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

[ParkerD]

Parker, our differences are basic and fundemental. It was Lucifer in the garden, the one who rebelled against God. He caused Adam and Eve to rebell as well. I truly find it amazing that this isn’t apparent to you.
Steve

Hi, SteveVH,

I guess we are both in amazement at one another…

I think perhaps you didn’t mean to really use the words “he caused” but yet you did. Does it not strike you as a bit ironic that you have earlier written that God had foreknowledge that Adam and Eve would partake of the forbidden fruit, yet you also would surely acknowledge that God allowed Lucifer into the garden of Eden. If such an act means “the death penalty” for the person who eats a piece of fruit, and an all-knowing Person knows the fruit is there and allows someone who has extreme cunning and conniving to be there in the same spot with two people who are innocent of any wrong-doing otherwise, then do you understand where a court of law would place blame as to the eating of the fruit? (Hint–with the person who knew about it, knew about the cunning deceiver and his lying ways, yet did nothing while knowing that what was about to happen was going to happen.)

No doubt Eve was not being totally honest with God or with herself when she simply said “The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat” since we can see from Genesis 3:6 that her mind was involved in a reasoning process during the decision to eat the fruit, and that it was not an act of either rebellion against God or an act of being “caused” to eat the fruit (which, of course, God knew as He listened to Eve tell why she ate the fruit–God knew her reasoning process and inspired Moses to know her reasoning process). So by blaming the serpent she was indeed being less than honest and thus was sinning, but God “cursed” the serpent for what the serpent had done (beguiling Eve), and God "multiplied Eve’s sorrow and her conception (do you realize what the words “multiply thy conception” mean, by the way, along with the words “in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband”?) Do you realize that Moses did not use the word “curse” in describing those conditions that God said Eve would experience?

Do you realize that God did not say, “Because you have rebelled against me…” either in speaking to Eve and describing consequences she faced, or in speaking to Adam and describing the consequences he faced?

In describing the consequences Adam faced, God said “cursed is the ground for thy sake” or “for thy cause”. This does not say Adam was cursed–it says the ground was cursed for a reason.

Do you realize that this set up a new situation in which Adam could have said to himself, "Oh, woe is me, now the ground is cursed all because of what my wife did whom God gave to me for an “help meet”? Yet, do you realize Adam was mature enough to figure out that this would not be helpful for himself to think of the situation as “woe is me?” Instead, all we have from the Bible is that they began having children (Genesis 4:1) and that Adam began to “till the ground from whence he was taken”. He started to work for his food, and to be challenged in that process!

I guess God forgot to tell Moses to be sure and describe the choices Eve and Adam made as “rebellion”. (Or, maybe God knew exactly the words He wanted Moses to write in describing the situation, and inspired Moses to write them exactly as written in the Hebrew?)

Do you realize that if men say to themselves “Woe is us” when looking at the new situation Adam needed to confront about the ground being “cursed”, that the men who do that are in a way justifying their own non-acceptance that God had foreknowledge about the choices Eve and Adam would make and they are evidently not figuring out that the ground being “cursed” might actually be for their own long-term benefit in that it gives them a condition where they get to grow by rising to the occasion?

Our sins are a learning process?

That is what I get from reading Job 5:17 and Proverbs 3:12 and Hebrews 12:5-7, but evidently you don’t. (Why does a person need “correcting” by the Lord, if not because they have “sinned and come short of the glory of God”?) The apostle John did not write that he regretted the situation in which he acknowledged that we have sins and need to “confess our sins” and allow Christ to “cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” (1 John 1:8-10)

I would consider it a far less honest behavior to say, “I wish I would never, never make a mistake in my life and if I do I’m going to feel very badly about it each and every time I do make a mistake” than to say “I know I am going to make mistakes in my life, but I hope I can learn from those mistakes and be cleansed from my unrighteousness and do better each day.”

Except for breaking any of the ten commandments? Jesus summed up the Ten Commandments and reduced them to two. 1) “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.” (Mt:22:37) 2) “The second is like it: You shall lover your neighbor as yourself. The whole law and the prophets depend on these two commands.” (Mt 22:39,40)

How do you not violate one of these commandments when you sin?

If I am less than perfect in my communication with my wife or with my children, then I assure you this does not mean I don’t love them or don’t love God. It means I am human! It means I need to learn how to communicate better! It means I have something to learn, and if I am humble God will help me to learn it by correcting me! (It also means I may hurt their feelings at some point, and that they have the opportunity to learn to forgive me for my “trespasses” that have brought them sorrow–welcome to the world of repentance and forgiveness.) God has never expressed regret that we go through this process.

 

[ParkerD]

Continuation to SteveVH:

Any sin is an offense against God or it is not a sin. Many of our sins are also an offense against our neighbor. If one offends God then how can that person claim to not break the command on which “The whole law and the prophets depend”? I find it troubling that you reduce sin to a learning experience. This also reduces Christ’s sacrifice to, as wussup said, a . He gave himself entirely, for you, not so you could have “learning experiences” but to save you from your sins. I don’t see any way to come to terms on this point.

You are absolutely correct that we will never “come to terms on this point” since I look at the verses I have already cited and say to myself, “Oh–I am allowed to make mistakes and not think of myself as a terrible person for having made those mistakes–I can actually be allowed to learn by doing, learn by growing, and learn by having to change my behavior as I live my life and seek to be humble so God can correct me and sanctify my heart and guide me toward being a better person, including forgiving myself as well as forgiving others for the very process they are going through also in how they treat me.”

I so disagree as to whether Christ does not allow us to have “learning experiences” in this life and it be for our good and actually fulfill His reasons for suffering the atonement so we could “go astray” and “turn every one to his own way” (Isaiah 53:6) and be like the Prodigal Son in some ways and yet have His loving arms stretched out to us to lift us up, succor us in our weaknesses and help us in our trials, and never, never give up on us–not ultimately condemn our weaknesses and poor choices, but allow us to learn from them and realize we need His help at all times.

I pray for a greater understanding of God’s love on a regular basis. We just finished Holy Week in which we focus on the suffering, death and resurrection of Jesus. The love He showed is beyond all comprehension. I want you to know that I don’t lose any sleep with regrets about Adam and Eve’s sin. I have my own sins to worry about. I also have a loving and merciful God who forgives me when I recognize, have true contrition, confess and repent of my sin. Spiritual progress doesn’t subsist in sinning, but rather in overcoming sin. The goal is to attain a sinless state, not to seek “new experiences” involving sin. That, being an impossibility in light of our fallen nature, requires a Savior.

I have never said nor implied that the goal is not to attain a sinless state. I have said we do that by coming to the Savior, recognizing we are going to fall far short of perfection, allowing Him to change us and change our hearts, learn from our mistakes and do better today than yesterday. But guess what–that means we will indeed have new experiences today in which we will again fall short of perfection and again will need to look at that new experience and say to ourselves, “Oh–here is a new weakness about myself I didn’t know or realize I had, something else I need to work on”–and not stay home or stay cloistered and say “I am going to be perfect by not doing anything new in my life”.

A Savior and God so wonderful that we will enter into a relationship likened to a wedding, not with our former wives, but with the Lamb. Yes, I think I have a pretty good idea of the love God has for me and for you while realizing that this love is infinitely beyond my human ability to fully grasp. This Love is God Himself. He desires holiness, not sinfulness.

Yes indeed the Savior desires our holiness. He desires to refine us, to purify us as “silver”, and to make us His “jewels” through that refining process (Malachi 3:3, 17) which includes His correcting and refining influences in our lives if we allow Him to do so.

Have a good week.

 

[wussup]

You are absolutely correct that we will never “come to terms on this point” since I look at the verses I have already cited and say to myself, “Oh–I am allowed to make mistakes and not think of myself as a terrible person for having made those mistakes–I can actually be allowed to learn by doing, learn by growing, and learn by having to change my behavior as I live my life and seek to be humble so God can correct me and sanctify my heart and guide me toward being a better person, including forgiving myself as well as forgiving others for the very process they are going through also in how they treat me.”

There is a terrible irony in all this. The Church is oft accused of teaching a doctrine of ‘works’, that is we must work our own salvation. Yet here is being argued we are too lenient in our approach to how our Father has saved us from our many errors through His Son.

 

[RebeccaJ]

There is a terrible irony in all this. The Church is oft accused of teaching a doctrine of ‘works’,

You do realize that Catholicism is not sola fide?

Man works in cooperation with God. Choosing to sin for the “experience of it” is not cooperation, it is defiance.

The irony you should notice is that your church teaches both obedience and disobedience. The determining factor for disobedience is your decision to “check it out”.

 

[ParkerD]

You do realize that Catholicism is not sola fide?

Man works in cooperation with God. Choosing to sin for the “experience of it” is not cooperation, it is defiance.

The irony you should notice is that your church teaches both obedience and disobedience. The determining factor for disobedience is your decision to “check it out”.

The irony I see is that John, an apostle, saw himself and humankind as imperfect, and said so, and indicated there was a reason for that as follows:

1 John 1:7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.
8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.
9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.

The determining factor for disobedience is that we are imperfect, period. If we think we can be perfect or think we ought to be perfect in every minute of our lives, then John said “his word is not in us.” What it means we do is we keep repenting, and keep seeking for His cleansing and redeeming grace, always.

 

[RebeccaJ]

The irony I see is that John, an apostle, saw himself and humankind as imperfect, and said so, and indicated there was a reason for that as follows:

1 John 1:7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.
8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.
9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.

The determining factor for disobedience is that we are imperfect, period. If we think we can be perfect or think we ought to be perfect in every minute of our lives, then John said “his word is not in us.” What it means we do is we keep repenting, and keep seeking for His cleansing and redeeming grace, always.

ParkerD, there is a difference in believing that one can do whatever they like because God will forgive them no matter what. OR. Doing as God commands and when failing, because we are human, seeking His Mercy and Forgiveness with contrition and sorrow.

LDS are proposing the first as a justification for the greatest sin of all. You are teaching a falsehood, that God hopes for, and is reliant on, our rebellion.

 

[Jay53]

Parker,
I’d still like to see how you think SteveVH’s analogy in Post #251 is inaccurate, because I thought he presented a fairly accurate portrayal of how you have presented your position. I’d Iike to understand in what way his analogy doesn’t fit.

Thanks.

(Although, I would have added to his analogy that the children were told “Do not leave the camp”. And my impression is that you do not view that as a command to be obeyed, but as an opportunity for the children to go out and have adventures and experiences that they otherwise might not have had if they do choose to disobey their parents.)

 

[wussup]

You do realize that Catholicism is not sola fide?

Man works in cooperation with God. Choosing to sin for the “experience of it” is not cooperation, it is defiance.

The irony you should notice is that your church teaches both obedience and disobedience. The determining factor for disobedience is your decision to “check it out”.

Deep sigh… Yes, I do.

We do not ‘choose’ to sin for the experience. No one said that. We ‘choose’ to sin, as I and other have said, because a) we do so, as you said, out of selfishness and defiance, and b) out of ignorance. For example, there are cultures in the South Pacific where it is encouraged by the group to have relations with siblings. Because this is a part of the cultural moray, no guilt is assigned nor do those doing this feel guilty. Is it a sin? Yes. Does the sacrifice of Christ include this? Yes. But is it out of selfish desires? No.

Yes, our Church teaches about obedience and disobedience. Obedience because it is the will of our Father to obey his commands, it is his command because obedience to his Eternal Laws will bring about happiness, disobedience because "Wickedness never was happiness" (Alma 41:10).

Why do you keep twisting plain words into something else? You constantly misquote, requote in your own words, lay false allegations, etc… It is this propensity that is so annoying. If you don’t agree with a doctrine, that is understandable. Lay a salient argument, sans ad hominems and straw men, so I can understand. It is annoying to the point of ignoring when I can say the sky is blue and you argue it is actually azure, or tell me I don’t really believe the sky to be blue, but when I say the sky is blue I REALLY mean the sky is green. If you are trying to change my mind, do you really think this is going to work? Or of the many lurkers who see me say one thing and you…do your thing, do you think it gives them pause to think you have a point? Joseph Smith taught, teach correct principles and the rest will follow. Teach me what Catholics believe on a subject, and allow me to pray and ask the Father for guidance. At least then you will have some semblance of rationality that has some chance of convincing me. Telling me what I REALLY think, when I don’t think it… Well, I hope you get the point.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Deep sigh… Yes, I do.

We do not ‘choose’ to sin for the experience. No one said that. We ‘choose’ to sin, as I and other have said, because a) we do so, as you said, out of selfishness and defiance, and b) out of ignorance. For example, there are cultures in the South Pacific where it is encouraged by the group to have relations with siblings. Because this is a part of the cultural moray, no guilt is assigned nor do those doing this feel guilty. Is it a sin? Yes. Does the sacrifice of Christ include this? Yes. But is it out of selfish desires? No.

Yes, our Church teaches about obedience and disobedience. Obedience because it is the will of our Father to obey his commands, it is his command because obedience to his Eternal Laws will bring about happiness, disobedience because "Wickedness never was happiness" (Alma 41:10).

Why do you keep twisting plain words into something else? You constantly misquote, requote in your own words, lay false allegations, etc… It is this propensity that is so annoying. If you don’t agree with a doctrine, that is understandable. Lay a salient argument, sans ad hominems and straw men, so I can understand. It is annoying to the point of ignoring when I can say the sky is blue and you argue it is actually azure, or tell me I don’t really believe the sky to be blue, but when I say the sky is blue I REALLY mean the sky is green. If you are trying to change my mind, do you really think this is going to work? Or of the many lurkers who see me say one thing and you…do your thing, do you think it gives them pause to think you have a point? Joseph Smith taught, teach correct principles and the rest will follow. Teach me what Catholics believe on a subject, and allow me to pray and ask the Father for guidance. At least then you will have some semblance of rationality that has some chance of convincing me. Telling me what I REALLY think, when I don’t think it… Well, I hope you get the point.

wussup- I am not the one teaching God willed sin, based on a most grievous twisting of scripture.

I’m not going to play along with the “emperor has no clothes”. I can see why you would find this annoying.

 

[wussup]

LDS are proposing the first as a justification for the greatest sin of all. You are teaching a falsehood, that God hopes for, and is reliant on, our rebellion.

See, this is what I mean. No one has said here or in any teaching that God ‘hopes [ibid] and relies on’ our sin or rebellion. God ‘knows the beginning from the end’, he knows what happened before he created the Garden and placed Adam and Eve there. Hope was not a function of the creation and sin was never considered in that light. There isn’t even a subtle difference here.

 

[wussup]

wussup- I am not the one teaching God willed sin, based on a most grievous twisting of scripture.

I’m not going to play along with the “emperor has no clothes”. I can see why you would find this annoying.

Whatever.

 

[RebeccaJ]

See, this is what I mean. No one has said here or in any teaching that God ‘hopes [ibid] and relies on’ our sin or rebellion. God ‘knows the beginning from the end’, he knows what happened before he created the Garden and placed Adam and Eve there. Hope was not a function of the creation and sin was never considered in that light. There isn’t even a subtle difference here.

Perhaps you should think about what your church actually teaches. What ParkerD has been asserting here. Your god wanted sin to occur in the garden. Relied on it. Even made a trick where the only out was to sin. This is not my teaching. This is yours. You can’t defend it so you instead you attack me. It is typical.

 

[Jay53]

I have to agree with Rebecca. This is exactly what Parker has been asserting: that God gave Adam & Eve the commandment to “Be fruitful and multiply”, but gave them no way to obey that commandment without disobeying Him first and eating from the tree, which they were also explicitly told “Do not eat…”.

 

[wussup]

You’re asking a man blind from birth to describe a beautiful sunset. That is one our differences. You believe sin had no effect on our world and our lives. I do. What I do know is that Adam and Eve lived in perfect happiness prior to disobeying God. So I would have to guess that we would have enjoyed the same life. What that is actually like would be impossible for me to describe.

I like that. Beautifully stated.

2–What are the reasons God made humankind and placed them into this world if it was supposed to have been a world with only “good” and no “pain” and no “death.” Would there have been a need for a Redeemer had Adam and Eve not partaken of the forbidden fruit, in your view?

God made man for no other reason then a gratuitous act of love; to share in the love between the Father and the Son; to become His adopted children. No, there would have been no need for Jesus to suffer and die for us had we not sinned. That is what He saves us from; our sins. God, being a good and merciful God, did not stop loving Adam and Eve, nor does He stop loving us when we sin. But when sin entered the world, through Adam and Eve, the gates of heaven were closed (nothing sinful can exist in heaven). They were opened again only through the sacrifice of Christ.

I’m trying to imagine your train of thought here. I could be wrong so feel free to correct me. It seems that you are saying something like the following:

Lets say that my children get lost in the wilderness on some camping trip. Realizing that they haven’t returned at the appropriate time I begin searching for them. Time passes and everyone realizes that their very lives are in danger. At last I find them and save them from extreme thirst, starvation and exposure. In my rejoicing I hold a welcome home party, invite all of our friends and relatives and buy them wonderful gifts. Even the mayor gives them the keys to the city; this is a huge event. Their experience of being rescued (saved) was unlike anything they had experienced before; very likely the greatest experience of their lives. Had they not been lost, they would not have experienced the exhilaration of being found, the welcome home party or the gifts. What I hear you saying is that they should be happy that they were lost and almost died because otherwise they would not have had this experience. I find that logic absolutely ludicrous. The fact that we have such a loving and merciful God, a God that brings even greater gifts to us through the saving power of Jesus, does not justify our sin. It only magnifies the glory of our God.

God bless you.

Steve

First, it is refreshing to have the question answered and reasoned questions followed up on. Frankly, your position is sound based on the Catholic perspective. It is the LDS perspective that Adam and Eve knew an innocent kind of peace, but that without ‘hardship’, i.e., without the earth being cursed for Adams sake, they could not experience difficulty. And without knowing misery, it is impossible to know true happiness. Does that mean the more miserable one can flagellate oneself, the more we can experience happiness? Of course not. We also have the ability to feel empathy. I can see pictures of Haiti to know sorrow and pain, and feel joy when I see the video’s have little children eating happily. Your parable is close, but contains misconceptions regarding the LDS faith. First, analogy falls short comparing the lost children and the parents. God never lost us, we lost God. Second, the children left the campsite but did not willfully get lost, nor did they willfully endanger their lives. Adam and Eve exercised their freewill and partook of the fruit, whatever that would be. They willfully understood the consequences for their disobedience to God (that being expulsion from the Garden, separation from God, and entering into a sinful state). There is one major point I realize now we have not addressed. Leaving the Garden of Eden did not bring about the necessity of the individual sin. Yes, we believe in ‘original sin’ to the point that as in Adam all die. That ‘original sin’ has been paid for by the Savior, and ALL will be resurrected to glory (even the most heinous amoung us). Christ is the exemplar of this. He was born (according to LDS Doctrine) in this state of mortal life. He was different in that as God, he could choose to live forever as a mortal or not. It is our contention he choose to follow the will of the Father (‘nevertheless, Thy will be done’), and ‘died’ on the cross. He also was different in that only He has the ability, as God, to return to His body, but in an immortal Glorified state. The difference we have not addressed is that Christ showed that even though we all are born in this mortal life with the ‘original sin’ of death hanging over each of our heads, it is possible theoretically to live this life without sinning. However, the reality is that each of us sins at some time. We all are disobedient to the will of the Father. So, even though Adam and Eve were expelled from the Garden for the Sin of disobedience, they did not necessarily also have to commit any other sin the rest of their lives. And they still would need the redeeming Sacrifice of the Savior.

Now, to be sure, this doctrine is hinted at in the Bible, but it is only found in LDS doctrine because it is part of the Restored Gospel. Proving such a thing is not possible. No Catholic would come of this doctrine save through revelation from God. But then, he would no longer be a RC. Truthfully, it is unique in modern religion.

I would be curious to see if Parker feels the same.

 

[wussup]

I have to agree with Rebecca. This is exactly what Parker has been asserting: that God gave Adam & Eve the commandment to “Be fruitful and multiply”, but gave them no way to obey that commandment without disobeying Him first and eating from the tree, which they were also explicitly told “Do not eat…”.

Hmmmm, understand, I am not here to proselyte, but rather to answer a question regarding LDS Doctrine. What you are saying is a little different from Rebecca’s statements I have been addressing.

In a sense you are correct. However, LDS Doctrine is significantly different in how we view God the Father, and his relationship to us. A correct understanding of LDS Doctrine requires a number of changes in the mindset. These changes are anathema to RCs.:

1. God is our Father in more than just an ‘He is our Creator’, he is literally the Father of our Spirits.
2. This requires a doctrine of a pre-existence of man’s soul
3. God the Father wants us all to have maximal happiness (I think you would agree here)
4. To God, maximal happiness is His Own Existence, and He wishes us to be heirs of His, joint-heirs with Christ in sharing in God’s most glorious Happiness,
5. It is His will we live a mortal life of great difficulty and most importantly, one living in Faith in Himself and in His Only Begotten Son
6. As a perfectly Loving Father, He gave each of His children the choice to come to Earth and Live a Mortal Existence. Descartes like, it is LDS doctrine that because you are here, you chose to come to this Mortal Existence (the alternative was to live forever as a spirit)
7. Adam and Eve are unique in that they were given the privilege of starting the whole thing off.
8. It is part of our Father’s gift of free will that Adam and Eve were given the opportunity to live in the Garden knowing no pain and suffering but also knowing no joy.
9. Adam and Eve were given the choice to stay in the Garden in a state of innocence, or to leave the Garden and live by faith alone.
10. They chose to leave the Garden and live by faith alone. The way they did this was to partake of the fruit. Like a baby, it was a choice. Ok, bad analogy, like the future ministry of the Christ’s willfully accepting the crucifixion, they chose to leave. Like Christ on the Cross, who said, ‘Father, why hast thou forsaken me’, Adam and Eve left the presence of God, and like Christ, lived by Faith.
11. It is the LDS Doctrine that Adam and Eve could not have children in their state of innocence.
12. It is LDS Doctrine that the choice to leave the presence of God and live by Faith was not sinful in the same way it means to the RC.
13. It was not a ‘trick’ to get Adam and Eve to choose one or the other, but rather a choice, as Parker has repeatedly stated, Eve thought it carefully, as such a thing as a ‘trick’ would be a de facto denial of Adam and Eve’s free will.
14. Was the way Eve chose to make her choice an acceptable way. Apparently not. Was it a sin of disobedience, it is the contention of many Leaders in the Church it was. Did it ‘surprise’ the Father, no, he knew the ending from the beginning. Did her disobedience change the Plan of Salvation? Not in the least. It is LDS Contention that Adam and Eve would have chose the path to leave our Father’s presence and walk in faith whether the serpent (Lucifer) interfered or not.
15. Did God bring ‘sin’ or ‘evil’ into the world? No. ‘Sin’ and ‘evil’ are functions of mortal existence, and separation from God.

 

[SteveVH]

wussup, thanks for your response. I always appreciate your comments and insight. I see a light, still dim, but a light nevertheless. I am speaking of the hope that we will at least understand each other at some point, regardless of whether or not we agree.

Steve;
I am loath to speak for someone else, but I understand the point of view of Parker. All disobedience to the will of God is sin. The tiniest infraction, left on repented of and without the redeeming grace of the Son dooms us to hell. Yet there is an almost infinite variety of sin that man commits. Within that sin is, IMO, the two greatest sources, man’s selfishness, and man’s ignorance of the act as a sin. Yes, these must be repented of, and yes, Christ paid the penalty for each. ’ Yet still, Larkin’s point that mankind is an intellectual infant, and that this mortal existence was granted to man that he might learn and grow is aptly stated. As a parent, I am sure you have let your children make mistakes so they can learn from them (so long as they did not harm themselves unduly)? So has the Father done for us, the difference is the consequence for man exercising his freewill in sin is eternal damnation. On the other hand, in His Infinite Grace, God the Father provided his Son as the Sacrificial Lamb of God, to take upon Himself the consequence for our mistakes, our selfish desires…our sins.

Let me make something clear. I have no disagreement with either you or Parker that, given the state of our existence, we can and should learn from our mistakes, our sins, our failures in judgment, our lack of charity; everything that makes us less than our ultimate selves, less than the person God created us to be. Falling down and getting back up is a worthwhile spiritual exercise.

Maybe our lack of understanding each other has to do with our idea of who Adam and Eve were prior to the fall. The statement that “mankind is an intellectual infant” is true, in my view, but that is only because man’s intellect was darkened due to sin entering the world. Adam and Eve, prior to the fall, would not have suffered this malady and therefore would not have been intellectual infants. Agree or disagree, the following is Catholic teaching on the subject:

*“The first man was not only created good, but was also established in friendship with his Creator and in harmony with himself and with the creation around him, in a state that would be surpassed only by the glory of the new creation in Christ.” (CCC par 374)

“The Church, interpreting the symbolism of biblical language in an authentic way, in the light of the New Testament and Tradition, teaches that our first parents, Adam and Eve, were constituted in an original ‘state of holiness and justice’. This grace of original holiness was ‘to share in… divine life.’” (CCC par 375)

“By the radiance of this grace all dimensions of man’s life were confirmed. As long as he remained in the divine intimacy, man would not have to suffer or die. The inner harmony of the human person, the harmony between mand and woman, and finally the harmony between the first couple and all creation, comprised the state called ‘original justice’.” (CCC par 376)

“Only the light of divine Revelation clarifies the reality of sin and particularly of the sin committed at mankind’s origins. WIthout the knowledge Revelation gives of God we cannot recognize sin clearly and are tempted to explain it as merely a developmental flaw, a psychological weakness, a mistake or the necessary consequence of an inadequate social structure, etc. Only in the knowledge of God’s plan for man can we grasp that sin is an abuse of the freedom that God gives to created persons so that they are capable of loving him and loving one another.”* (CCC par 387)

So, the fact that the passion, death and resurrection of our Lord has resulted in unimaginable glory which would not have been were it not for this act of love on the part of God, and which would not have been necessary had sin not entered into the world, does not justify the disobedience or our first parents. It is God, not sin, that has answered evil with a superabundance of grace. Sin does not help us progress. Overcoming sin does.

 

[ParkerD]

ParkerD, there is a difference in believing that one can do whatever they like because God will forgive them no matter what. OR. Doing as God commands and when failing, because we are human, seeking His Mercy and Forgiveness with contrition and sorrow.

LDS are proposing the first as a justification for the greatest sin of all. You are teaching a falsehood, that God hopes for, and is reliant on, our rebellion.

RebeccaJ,
In the first place, you or whomever you are following with respect to word choice are the one bringing the word “rebellion” into the conversation about Adam and Eve. God did not do that. Moses did not do that. So if you are saying (which I’m not really sure what you are saying) that the “first” or “greatest sin of all” was “rebellion” then God did not say Adam and Eve rebelled. (Lucifer rebelled). Eve sought wisdom–that was not rebellion.

How can it be said in a way that you may understand that Eve and Adam had a completely free will choice–no issue of what God “hopes for” or is “reliant on”–just the simple case that they had a choice, with consequences for choosing the fruit of the tree of knowledge or consequences for choosing not to eat that fruit.

However, since even Catholics evidently acknowledge that Christ was known to be a part of the “plan” as the Alpha and Omega from before the earth’s creation, then it would seem that there was a foreknowledge that humankind were going to need the help, succor, mercy and grace of the loving Savior and Redeemer. So Eve and Adam made a choice that brought about a condition that was foreknown and was prepared for in advance.

 

[Jay53]

Hmmmm, understand, I am not here to proselyte, but rather to answer a question regarding LDS Doctrine. What you are saying is a little different from Rebecca’s statements I have been addressing.

In a sense you are correct. However, LDS Doctrine is significantly different in how we view God the Father, and his relationship to us. A correct understanding of LDS Doctrine requires a number of changes in the mindset. These changes are anathema to RCs.:

1. God is our Father in more than just an ‘He is our Creator’, he is literally the Father of our Spirits.
2. This requires a doctrine of a pre-existence of man’s soul
3. God the Father wants us all to have maximal happiness (I think you would agree here)
4. To God, maximal happiness is His Own Existence, and He wishes us to be heirs of His, joint-heirs with Christ in sharing in God’s most glorious Happiness,
5. It is His will we live a mortal life of great difficulty and most importantly, one living in Faith in Himself and in His Only Begotten Son
6. As a perfectly Loving Father, He gave each of His children the choice to come to Earth and Live a Mortal Existence. Descartes like, it is LDS doctrine that because you are here, you chose to come to this Mortal Existence (the alternative was to live forever as a spirit)
7. Adam and Eve are unique in that they were given the privilege of starting the whole thing off.
8. It is part of our Father’s gift of free will that Adam and Eve were given the opportunity to live in the Garden knowing no pain and suffering but also knowing no joy.
9. Adam and Eve were given the choice to stay in the Garden in a state of innocence, or to leave the Garden and live by faith alone.
10. They chose to leave the Garden and live by faith alone. The way they did this was to partake of the fruit. Like a baby, it was a choice. Ok, bad analogy, like the future ministry of the Christ’s willfully accepting the crucifixion, they chose to leave. Like Christ on the Cross, who said, ‘Father, why hast thou forsaken me’, Adam and Eve left the presence of God, and like Christ, lived by Faith.
11. It is the LDS Doctrine that Adam and Eve could not have children in their state of innocence.
12. It is LDS Doctrine that the choice to leave the presence of God and live by Faith was not sinful in the same way it means to the RC.
13. It was not a ‘trick’ to get Adam and Eve to choose one or the other, but rather a choice, as Parker has repeatedly stated, Eve thought it carefully, as such a thing as a ‘trick’ would be a de facto denial of Adam and Eve’s free will.
14. Was the way Eve chose to make her choice an acceptable way. Apparently not. Was it a sin of disobedience, it is the contention of many Leaders in the Church it was. Did it ‘surprise’ the Father, no, he knew the ending from the beginning. Did her disobedience change the Plan of Salvation? Not in the least. It is LDS Contention that Adam and Eve would have chose the path to leave our Father’s presence and walk in faith whether the serpent (Lucifer) interfered or not.
15. Did God bring ‘sin’ or ‘evil’ into the world? No. ‘Sin’ and ‘evil’ are functions of mortal existence, and separation from God.

#2 and #6 I obviously would not agree with since those are found nowhere in traditional Christian Scripture. But, I at least understand that position as something you believe through Mormon doctrine.

#9-#13 is where I have a problem understanding the LDS doctrine, because it would seem that the LDS position is that God gave Adam and Eve conflicting commandments, not just “choices”.

“Do not eat…” would appear to be a commandment.
“Be fruitful and multiply” also appears to be a commandment.

Yet the LDS position seems to be that Adam and Eve had to choose one or the other to obey, thus resulting in a sin - a disobedience of one of those commandments. I just don’t see in Genesis where these commandments are offered as “choices” in terms of: Ok, Adam & Eve, take your pick, choose door #1 for this result or door #2 for this result. If that was the case, the “choices” would not have been worded as they were in Scripture. They were specifically worded as commandments - expected to be obeyed.

 

[SteveVH]

You are mis-characterizing my statement, re ‘wink and a nod’. I was referencing the oft claimed sacrifice as Christs’ Death. I do not believe in death, but rather the cliche of a death we call birth. Christ did not die, He willingly laid down His body for 3 days, went to the Spirits in prison as a disembodied spirit, and then ‘picked’ it back up, He resurrected Himself. I belittle NOT the sacrifice Christ made both in the Garden and on the Cross as Infinite Passion.

First, let me apologize for mis-characterizing your statement concerning a “wink and a nod”. I realize that you are speaking in terms of relativism as to where the true suffering occured (i.e the taking on of man’s sin or the physical pain he endured). Do I have this right? In any event, I just have a hard time minimizing his physical pain and humiliation while I would agree that nothing could compare to the One Who was sinless, taking on all of the sins of mankind.

Did Christ die? Yes. Scripture tells us he died. If He had not died, He could not have resurrected. He was truly human (as well as truly divine) and died a human death, the death of his mortal body. Death was the punishment He suffered for our sins. We can discuss what it means to die, but I think scripture is crystal clear that Jesus did die, willingly.

Do you believe Christ died? What do you mean by death? Is it such a terrible thing? Was Christ ever concerned about the transition from the corporeal mortal existence, to the incorporeal immortal existence, and to the Corporeal Immortal Existence? I don’t see this.

As I said above, yes I believe Christ died because scripture, quite clearly, tells us He died. Death means the end of life. In the case of mortal man, it would mean an end to his mortal life. There is also spiritual death, the end of spiritual life. We call this state hell. Christ did not suffer spiritual death, but certainly suffered physical death.

Was Christ concerned about "the transition from the corporeal mortal existence, to the incorporeal immortal existence, and to the Corporeal Immortal Existence?. He was concerned about what He was going to experience to the point of sweating blood, to the point of asking His Father if this cup may pass from Him. Was He concerned about a transition after death? No. He knew He would be glorified, that was not His concern, in my opinion.

Is death such a terrible thing? There’s an old saying that “everybody wants to get to heaven, but nobody wants to die”. Death is necessary in order to enter into life. I’m quite looking forward to it myself. I think it will be the best day of my “life”. To get back on point, however, this is only because of the sacrifice of Christ. “Dying you destroyed our death. Rising you restored our life.” We would not have to die if sin had not entered into the world. If we find ourselves in serious sin (deadly sin) we can also suffer spiritual death or eternal separation from God. Thus the danger in minimizing sin as some sort of necessary learning experience.

 

[ParkerD]

Parker,
I’d still like to see how you think SteveVH’s analogy in Post #251 is inaccurate, because I thought he presented a fairly accurate portrayal of how you have presented your position. I’d Iike to understand in what way his analogy doesn’t fit.

Thanks.

(Although, I would have added to his analogy that the children were told “Do not leave the camp”. And my impression is that you do not view that as a command to be obeyed, but as an opportunity for the children to go out and have adventures and experiences that they otherwise might not have had if they do choose to disobey their parents.)

SteveVH’s analogy:

I’m trying to imagine your train of thought here. I could be wrong so feel free to correct me. It seems that you are saying something like the following:

Lets say that my children get lost in the wilderness on some camping trip. Realizing that they haven’t returned at the appropriate time I begin searching for them. Time passes and everyone realizes that their very lives are in danger. At last I find them and save them from extreme thirst, starvation and exposure. In my rejoicing I hold a welcome home party, invite all of our friends and relatives and buy them wonderful gifts. Even the mayor gives them the keys to the city; this is a huge event. Their experience of being rescued (saved) was unlike anything they had experienced before; very likely the greatest experience of their lives. Had they not been lost, they would not have experienced the exhilaration of being found, the welcome home party or the gifts. What I hear you saying is that they should be happy that they were lost and almost died because otherwise they would not have had this experience. I find that logic absolutely ludicrous. The fact that we have such a loving and merciful God, a God that brings even greater gifts to us through the saving power of Jesus, does not justify our sin. It only magnifies the glory of our God.

Hi, Jay53,
I had thought about trying to write the kind of analogy that would protray what I have had in mind, so I suppose I’ll try and do that. First, note that I have placed SteveVH’s analogy above for reference.

Here is mine:

I love my children with all the deep feelings of a parent, and a lot more than that. I can see that they lack some qualities that would be very helpful for them to have (note: in the LDS theology, they lack both perfection and experience, but we can use a Catholic position and say “God created them lacking perfection and lacking wisdom.”) I desire their happiness, but I don’t want to just “give” it to them because I can fully understand that just giving them such a gift would defeat the purpose, since in the first place they wouldn’t be grateful for it (not having known anything else), and in the second place the kind of happiness I would want them to have would necessitate some knowledgeable experience on their part.

I would think it would be helpful for them to go off to school–a place where they could learn and would come to appreciate the happiness gift I was prepared to give them.

But as the perfect Parent, I would also want them to be able to make their own choice about whether they really wanted to go to school where they wouldn’t have constant eye-to-eye communication with me as their Parent, and where there would be a great deal of choices to make (with opportunities for making wrong choices but also the opportunity to learn from those choices). I would want them to feel fully responsible for making their own choice–in other words, that they wouldn’t be able in some way to “blame their choice on me” when things got tough for them or weren’t as “easy” as they had presumed life would be in that school. I would want to give them a choice that did indeed give them full responsibility for their choice–go or no go.

I would even go so far as to say “there will be so much pain as part of that school that you will die in the process” (even while having in mind that I had a plan about the death situation and that the plan included having all the wrong choices being turned for a good learning purpose so long as the children would yield their own wills about the curriculum to the One Master teacher I had planned all along to send to help with the school.)

So when my children choose to go ahead and go to that school, I won’t consider it rebellion and I am satisfied that they will have made a choice that will turn out to have been good for them, but it will have been their choice to have made. I certainly won’t consider them “lost” since I will have been watching the situation the whole time. I will be glad they wanted wisdom as a choice they thought was worthwhile for them–but it will have been their choice, not mine.