing a trick on a sister that was an inconsiderate act, while I was supposed to be looking after her
7–Getting angry with my children if they did something that seemed immature or when I thought they should have known better, leading to “telling them off” in some way rather than showing love and patience
8–Feeling impatient with self or others in allowing for change over time rather than “right now”
9–Acting with less love and consideration and compassion than I would wish at times
10–Once when I was traveling I was channel surfing and glimpsed a show for perhaps thirty seconds when I should have left the TV off and found something more worthwhile to do with my time that evening. I have regretted having done that, but have certainly repented of looking at an immoral situation instead of following the Spirit who would have inspired me to have done something else at that moment. (Otherwise, virtuous thoughts and acts throughout life have been easily done–not a problem at all.)

So the kinds of sins I deal with are mostly communication issues and patience issues and desiring to show more love and compassion than sometimes I would wish. I am OK with the learning process of this life whereby I can learn wisdom about those kinds of things, day by day and year by year, trying to improve, and seeking the Spirit in that improvement process.

 

[Jay53]

Jay53,
The answer to your last question is certainly not.

The answer to your first question is that it is apparent from the Bible that it is acceptable to God that humankind will sin and “come short of the glory of God”, and that is why God provided a Savior of the world, with the expectation that humankind will repent and learn wisdom (from Him and from seeing the Savior’s example and the examples of righteous people such as Abraham, and from the Holy Spirit but only after asking for help with getting the wisdom) if they choose to do so.

I suppose if I list the top ten things I struggle with and have struggled with as sinful behaviors in my life, maybe it well help clarify what I think we need to learn “wisdom” about:

1–Being sarcastic with my children or my wife (doing better lately, but not perfect)
2–Getting angry if I get cut off in traffic and feel like someone was inconsiderate
3–Getting frustrated with feeling like I have not been understood when I have tried my best to communicate
4–Forgetting the name of someone whose name I should be able to remember
5–Getting frustrated if a ref makes a bad call in a game my child is playing (such as soccer or basketball)
6–I remember once playing a trick on a sister that was an inconsiderate act, while I was supposed to be looking after her
7–Getting angry with my children if they did something that seemed immature or when I thought they should have known better, leading to “telling them off” in some way rather than showing love and patience
8–Feeling impatient with self or others in allowing for change over time rather than “right now”
9–Acting with less love and consideration and compassion than I would wish at times
10–Once when I was traveling I was channel surfing and glimpsed a show for perhaps thirty seconds when I should have left the TV off and found something more worthwhile to do with my time that evening. I have regretted having done that, but have certainly repented of looking at an immoral situation instead of following the Spirit who would have inspired me to have done something else at that moment. (Otherwise, virtuous thoughts and acts throughout life have been easily done–not a problem at all.)

So the kinds of sins I deal with are mostly communication issues and patience issues and desiring to show more love and compassion than sometimes I would wish. I am OK with the learning process of this life whereby I can learn wisdom about those kinds of things, day by day and year by year, trying to improve, and seeking the Spirit in that improvement process.

OK. Thanks for trying to explain. Your position seems a little clearer, but it is addressing the point from after the fall already happened. I was addressing the point from* before* the fall. You seemed to be approaching the sin of Eve as not a sin, but simply being one of a “couple of options” that God gave Adam and Eve with no particular expectation as to which they would choose. (i.e. God told Adam and Eve, here are 2 options, your choice: you can a) stay with me here in the Garden of Eden or b) gain wisdom and knowledge of good and evil, but if you do, you will have to endure mortality and struggles and death.) That is certainly different from the interpretation I had of Genesis that God gave Adam & Eve a commandment that they were not to eat of the tree and He expected His commandment to be obeyed.

I also don’t see our sinfulness as being “acceptable” to God, more as being “tolerated” and “understood” by God. He still asks us to strive to be perfect, but understands that we fall short. And certainly the things that you struggle with are things that we all struggle with in this life. My question would be, would we even have to deal with these struggles without the fall. Obviously we don’t know exactly what our lives would have been like without the fall because we live in this reality and not that one.

I think I misunderstood your thoughts on this, because the position you presented was that Eve’s disobedience was acceptable to God simply because she desired wisdom and knowledge which is obviously not correct. Thanks for trying to explain it better.

 

[larkin31]

The story is allegorical. The affect of the tree did not come from the fruit. What the tree represented was the choice to disobey God. Thus, even if God had stopped them, because their final intent was to disobey God and they truly intended to do it they would have sinned in their hearts anyway and still have fallen. (this is all assuming the story is literal)

Mankind has free will, and thus is allowed to choose or reject God. There are consequences for rejecting God, these are natural. So God did not blame them for doing something they had the power to do, but for making a choice they should not have made (to turn away from Him). Because mankind was made to love God (has a mold in the heart which God perfectly fits into), to turn away from this means the natural consequence of evil and suffering.

do you mean that the tree was NOT a tree of “the knowledge of good and evil”? And the other was NOT a “tree of life”? God calls them this. But he does not mean it?

Questioner?

 

[TheQuestioner]

Questioner?

I’m saying these trees may have never existed, but stood for the choice of our first ancestors to fix their nature toward or away from God.

The tree of life would have been allegory for a choice to fix our natures toward God (“I am the way, the truth and the life”) and the tree of knowledge of good and evil would fix it away from God (to know pain and suffering, and since humankind could not eat from the tree of life after they ate from the tree of knowledge).

We have to approach genesis literally, but not literalistically. Genesis was poetry (St. Augustine thought it was allegory), and this belief is not contrary to Church teaching.

 

[larkin31]

I’m saying these trees may have never existed, but stood for the choice of our first ancestors to fix their nature toward or away from God.

The tree of life would have been allegory for a choice to fix our natures toward God (“I am the way, the truth and the life”) and the tree of knowledge of good and evil would fix it away from God (to know pain and suffering, and since humankind could not eat from the tree of life after they ate from the tree of knowledge).

We have to approach genesis literally, but not literalistically. Genesis was poetry (St. Augustine thought it was allegory), and this belief is not contrary to Church teaching.

Thanks.

So this means that God put at least one very dangerous tree in the garden–in the middle, actually. And even allowed the serpent to prowl there.

Wait, do you also doubt that there was a tempter there? Do you accept that there was even an Adam and an Eve?

I am curious; thus, the questions of you.

 

[TheQuestioner]

Thanks.

So this means that God put at least one very dangerous tree in the garden–in the middle, actually. And even allowed the serpent to prowl there.

Wait, do you also doubt that there was a tempter there? Do you accept that there was even an Adam and an Eve?

I am curious; thus, the questions of you.

Not that there was one dangerous tree there to begin with, only that the two trees may have represent two choices, God or self.

As a Catholic we are required to believe that:

All of human kind had one set of parents, a man (Adam, which means man) and woman (Eve, which means woman).

There was an event that caused the fall of mankind, thus we all needed a savior

The human soul is an instant creation, not subject to evolution, and we were originally in a state of original grace.

The story would suggest in part that due to the temptations of the serpent (satan) mankind fell

The rest can be held literalistically or not. (literalistic is different from literal, because one can take a symbol literally “dad hit the roof, meaning dad was mad” or literalistically “dad hit the roof, meaning he actually hit the roof”) So evolution is not cut out. Here, read this, it explains things better than me : catholic.com/library/Adam_Eve_and_Evolution.asp

 

[larkin31]

Not that there was one dangerous tree there to begin with, only that the two trees may have represent two choices, God or self.

As a Catholic we are required to believe that:

All of human kind had one set of parents, a man (Adam, which means man) and woman (Eve, which means woman).

There was an event that caused the fall of mankind, thus we all needed a savior

The human soul is an instant creation, not subject to evolution, and we were originally in a state of original grace.

The story would suggest in part that due to the temptations of the serpent (satan) mankind fell

The rest can be held literalistically or not. (literalistic is different from literal, because one can take a symbol literally “dad hit the roof, meaning dad was mad” or literalistically “dad hit the roof, meaning he actually hit the roof”) So evolution is not cut out. Here, read this, it explains things better than me : catholic.com/library/Adam_Eve_and_Evolution.asp

Except for the requirement that one accept a literal single Adam and single Eve from which we are all descended, this is exactly what I was taught in my very liberal Protestant minister’s household where I grew up.

Kind of surprising. But thanks.

 

[TheQuestioner]

If you had read 1 Kings 1,2 and 3 sincerely you would have realized that it shows exactly what I was talking about. Notice how God did not come to Solomon before his experiences and asked him if he wanted to gain wisdom, then put him through struggles. God came to Solomon** after** his struggles and Solomon chose wisdom. Solomon’s struggles put him in a state where he was disposed to wisdom (a state where he could accept it), then after those struggles God came to him knowing he would choose wisdom.

…ok…. So Solomon is writing his life experiences. I have no idea how this could show that wisdom comes directly from struggle and not from God.

Job 28:28
28 And he said to man,
‘The fear of the Lord—that is wisdom,
and to shun evil is understanding.’ "
None of this has to come from struggle, though it is perfectly fine if it is re-enforced by the examples of those who have gone wayward.

This has nothing to do with what we are talking about. Your job is to prove that wisdom comes directly from struggle. If God’s correction infers wisdom then it still comes from God. As per 9:10

Proverbs 9
10 "The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom,
and knowledge of the Holy One is understanding.

And the correction puts fear into mans heart. And fear of the correction can exist without such correction on the person in the first place.

“but thus there was a situation where they could make a choice and indeed made a wrong choice and learned from it, by listening to the Lord and His correction”

Thank you for agreeing with me.

…still has nothing to do with what we are talking about.

Proverbs does not even touch on the fall. Proverbs is made within the context of a fallen world. You cannot say to me “proverbs says this and that, and doesn’t say this and that, so therefore it wasn’t like this before the fall”. That is bad scripture reading. Proverbs is advice for the fallen world. It has nothing to do with the world before the fall. The reason for the entire book of proverbs was because of the fall. Solomon struggled with the fallen world and learned from God by his corrections and was inspired by God to write proverbs, Solomon was not put through struggles and then suddenly started writing.

Parker

 

[ParkerD]

Parker

I agree that Solomon was giving advice to a fallen world in the book of Proverbs, and was thus showing that he had wisdom when he wrote those writings. I think Proverbs also completely shows that Solomon understood the need for there being an opportunity to progress toward gaining wisdom, by needing the corrections that God would offer to humankind if they listened to those corrections as they made mistakes in life.

I disagree that Solomon received his wisdom without having had life experiences from which to draw the examples and the understanding that allowed him to have wisdom. He had observed his father, David, as the Bible noted in 1 Kings. This did not mean he had to experience everything his father experienced in order to learn from his father’s life, but it did mean that he could learn wisdom by reflecting on his father’s life and by reflecting on examples from his father’s life (good and bad). It means that he was not getting wisdom merely because he asked for it from a loving God, but because in the midst of trying to get wisdom he was willing to reflect on his father’s life, reflect on the world around him and the corrections that God was placing into people’s lives as they sought wisdom and listened, and by doing that reflection or meditation he could learn from it and thus be “wise” himself.

 

[TheQuestioner]

I agree that Solomon was giving advice to a fallen world in the book of Proverbs, and was thus showing that he had wisdom when he wrote those writings. I think Proverbs also completely shows that Solomon understood the need for there being an opportunity to progress toward gaining wisdom, by needing the corrections that God would offer to humankind if they listened to those corrections as they made mistakes in life.

I disagree that Solomon received his wisdom without having had life experiences from which to draw the examples and the understanding that allowed him to have wisdom. He had observed his father, David, as the Bible noted in 1 Kings. This did not mean he had to experience everything his father experienced in order to learn from his father’s life, but it did mean that he could learn wisdom by reflecting on his father’s life and by reflecting on examples from his father’s life (good and bad). It means that he was not getting wisdom merely because he asked for it from a loving God, but because in the midst of trying to get wisdom he was willing to reflect on his father’s life, reflect on the world around him and the corrections that God was placing into people’s lives as they sought wisdom and listened, and by doing that reflection or meditation he could learn from it and thus be “wise” himself.

Again, you are ignoring 1 Kings 3, where Solomon received wisdom specifically because he asked for it. Yes he went through struggles before hand, and yes he observed his father, but that doesn’t mean he gained wisdom on his own. 1 Kings 3 reveals to Christians and Jews alike the real source of wisdom. God. We receive wisdom from God.

Now that that issue is settled we can see now that mankind did not have to fall in order to gain wisdom, and so Adam was not legitimized in eating the fruit and following Eve, nor was Eve legitimized in eating the fruit to gain wisdom. They wanted to gain wisdom without God (which was the lie of the devil) and ended up becoming ignorant.There is no way you can talk your way out of this reasoning. You can deflect the conversation in other directions but you must at least admit that you were initially wrong in your conclusions. Its ok to admit when you are wrong and the sooner that is done the sooner we can move on.

 

[ParkerD]

Again, you are ignoring 1 Kings 3, where Solomon received wisdom specifically because he asked for it. Yes he went through struggles before hand, and yes he observed his father, but that doesn’t mean he gained wisdom on his own. 1 Kings 3 reveals to Christians and Jews alike the real source of wisdom. God. We receive wisdom from God.

Now that that issue is settled we can see now that mankind did not have to fall in order to gain wisdom, and so Adam was not legitimized in eating the fruit and following Eve, nor was Eve legitimized in eating the fruit to gain wisdom. They wanted to gain wisdom without God (which was the lie of the devil) and ended up becoming ignorant.There is no way you can talk your way out of this reasoning. You can deflect the conversation in other directions but you must at least admit that you were initially wrong in your conclusions. Its ok to admit when you are wrong and the sooner that is done the sooner we can move on.

No, I do not agree either with your logic or how you arrived at your logic. Solomon received wisdom as he reflected on life experiences, and listened to God’s inspiration as he did that. You cannot show any case where Solomon exhibited wisdom where there was not some life experience either in his own life, in the lives of the people he observed, or in his father’s or mother’s lives from which he could draw an example and meditate on the situation and gain wisdom from God about how that situation taught him truth. He also showed wisdom as he determined how to rule his people, and did that using life experiences–his and theirs.

 

[TheQuestioner]

No, I do not agree either with your logic or how you arrived at your logic. Solomon received wisdom as he reflected on life experiences, and listened to God’s inspiration as he did that. You cannot show any case where Solomon exhibited wisdom where there was not some life experience either in his own life, in the lives of the people he observed, or in his father’s or mother’s lives from which he could draw an example and meditate on the situation and gain wisdom from God about how that situation taught him truth. He also showed wisdom as he determined how to rule his people, and did that using life experiences–his and theirs.

Again you completely deny 1 Kings 3. God did not say “you have drawn wisdom from your experiences, good job” The conversation went as follows:

“Good job Solomon, you’ve followed the ways of your father. What do you want? Riches? The death of your enemies?”

“No”

“Then what is it?”

“Wisdom”

“Ok, you get all three”

This narrative shows us that even when we think we are drawing wisdom from our situations, we really get it directly from God. Solomon could have said “death to my enemies” and that would have been fine. He would have had just as much wisdom as he had before hand. But he chose wisdom and God gave him gratuitous wisdom. Wisdom comes from God. It is a gift. So you’re theory on Eve having to sin to gain wisdom is absolutely wrong. This would only make sense if God could only give people wisdom by bringing struggle or if wisdom is drawn without God (because when Eve ate the fruit she rejected God, you and I both agree on that at least). In fact if God intended for the man and woman to struggle in the first place then it would beg the question of why He would give them a choice to eat the fruit or not at all.

 

[SteveVH]

PARKER:

You’re obviously chosing to ignore my question. Let’s try this a third time.

Joseph Smith and Brigham Young taught that Adam was “Heavenly Father” who brought one of his wives, Eve, to earth with him. Is this why you are so adamant about defending his actions? If I may add a related question. Does the defense of Adam’s sin have something to do with the Mormon doctrine of progression?

I’ve obviously said something to tick you off and so please accept my apology. I’m just really trying to understand where you’re coming from.

Steve

 

[ParkerD]

This would only make sense if God could only give people wisdom by bringing struggle or if wisdom is drawn without God (because when Eve ate the fruit she rejected God, you and I both agree on that at least).

No, Questioner,
My point has been that Eve was not rejecting God by partaking of the forbidden fruit. Got that? I have never agreed with you on that point. The only agreement we have reached is that the wisdom Solomon received was prayerfully sought and prayerfully received, but I have noted that this was through his reflection and meditation about his life experiences and those of his father, mother, and others he observed.

When I think of Mother Theresa, I think of someone who probably had a lot of compassion and a lot of wisdom. I think she obtained those qualities in her life as she chose to place herself in circumstances where she could be of service, and she learned from the suffering she observed as well as the love she observed among the people she served. She described that love as a remarkable thing.

Eve was not trying to “gain wisdom without God.” She was trying to gain wisdom through the means that became clear that was necessary–the means of experiencing what the terms “good and evil” were going to mean. She involved God in her life thereafter. I have pointed that out. She acknowledged God’s gifts and blessings in her life. Got it?

 

[Jay53]

Eve was not trying to “gain wisdom without God.” She was trying to gain wisdom through the means that became clear that was necessary–the means of experiencing what the terms “good and evil” were going to mean.

You think it was necessary to **disobey God **in order to gain wisdom?

You’ve lost me again. I thought I had a handle on how you viewed this, but obviously not.

 

[ParkerD]

PARKER:

You’re obviously chosing to ignore my question. Let’s try this a third time.

Joseph Smith and Brigham Young taught that Adam was “Heavenly Father” who brought one of his wives, Eve, to earth with him. Is this why you are so adamant about defending his actions? If I may add a related question. Does the defense of Adam’s sin have something to do with the Mormon doctrine of progression?

I’ve obviously said something to tick you off and so please accept my apology. I’m just really trying to understand where you’re coming from.

Steve

SteveVH,
There is a policy and practice on this website that describes staying with a topic, and that is what I have tried to do. I have not brought up Mormonism unless someone asked a specific question that dealt with needing to explain a particular LDS viewpoint. I have been discussing the Bible using the text itself–the words as they are translated from Hebrew to English.

I have not the slightest care about what Brigham Young or Orson Pratt may have said or been quoted as saying about Adam and Eve. My textual support is the Bible itself. Do you understand that I don’t care what BY or OP may have said? Joseph Smith did not say anything such as you attributed in your question.

I suppose that you realize that Luke wrote that Adam “was the son of God.” (Luke 3:38) This would in the very least mean that Luke was not shying away from acknowledging that Adam was created as a child of God, and could be acknowledged as such without some sort of opprobrium about his choice to remain with Eve and bring forward the peopling of the earth and carrying out his stewardship to care for the earth God had given as a place to develop and grow and have their children grow.

There is indeed a Mormon doctrine that this earth is created for humankind to progress–that we would have been in a condition where progress would have been limited had we not gone forward from pre-mortal life to mortal life, because of the need to gain wisdom and gain an understanding about love and compassion by being here, right here on the earth where we can observe life and observe the conditions that help us gain wisdom and help us gain compassion. I’m saying that Eve became innately aware of that need, and made a choice to bring about the situation where she, Adam, and their children could fulfill the need to gain wisdom and gain compassion through experiencing the struggles of life and also the joys of life. She was willing to undergo death to do that, and have Adam and have their children undergo death to do that. She made a courageous, forward-looking choice, not a self-centered, self-serving choice. 'Huge difference in motives than what has been expressed by those explaining the Catholic position on why she chose what she chose…

 

[SteveVH]

PARKER:

You’re obviously chosing to ignore my question. Let’s try this a third time.

Joseph Smith and Brigham Young taught that Adam was “Heavenly Father” who brought one of his wives, Eve, to earth with him. Is this why you are so adamant about defending his actions? If I may add a related question. Does the defense of Adam’s sin have something to do with the Mormon doctrine of progression?

I’ve obviously said something to tick you off and so please accept my apology. I’m just really trying to understand where you’re coming from.

Steve

On second thought, don’t bother answering my question, just in case you had the urge.
This discussion has become pointless. You have fallen for the very lie the serpent told in the Garden and I think you have been blinded to the point that you truly cannot see truth. I have read many of your posts on other threads and have always thought rather highly of your knowledge. Your position in this case seemes out of the ordinary to the point of being bizarre. Maybe we can converse on another topic at some point.

God bless.