Eve

[fatima]

29 minutes ago, Vort said:

To be clear: I am not an administrator, and my objections are not specific to the mention of other faiths. Rather, I object to criticism of the Church and its doctrines and practices, and attempts to establish other beliefs in their stead. This forum is not the appropriate place. Again, I'm no admin, but I bet they agree with me in this. If not, I invite correction.

I didn't intend to cross a line, but I would rather err on the side of caution.

[SpiritDragon]

39 minutes ago, fatima said:

I think you are looking for a contradiction where there is none.  God is not bound by time, but we are, and therefore the topic of when in time we were created is perfectly logical.  As to your inquiries about Catholic teaching, I have been notified by @Vort that the LDS Gospel discussion forum is not the place to discuss my church's teachings on any topic,  and I might find myself in somewhat tentative agreement with him.  My previous posts were not meant to be a challenge to LDS teaching, but just as a way of expressing how difficult it is to understand LDS theology.

 

I can assure you that I was not/am not looking for contradiction, but do see one from my perspective. Rather than assume you are inconsistent in your view on the matter, I pointed out the inconsistency as I see it in the hope you could explain your position better or become aware of an inconsistent thought pattern. Perhaps you can explain it to me in more detail, because I, honestly, don't follow. On the one hand it appears that you have discounted @person0's well thought out discussion of God having foreknowledge that Adam and Eve would partake of the fruit and then you go on to claim that all things are present before Him, so He already knew they would partake because he is not bound by time, which seems to imply that to God it makes no difference that they had eaten the fruit yet or not, because they would and therefore did already unto God. The you assert that at creation there was no sin, and no sin is good. But this doesn't appear to take into account the same concept that God already knew that sin would enter into the equation and therefore was already present because God is omni present. How is it that these two scenarios are not changing the application of the principle of God not being bound by time?

As far as expressing difficulty with understanding LDS theology, I can agree with you there to an extent. For that matter, my very first post in this forum years ago was asking very much the same question you are now asking regarding what appear to be contradictions in the teachings surrounding the Fall. Why would God command man to multiply and replenish the earth, but not to partake of the fruit of the tree, when keeping either one of these commands meant the other could not be kept. 

[fatima]

Perhaps there is difficulty understanding because the way LDS view God and the way Catholic Christians (and perhaps other branches of traditional Christianity) view God not as a man who has been exalted, but as a being entirely separate and unique.  Beyond our comprehension and not a being that was once like us (although He became like us in all things but sin), and not a being like unto which we will one day become.  He does not deal in 'what ifs' or hypotheticals.  

He is Creator and we are creatures.  He IS, He WAS and He always WILL BE.  The great I AM.  

God knowing what a person will do is not because He 'sees the future' in a linear fashion, as though it has not happened yet.  He knows what we will choose because there is something to know, which is only possible to know because we were created, not contingent on when we were created.  If we hadn't been created there would be nothing that had happened for Him to know.

When a man and a woman get married, they do not (as a rule) decide not to have children because of what that child might do.  We love our spouses and that love is brought forth in new life. That same great love, even more,  is why God created us.  I might be able to assume one of my children might commit one sin or another over the course of their lives, but I don't know which sin they will commit until it' has happened.  And how do I know it happened?  Because it has happened.  For God, iit is all present before Him at all times.  He doesn't know what didn't happen because there is nothing to know.  I can't know my daughter will steal a car if she never does it.  God doesn't know what didn't happen because it didn't happen.

 

I had a whole bunch of other paragraphs, which I have now deleted because there is no way I am making this clear.  I don't have the language skills.

 

 

 

 

[SpiritDragon]

23 minutes ago, fatima said:

I had a whole bunch of other paragraphs, which I have now deleted because there is no way I am making this clear.  I don't have the language skills.

I can appreciate that. Thanks for trying anyway.

[Jane_Doe]

Wow, this thread's taken off today!  

I'm just going to hit on a few disjointed points, trying to bridge the Catholic-LDS language gap.  Points are in no particular order.

1) LDS don't talk about God's "nature".   We talk about God's love, His grace, His mercy, etc.  But we don't use the concept or word "nature".  I find that confuses a lot of LDS to non-LDS conversations.  

2) LDS stress that we are *children* of God.  God is loving and approachable, and wants us to talk to Him.  Now obviously we don't understand lots about Him, just like a baby understands so little about their parents.  But still, He is loving and approachable.  We LDS don't view things as "uncreated" vs "created", rather Perfect God vs unperfect us (which is being worked on).  Even as we sin and struggle to emulate Him, we are ever encouraged to draw closer unto Him.  

3) It is correct that LDS don't believe in different species of intelligent life, just us humans.  You, me, angels, God, etc are all one species.  This is a super simple thing, but I feel that it's impactful.  I've seen non-LDS people look at LDS beliefs and say something to the gist of "you LDS believe God is *just* human... that's kind of a let down....".  To which LDS person replies "He's God!  Perfectly loving, perfectly righteous, perfectly just, all powerful, all knowing etc.  He's magnificent!!!  What more do you want?".   Aka LDS really focus on the qualities of God, and the "nature" talk kind of falls flat.  Flipping this around: when I studied Catholic doctrine as an LDS person, I got utterly uttterly confused by all the "nature" discussions and felt like I was getting the run around (not because anyone was actually running me around, but it's how I felt).  So the confusion does work very actively both ways.

4) LDS also don't do the "God is outside of time" line of reasoning.  It's just not part of our discourse.  All in all I find LDS theology on God to be much simpler than Catholic, but that could be my bias speaking.

5) As you can see in this thread, there is variety in LDS beliefs on somethings.  It's part of the whole "we believe God has many great and wonderful things yet to be revealed" thing.  

I think there was more to right, but can't think of it right now...

 

[JohnsonJones]

22 hours ago, fatima said:

Choosing to do God's Will is only possible if we have a choice to make, which is why the tree was there in the first place.  Once again, love is only love if it is freely given, and A&E did not give God and His law first place in their lives.  For me, the idea that God willed the sin/transgression is impossible to wrap my head around.  Not a single good parent would want their child to disobey even the smallest command.  I mean, what's the point in giving a command at all unless you want and expect it to be followed?

I've read through the responses (although as I write this I don't know which response belonged to whom), but I have always found it fascinating that the 'fall', however you define it, did not happen until after Adam participated.  It is my belief that the supernatural union of man and wife,  that the two shall become one, and that the man is the head, is evident here.  If Adam had either defended Eve from the serpent, or otherwise guided her to the good, perhaps she would not have eaten of the fruit at all.  Or, even if she did, perhaps the fall would not have happened if the head of the family had not participated.  

In Catholic theology, Eve got the ball rolling, but Adam effected it.  So, too, our salvation: the Blessed Mother got the ball rolling, but she did not save us, Jesus effected that salvation.  Mary, knowing an unwed woman could be stoned to death, trusted God and said 'yes' to His Will, same as Abraham.  He was ready to obey God's command to kill Issac, but God stepped in at the end and stopped him.  Abraham trusted God and trusted that He knew best.  If A&E had done the same, I believe that God would have come to them and raised them up to the fullness of what He intended in the first place .  I'm not LDS, but if I were, that would mean exaltation.

This is a good point.

So, would you buy a vicious pit bull that would kill your children and put it in a bedroom of your house, and the only precaution you give your children is to not open the door to that room?

Or, would you purposefully put a really deep hole in the floor of your house which if your children fall into they will die when they fall into it, with no barriers except you telling your children, don't go into the hole?

In that light, and with your thoughts above, why then would the Lord create the Tree of Good and Evil in the garden?

AS you state, no single good parent would want their child to disobey even the smallest command.  I think that would be true, I do not know what would have occurred if Adam and Eve had not fallen to the temptation of the adversary.  We do not know, we only know what happened because they did.  It is very possible, that as a good parent, the Lord did NOT want them to disobey him, but provided a way to save them from their sins if they did disobey.  I would say that also falls in a Catholic perspective, where the Lord, even when he is disobeyed, being Omniscient, cannot be thwarted by the adversary.

However, in that same light, what single good parent puts something so deadly that it will kill their child the day they encounter it in an easily accessible place?  If we ask the one about the disobedience, by default, looking at our understanding of "good" parents probably warrants the other automatically, as a deadly item in the household purposefully placed by a parent far exceeds that of one asking about disobedience.

It perhaps was part of a plan all along in some way or fashion.  Even if one accepts that Adam and Eve could have remained obedient, the Tree had to play some sort of part in the Lords plan, either after the point of temptation, or something along the line, or we see the Lord as purposefully putting a deadly and poisoness thing in the reach of innocent children that did not know any better.

You don't put a dangerous pitbull or any other imminent dangerous thing that could kill them in the same house as a toddler...because even if you tell the toddler not to do something, in their limited understanding, eventually they will do something you've told them not to.  It's not really their fault (I'm not one that says you can blame a toddler for anything, you AS THE PARENT should be the responsible one). 

Now, perhaps there is a plan that involved the tree, as I think we could agree the Lord does NOT do anything without a good reason for it.  However, the question then, seeing how deadly it was to the immortality of Adam and Eve, is what that plan was...OR we could just view the Lord as arbitrarily putting something deadly and dangerous that could kill them right in front of them (I don't believe in the Lord being arbitrary, so I don't buy it, but it would appear that would be a possibility if one doesn't believe it was there for a reason).

So the real question shouldn't be about disobedience if one views that the Fall of Adam and Eve through temptation wasn't necessary, but WHY there was even a Tree like that in the Garden in the first place.

Edited September 11, 2017 by JohnsonJones

[fatima]

5 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

This is a good point.

So, would you buy a vicious pit bull that would kill your children and put it in a bedroom of your house, and the only precaution you give your children is to not open the door to that room?

Or, would you purposefully put a really deep hole in the floor of your house which if your children fall into they will die when they fall into it, with no barriers except you telling your children, don't go into the hole?

In that light, and with your thoughts above, why then would the Lord create the Tree of Good and Evil in the garden?

AS you state, no single good parent would want their child to disobey even the smallest command.  I think that would be true, I do not know what would have occurred if Adam and Eve had not fallen to the temptation of the adversary.  We do not know, we only know what happened because they did.  It is very possible, that as a good parent, the Lord did NOT want them to disobey him, but provided a way to save them from their sins if they did disobey.  I would say that also falls in a Catholic perspective, where the Lord, even when he is disobeyed, being Omniscient, cannot be thwarted by the adversary.

However, in that same light, what single good parent puts something so deadly that it will kill their child the day they encounter it in an easily accessible place?  If we ask the one about the disobedience, by default, looking at our understanding of "good" parents probably warrants the other automatically, as a deadly item in the household purposefully placed by a parent far exceeds that of one asking about disobedience.

It perhaps was part of a plan all along in some way or fashion.  Even if one accepts that Adam and Eve could have remained obedient, the Tree had to play some sort of part in the Lords plan, either after the point of temptation, or something along the line, or we see the Lord as purposefully putting a deadly and poisoness thing in the reach of innocent children that did not know any better.

You don't put a dangerous pitbull or any other imminent dangerous thing that could kill them in the same house as a toddler...because even if you tell the toddler not to do something, in their limited understanding, eventually they will do something you've told them not to.  It's not really their fault (I'm not one that says you can blame a toddler for anything, you AS THE PARENT should be the responsible one). 

Now, perhaps there is a plan that involved the tree, as I think we could agree the Lord does NOT do anything without a good reason for it.  However, the question then, seeing how deadly it was to the immortality of Adam and Eve, is what that plan was...OR we could just view the Lord as arbitrarily putting something deadly and dangerous that could kill them right in front of them (I don't believe in the Lord being arbitrary, so I don't buy it, but it would appear that would be a possibility if one doesn't believe it was there for a reason).

So the real question shouldn't be about disobedience if one views that the Fall of Adam and Eve through temptation wasn't necessary, but WHY there was even a Tree like that in the Garden in the first place.

I don't think there is a parallel between two rational, adult people and  infants/ toddlers.   A&E were in the presence of God and they had abundant knowledge before they made their choice.  So, why place the tree there?  So that A&E would have a chance to express that love in return to Almighty God by their obedience.

Whether one is of LDS theology or Catholic/traditional Christian theology, I think we can agree that God set His Son down right in the middle of certain death, death on a Cross, in order to return that love to God in Perfect Obedience, including all of the suffering that it entailed.  And what happened?  Jesus Christ died, BUT that was not the end of the story, was it?  He rose again and lives in glory!  It is my opinion that A&E would also have enjoyed that glorious resurrection had they obey God unto death.

[Jane_Doe]

9 minutes ago, fatima said:

Whether one is of LDS theology or Catholic/traditional Christian theology, I think we can agree that God set His Son down right in the middle of certain death, death on a Cross, in order to return that love to God in Perfect Obedience, including all of the suffering that it entailed.  And what happened?  Jesus Christ died, BUT that was not the end of the story, was it?  He rose again and lives in glory! 

100% agreed on that part.

9 minutes ago, fatima said:

 It is my opinion that A&E would also have enjoyed that glorious resurrection had they obey God unto death.

Disagreement here.  For starters, there would have been no death for A&E, or Christ, or great sacrifice.  Without the Fall there is no death, no resurrection, no Christ's sacrifice, no redemption, no need for any salvation, etc.

Edited September 11, 2017 by Jane_Doe

[person0]

9 minutes ago, fatima said:

It is my opinion that A&E would also have enjoyed that glorious resurrection had they obey God unto death.

You believe Adam and Eve won't be resurrected?  Or just that they wont be resurrected in glory?

Perhaps I am misunderstanding what you wrote, but if I read between the lines, it seems you believe that Adam and Eve will be going to hell.  Is this correct?  If so, what evidence is there to suggest this?  Is there anything scripture that would suggest they did not or could not repent after their fall?  Why would they bother to raise any of their children (i.e. Abel) in righteousness if they were not going to make it back?

[laronius]

This is an interesting discussion. I'll add my 2 cents.

In response to the idea of whether there was a plan A and B, I submit that there was only ever one plan as presented by the Father in the premortal council. It could be argued that Satan put forth a plan B but it frankly wasn't much of a plan. The need for a Savior was identified as a critical part of God's plan and so it is reasonable to assume that the fall was also an intended part of the plan. And as we consider the fall in light of the big picture it becomes more clear as to why the fall was intended from the beginning. The fall obviously resulted in many consequences, some negative, some positive.

Negative Consequences include: Death – non glorified body, Injury, sickness, and disease, Thistles, briars, and weeds, Earth not produce in its fullness, Enmity between man and beasts, Satan's temptations, and Separation from God.

Positive Consequences include: Death – glorified body (after Resurrection), Gain mortal bodies to learn with, Able to bear and rear children, Able to gain and learn from experiences, Know good from evil, Become more holy than before, and the possibility of returning to live in God's presence.

But when the Millennium comes, when the earth is returned to it's Edenic state, notice that ALL of the negative consequences of the fall are done away with while ALL of the positive consequences remain. So why the difference between the first Eden and the last? The last Eden can only be enjoyed by those who are holy enough to experience such a state and as Adam and Eve quickly found out, many of their children could not inhabit such a place. A fallen world needed to exist so ALL of God's children could come to earth and experience an earthly life. For those who are righteous, or seek to become so, living in a fallen world merely hastens their progression.

[Traveler]

On ‎9‎/‎8‎/‎2017 at 0:01 PM, fatima said:

I am wondering if someone can give me some insight on the LDS teaching on Eve.  I just read Jewel's post about an image at the SLC temple, and I am surprised at all the praise heaped upon her, and I assume that Adam shares in those praises.  

And if Eve is worthy of some sort of praise (although I cannot imagine why), does Mary, the Mother of Jesus Christ, also receive some sort of...added appreciation for her role in salvation history?

 

There are two great problems in resolving LDS teaching with traditional Religious ideology.   The first and most important is that according to LDS teachings the essence of each individual did not begin with their birth.   We lived with our “Father” for eons before we were born.  We refer to this life before birth as the pre-existence.    There in heaven before we were born; we were glorified children of our divine Father.  When we come to earth, we are stripped of our previous glory and become corrupt fallen beings without memory of what we once were. 

As mortals, our limited knowledge and understanding of G-d comes only through Jesus Christ.  Jesus, being the example of G-d is all that we can know of our Father in this life.  Those that have a problem with G-d being like man do so directly offending and rejecting Jesus Christ and his divine mission to save us.  Jesus proves that G-d was once a man indistinguishable from any other as any of us from any other person.  Jesus is the living proof that G-d was once a man that just like us, a man that can suffer because of sin even unto death.  Those that demand that G-d could not have ever been a man offend and reject the very mission and tender love and sacrifice of Jesus that gave up his glory in his pre-existence to redeem us.  It is this fundamental doctrine that was lost from Traditional Christianity in the Great Apostasy following the death of the Apostles and the end of revelation we call “The Bible”.

The second great problem is that many take the teachings and revelations of G-d to be literally defined only by literal knowledge of our fallen mortal state.   Whereas the things of G-d were never given to be understood literally by our fallen human thoughts and understanding.  G-d’s thoughts are not our thoughts and can only be understood by the spirit of G-d enlightening our understanding.  In other words, the scriptures were never intended to be understood literally through our empirical conjuring’s, only by the spirit of G-d within us.  This is the meaning of eyes that see and ears that hear.

The Book of Genesis is written in ancient Hebrew poetic format that demands symbolism and allegory.   But despite all witness and evidence of symbolism – Traditional Christians refuse to learn from the spirit and hold to their literal meanings.  The Eden epoch and tale of Adam and Eve is hidden from the world of literal thinking that refuse to submit to the symbolism understood only through the spirit.  To demonstrate this symbolism let us consider the two trees of Eden and other associated symbolism.   The first is the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.  The world is confused and thinks this is literal – even Apple computer uses this symbol in ignorance.   This tree symbolizes the only means to know good from evil – which is lost to Traditional Christians that do not know what the difference between good and evil is and why this knowledge could only come through partaking of the symbolic fruit of this tree.  Really? – this is the only means to know good from evil.  Something is missing.

But there is also great symbolism in a tree called “The Tree of Life”; including the path or way to this tree which is “kept” by Cherubim that have a flaming sword to insure no one unexcepted of G-d ever reaches the Tree of Life.  This may seem all well and good to literal thinkers – but where is the Cherubim and the flaming sword keeping any way to anything?  Where in all scripture is there even a single epoch of anyone (good or bad) encountering the Cherubim and the sword and fire that they may “partake” of life (life eternal)? 

Because Traditional Christian so dislike divine truth – they will not hear the truth but rather something in the name of their thinking only as a literal (unspiritual and ung-dly) man.  We can learn much about womanhood in the role of Eve in the Eden epoch but we will be cleverly tempted to misinterpret such things by the fallen literal thinking of mortal, worldly man.

 

The Traveler

Edited September 11, 2017 by Traveler

[anatess2]

On 9/9/2017 at 11:36 AM, Just_A_Guy said:

I love your comments!  Here are a couple of responsive thoughts regarding my counterfactual  hypothetical (which, I agree to be highly speculative):

1)  The act of partaking the fruit, under this hypothetical, would not have been sinful/disobedient per se.  But it would still have created a change in Adam and Eve's spiritual natures--a loss of innocence and a spiritual capacity for sin--that would have separated them from the Father; because that's the nature of the fruit itself.  The problem wasn't that they violated God's prohibition against taking the fruit of just any old tree--if they were truly "innocent", then disobedience itself *couldn't* constitute sin.  The defining feature of the Fall was less about the act of disobedience, and more about the peculiar qualities of the specific fruit Adam and Eve ate.

Forgive me for butting in.  I'm confused by this.  The only way we can be separated from the Father is if we sinned, right?  I mean, isn't that why the sinless Christ being separated from God was such a great injustice as to have qualified him to save all of us from ours?  So, if God would have said - go ahead, eat of that fruit - then that won't be a sin anymore, right?  So it couldn't cause a separation from God?

[Vort]

18 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Forgive me for butting in.  I'm confused by this.  The only way we can be separated from the Father is if we sinned, right?  I mean, isn't that why the sinless Christ being separated from God was such a great injustice as to have qualified him to save all of us from ours?  So, if God would have said - go ahead, eat of that fruit - then that won't be a sin anymore, right?  So it couldn't cause a separation from God?

The point is that no flesh (meaning mortal flesh) can dwell in God's presence. That can happen only by divine intervention. So if Adam and Eve had partaken of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil -- in any way, by any convention, for any reason, even at God's command -- they would by their physical nature become fallen and excluded from God's presence. That is the condition of spiritual death, a condition we associate with sin; but as others have mentioned, Jesus himself suffered such a spiritual death, though sinless. So IMO, it is reasonable to posit Adam and Eve falling from Eden into a mortal condition even while remaining sinless by partaking of the fruit at the command of God.

[anatess2]

18 minutes ago, Vort said:

The point is that no flesh (meaning mortal flesh) can dwell in God's presence. That can happen only by divine intervention. So if Adam and Eve had partaken of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil -- in any way, by any convention, for any reason, even at God's command -- they would by their physical nature become fallen and excluded from God's presence. That is the condition of spiritual death, a condition we associate with sin; but as others have mentioned, Jesus himself suffered such a spiritual death, though sinless. So IMO, it is reasonable to posit Adam and Eve falling from Eden into a mortal condition even while remaining sinless by partaking of the fruit at the command of God.

Ok, I understand this.  Not to be nitpicky... but my understanding is that Jesus was not separated from God (spiritual death) until he was on the cross and he cried out "Why have you abandoned me?".  So, he wasn't separated from God because of his morality - as was indicated by the transfiguration from mortality to meet God and then back to mortality - which Adam and Eve, being sinless, would have qualified for.  So, a spiritual death is not possible if Adam and Eve partook of the fruit (became mortal) and remained sinless.  So, if this was the case, then the implication is that spiritual death is not necessary for us to become Gods?  I think spiritual death IS necessary.  But I don't know why I think that other than - it's what Adam and Eve had to go through.

Edited September 12, 2017 by anatess2

[Traveler]

1 hour ago, Vort said:

The point is that no flesh (meaning mortal flesh) can dwell in God's presence. That can happen only by divine intervention. So if Adam and Eve had partaken of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil -- in any way, by any convention, for any reason, even at God's command -- they would by their physical nature become fallen and excluded from God's presence. That is the condition of spiritual death, a condition we associate with sin; but as others have mentioned, Jesus himself suffered such a spiritual death, though sinless. So IMO, it is reasonable to posit Adam and Eve falling from Eden into a mortal condition even while remaining sinless by partaking of the fruit at the command of God.

 

I have considered the possibility that the fall is more than many realize.  If we consider symbolism and various scripture – I believe it is possible that Adam represents all of mankind in the Eden epoch of the fall.  In short all of G-d’s spirit children were separated from that kingdom of heaven over which the Father resides and have resided since the fall in a kingdom over which Jesus resides and to which Satan has access.  (See Job).  This solves many problems and possible conflicts.

 

The Traveler

[Just_A_Guy]

2 hours ago, anatess2 said:

Ok, I understand this.  Not to be nitpicky... but my understanding is that Jesus was not separated from God (spiritual death) until he was on the cross and he cried out "Why have you abandoned me?".  So, he wasn't separated from God because of his morality - as was indicated by the transfiguration from mortality to meet God and then back to mortality - which Adam and Eve, being sinless, would have qualified for.  So, a spiritual death is not possible if Adam and Eve partook of the fruit (became mortal) and remained sinless.  So, if this was the case, then the implication is that spiritual death is not necessary for us to become Gods?  I think spiritual death IS necessary.  But I don't know why I think that other than - it's what Adam and Eve had to go through.

Relying to your two posts, and @Vort's as well:  Speaking for myself:  I don't think that the fruit per se made Adam and Eve spiritually "impure" or "fallen".  It just removed their innocence and somehow changed their cognitive faculties, such that acts that formerly wouldn't have been deemed "sins", somehow now were.

The Fall, to my mind, did not technically constitute spiritual death.  But it made spiritual death inevitable for any of Adam's and Eve's progeny who lacked the capacity to avoid all sinful acts all the time--in short, it ensured spiritual death for anyone who was not half-God.  (I don't know that I would go so far as to say that Jesus was subject to spiritual death.  He certainly chose to experience something like unto it, as part of the atonement; but I rather think that for Him it was a voluntary act rather than an unavoidable legacy.  A major point of His condescension, to me, is that He was willing to do stuff He shouldn't have had to do.)

I don't think God would have gone so far as to say "You *must* now partake of this fruit", because again--His having done so would ultimately make Him accountable for the loss of that prior state of innocence; and would undermine Adam's and Eve's own agency in the matter.  But even if He had ordered them to take the fruit--sin still would have come into the world the first time Adam or Eve committed an act in violation of the Light of Christ that was now working within them.

Speaking more to Vort's point:  The garden also contained the tree of life, whose fruit could reverse the effects of the physical Fall (to wit:  mortality).  But we know that God took active measures to keep Adam and Eve away from that tree; because once begun, the spiritual effects of the Fall had to run their course.  Mortality was an integral part of that process.

Edited September 12, 2017 by Just_A_Guy

[Vort]

18 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Speaking for myself:  I don't think that the fruit per se made Adam and Eve spiritually "impure" or "fallen".

To be clear, my point was that the fruit somehow conferred mortality on Adam and Eve, and the condition of mortality is incompatible with living in the presence of the divine. (Which is why it's called a "fall". It is not that we fall from the grace of God, but rather from his presence.) Thus, even if mortality does not exactly define spiritual death, it makes spiritual death all but inevitable. Jesus alone among the accountable sons and daughters of Adam remained spiritually alive despite his mortal condition, just as he alone among men willingly relinquished his hold on spiritual life at the behest of his Father, thus experiencing spiritual death and all the agony that accompanies that state.

It is my understanding that, having fulfilled the law (again, the only person ever to do so), Jesus was uniquely able to retake his spiritual life even after his spiritual death; for though he willingly relinquished that spiritual life, he never lost the right and ability to live spiritually. This is in contrast to all the rest of us, who lose our spiritual life through sin, and thus become unable to regain that life by our own decision.

Now, I recognize and freely acknowledge that this is exactly the sort of mechanistic thinking that has gotten multitudes of past and present philosophers into trouble, worrying about defining their terms precisely enough to figure out the numbers of pinhead-dancing angels. But it's the model I have now, and it makes sense to me to the extent that I understand these things at all. Jesus, when giving up his physical life, at the behest of the Father also relinquished his rightful hold on spiritual life -- that is, the constant presence of the Father -- and suffered spiritual death, thus making himself equal with us. His spiritual death was not earned, however; it was voluntarily done, and after his spiritual death of separation from the Father, he remained yet sinless and able to take up his spiritual life at his own will.

Some will argue that Jesus was God, and since spiritual death is separation from God, Jesus by definition could not suffer spiritual death. I would respond only that this is purely a definitional argument, and I think LDS theology and understanding of Jesus and his Father sufficiently explain this matter.

There you go -- my opinion that you've been craving, for your consumption.

Edited September 12, 2017 by Vort

[anatess2]

16 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Relying to your two posts, and @Vort's as well:  Speaking for myself:  I don't think that the fruit per se made Adam and Eve spiritually "impure" or "fallen".  It just removed their innocence and somehow changed their cognitive faculties, such that acts that formerly wouldn't have been deemed "sins", somehow now were.

The Fall, to my mind, did not technically constitute spiritual death.  But it made spiritual death inevitable for any of Adam's and Eve's progeny who lacked the capacity to avoid all sinful acts all the time--in short, it ensured spiritual death for anyone who was not half-God.  (I don't know that I would go so far as to say that Jesus was subject to spiritual death.  He certainly chose to experience something like unto it, as part of the atonement; but I rather think that for Him it was a voluntary act rather than an unavoidable legacy.  A major point of His condescension, to me, is that He was willing to do stuff He shouldn't have had to do.)

I don't think God would have gone so far as to say "You *must* now partake of this fruit", because again--His having done so would ultimately make Him accountable for the loss of that prior state of innocence; and would undermine Adam's and Eve's own agency in the matter.  But even if He had ordered them to take the fruit--sin still would have come into the world the first time Adam or Eve committed an act in violation of the Light of Christ that was now working within them.

Speaking more to Vort's point:  The garden also contained the tree of life, whose fruit could reverse the effects of the physical Fall (to wit:  mortality).  But we know that God took active measures to keep Adam and Eve away from that tree; because once begun, the spiritual effects of the Fall had to run their course.  Mortality was an integral part of that process.

I gotta chew on this for a while.  It's a new perspective for me.  Thanks @Just_A_Guy!

[anatess2]

1 minute ago, Vort said:

It is my understanding that, having fulfilled the law (again, the only person ever to do so), Jesus was uniquely able to retake his spiritual life even after his spiritual death; for though he willingly relinquished that spiritual life, he never lost the right and ability to live spiritually. This is in contrast to all the rest of us, who lose our spiritual life through sin, and thus become unable to regain that life by our own decision.

Some will argue that Jesus was God, and since spiritual death is separation from God, Jesus by definition could not suffer spiritual death. I would respond only that this is purely a definitional argument, and I think LDS theology and understanding of Jesus and his Father sufficiently explain this matter.

There you go -- my opinion that you've been craving, for your consumption.

Yes, I would argue that Jesus was and is God which is why even as he was fully mortal he was still incapable of sin.  But I don't think that means he cannot suffer spiritual death but that as you say, he can choose to suffer spiritual death which would be a grave injustice that has to be brought to balance if God was to remain a God of order.  His choice to suffer spiritual death was made as a payment for our sin so the injustice was brought back to order.  As a God, Jesus was restored back to the Father but I don't believe this was done through Jesus' power as he was spiritually dead but by the Father's.

But yes, all in all, it's getting deep into the weeds for which there is no need to dwell upon in my opinion.  Speculation is a fun hobby as long as we all understand, it's just speculation.

 

[person0]

12 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Jesus was . . . incapable of sin.

If we believe Jesus was incapable of sin, then we nullify the entirety of the atonement.  Christ had to be capable of sin, and yet never choose it, in order to actually set an example.  If He was not capable of committing sin, then we actually have no one to look up to, because he didn't actually accomplish what we are supposed to be constantly striving to accomplish (i.e. living a life of true perfection).

12 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Jesus was restored back to the Father but I don't believe this was done through Jesus' power as he was spiritually dead but by the Father's.

Christ had to be able to accomplish this through His own power in order to have the power to bring us back through His atonement.  Otherwise, the atonement would be limited, because Christ was using borrowed power, not His own, as part of fulfilling it.  It is also scriptural.  Below are some statements pertaining to both comments I have made:

Quote

As a God, He descended below all things, and made Himself subject to man in man’s fallen condition; as a man, He grappled with all the circumstances incident to His sufferings in the world. Anointed, indeed, with the oil of gladness above His fellows, He struggled with and overcame the powers of men and devils, of earth and hell combined. . .

One thing, as we read, is that the Father gave Him power to have life in Himself: “For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself;” (John 5:26) and further, He had power, when all mankind had lost their life, to restore life to them again; and hence He is the Resurrection and the Life, which power no other man possesses.

Another distinction is, that having this life in Himself, He had power, as He said, to lay down His life and to take it up again, which power was also given Him by the Father. This is also a power which no other being associated with this earth possesses.
(TEACHINGS: JOHN TAYLOR - CHAPTER 5: THE INFINITE ATONEMENT OF JESUS CHRIST) emphasis added

[laronius]

2 hours ago, anatess2 said:

 So, if this was the case, then the implication is that spiritual death is not necessary for us to become Gods?  I think spiritual death IS necessary.  But I don't know why I think that other than - it's what Adam and Eve had to go through.

Christ/Jehovah was able to achieve Godhead status even before coming to earth let alone experiencing a spiritual death. Lds.org points out that there are actually two spiritual deaths we encounter, one due to the fall and the other to our own disobedience. The second one is simple enough, we sin and become impure. But the second one is a little trickier. What about the fall of Adam cuts the rest of us off from the presence of God?

[zil]

1 hour ago, anatess2 said:

As a God, Jesus was restored back to the Father but I don't believe this was done through Jesus' power as he was spiritually dead but by the Father's.

For your consideration:

Quote

John 5:26 For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself;

 

Edited September 12, 2017 by zil
and of course, person0 beat me to it.

[Vort]

Quote

Christ/Jehovah was able to achieve Godhead status

Am I the only one who is deeply uncomfortable with this wording? I realize this sort of thing is not uncommon in Mormondom; but referring to "Godhead status" seems to me a vulgar representation of a divine state, in effect reducing it to a mere attainment, like being promoted to floor manager. It reminds me of the well-intentioned but foolish returned missionary who prefaced his comment with, "When I'm a God..." He had no idea what he was talking about, and his words were not merely false, they were sacrilege. I am not accusing anyone here of sacrilege, but I do think such expressions tend toward a bad end.

[laronius]

29 minutes ago, Vort said:

Am I the only one who is deeply uncomfortable with this wording? I realize this sort of thing is not uncommon in Mormondom; but referring to "Godhead status" seems to me a vulgar representation of a divine state, in effect reducing it to a mere attainment, like being promoted to floor manager. It reminds me of the well-intentioned but foolish returned missionary who prefaced his comment with, "When I'm a God..." He had no idea what he was talking about, and his words were not merely false, they were sacrilege. I am not accusing anyone here of sacrilege, but I do think such expressions tend toward a bad end.

I guess I don't see a problem with how I worded it (obviously) but do you perchance have a more suitable way to express the same sentiment?

[Vort]

4 minutes ago, laronius said:

I guess I don't see a problem with how I worded it (obviously) but do you perchance have a more suitable way to express the same sentiment?

I honestly did not mean to call you out. I realize that may be how it looked.

If I wanted to express this sentiment, I guess I would say something like, "Jesus was God, even premortally."

My point was not to pick at your wording. Rather, I object to a fairly common attitude I have seen among Church members, where "becoming God" is seen as a sort of natural progression -- you know, first you're a deacon, then a teacher, then a priest, then an elder, maybe a high priest, and then God. I find this an appalling sacrilege.

While I firmly believe in the LDS doctrine of deification, I think that such expressions -- how do I put this? -- it's not like that. "When I create my own planet" sounds like something the antiMormons attribute to us. It is a phrase that should never come out of any Latter-day Saint's mouth, ever, unless maybe he's preparing for a game of D&D.

God promises that we can inherit all that he has. When he makes that promise to us, in every case he is speaking of his role as Father. We can become like our Father, and that is his role we seek to emulate: Not as Creator of the universe, not as Savior of mankind, not as the Lord of Hosts. It is fatherhood and motherhood, the continuation of the seeds forever, the promise of eternal life, that we are offered -- not the odious anti-Mormon nonsense of "everyone gets his own planet!"

"Godhood" is not a status we work to obtain. It is a way to reference the exalted, those whose seed continues forever. Jesus was surely God even in premortality, but even he, the greatest of all, did not receive his final exaltation until after his resurrection, as when he warned Mary: "Touch me not, for I am not yet ascended to my Father."

At our most recent General Conference, President Nelson cautioned us against referring to "the Atonement" as some sort of mystical, amorphous entity that provides salvation, but to remember that it is "the atonement of Jesus Christ", and that it is only in and through Christ that any atonement is made. I think we would be similarly wise not to view our own exaltation as an external state that we achieve through effort, but as an intrinsic state granted those who can and wish to abide such covenants.