Mormons: What are the consquences of Original Sin?

[SteveVH]

SteveVH,

I’m not really trying to “make a point”. I’m trying to understand your thinking about the big picture of why you are here in a different world than Adam and Eve’s opportunity, since Adam and Eve had a garden of Eden and you don’t have the opportunity to make their same choice. You have said your “will to avoid temptation is weakened due to the sin of Adam and Eve.” That sounds like “blame” in the picture I draw from those words.

And the comparison you made about your wife and other women doesn’t make the kind of sense it seems to make to you, to me. Obviously, God “placed you” where He placed you in the world and it’s history. But omnipotence means He could have placed you in a garden of Eden, given you the very same choice they had, and not left you thinking your “will to avoid temptation is weakened due to [their] sin.”

Well I’m not sure how to state my position more clearly, Parker. You are spinning my comments to suit your own purposes. Original sin does not mitigate my personal sins. Is that clear enough? As a Catholic, each week I make the following statement: “…I have sinned through my own fault, in my thoughts and in my words, in what I have done and in what I have failed to do.” And I make that statement most sincerely. What about this says that I blame Adam and Eve for my personal sins. I realize you want me to say this to bolster your position but I have not and will not.

Recognizing and acknowledging the effect that Adam and Eve’s sin has had and conitnues to have on the world does not let me off the hook. I am still called to be holy and when I fall short of this I have no one to blame but myself.

The difference that I see is that you seem to want to excuse the sin of Adam and Eve as nothing more than a healthy desire for knowledge and fail to recognize it for what it is. You fail to distinguish between God’s plan (to save us from our sins) and God’s will (that we would remain faithful and avoid sin altogether).

 

[ParkerD]

Well I’m not sure how to state my position more clearly, Parker. You are spinning my comments to suit your own purposes. Original sin does not mitigate my personal sins. Is that clear enough? As a Catholic, each week I make the following statement: “…I have sinned through my own fault, in my thoughts and in my words, in what I have done and in what I have failed to do.” And I make that statement most sincerely. What about this says that I blame Adam and Eve for my personal sins. I realize you want me to say this to bolster your position but I have not and will not.

Recognizing and acknowledging the effect that Adam and Eve’s sin has had and continues to have on the world does not let me off the hook. I am still called to be holy and when I fall short of this I have no one to blame but myself.

The difference that I see is that you seem to want to excuse the sin of Adam and Eve as nothing more than a healthy desire for knowledge and fail to recognize it for what it is. You fail to distinguish between God’s plan (to save us from our sins) and God’s will (that we would remain faithful and avoid sin altogether).

SteveVH,

It isn’t “clear to me” in that the words “will to avoid temptation is weakened due to the sin of Adam and Eve” sounds like there is something going on with your will that has been “weakened”, yet you haven’t explained what that means. I wasn’t saying it “let you off the hook.” I was saying there seems to be a perceived negative effect, using the word “weakened.”

I have explained previously that Eve, according to Moses and God speaking through Moses, desired the thing (fruit from a tree) that she perceived had the possible effect to “make one wise”. This is simple enough to understand. It ties to “the tree of knowledge of good and evil”, and God had placed that “meaning” on the fruit of that particular tree. So when you present a suspicion about the eating of the fruit which does not take into account those particular words, then it had best be taken directly from the account in the Bible or from the New Testament where it is also talked about, or it is a case where the wisdom and perception of men and their designs toward limiting and influencing free will choice can have easily happened, and seems to be observable as having happened.

The LDS believe that God’s plan included a desire that humankind grow in knowledge and wisdom. He also desired and it is always His will that humankind have free will choice–more than just “free will”.

If Adam and Eve had been perfect in a total and complete sense, then Eve would not have been tempted at all by such a thing as “knowledge of good and evil” or “desire to become wise”. She would have known within herself that she was already “wise”. One cannot say that a person is wise if they don’t even have a perception that they possess wisdom. That would mean they were living in the dark about such a quality of mind and purpose and observation.

Obviously, it is a given that God desires that every human being “avoid sin altogether”. Still, importantly, He presented a plan of salvation that included the need for a Redeemer because He knew that by growing in wisdom through the experience of mortality, such wisdom would be gained by experience rather than by just having been “told how things are” and yet never having gained any experience to know what the teachings really meant because of never having been in the reality of the situation where a choice was necessary. That such a plan should be scoffed at, seems to me to be scoffing at the whole idea of growth or repentance or Redemption. So, we just plain differ as to what this life is all about. God wants our perfection, but is patient as we “get there,” and had a plan for us to “get there” that included a Redeemer and a Sanctifier–meaning that He knew we would not “be there” automatically, upon birth or upon having been created.

But He didn’t force that plan on us, and still doesn’t, and never will. We have free will choice as to whether we see a good purpose in the plan, or see it as a “work-around” situation happening in this world, and have some deep-seated misgiving about what we are doing here amidst all the troubles, temptations, and — growth opportunities.

 

[SteveVH]

SteveVH,
It isn’t “clear to me” in that the words “will to avoid temptation is weakened due to the sin of Adam and Eve” sounds like there is something going on with your will that has been “weakened”, yet you haven’t explained what that means. I wasn’t saying it “let you off the hook.” I was saying there seems to be a perceived negative effect, using the word “weakened.”

Well yes, there is more than a “perceived negative effect”. There is a very real negative effect. Do you believe there was no “negative effect” caused by the sin of Adam and Eve? Let me try once again. The Catholic Church teaches, and I believe, that our entire being, both physically and morally, was diminished by original sin. It is what we inherited from our first parents due to their choice to disobey God. Nevertheless, the fact that our will (among other things) was weakened, it was not removed. We can, and the saints testify to this, overcome temptation and sin through the grace of God, but not by our own power. So sin is both disobedience of God’s laws and a rejection, of sorts, of his helping grace. There is no sin unless we freely choose to sin, That is why, even with our weakened will, we are still 100% responsible for our personal sins. We do have a way out if we choose it, but the reality is that even the just man sins seven times each day".

I have explained previously that Eve, according to Moses and God speaking through Moses, desired the thing (fruit from a tree) that she perceived had the possible effect to “make one wise”. This is simple enough to understand.

Not quite as simple as you make it out to be. What you have explained is your interpretation of the words of Genesis and it is your interpretation with which I disagree. There is much more to the story than Eve observing that the fruit of the tree would “make one wise”. She believed a lie. She was told that if she ate of the fuit she would be “like God”. This was not a healthy attitude of wanting to become more holy and pleasing to God, or to acquire knowledge to make her a better person. The serpent told her that God was lying to her and she believed him. This was the doubt placed in her heart. Why does God not want me to eat of this tree?. The serpent gave her the answer. Because then she would be “like God”, thus the implication that God was holding out on her.

The LDS believe that God’s plan included a desire that humankind grow in knowledge and wisdom. He also desired and it is always His will that humankind have free will choice–more than just “free will”.

Do you think that we do not believe that God desires us to grow in knowledge and wisdom? Do you think that we do not believe that God has given us free will and desires us to have free will? How does one have free will but not have a choice? The term “free will choice” is redundant. Show me something or someone that has free will without choice and choice without free will. Free will is inherent in a being that makes choices and vice versa. One cannot exist without the other. If it can, please demonstrate this for me.

If Adam and Eve had been perfect in a total and complete sense, then Eve would not have been tempted at all by such a thing as “knowledge of good and evil” or “desire to become wise”. She would have known within herself that she was already “wise”. One cannot say that a person is wise if they don’t even have a perception that they possess wisdom. That would mean they were living in the dark about such a quality of mind and purpose and observation.

Eve was not tempted simply by the desire to become wise. She was tempted by the desire to be like God, who was greater than she. She wanted equality with God. If it were a simple desire to become “like God”, as in assuming His traits of holiness and goodness and wisdom and kowledge, there would have been no sin. Even the Scriptures tell us that we will become “like God”. No, this meant something different or there would have been no sin involved. It would be like me saying to my small child “if you eat your vegetables you will grow up to be smart and strong and tall like me” but then forbidding them to eat their vegetables. Why would a loving Father do that?

Rather than beating around the bush here, let me ask you straight out. Do you believe that God desired Adam and Eve to eat of the fruit? If so, then why did He forbid them to do just that?

Continued…

 

[SteveVH]

Continued…

SteveVH,
Obviously, it is a given that God desires that every human being “avoid sin altogether”. Still, importantly, He presented a plan of salvation that included the need for a Redeemer because He knew that by growing in wisdom through the experience of mortality, such wisdom would be gained by experience rather than by just having been “told how things are” and yet never having gained any experience to know what the teachings really meant because of never having been in the reality of the situation where a choice was necessary. That such a plan should be scoffed at, seems to me to be scoffing at the whole idea of growth or repentance or Redemption. So, we just plain differ as to what this life is all about. God wants our perfection, but is patient as we “get there,” and had a plan for us to “get there” that included a Redeemer and a Sanctifier–meaning that He knew we would not “be there” automatically, upon birth or upon having been created.

There is more involved here than God presenting a plan. We have a role to play in all of this due to the gift of free will. Because God is omniscient, He knew that this gift would result in us disobeying His will. That is why I have tried to draw a distinction between His plan and His will. He did not will us to disobey Him therefore He did not will Adam and Eve to eat of the fruit of the Tree. Out of His love for us His plan, necessarily, included our redemption.

"Angels and men, as intelligent and free creatures, have to journey toward their ultimate destinies by their free choice and preferential love. They can therefore go astray. Indeed, they have sinned. Thus has moral evil, incommensurably more harmful than physical evil, entered the world. God is in no way, directly or indirectly, the cause of moral evil. He permits it, however, because he respects the freedom of his creatures and, mysteriously, knows how to derive good from it…" (CCC par. 311)

But He didn’t force that plan on us, and still doesn’t, and never will. We have free will choice as to whether we see a good purpose in the plan, or see it as a “work-around” situation happening in this world, and have some deep-seated misgiving about what we are doing here amidst all the troubles, temptations, and — growth opportunities.

I’m not sure we disagree here, Parker, but it really depends upon what you actually mean by this statement. I have no “deep-seated misgiving about what we are doing here amidst all the troubles, temptations…” I have hope in our Lord that He will, indeed, bring good out of all of it and that He will save me from my sins. Our difference, I think, lies in the fact that, and correct me if I am wrong, you believe that God willed us to disobey Him in the beginning so that we could then somehow progress in an experiential manner toward our eternal destiny. I believe that true wisdom and knowledge lies in faith, fidelity and obedience to God and that His desire is that we do not experience evil, even while He permits it. There will be no sin when we reach our final destiny, but we will not have lost our free will. Rather than being disposed toward sin, due to our fallen nature, we will be completely disposed toward goodness.

I have to say that while we may disagree, I certainly enjoy the discussion. Attempting to understand God’s plan and the mystery of sin and evil is not an easy task. Bottom line is that I respect you and thank you for your perseverance and patience.

God bless you, Parker.

 

[catholic-rcia]

To see what Adam and Eve could have been as far as their creaturely status goes all we need do is look and listen to Jesus, the perfect Man, the perfect God, the only God, One in being with His father. Jesus did the will of His Father perfectly, in this He loved us all in spite of our fallen nature and he came to deliver us from this fallen nature. Only He can do it as we are mere humans in transition. He shows Adam and Eve, all of mankind how to say no to satan while in the dessert. The devil temps Him just as it tempted our first parents. Jesus shows us how to say no, the perfect example.

When we tell a lie small or large it is out of a disobedience of God, in our sins small or large we become an enemy of God. When Jesus asked us to love even our enemies who exactly do you think He was speaking about Parker? The poor soul over there? Maybe the one over there? Who do you think Jesus died for Parker? If we cannot love our enemy how can we allow Jesus to love us? Until you can see yourself as fallen, just like our first parents, in disobedience of God how can you allow Jesus to forgive you? To Love you for whom you really are, a sinner in transition?

It is much easier to forgive others when you are naked before God, torn wide open so to speak. It is much easier to be embraced by God.

It’s important that you learn to receive forgiveness.

Adam and Eve had it all as they were one with God. They threw it all away to become a god, thus this world became distorted / separated from God Grace. We were not created to be in this world. We were created for what is to come, to be in Heaven with God forever. The plan is to know this and to choose this through Jesus. We go through this precisely because we are not God and we never will be a god. like God the Father is, Like Jesus is, Like the Holy Spirit is. But as created and adopted children we will have everything we could ever dream of in Jesus. Its all about Him, were gifted this wonderful ride.

Did God really tell you that you can’t eat from that tree, no what he really meant was……?

Then

To JS……No, join none of them for they are all corrupt

Same voice Parker
The fall is about the desire to be a god. We all have this sin!

From www.wau.org

"In the Gospel, the Pharisees despised sinners, but Jesus befriended sinners. It was not a question of a few kind words, or a gesture or two, on his part. He associated with sinners. He shared their food and drink. He did not just tolerate them. He welcomed them. In his presence they felt accepted and loved just as they were. It is not surprising then that ,many of them heard his message and changed their lives. Matthew is an example of this.

Jesus’ attitude to sinners was one of kindness and persuasion rather than condemnation and denunciation. He did not wait for sinners to repent before becoming their friend. No, he befriended them in their sinfulness. This is what scandalized the religious authorities: that he associated with sinners and rejoiced in their company while they were still sinners. Just as today some people see compassion for the criminal as a betrayal of the victim, so the Pharisees saw Jesus’ compassion for the sinner as a betrayal of the virtuous.

Jesus defense was very strait forward, he said he went where the need was greatest. In associating with sinners he was not condoning their situation, rather, he was trying to show them a new life. But he could not do this without associating with them and being sympathetic towards them. You never improve people by shunning them. In acting the way he did, Jesus revealed the mercy of God towards sinners.

Jesus did not show a lack of moral principles by sitting at table and consorting with sinners. Rather, his humility was rich and deep enough to make contact, even in them, with that indestructible core of goodness which is found in all, and upon which the future was to be built. He put them in touch with that in them selves. His goodness evoked goodness in them.

It would be easier, safer, and more popular for him to go among the good. But he was not thinking of himself. He was thinking of others, and of the mission given him by his father. He did not come to call the virtuous but rather sinners to repentance"

 

[ParkerD]

Well yes, there is more than a “perceived negative effect”. There is a very real negative effect. Do you believe there was no “negative effect” caused by the sin of Adam and Eve?

SteveVH,

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”.

Let me try once again. The Catholic Church teaches, and I believe, that our entire being, both physically and morally, was diminished by original sin. It is what we inherited from our first parents due to their choice to disobey God.

I believe that when I look into a baby’s eyes, I am not seeing a person “diminished by original sin” either physically or morally. So I completely disagree with both sentences, and I completely disagree with any belief that this is taught in the Bible.

Nevertheless, the fact that our will (among other things) was weakened

Which is why I asked the question about you instead being put into a garden of Eden situation–rather than have this preconception that your “will was weakened” which sounds like there is a circumstance that has come from Adam and Eve’s sin that impacts your will in a negative way.

it [our will] was not removed. We can, and the saints testify to this, overcome temptation and sin through the grace of God, but not by our own power. So sin is both disobedience of God’s laws and a rejection, of sorts, of his helping grace.

If this statement means we need grace for repentance to work, then I certainly agree. I agree also that we need to become “one” with God so that our will conforms with His will, and that means there will have been a great deal of growth during mortality and the process of sanctification and a complete change of heart from being a “natural man”.

Not quite as simple as you make it out to be. What you have explained is your interpretation of the words of Genesis and it is your interpretation with which I disagree. There is much more to the story than Eve observing that the fruit of the tree would “make one wise”. She believed a lie. She was told that if she ate of the fuit she would be “like God”. This was not a healthy attitude of wanting to become more holy and pleasing to God, or to acquire knowledge to make her a better person. The serpent told her that God was lying to her and she believed him. This was the doubt placed in her heart. Why does God not want me to eat of this tree?. The serpent gave her the answer. Because then she would be “like God”, thus the implication that God was holding out on her.

The Biblical account certainly allows for one to come to the conclusion you have drawn by minimizing or skipping Genesis 3:6. It also allows for the conclusion I have drawn and still draw seeing the words as translated in Genesis 3:6, which shows Eve’s thoughts (which God knew, and inspired Moses to write down so we would have her thoughts and be able to discern what was going on in her mind based on those particular words that describe her thoughts). We have our free will choice about reading that verse and believing it, or reading that verse and concluding that Moses didn’t really know the big picture and instead someone else needs to provide the big picture of Eve’s motives and thoughts–which no doubt Satan, the continuous deceiver and rebeller, is much obliged to do. The master of deceit and rebellion would want us to skip over that verse entirely, or change its meaning to include all the conclusion you have drawn which Moses when he wrote Genesis did not draw.

Do you think that we do not believe that God desires us to grow in knowledge and wisdom?

If you’re saying you do believe that God desires that, then I’m glad to gain that insight about your belief, since it does not necessarily flow from the sort of “regret” about Eve having chosen to eat the forbidden fruit.

Do you think that we do not believe that God has given us free will and desires us to have free will? How does one have free will but not have a choice?

Perhaps you would want to describe the many choices Adam and Eve had before they partook of the forbidden fruit. What “good” choices were they making during their lives in the garden of Eden? (Real choices, meaning there was an either/or situation at least.)

Eve was not tempted simply by the desire to become wise. She was tempted by the desire to be like God, who was greater than she. She wanted equality with God. If it were a simple desire to become “like God”, as in assuming His traits of holiness and goodness and wisdom and kowledge, there would have been no sin. Even the Scriptures tell us that we will become “like God”. No, this meant something different or there would have been no sin involved. It would be like me saying to my small child “if you eat your vegetables you will grow up to be smart and strong and tall like me” but then forbidding them to eat their vegetables. Why would a loving Father do that?

Again, as far as I’m concerned the rebeller and deceiver whispers this above logic and thus gets Genesis 3:6 overlooked entirely or minimized to go unnoticed.

A loving Father would understand Eve’s personality, being omniscient plus He created her.

Because He is perfect, He would not be the cause of their pain or suffering or mortal problems and difficulties without their choosing them on their own, by their free will choice. They could remain innocent and pain-free and trouble-free, or they could choose to partake of the situation that would bring them knowledge of both good and evil and thus they would embark on gaining wisdom, but it would mean they would need to experience death and troubles.

 

[ParkerD]

Continuation of reply to SteveVH:

Rather than beating around the bush here, let me ask you straight out. Do you believe that God desired Adam and Eve to eat of the fruit? If so, then why did He forbid them to do just that?

Once again, I will repeat–God desired that Adam and Eve make their own choice, but also knew Eve’s personality and demeanor, and gave them a choice that they could make. He had a plan that included allowing for Eve’s demeanor and personality and having a great and wonderful outcome from her making a choice that she was allowed to make and was allowed to be influenced in making by the fact that the serpent was allowed to tempt her.

He knew what she was going to do, before she did it. He really is all-knowing. He gave the edict that the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil was forbidden, because He is completely Good and completely wise and wanted to allow humankind, including Eve and Adam, to make a choice as to whether to experience pain, temptation, and death. He would not inflict those kinds of punishments/consequences (which bring growth, but painful growth) if there had been no forbidding edict–“thou shalt not eat of it:” (Genesis 2:17), because those consequences include pain and suffering and trouble and eventual death, and God being perfect would not inflict such consequences without their having been chosen.

Continued…

 

[ParkerD]

Continued…

…
I have to say that while we may disagree, I certainly enjoy the discussion. … Bottom line is that I respect you and thank you for your perseverance and patience.

God bless you, Parker.

SteveVH,

Thanks, and I also respect you and your perseverance and patience. God bless you and your family, also.

 

[catholic-rcia]

Perhaps you would want to describe the many choices Adam and Eve had before they partook of the forbidden fruit. What “good” choices were they making during their lives in the garden of Eden? (Real choices, meaning there was an either/or situation at least.) .

Why would they even think about choices when they were living n Gods perfect will? They were not yet tempetd. Gods Love and Widom flowed naturally through them.

Jesus made no choices on His own, He naturally let the Father make them all for Him. Here is the point in which you need to look to Jesus Parker. It was his very breath given to Adam and Eve that brought them to life. They were both like Him but you have to remember they were created from Him and given His spirit of eternal life and love, listening and living in the Fathers grace, doing everything the Father asked them to do, they were perfect in this as Jesus was perfect in it. Perfect humans in a perfect world, perfect love. They could not die in this perfect state.

Then the one who is jealous of Jesus, an angel created good by God through Jesus and for Jesus comes in the form of a serpent to take them away from Jesus. He comes appearing to be good and wise, all knowing. “A good angel gone bad!”

Ok, that sounds like a title for a country song…sorry

Because they are created beings with free will and tempted they choose to leave God behind just like all the other stories of Gods Creatures leaving Him throughout the Gospels. (me included) It’s what we go through because we are not God. Because God did not make us His puppets. Sin is the desire to become a god, to have wisdom of right and wrong on our own, to be a judging god. We can not attain this on our own and live. We have to surrender to Jesus, connect to Him like a branch on a mighty tree in the middle of a garden. Less we fall off and die. We all do die.

He wants us to come to Him on our own. He does not force us to love Him.
The baby you mentioned, the one that you looked into the eyes. Will this baby die someday? The answer of course is yes, this is the result of the original sin in which we all inherited. Only Jesus can bring us back to life eternal. Nothing we do that is good will get this done, it’s a fruitless effort of pride and ego known or unknown. No ladder to heaven, no progression, just a hand to grasp, a cross to be carried. We are the cross upon His back.

The plan is not for us to someday become a God. It is to return to God by surrendering our sinful lives over to Jesus, to let God be God in us forever. But you have to know you have a cancer in order for the doctor to heal you.

I know these things are true (that sounds frightening famiiar, but I will continue)

because truth is truth and I am a baptized Catholic with the Holy Spirit dwelling in me and I am fresh out of confession. But most of all it is what the church has always taught and it all makes perfect sense. After 12 years of watching people here in Utah come to Jesus, they all come to this same revelation. But it really starts to unfold after their baptisms. After they start to receive Holy Communion, that which keeps the branches attached to the tree of life. Jesus Himself given to us to feed on. For me and a billion others it all comes down to having a Christian sense of the Holy Trinity. Its everywhere laced throughout the scriptures.

“Where the fallen branch is once again grafted upon the tree of life, the tree of wisdom and knowledge. Gods Grace”

God is love, I am not Love
God is Wisdom itself, I am not wise
God is God. I am not God

God gifts himself to us freely
We are gifted His Love, His wisdom, His Son

 

[SteveVH]

. He comes appearing to be good and wise, all knowing. “A good angel gone bad!” Ok, that sounds like a title for a country song…sorry

Rich, I’m a musician. Can I use this?

 

[SteveVH]

Originally Posted by SteveVH
Rather than beating around the bush here, let me ask you straight out. Do you believe that God desired Adam and Eve to eat of the fruit? If so, then why did He forbid them to do just that?

Continuation of reply to SteveVH:
Once again, I will repeat–God desired that Adam and Eve make their own choice, but also knew Eve’s personality and demeanor, and gave them a choice that they could make. He had a plan that included allowing for Eve’s demeanor and personality and having a great and wonderful outcome from her making a choice that she was allowed to make and was allowed to be influenced in making by the fact that the serpent was allowed to tempt her.

He knew what she was going to do, before she did it. He really is all-knowing. He gave the edict that the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil was forbidden, because He is completely Good and completely wise and wanted to allow humankind, including Eve and Adam, to make a choice as to whether to experience pain, temptation, and death. He would not inflict those kinds of punishments/consequences (which bring growth, but painful growth) if there had been no forbidding edict–“thou shalt not eat of it:” (Genesis 2:17), because those consequences include pain and suffering and trouble and eventual death, and God being perfect would not inflict such consequences without their having been chosen.

You have used a lot of words to answer this question, Parker. With all due respect, and I mean that sincerely, this is a non-answer.

This is very simple and I think it can be boiled down to a yes or no answer. Did God will that they eat of the fruit? Yes or no?

You seem to have answered yes but I think even you have a problem saying this outright because it places you in the position of stating that God desired Adam and Eve to disobey Him.

Eve’s personality or demeanor has nothing to do with this. The serpent tempted them to eat of the fruit when God clearly forbade them to do so. You seem to be agreeing with the serpent that eating of the fruit of the tree was a good thing, a necessary thing. To take this further, as I have stated before, there is no getting around the fact that if eating of the fruit is necessary, as you say it is, and this was God’s plan, His will, then He was complicit in their sinning.

 

[ParkerD]

You have used a lot of words to answer this question, Parker. With all due respect, and I mean that sincerely, this is a non-answer.

This is very simple and I think it can be boiled down to a yes or no answer. Did God will that they eat of the fruit? Yes or no?

You seem to have answered yes but I think even you have a problem saying this outright because it places you in the position of stating that God desired Adam and Eve to disobey Him.

Eve’s personality or demeanor has nothing to do with this. The serpent tempted them to eat of the fruit when God clearly forbade them to do so. You seem to be agreeing with the serpent that eating of the fruit of the tree was a good thing, a necessary thing. To take this further, as I have stated before, there is no getting around the fact that if eating of the fruit is necessary, as you say it is, and this was God’s plan, His will, then He was complicit in their sinning.

SteveVH,

I don’t know how to say another way that will communicate more effectively, that God had a plan of salvation which He saw was good, and we all saw was good when it was presented to us in a “plan”, but which included a choice that was going to be ours to make, including Adam and Eve.

His will is and was that there be such a choice. For that particular choice, He didn’t cloud the choice by having “His will” involved other than Adam and Eve knowing that by partaking of the forbidden fruit, they would be breaking one commandment from Him and there would be an impending death and an impending situation involving “knowledge of good and evil”. It was a complex situation involving a complex kind of choice, not the simple kind of choice you have made it out to be.

Eating of the fruit was only necessary if they desired “knowledge of good and evil”–not if they didn’t desire such knowledge. They really did get to choose for themselves, and as we know the serpent wanted to influence the decision making, and did in the case of Eve.

There was not a “superior plan of salvation” that would have occurred if they hadn’t partaken of the forbidden fruit. They would be there still in the garden of Eden.

There wasn’t a plan A and a plan B. The plan centered in Jesus Christ as the Redeeming Savior and the Good Shepherd, the Master Example and the Master Teacher. He is at the very center of the plan of salvation, and it is God’s will that we recognize this and rejoice as He shepherd’s us across the “valley of the shadow of death”, and as He promises us a wonderful resurrection through His redeeming grace and power.

 

[Peter_John]

SteveVH,

I don’t know how to say another way that will communicate more effectively, that God had a plan of salvation which He saw was good, and we all saw was good when it was presented to us in a “plan”, but which included a choice that was going to be ours to make, including Adam and Eve.

His will is and was that there be such a choice. For that particular choice, He didn’t cloud the choice by having “His will” involved other than Adam and Eve knowing that by partaking of the forbidden fruit, they would be breaking one commandment from Him and there would be an impending death and an impending situation involving “knowledge of good and evil”. It was a complex situation involving a complex kind of choice, not the simple kind of choice you have made it out to be.

Eating of the fruit was only necessary if they desired “knowledge of good and evil”–not if they didn’t desire such knowledge. They really did get to choose for themselves, and as we know the serpent wanted to influence the decision making, and did in the case of Eve.

There was not a “superior plan of salvation” that would have occurred if they hadn’t partaken of the forbidden fruit. They would be there still in the garden of Eden.

There wasn’t a plan A and a plan B. The plan centered in Jesus Christ as the Redeeming Savior and the Good Shepherd, the Master Example and the Master Teacher. He is at the very center of the plan of salvation, and it is God’s will that we recognize this and rejoice as He shepherd’s us across the “valley of the shadow of death”, and as He promises us a wonderful resurrection through His redeeming grace and power.

His will is free agency in everything, but that does not eliminate that in choices of right and wrong there is a choice he preferes we would make. Your own Doctrine and Covenants affirms “men do not always do my will.” Was God’s will in the choice before Adam and Eve that they eat of the fruit, or that they not eat of the fruit?

 

[ParkerD]

His will is free agency in everything, but that does not eliminate that in choices of right and wrong there is a choice he preferes we would make. Your own Doctrine and Covenants affirms “men do not always do my will.” Was God’s will in the choice before Adam and Eve that they eat of the fruit, or that they not eat of the fruit?

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.

 

[SteveVH]

SteveVH,

I don’t know how to say another way that will communicate more effectively, that God had a plan of salvation which He saw was good, and we all saw was good when it was presented to us in a “plan”, but which included a choice that was going to be ours to make, including Adam and Eve.

His will is and was that there be such a choice. For that particular choice, He didn’t cloud the choice by having “His will” involved other than Adam and Eve knowing that by partaking of the forbidden fruit, they would be breaking one commandment from Him and there would be an impending death and an impending situation involving “knowledge of good and evil”. It was a complex situation involving a complex kind of choice, not the simple kind of choice you have made it out to be.

Eating of the fruit was only necessary if they desired “knowledge of good and evil”–not if they didn’t desire such knowledge. They really did get to choose for themselves, and as we know the serpent wanted to influence the decision making, and did in the case of Eve.

There was not a “superior plan of salvation” that would have occurred if they hadn’t partaken of the forbidden fruit. They would be there still in the garden of Eden.

There wasn’t a plan A and a plan B. The plan centered in Jesus Christ as the Redeeming Savior and the Good Shepherd, the Master Example and the Master Teacher. He is at the very center of the plan of salvation, and it is God’s will that we recognize this and rejoice as He shepherd’s us across the “valley of the shadow of death”, and as He promises us a wonderful resurrection through His redeeming grace and power.

Ok, Parker. I really don’t know where to go from here at the moment. All I can say is that it seems that the fact that Adam and Eve blatantly disobeyed God is a very small matter to you. What is important is that they experience the “knowledge of good and evil”. The means by which they would acquire this knowledge, it appears, is unimportant. It was God’s plan after all.

You say that there “was not a “superior plan of salvation” that would have occurred if they hadn’t partaken of the forbidden fruit.”. Are you saying that this was not an option? What happened to “free will choice”? In fact, your scenario that Adam had no choice but to eat of the fruit in order to keep the command that he stay with Eve and be fruitful and multiply also seems an obstacle to “free will choice”. Adam didn’t have a choice. He could disobey God or disobey God. I truly do not understand this position.

 

[SteveVH]

SteveVH,

The conclusion I draw from Peter John’s comment along with your comments is that there is confusion among Catholics about whether there was an original plan of salvation that included the need for a Savior, the promised Messiah and Redeemer. Peter John seems to be expressing that there was such an original plan, but I didn’t see that in your comments.

I can see why there would be that kind of confusion based on the approach to the topic of Adam and Eve and “original sin” and “love of God” and “pride” and the glossing over of the actual Bible text and replacing it with the original sin doctrine and making that doctrine into a need for infant baptism.

I still would be interested in why you think it wouldn’t have made more sense given your beliefs in God’s omnipotence and free will choice plus personal consequences for sin, that you would have more appropriately and equitably been created or conceived into a garden of Eden world and be given the same choice that Adam and Eve were given.

 

[SteveVH]

SteveVH,
The conclusion I draw from Peter John’s comment along with your comments is that there is confusion among Catholics about whether there was an original plan of salvation that included the need for a Savior, the promised Messiah and Redeemer. Peter John seems to be expressing that there was such an original plan, but I didn’t see that in your comments.

No, Parker, there is no confusion. God, being omnipotent and omniscient, perfect in all that He does, has a plan and His plan is perfect. That plan includes the creation of beings with free will which means that they can and have gone astray. God created us for no other reason than love. He does not “need” us in the slightest. Our lives are a free gift of a loving God. His indescribable love for his creatures is demonstrated in that His plan, looking through an omniscient lens, included saving us from the sins, which He abhors, so that we might live in inconceivable happiness as His adopted sons and daughters.

His will, for Adam and Eve, and for us all, is that we avoid sin, turn to Him, and live in obedience and fidelity. God did not plan evil. He planned to overcome evil. He does not desire us to disobey Him so that we may acquire knowledge. He has written His laws on our hearts. We are born with this knowledge of good and evil. It is not our knowledge of good and evil that will save us. It is our faith in and fidelity to our Savior that saves us.

I can see why there would be that kind of confusion based on the approach to the topic of Adam and Eve and “original sin” and “love of God” and “pride” and the glossing over of the actual Bible text and replacing it with the original sin doctrine and making that doctrine into a need for infant baptism.

Since there is no confusion I suppose that leaves the rest of your remarks moot.

I still would be interested in why you think it wouldn’t have made more sense given your beliefs in God’s omnipotence and free will choice plus personal consequences for sin, that you would have more appropriately and equitably been created or conceived into a garden of Eden world and be given the same choice that Adam and Eve were given.

Parker, please stop painting my position with this far-fetched and nonsensical fantasy. Why in the world would I second guess an all-knowing, all-powerful, perfect, loving God who gave His life for me? God’s plan is perfect. It is man’s plan that needs some work.

 

[ParkerD]

… In fact, your scenario that Adam had no choice but to eat of the fruit in order to keep the command that he stay with Eve and be fruitful and multiply also seems an obstacle to “free will choice”. Adam didn’t have a choice. He could disobey God or disobey God. I truly do not understand this position.

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.

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.

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.

 

[catholic-rcia]

Rich, I’m a musician. Can I use this?

You bet,
A good angel gone bad. That does open a lot of possibilities for a song. Let e know

 

[catholic-rcia]

SteveVH,

Adam did indeed have a choice, which was complex.

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

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.