Mormons: What are the consquences of Original Sin?

[Peter_John]

His will was that they make their own freely chosen choice, and that they accept the consequences of their choice. They could think about the tree of knowledge of good and evil, think about the commandment not to eat its fruit, think about where they were and what they were doing, think about the implications of “knowledge of good and evil” while yet in their innocence, and make a choice while yet innocent of knowing good from evil. God gave them a commandment and a choice–complicated, not simple as presented by SteveVH or other descriptions that make it sound so simple.

So if his will was for them to decide, and they decided, they did his will, so why would they be punished?

Who determined the consequences of their choices? Did God decide hese consequences, or were they just results over which he had no influence?

If God’s will was for them to choose, why did he not command them to choose, instead of commanding them not to partake of the fruit?

How does this work with the LDS doctrine that men choose things that conflict with his will, if his will is to make the choice?

 

[SteveVH]

SteveVH,

Adam did indeed have a choice, which was complex. He had three commandments to be concerned about, and after Eve had partaken of the forbidden fruit those commandments became a case of needing to figure out which one(s) had priority.

Read your words very carefully, Parker. So Adam’s choice was to disobey God or disobey God or disobey God. He just had to decide in which way to disobey Him. When you remove the option to remain faithful, that is all you have left. What kind of a God would put His children in that position and then punish them by throwing them out the garden?

I learn from Adam’s decision that he was more concerned about the relationship commandment–the joint love commandment, which undoubtedly had the feel of needing to be Eve’s protector and provider as well as their being joint “helpers” for each other and for their future children–than about the “task” commandment of not partaking of the forbidden fruit so he could stay in the garden of Eden and take care of it.

Yes, you believe that God placed Adam in a position of either disobeying Him or disobeying Him, just as I have said. You want to trivialize being disobedient to God; man can choose which commandments are important and which are not so important. I don’t think so.

So, we do indeed view this situation in a profoundly different way. Your words seem to lump Adam and Eve together as having “blatantly disobeyed God”, but if Adam had not partaken of the forbidden fruit he would have been just as “blatantly disobeying God” and I think more-so because the joint relationship commandment is clearly the higher priority commandment, if one takes the teachings of the Bible and believes those teachings in their entirety.

Which speaks of your understanding of who God is. You have just stated what I have been saying all along. In your understanding God placed Adam in a position in which he had no choice but to sin. God not only would not, but could not do that. In your scenario, Adam’s “free will choice” between sinning or not sinning has been removed. He was placed in an impossible situation wherein remaining faithful was not an option. I’m sorry, but this line of thinking is the result of beginning with a preconceived notion and then trying to back into scripture and make it fit. It doesn’t come close to fitting.

 

[ParkerD]

…Parker,…
Which speaks of your understanding of who God is. You have just stated what I have been saying all along. In your understanding God placed Adam in a position in which he had no choice but to sin. God not only would not, but could not do that. In your scenario, Adam’s “free will choice” between sinning or not sinning has been removed. He was placed in an impossible situation wherein remaining faithful was not an option. I’m sorry, but this line of thinking is the result of beginning with a preconceived notion and then trying to back into scripture and make it fit. It doesn’t come close to fitting.

SteveVH,

Once again, here is a case where it would be helpful for me to be able to understand your underlying assumptions and thinking.

Snapshot in time–Eve has just partaken of the forbidden fruit. Adam finds out.

What are Adam’s alternatives at that snapshot point in time–in your view, SteveVH?

(How many commandments does he need to be thinking about at that point in time?)

What are his alternatives, and what are the likely results if he chooses one or the other of those alternatives? (All answers that can be explored, and need to be explored to understand this complex situation.)

 

[SteveVH]

SteveVH,

Once again, here is a case where it would be helpful for me to be able to understand your underlying assumptions and thinking.

Snapshot in time–Eve has just partaken of the forbidden fruit. Adam finds out.

What are Adam’s alternatives at that snapshot point in time–in your view, SteveVH?

(How many commandments does he need to be thinking about at that point in time?)

What are his alternatives, and what are the likely results if he chooses one or the other of those alternatives? (All answers that can be explored, and need to be explored to understand this complex situation.)

First of all you have always made the assumption that Adam was not with Eve when she was being tempted, but the scripture says that she gave a piece of the fruit to "her husband who was with her, and he ate it". (Gn 3:6) You try to imagine that the words “was with her” just meant he was hanging around somewhere in her vicinity, oblivious to what was taking place, but that is not what the Scripture says. Who is “glossing over” scripture, Parker?

To answer your question, Adam should have done his best to talk her out of it. He didn’t make that attempt and failed in his duty to protect her. Even if she had eaten of it Adam could have still remained faithful. Our first allegiance is to God, even above our spouse and children. Had Adam remained faithful, God would have rewarded him, of that I have no doubt.

Through Adam’s faithfulness, God may have allowed both of them to stay in the Garden. But that does not fit your notion that eating of the fruit of the tree was necessary so that we could obtain wisdom and knowledge. Again you begin with the preconceived notion that Adam and Eve were walking around in the garden in a cloud of ignorant bliss, lacking in knowledge necessary for them to be children of God. That is a false premise.

 

[catholic-rcia]

Think about this, but place Jesus in place of Adam. Jesus also had a choice right?
Whos example should we be following?

I doubt you are ignoring me Parker, did you catch this post?
In Christ

Parker, We could continue to speak about Satan offering up Gods Wisdom, but I want to go to a different scenerio. Let’s take it to the simplicity of bread.

Parker while Jesus was in the dessert, hungry, satan offered Him a way to obtain bread, that this bread would help Him with His hunger. We would both agree I am sure that this is same force that tempted Eve.

Pray on the following questions, give a brief answer to them.
Your brother, In Christ Jesus
Rich

Parker, Is there anything wrong with offering bread to one who is hungry?

What could possibly be wrong with this?

Why did Jesus refuse to eat this bread?

And can you spot a parallel to the temptation in the garden?

Just a little extra below, but you do not have to bring this up now. Just focus on the top questions for now.

You might also compare Eves no to Mary’s yes.

What did Eves no bring? No to God
What did Marys yes bring? Yes to God

Meditate on this, think about it all together.

 

[Peter_John]

SteveVH,

Once again, here is a case where it would be helpful for me to be able to understand your underlying assumptions and thinking.

Snapshot in time–Eve has just partaken of the forbidden fruit. Adam finds out.

What are Adam’s alternatives at that snapshot point in time–in your view, SteveVH?

(How many commandments does he need to be thinking about at that point in time?)

What are his alternatives, and what are the likely results if he chooses one or the other of those alternatives? (All answers that can be explored, and need to be explored to understand this complex situation.)

The most helpful thing in understanding Stev’e’s underlying assumptions and thinking is in recognizing that he does not consider the choice offered Adam and EWve as part of some eternal rpgression with no beginning. Adam was not the Archangel Michael incarnate in Steve’s perception, and he was in your perception. In Steve’s perception Adam was created with no past, in yours he had already cast Satan out of heaven.

 

[ParkerD]

First of all you have always made the assumption that Adam was not with Eve when she was being tempted, but the scripture says that she gave a piece of the fruit to "her husband who was with her, and he ate it". (Gn 3:6) You try to imagine that the words “was with her” just meant he was hanging around somewhere in her vicinity, oblivious to what was taking place, but that is not what the Scripture says. Who is “glossing over” scripture, Parker?

To answer your question, Adam should have done his best to talk her out of it. He didn’t make that attempt and failed in his duty to protect her. Even if she had eaten of it Adam could have still remained faithful. Our first allegiance is to God, even above our spouse and children. Had Adam remained faithful, God would have rewarded him, of that I have no doubt.

Through Adam’s faithfulness, God may have allowed both of them to stay in the Garden. But that does not fit your notion that eating of the fruit of the tree was necessary so that we could obtain wisdom and knowledge. Again you begin with the preconceived notion that Adam and Eve were walking around in the garden in a cloud of ignorant bliss, lacking in knowledge necessary for them to be children of God. That is a false premise.

SteveVH,

I don’t know which translation you have used, but unfortunately the statement “husband who was with her” adds some words which change the meaning by adding the words “who was”.

I find that it is a reasonable assumption based on how Satan operates, that the serpent tempted Eve while Adam was not at her side. (Surely you have in mind a garden of Eden that was large enough, with trees, for them to not be at each other’s side every moment in time. If not, then I guess you think it was a pretty small “garden”.) The serpent was “subtle”. He was sneaky, and aimed to deceive with his craftiness. Why in the world would such a crafty deceiver speak to Eve while Adam was at her side? Why wouldn’t he wait until catching her alone?

“Husband with her” ties to the whole idea that they were given to each other as help-meets. They were to be “with” each other, but not every second of every day.

However, if your translation really inserts those words, then I guess they have you in the grasp of the meaning they want you to gain from the passage. I can’t help you disengage from that meaning if that is the text you are going to treat as correct. The deceiver completes the circle with that kind of a change in meaning.

Your free will choice places you in the position to believe the picture you have in your mind, where it appears you believe God would have changed His mind about the clear consequence He had said would happen if they partook by Adam not partaking (which Adam could not have known nor would have had any reason to assume, and only would logically have assumed he would be separated from Eve). But no way do I agree with either your logic about the words “with her” nor your logic about how Adam would have perceived the situation, given the three commandments he had.

Frustrating, huh, that I can’t be convinced?–well, consider that I am 100% certain that the plan of salvation was not being thwarted by Eve or by Adam in what they did, and instead was foreknown by God as an outcome that came from the particular situation they were in.

 

[catholic-rcia]

Parker while Jesus was in the dessert, hungry, satan offered Him a way to obtain bread, that this bread would help Him with His hunger.

Parker, Is there anything wrong with offering bread to one who is hungry?

To someone who has not eaten anything for many days?

To someone who is starving?

What could possibly be wrong with this, offering this bread?

**Why did Jesus refuse to eat this bread? **

---

 

[ParkerD]

Parker while Jesus was in the dessert, hungry, satan offered Him a way to obtain bread, that this bread would help Him with His hunger.

Parker, Is there anything wrong with offering bread to one who is hungry?

To someone who has not eaten anything for many days?

To someone who is starving?

What could possibly be wrong with this, offering this bread?

**Why did Jesus refuse to eat this bread? **

---

Catholic-RCIA,

I suppose that you realize that you have the situation described incorrectly. Satan tempted Jesus to turn rocks into bread–he wasn’t offering Christ bread. It was a temptation for Christ to “show Satan” that He was powerful enough to do that, and Christ quoted a very important Old Testament verse that ought to be a teaching moment for those thinking that John 6 is talking about “the Eucharist” rather than talking about the “Bread of life” which is the “word of God”.

Satan was attempting to get Christ to either doubt His divinity or to “prove” that He was the Promised Messiah and the Son of God by doing an outward “miracle”. Christ, of course, was not tempted at all by Satan’s ploy.

 

[catholic-rcia]

Catholic-RCIA,

I suppose that you realize that you have the situation described incorrectly. Satan tempted Jesus to turn rocks into bread–he wasn’t offering Christ bread. It was a temptation for Christ to “show Satan” that He was powerful enough to do that, and Christ quoted a very important Old Testament verse that ought to be a teaching moment for those thinking that John 6 is talking about “the Eucharist” rather than talking about the “Bread of life” which is the “word of God”.

Satan was attempting to get Christ to either doubt His divinity or to “prove” that He was the Promised Messiah and the Son of God by doing an outward “miracle”. Christ, of course, was not tempted at all by Satan’s ploy.

Yes I stand corrected by you Parker. I should have worded it differently.

And this is the opposite of what Eve did right? Satan was attempting to get Eve to doubt Gods very words to her. She was tempted and acted on satan”s ploy. Death entered the world.

You see this, Jesus in the desert and satan’s ploy
,yet you do not see the same when it comes to Adam and Eve in the garden. Interesting.
Especially when you have God Himself telling our first parents what not to do.

Same voice, same Satan, only this time is what God being tempted.

Jesus did not turn the rocks into bread when asked, because it was not His Father asking to do so. He always did what His Father asked unlike Adam and Eve. Jesus would never choose anything but that which is the will of His Father, because He is one with His Father, one in being with His Father. He is our Lord and our God. He lessoned Himself and took on flesh, He was born the perfect human just like Adam and Eve were created through Jesus, before they committed the first sin. What Adam and Eve did was bring death to the whole human race. Only through Jesus can we conquer sin and death and be united with the Father through Him. In the desert he shows us how to say no, he shows Adam and Eve how to say no.

It is I suppose a necessity for us to leave God behind just as the Prodigal son did in the Parable.
We do attempt to be wise and we do judge others. all very much sin in the world.

In the end only God can bring us home. I know that as a fallen human I am an enemy of Christ. Otherwise I would not die.

Just one small lie is proof enough. I admit this as I admit myself into the confessional. You might not see sin as crucifying Christ,….I do. It is a hard thing to realize, to accept. Its Gods forgiveness that fills me with joy and peace. in all of this I know how much I am loved, I understand the cost paid for me. Not the terrible sinner over there. “For me”

I understand what it means to love your enemies. If you do not have any you may not yet be aware of your own fallen nature. “I looked in the mirror and the enemy was me” .

Have you ever watched the Passion of Christ? Or Jesus of Nazareth? This was a result of Adam and Eves sin. On Good Friday coming up soon I will once again remember why God came and gave His life for me. To understand that it was I he forgave from the cross. That the only way to really love your enemies is to realize that you and I are the enemy Jesus speaks of. All the Wisdom in the world means nothing if we cannot surrender our pitiful lives over to Him with no other motives accept being with Him. To love Him above all things is true freedom. If we cannot love our worst enemy, How can we allow Jesus to truly love us fully?

This is not a game of progression. This is a game of going down, loosing our pride and our ego’s so that Christ can fill us enough to just love. We truly must die to ourselves in order to be raised in Him In order for Him to be able to grant each of us eternal life. Its there for the taking, a yes to God rather than a no. it’s a gift and in no way can it ever be earned. The Cross proves this. I am speaking on athentic humility…I am a Catholic Parker

 

[Jay53]

SteveVH,

I don’t know which translation you have used, but unfortunately the statement “husband who was with her” adds some words which change the meaning by adding the words “who was”.

I find that it is a reasonable assumption based on how Satan operates, that the serpent tempted Eve while Adam was not at her side. (Surely you have in mind a garden of Eden that was large enough, with trees, for them to not be at each other’s side every moment in time. If not, then I guess you think it was a pretty small “garden”.) The serpent was “subtle”. He was sneaky, and aimed to deceive with his craftiness. Why in the world would such a crafty deceiver speak to Eve while Adam was at her side? Why wouldn’t he wait until catching her alone?

“Husband with her” ties to the whole idea that they were given to each other as help-meets. They were to be “with” each other, but not every second of every day.

However, if your translation really inserts those words, then I guess they have you in the grasp of the meaning they want you to gain from the passage. I can’t help you disengage from that meaning if that is the text you are going to treat as correct. The deceiver completes the circle with that kind of a change in meaning.

Your free will choice places you in the position to believe the picture you have in your mind, where it appears you believe God would have changed His mind about the clear consequence He had said would happen if they partook by Adam not partaking (which Adam could not have known nor would have had any reason to assume, and only would logically have assumed he would be separated from Eve). But no way do I agree with either your logic about the words “with her” nor your logic about how Adam would have perceived the situation, given the three commandments he had.

Frustrating, huh, that I can’t be convinced?–well, consider that I am 100% certain that the plan of salvation was not being thwarted by Eve or by Adam in what they did, and instead was foreknown by God as an outcome that came from the particular situation they were in.

Hello, Parker.

I must say that this was a very arrogant and condescending post - makes me think that you understand Steve’s point, but want to argue it because it doesn’t agree with your view.

Here’s several different translations:

And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat. (King James Version)

When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it. (New International Version, ©2011)

When the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was desirable to make one wise, she took from its fruit and ate; and she gave also to her husband with her, and he ate. (New American Standard Bible)

Adding the words “who was” does NOT change the interpretation that Steve has given you. As you can see from the other translations, they read the same way, even without those 2 words.

Even if you are correct and Adam was not at her side at that moment, that still doesn’t change the fact that Adam CHOSE to disobey God - (in your view, seemingly to obey another commandment that he thought God gave him). Again, it all comes back to the point that you seem to think that God set up Adam with a situation where he could either disobey God or disobey God. I still don’t see why you don’t think one supposed commandment was more important than another. Adam easily could have chosen to obey God regarding eating the fruit. I’m not sure what consequence you think God would have given Adam for that choice. ???

 

[Peter_John]

Catholic-RCIA,

I suppose that you realize that you have the situation described incorrectly. Satan tempted Jesus to turn rocks into bread–he wasn’t offering Christ bread. It was a temptation for Christ to “show Satan” that He was powerful enough to do that, and Christ quoted a very important Old Testament verse that ought to be a teaching moment for those thinking that John 6 is talking about “the Eucharist” rather than talking about the “Bread of life” which is the “word of God”.

Satan was attempting to get Christ to either doubt His divinity or to “prove” that He was the Promised Messiah and the Son of God by doing an outward “miracle”. Christ, of course, was not tempted at all by Satan’s ploy.

This is also a story which interprets differently in LDS theology than in Catholic. Mormons believe that Jesus was born not knowing who he was (this associates with their belief in universal pre-mortal existence. All spirits entering the world must have a veil of forgetfulness over their eyes, including Jesus) and he eventually came to knowledge of who he was,

Catholics believe Jesus, being God, always knew who he was, even in the womb. However (and what follows I have not seen in document, but been taught by a very oild priest) there is some school of thought, and considering this story in this perspective adds different insight, that the Adversary understood that Jesus was the promised messiah, but not that he was God incarnate. Had he understood this, he would not have instigated men to kill Him.

It gives another layer of meaning, as the emptations become probing questions. In either interpretation, the important thing is that it was citing scripture that defeated the Aversary, an example of the importance of scriptural integrity.

 

[ParkerD]

Hello, Parker.

…Here’s several different translations:

And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat. (King James Version)

When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it. (New International Version, ©2011)

When the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was desirable to make one wise, she took from its fruit and ate; and she gave also to her husband with her, and he ate. (New American Standard Bible)

Adding the words “who was” does NOT change the interpretation that Steve has given you. As you can see from the other translations, they read the same way, even without those 2 words.

Even if you are correct and Adam was not at her side at that moment, that still doesn’t change the fact that Adam CHOSE to disobey God - (in your view, seemingly to obey another commandment that he thought God gave him). Again, it all comes back to the point that you seem to think that God set up Adam with a situation where he could either disobey God or disobey God. I still don’t see why you don’t think one supposed commandment was more important than another. Adam easily could have chosen to obey God regarding eating the fruit. I’m not sure what consequence you think God would have given Adam for that choice. ???

Hi, Jay53,

Sorry if any of my posts have offended you or anyone else. I haven’t meant to have done that. I am interested in providing a different perspective than may have been taught and generally accepted.

Even the addition (which is better, but the two words lead to confusion) of the commas in the NIV verse you cited, changes the nuance of the meaning. “Who was with her” implies that Adam was “with her” in the garden when there are commas before and after those words. It doesn’t have to imply that he was standing by her side when she listened to the serpent and partook of the forbidden fruit.

Again, the prepositional phrase “with her” is referring to the commandment they had received and that Adam referred to when he reported why he went ahead and partook of the forbidden fruit (Genesis 3:12).

As far as what would likely have happened if Adam had kept the commandment to not partake of the forbidden fruit after Eve had done so, I think given the clear consequence and the word “surely” used in its context, that Adam would have been informed that Eve was being cast out of the garden of Eden. One might expect that since she now had greater insight than Adam since he was still “innocent”, that she may have called out to Adam and said, “Adam, come help me–I don’t want to do this alone!”

One might expect that at that point of hearing her plea, that Adam may have become less “high task” and more “high relationship” and realized that he did indeed have a commandment relating to being with Eve, and stepped forward and partaken of the forbidden fruit so he could be with Eve and help her.

Someone will respond that I have speculated. You asked what consequence I think God would have given Adam. The consequence was clear. The question then becomes “What would Adam have done as a result of the consequence?” That is why I provided a logical perspective as to what he logically could have been expected to do.

By the way, Paul provides a very important insight in 1 Timothy 2:14 which goes right along with this conversation and reiterates the point that Adam was not deceived by Satan and had another reason than having been deceived, to partake of the forbidden fruit:

1 Timothy 2:14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

Peace, and good day to all.

 

[SteveVH]

SteveVH,
I don’t know which translation you have used, but unfortunately the statement “husband who was with her” adds some words which change the meaning by adding the words “who was”.

Parker, you assume that the KJV is the end-all of biblical translations. It is not. Both the NAB and the NIV agree on the translation I gave. The Bible didn’t drop out of heaven written in old English.

I find that it is a reasonable assumption based on how Satan operates, that the serpent tempted Eve while Adam was not at her side. (Surely you have in mind a garden of Eden that was large enough, with trees, for them to not be at each other’s side every moment in time. If not, then I guess you think it was a pretty small “garden”.) The serpent was “subtle”. He was sneaky, and aimed to deceive with his craftiness. Why in the world would such a crafty deceiver speak to Eve while Adam was at her side? Why wouldn’t he wait until catching her alone?

Your “reasonable assumption” is based upon what you wish to believe. The serpent’s subtleness and craftiness was in his words. This has nothing to do with the size of the garden. The words of Scripture do not in any way imply that Adam was not with her. In fact they say that he was with her.

“Husband with her” ties to the whole idea that they were given to each other as help-meets. They were to be “with” each other, but not every second of every day.

Do you see the gymnastics you are going through to arrive at your conclusion? So we are supposed to believe that “with her” was meant to represent some sort of marital unity? Wouldn’t “husband” be sufficient to convey that meaning? Sorry, but this is really a stretch.

However, if your translation really inserts those words, then I guess they have you in the grasp of the meaning they want you to gain from the passage. I can’t help you disengage from that meaning if that is the text you are going to treat as correct. The deceiver completes the circle with that kind of a change in meaning.

I see. So anyone who does not use the KJV is using a translation given to us by Satan?

Your free will choice places you in the position to believe the picture you have in your mind, where it appears you believe God would have changed His mind about the clear consequence He had said would happen if they partook by Adam not partaking (which Adam could not have known nor would have had any reason to assume, and only would logically have assumed he would be separated from Eve). But no way do I agree with either your logic about the words “with her” nor your logic about how Adam would have perceived the situation, given the three commandments he had.

Please do not put words in my mouth and then say you disagree with those words. When have I ever even implied that God changed His mind about the consequences He said would happen if they disobeyed Him. I have said just the opposite. Give me a quotation, Parker. As far the words “with her”, that is what it says. It is you that has to give different meaning to those words; “With her” doesn’t really mean “with her”, it means that they were joined together in marital bliss. This notion doesn’t even fit the context.

I asked a question a few posts back to which I still have not received an answer and this conversation, while interesting, is just a further attempt to avoid that question.

Was it God’s will that Adam and Eve eat the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil? Why can’t you give me a simple yes or no answer here, Parker?

Frustrating, huh, that I can’t be convinced?–well, consider that I am 100% certain that the plan of salvation was not being thwarted by Eve or by Adam in what they did, and instead was foreknown by God as an outcome that came from the particular situation they were in.

What is frustrating is your avoidance of a very simple question that can be answered with one word. Instead you bob and weave around it. Please just answer the question.

Was it God’s will that Adam and Eve eat the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil?

I have no expectation that you are ever going to say “Wow, Steve, I am convinced.” But why you won’t answer the question is puzzling, not only to me but I imagine to the other non-Mormon posters here as well.

 

[zaffiroborant]

Hi, Jay53,

Sorry if any of my posts have offended you or anyone else. I haven’t meant to have done that. I am interested in providing a different perspective than may have been taught and generally accepted.

.

Nice pseudo apology, it might actually be believable if the post in question didn’t include sentences like this:

ParkerD:

However, if your translation really inserts those words, then I guess they have you in the grasp of the meaning they want you to gain from the passage. I can’t help you disengage from that meaning if that is the text you are going to treat as correct. The deceiver completes the circle with that kind of a change in meaning.

Really, you can’t see why this is offensive? You can’t go 10 posts without throwing out the same accusations.

 

[ParkerD]

Parker…
I asked a question a few posts back to which I still have not received an answer and this conversation, while interesting, is just a further attempt to avoid that question.

Was it God’s will that Adam and Eve eat the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil? Why can’t you give me a simple yes or no answer here, Parker?

I haven’t given you a simple answer because I don’t feel like it’s a “wise question” or a “simple question”. But here is the simple answer–“no”.

What is frustrating is your avoidance of a very simple question that can be answered with one word. Instead you bob and weave around it. Please just answer the question.

I had been trying to add wisdom to the question and the answer.

Was it God’s will that Adam and Eve eat the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil?

No–it was God’s will that they be perfectly perfect, including perfectly loving in their relationship with each other, and perfectly perfect in not only not sinning but in all positive actions with no sins of omission. God’s will is always that His children be perfectly perfect and perfectly happy by being perfectly perfect.

I have no expectation that you are ever going to say “Wow, Steve, I am convinced.” But why you won’t answer the question is puzzling, not only to me but I imagine to the other non-Mormon posters here as well.

My desire is to arrive at truth, which sometimes is more complicated than providing “yes” and “no” answers because truth requires the development of wisdom, and wisdom is more complex than it is simple.

Peace, and you have your simple answer.

(You might also read my response to Jay53, since it brought up an important scriptural teaching of the apostle Paul that bears on this subject.)

 

[SteveVH]

I haven’t given you a simple answer because I don’t feel like it’s a “wise question” or a “simple question”. But here is the simple answer–“no”.

The following is a quote from you on this very subject in which you claim that the consequences of Adam and Eve’s disobedience is a necessary part of God’s plan:

Originally Posted by ParkerD

 

[Peter_John]

Catholic-RCIA,

I suppose that you realize that you have the situation described incorrectly. Satan tempted Jesus to turn rocks into bread–he wasn’t offering Christ bread. It was a temptation for Christ to “show Satan” that He was powerful enough to do that, and Christ quoted a very important Old Testament verse that ought to be a teaching moment for those thinking that John 6 is talking about “the Eucharist” rather than talking about the “Bread of life” which is the “word of God”.

Satan was attempting to get Christ to either doubt His divinity or to “prove” that He was the Promised Messiah and the Son of God by doing an outward “miracle”. Christ, of course, was not tempted at all by Satan’s ploy.

It takes understanding what the Eucharist is to recognize that everything in the Bible revolves around it in some way.

 

[ParkerD]

ParkerD;7712041:

I haven’t given you a simple answer because I don’t feel like it’s a “wise question” or a “simple question”. But here is the simple answer–“no”.

SteveVH:

The following is a quote from you on this very subject in which you claim that the consequences of Adam and Eve’s disobedience is a necessary part of God’s plan:

Quote:
Originally Posted by ParkerD

I would call it a “necessary effect”, with necessary consequences that I am grateful to be a part of since I know the outcome, ultimately and along the way. I accept that we are in a growth situation as an outcome of that “necessary effect”.

SteveVH:

So, at the same time you claim that it was not God’s will that they eat of the fruit but that He desired that they eat of it in order for us to grow through experiencing the consequences of their sin. What is wrong with this picture?

SteveVH,

Here is the picture:

God is perfect. His will is that all of His children be perfect. He always has that as “His will.” It is thus “His desire”. However, He does not, will not, rob free will choice to fulfill His will–of course, as that is an imperfect thing to do.

I did not say in the quote you cited, that His desire was that Adam and Eve eat of the forbidden fruit. I have emphasized that His desire was that they choose for themselves. His will was that they be perfectly perfect in every way, including being loyal to each other because of their love for each other.

He did plan a plan, seeing into the future, that included seeing that Eve would desire to be wise when given the situation in the garden of Eden, and seeing that Satan (the serpent) would tempt her. So His pre-planned plan of salvation included the wonderful, priceless gift of the Savior coming to this earth as the Redeemer from sin on conditions of repentance, and as the Redeemer from death as an unconditional gift. His plan of salvation foresaw and foreknew the situation that would require the atoning sacrifice of the Savior in order for His children to be saved from death and from the consequences of their sins.

I remarked that I see the situation which was part of God’s pre-planned plan of salvation, as a “necessary effect” because of the growth situation we are thus embarked on as we gain wisdom. If we were perfectly perfect, which also means we would be perfectly wise, then we would not need this “necessary effect”.

I think it is evident that the Apostle Paul saw this also, and saw that Adam chose to partake of the forbidden fruit after Eve had partaken, because, while “Adam was not deceived”, he saw that given her situation he needed to be with her and stay with her by partaking the forbidden fruit. (See 1 Timothy 2:14)

Wishing you peace and good will. Thanks for your kindness and for not having been offended. I appreciate it.

 

[Jay53]

His will was that they be perfectly perfect in every way, including being loyal to each other because of their love for each other.

He did plan a plan, seeing into the future, that included seeing that Eve would desire to be wise when given the situation in the garden of Eden, and seeing that Satan (the serpent) would tempt her. So His pre-planned plan of salvation included the wonderful, priceless gift of the Savior coming to this earth as the Redeemer from sin on conditions of repentance, and as the Redeemer from death as an unconditional gift. His plan of salvation foresaw and foreknew the situation that would require the atoning sacrifice of the Savior in order for His children to be saved from death and from the consequences of their sins.

I remarked that I see the situation which was part of God’s pre-planned plan of salvation, as a “necessary effect” because of the growth situation we are thus embarked on as we gain wisdom. If we were perfectly perfect, which also means we would be perfectly wise, then we would not need this “necessary effect”.

I think it is evident that the Apostle Paul saw this also, and saw that Adam chose to partake of the forbidden fruit after Eve had partaken, because, while “Adam was not deceived”, he saw that given her situation he needed to be with her and stay with her by partaking the forbidden fruit. (See 1 Timothy 2:14)

Wishing you peace and good will. Thanks for your kindness and for not having been offended. I appreciate it.

I don’t think 1 Timothy 2:14 supports your position in the way you think it does. First, you’re not taking into consideration the context surrounding Paul’s writing his letter to Timothy. What were the circumstances Timothy was dealing with when he received that letter?? Secondly, he is accurate in saying that Adam was not deceived - Eve was the one who was deceived - Adam CHOSE freely to disobey God, knowing that it was wrong. God clearly says to Adam in Genesis 3:17 : To Adam he said, “Because you listened to your wife and ate fruit from the tree about which I commanded you, **‘You must not eat from it,’ **. He clearly reiterates that he had commanded Adam NOT to eat from the tree. He says nothing about having made a “wise choice” or chosen to follow the “higher commandment”. So, you cannot pretend that St. Paul is saying that Adam did not sin - that is NOT what he is saying at all.