02
Feb
12

Blessings from the Fall?

This Sunday, the Gospel Doctrine classes throughout the LDS Church will be studying the first two chapters of 2 Nephi in the Book of Mormon.  Among other things, these chapters contain the basis for Mormonism’s teaching that great blessings resulted from Adam and Eve’s fall into sin.  The key verses are 2 Nephi 2:22-25.

“And now, behold, if Adam had not transgressed he would not have fallen, but he would have remained in the garden of Eden. And all things which were created must have remained in the same state in which they were after they were created; and they must have remained forever, and had no end.  23 And they would have had no children; wherefore they would have remained in a state of innocence, having no joy, for they knew no misery; doing no good, for they knew no sin.  24 But behold, all things have been done in the wisdom of him who knoweth all things. 25 Adam fell that men might be; and men are, that they might have joy.”

I will just highlight a few things from these verses that reveal just how differently Mormonism looks at the fall.  In verse 23 it said that they would not have fallen into sin, they would have had no children.  Gospel Principles states, in regard to this verse:  “When Adam and Eve were placed in the Garden of Eden, they were not yet mortal.  In this state, ‘they would have no children’ (2 Nephi 2:23).” (p. 28). It expands the definition of “mortal” to include the inability to have children – something no dictionary I know of includes.  Along those lines is this interesting comment made in the LDS Bible Dictionary.  “Before the fall, Adam and Eve had physical bodies but no blood.” (p.670). None of this, however, is supported by the Bible.

Also in verse 23 it said that if they would have stayed in their state of innocence they would have no joy.  Really?  They lived in paradise – they were perfectly created by God – they had unhindered communion with God – and they had no joy?  They also, according to verse 23, were “doing no good”.  Again, really?

Probably the most widely quoted verse in this section is verse 25.  “Adam fell that men might be; and men are, that they might have joy.”  This is how Gospel Principles explains this.  “Some people believe Adam and Eve committed a serious sin when they ate of the tree of knowledge of good and evil.  However, latter-day scriptures help us understand that their Fall was a necessary step in the plan of life and a great blessing to all of us.  Because of the Fall, we are blessed with physical bodies, the right to choose between good and evil, and the opportunity to gain eternal life.  None of these privileges would have been ours had Adam and Eve remained in the garden.” (p.29)

This then is just another in a long string of examples illustrating how vastly different Mormonism is from Christianity. There is no Christian church that teaches any of the above.  There is no Christian church that talks about blessings – great blessings – stemming from the fall.  They don’t do that because that is not what the Bible says.  Throughout the Bible, Adam’s and Eve’s fall into sin is described as a great tragedy.  “Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men for that all have sinned.” (Romans 5:12) Period.

But thank God that he didn’t stop there.  “Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.”  (Romans 5:18)  Thank God that he sent Jesus to be obedient and righteous for us.  The fall didn’t bring joy.  It only brought sin, sorrow, and death.  Jesus is the one who brought us joy and eternal life.

Seeing the fall for what it really was – a tremendous tragedy – helps us appreciate Jesus and what he did for us all the more.

Advertisements

40 Responses to “Blessings from the Fall?”


  1. 1 hilary
    February 2, 2012 at 9:00 pm

    It’s amazing how satan twists the truth of God. But then again – in mormonism – satan is a brother of Jesus. yuck.

  2. 2 rechtglaubig
    February 3, 2012 at 7:13 am

    One thing that I would point out is that the Latter-Day Saints generally do not consider the fall to be “sinful” like Christians do. Notice how it is carefully called a “transgression” in their writings. These words do not mean the same thing to the LDS.

    “Some Christians condemn Eve for her act, concluding that she and her daughters are somehow flawed by it. Not the Latter-day Saints! Informed by revelation, we celebrate Eve’s act and honor her wisdom and courage in the great episode called the Fall (see Bruce R. McConkie, “Eve and the Fall,” Woman, Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1979, pp. 67–68). Joseph Smith taught that it was not a “sin,” because God had decreed it (see The Words of Joseph Smith, ed. Andrew F. Ehat and Lyndon W. Cook, Provo, Utah: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, 1980, p. 63). Brigham Young declared, “We should never blame Mother Eve, not the least” (in Journal of Discourses, 13:145). Elder Joseph Fielding Smith said: “I never speak of the part Eve took in this fall as a sin, nor do I accuse Adam of a sin. … This was a transgression of the law, but not a sin … for it was something that Adam and Eve had to do!” (Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, comp. Bruce R. McConkie, 3 vols., Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1954–56, 1:114–15).

    This suggested contrast between a sin and a transgression reminds us of the careful wording in the second article of faith: “We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression

    http://www.lds.org/ensign/1993/11/the-great-plan-of-happiness?lang=eng

  3. 3 Kent
    February 3, 2012 at 7:58 am

    Genesis 1:26-28

    26 Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” 27 So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. 28 Then God blessed them, and God said to them, “BE FRUITFUL AND MULTIPLY; FILL THE EARTH and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”

    Book of Moses Chapter 2:28

    28 And I, God, blessed them, and said unto them: BE FRUITFUL, AND MULTIPLY, and replenish the earth, and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

    Genesis 1 and even chapter 2 from the Mormon Book of Moses both agree that God told Adam and Eve before the fall to be fruitful and multiply so the passage below that says if the fall never happened, then Adam and Eve would have never had any children is flat out wrong!

    So we have yet another contradiction to what the Mormon Church teaches where 2 Nephi even contradicts their own Book of Mose not to mention contradicting Genesis 1.

    From 2 Nephi 2:

    “And now, behold, IF ADAM HAD NOT TRANSGRESSED HE WOULD NOT HAVE FALLEN, BUT HE WOULD HAVE REMAINED IN THE GARDEN OF EDEN. And all things which were created must have remained in the same state in which they were after they were created; and they must have remained forever, and had no end. 23 AND THEY WOULD HAVE HAD NO CHILDREN; wherefore they would have remained in a state of innocence, having no joy, for they knew no misery; doing no good, for they knew no sin. 24 But behold, all things have been done in the wisdom of him who knoweth all things. 25 Adam fell that men might be; and men are, that they might have joy.”

  4. February 3, 2012 at 2:39 pm

    Probably the most widely quoted verse in this section is verse 25. “Adam fell that men might be; and men are, that they might have joy.” This is how Gospel Principles explains this. “Some people believe Adam and Eve committed a serious sin when they ate of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. However, latter-day scriptures help us understand that their Fall was a necessary step in the plan of life and a great blessing to all of us. Because of the Fall, we are blessed with physical bodies, the right to choose between good and evil, and the opportunity to gain eternal life. None of these privileges would have been ours had Adam and Eve remained in the garden.” (p.29)

    Regarding this passage Mark quoted, This has got to be one of the strangest things I have ever heard! Weren’t Adam and Eve already blessed with physical bodies, the right to choose between good and evil, and eternal life?

    27 So God created mankind in his own image,
    in the image of God he created them;
    male and female he created them.

    28 God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.”
    29 Then God said, “I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. 30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds in the sky and all the creatures that move along the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food.” And it was so.
    31 God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day.

    “When Adam and Eve were placed in the Garden of Eden, they were not yet mortal. In this state, ‘they would have no children’ (2 Nephi 2:23).” Huh? Not what God said above!

    They already had eternal life:
    2 The woman said to the serpent, “We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, 3 but God did say, ‘You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.’”

    How strange that the mormons would celebrate being given the opportunity to get back what man already had! They had eternal life in a perfect place and were in the presence of God everyday, but they messed up and were given the wonderful opportunity to go through this life out of the garden and away from the very presence of god so that they too could be a god just like god.

    This only brings up questions for me. With the focus of mormonism being placed on family to the extent that it is their goal to be together as a family unit after death with the man maintaining his role as father, why would mormon heavenly father kick his children out of the home with the first mistake that they made and send them out into the world to try and figure out how to obtain a state of godhood that matches that of father god himself. Wouldn’t a loving mormon heavenly father keep his children with him so as to serve as an example to them and teach them how to be like him himself? It seems odd to me to think that father god is up there procreating many spirit babies to the extent that he can’t train them up in the way they should go so he sends them out into the world to be trained up in the way they should go. Doesn’t sound like good parenting to me.

  5. 5 JBR
    February 3, 2012 at 3:49 pm

    Anything can be rationalized away if one uses a circular argument.

    It’s a blessing because BoM has to be true.
    BoM is true because prophets has to be given true revelations of more scriptures
    More scriptures are true because prophets have to receive true revelations
    Revelations are true because only prophets are in a true restored church
    LDS church is true because it has the BoM
    So it ( blessings of fall) has to be true because everything else has to be true

    or another way of saying it is:

    #1 is true because … #2 has to be
    #2 is true because … #3 has to be
    #3 is true because … #4 has to be

    therefore …

    #4 is true because #3 has to be
    #3 is true because #2 has to be
    #2 is true because #1 has to be

    so what must I (as a Mormon) conclude:

    #1 has to be true because #4 has to be true which makes #1 absolutly true

  6. 6 Kent
    February 3, 2012 at 4:16 pm

    Choosethechrist, but as I pointed out, even the Book of Moses from the Pearl of Great Price says that God said to Adam and Eve before the fall to “be fruitful and multiply” which agrees with Genesis 1.

    Genesis 1:26-28

    26 Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” 27 So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. 28 Then God blessed them, and God said to them, “BE FRUITFUL AND MULTIPLY; FILL THE EARTH and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”

    Book of Moses Chapter 2:28

    28 And I, God, blessed them, and said unto them: BE FRUITFUL, AND MULTIPLY, and replenish the earth, and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

    So either God, before the fall before and before they left the garden, told Adam and Eve to have children

    OR

    As the Book of Mormon says, they wouldn’t have had any children if they had remained in the garden.

    My conclusion is that the passage from the BOM that says they wouldn’t have had children if not for the fall is not the word of God while the portion in effect copied from the true word of God in Genesis in the Book of Moses is, at least that portion of it, the word of God.

    I am sure Shem or someone else will say that it is just my interpretation of what the scriptures are saying but it is very clear that the Bible and the Book of Moses are saying they would have had children if they had remained in the Garden while the Book of Mormon says they wouldn’t have had them if they had remained there.

  7. 7 shematwater
    February 3, 2012 at 4:55 pm

    Actually, nobody seems to be using their God given power of reason to even attempt to understand anything that has been said. You are all looking at it with clouded judgment, trying to super-impose your beliefs on the doctrines of others, and then claim that it makes no sense.

    MARK

    “It expands the definition of “mortal” to include the inability to have children – something no dictionary I know of includes.”

    I think you mean the ability to have children, not the inability.
    However, even with this correction your statement is not truly accurate. It is not saying that the definition of mortal is the ability to have children. After all, gods have children. No. What it is saying is that the state in which they were in was not mortality (as they could not die) and that in this state they could have no children. That is to say, the definition of the state they were in includes the inability to have children. It does not mean that the definition of mortality is the ability to.

    You also quote the Bible Dictionary where it states that they had no blood. While I agree that this is not directly stated, it can be supported by the Bible.
    For instance, in the Bible the term “Flesh and Blood” is used to refer to mortality (Gal 1: 16; 1 Cor. 15: 50; Heb 2: 14; etc), while “Flesh and Bones” is used to refer to immortality (Luke 24: 39). So we see that the blood is part of mortality.
    Now, we also read in Lev. 17: 14 that blood is the life of the flesh, which is why we are not to eat blood. This was actually first stated to Noah in Genesis 9: 4 (at least on record) and thus was not part of the Law of Moses.
    Putting these two things together we see that blood is only in mortal bodies, and it is what makes them mortal. Now, since Adam and Eve were not subject to death while in the Garden, and thus were not mortal, it becomes logical that they did not have blood in their veins.

    “Also in verse 23 it said that if they would have stayed in their state of innocence they would have no joy. Really? They lived in paradise – they were perfectly created by God – they had unhindered communion with God – and they had no joy?”

    First, they could have no joy because they had no misery. If you actually read the chapter this would be clear to you. One cannot know joy without also knowing its opposite, which is misery. Until they experienced misery they could not have joy.
    A similar thing can be said about doing good. You cannot do good unless you know what good is, and thus you must also know what sin is. As the Bible itself tells us they did not know good and evil until after the fall they could no neither. They could act, yes. But their actions could not be good or bad, because they had no understanding of what good and bad were.

    One should learn what it means to have agency, and how sin is not possible without it. Adam and even had the power to choose, but without the knowledge of good and evil, which they did not have until after the fall, they did not have agency, for agency requires a sound understanding of the choice to be made and the consequences of it. Without this there is no agency.

    RECHTGLAUBIG

    This idea of agency is why we separate the terms of transgression and sin. A sin is made when one has full possession of agency and chooses to transgress the law. A transgression can be made without agency, and is thus not a sin.
    Thus, Adam and Eve, who did not have a full possession of agency, could not sin while in the Garden. They could transgress the law, and through that the fall was brought to pass. But this was not a sin, for they had no agency.

    KENT

    Just because God commanded them to be fruitful does not mean they were capable of having children at that time. In fact, your insistence that it does seems to contradict the fact that you believe God is always giving commands that we can’t obey. So what makes this command any different? Why were they able to keep this command, but we are not able to keep other ones?

    The truth is that they were not able to have children in the Garden. The command was given so that Adam would be faced with a dilemma. After Eve ate the fruit he would only be able to obey one of the two commands God had given: Don’t eat the fruit or have children. The entire thing was a set up because God knew what choice Adam would make. If he had not given this command than Adam would not have eaten the fruit, as he would have obeyed the one command that he had been given. It is actually very simple.

  8. 8 rechtglaubig
    February 3, 2012 at 5:21 pm

    “This idea of agency is why we separate the terms of transgression and sin. A sin is made when one has full possession of agency and chooses to transgress the law. A transgression can be made without agency, and is thus not a sin.
    Thus, Adam and Eve, who did not have a full possession of agency, could not sin while in the Garden. They could transgress the law, and through that the fall was brought to pass. But this was not a sin, for they had no agency.”

    Shematwater,

    So Adam did not sin?

    “Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men for that all have sinned.” (Romans 5:12)

  9. February 3, 2012 at 6:08 pm

    To the readers…

    Shem said: “Actually, nobody seems to be using their God given power of reason to even attempt to understand anything that has been said. You are all looking at it with clouded judgment, trying to super-impose your beliefs on the doctrines of others, and then claim that it makes no sense.”

    Actually, Shem isn’t using his power of reason to attempt to understand anything that has been said. He looks at everything with clouded judgment. He super-imposes his beliefs on the clear teachings of the Bible and in the process changes the doctrines of the Bible. He does this because scripture makes no sense to him because he doesn’t take the time to listen.

  10. February 3, 2012 at 6:16 pm

    James 4:17 “Anyone, then, who knows the good he ought to do and doesn’t do it, SINS.”

    Adam and Eve knew the good they ought to do when God told them not to eat from the tree.
    Therefore the knew they sinned which is why they tried to cover up their nakedness(shame, guilt) with their green fig leaf apron.

  11. 11 choosethechrist
    February 3, 2012 at 7:02 pm

    Maybe we should be concerned for Shem. Do you think Mark has him tied up in a room somewhere and makes him read and respond to this blog?

  12. February 3, 2012 at 7:41 pm

    We are all very concerned for Shem.

  13. 13 Kent
    February 4, 2012 at 3:11 pm

    Shem, “Just because God commanded them to be fruitful does not mean they were capable of having children at that time. In fact, your insistence that it does seems to contradict the fact that you believe God is always giving commands that we can’t obey. So what makes this command any different? Why were they able to keep this command, but we are not able to keep other ones?”

    I have never said God has given commands we can’t obey but that we have to obey them 100 percent of the time our whole lives if they have anything to do with our salvation where the other option is that if we completely believe in who Jesus is and what He did for our salvation by dying on the cross in our place, sinners who cannot ever save ourselves, and rising from the dead on the third day, we are saved.

    Again, salvation means being in the mansions where God is for eternity, enternal life, and not just that we get to live in the afterlife with a chance to be in those mansions if we are worthy enough.

    So it follows that Adam and Eve absolutely had the ability to have children before the fall and they could obey Him regarding being fruitful and mulitplyng.

  14. 14 Kent
    February 4, 2012 at 3:30 pm

    By the way, regarding God’s commandments, if people try to keep them 100 percent of the time our whole lives they do show the futility of trying to do so, in effect to save ourselves on our own, and they do point to the need to believe and trust completely in the work Jesus did 2000 years ago.

    The commandments also serve to convict us to show us we are as sinners who need a savior. For example, we can ask ourselves the question, “have I ever lied?” There is no one who can ever say, if we are truly honest with ourselves and God, that they have never ever lied, even so called harmless,. to us anyway, “white lies.”

    But if we don’t repent and admit to ourselves and God that we have lied, then in God’s eyes we are still liars and we cannot be in the mansions where He is. But we aren’t liars anymore, at least in God’s eyes, if we believe that Jesus died to take our sins, our lies (and every other sin), upon Himself.

  15. 15 Martha Golden
    February 4, 2012 at 4:10 pm

    I like to think about what life would be like now if Adam and Eve would not have eaten that fruit. We would be living in the joy of being in the presence of God. There would be no burdens, no hatred. There would only be pure joy. However, there is the joy of knowing that we will be back in that state of joy because God loves us so much that He sent His only son to redeem us from Adam’s sin. Jesus Christ gave us back the opportunity of living in that state of pure joy. Plus He made it so simple. All we have to do is have a relationship with Him here on earth and we are assured of living in Eden for all eternity.

  16. 16 Kent
    February 4, 2012 at 5:19 pm

    Martha said, “I like to think about what life would be like now if Adam and Eve would not have eaten that fruit. We would be living in the joy of being in the presence of God. There would be no burdens, no hatred. There would only be pure joy. However, there is the joy of knowing that we will be back in that state of joy because God loves us so much that He sent His only son to redeem us from Adam’s sin. Jesus Christ gave us back the opportunity of living in that state of pure joy. Plus He made it so simple. All we have to do is have a relationship with Him here on earth and we are assured of living in Eden for all eternity.”

    Yes, it is all about believing and trusting and believing in what He did by dying on the cross and rising again on the third day not about believing and trusting in anything we do as anything we do as we will never ever be worthy enough but thank God He is worthy enough!

    People may wonder why I keep repeating the same thing but what I am doing is telling people the gospel which I have been given so I will continue to tell it to other people.

    The gospel I was given is below.

    1 Corinthians 15:1-4

    “15 Moreover, brethren, I declare to you the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received and in which you stand, 2 by which also you are saved, if you hold fast that word which I preached to you—unless you believed in vain.

    3 For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures”

    I also keep repeating what saved means as Mormons may come here and think they already believe the above passages but they may see it as what they call general salvation that they get to live in the afterlife with a chance to progress to be in the mansions where God is if they are worthy enough but what I am referring as being saved is eternal life that if they believe in the gospel alone for their salvation, salvation means being assured that they will be in the mansions where God is because Jesus is worthy enough.

  17. 17 Martha Golden
    February 5, 2012 at 5:34 am

    Yes Kent, Jesus is what it’s all about. My LDS dad asked me the other day, “so you dont believe we will be together when we die?” I said, “I’m going to be with Jesus. It will be pure joy.”

    On a side note, if I was assured of living with them because I have been sealed, why would I need to be good? I can be as sinful as I want because my dad has done what is necessary for my salvation. One more silly contradiction of the Mormon religion.

  18. 18 Kent
    February 5, 2012 at 4:37 pm

    Martha, so your dad died on the cross and rose again on the third day to save you and he is your savior?

    It sounds like his works in the temple were more important than Jesus saving work on the cross.

    Also, don’t Mormons have to be temple worthy and obey the temple ordinances to get to be in the mansions where God is?

    Interesting that Joseph Smith drank wine the day before he was killed so at the time of his death he wasn’t temple worthy as if he went to a bishop that day and he had admitted to his bishop that he had drank alchohol and his name instead was Joseph Jones, he would have been denied a temple recommend.

    A mormon explained it to me that the words of wisdom were not in effect yet so Smith wasn’t bound by them. Well that doesn’t sound fair that Joseph Jones would have to be temple worthy but Joseph Smith didn’t have to be especially since supposedly we all need Smith’s permission to enter the mansions where God is so one would think Joseph Smith would be held to a higher standard not a lower one.

    Another silly contradiction of the Mormon religion? That the Book of Mormon says that Adam and Eve could not have had children if they had remained in the Garden of Eden but the Bible and even the Mormon Book of Moses from the Pearl of Great Price both say that before the fall God told them to be fruitful and multiply.

    Not suprising as the Book of Mormon isn’t the word of God while the Bible and at least the portion of the Book of Moses that was essentially copied from the Bible that says God told Adam and Eve to be fruitful and multiply is the word of God.

    The stock Mormon response seems to be that it is all a matter of interpretation that they would interpret the Bible and the Book of Moses accounts differently than I do but how can anyone not see that the Book of Mormon is saying Adam and Eve could not have had children if they remained in the garden while the Bible and the Book of Moses say God told them to have children while they were in the garden.

    I suppose someone could use a faulty argument and say that Adam and Eve were obeying God by disobeying him by eating of the tree of knowledge but really is a stretch.

  19. February 6, 2012 at 11:03 pm

    JBR- What in the world are you saying? That made no sense to me at all.

  20. 20 shematwater
    February 7, 2012 at 3:05 pm

    RECHTGLAUBIG

    “Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men for that all have sinned.” (Romans 5:12)

    This does not say that Adam sinned. What it does say is that his actions caused sin to enter the world. That is not the same thing.
    Think of this: A mother tells her son not to open the door. He doesn’t understand why and so he opens it, allowing a swarm of mosquitoes to enter the house and start biting everyone. “Wherefore, as by one man mosquitoes entered into the house, and itching by mosquitoes; and so itching passed upon all men for that all have been bitten.” (Romans 5:12) And yet, the act of opening the door is not a mosquito bite.
    In the same way “by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men for that all have sinned.” (Romans 5:12) And yet the action of Adam eating the fruit was not a sin.

    ECHO

    “Adam and Eve knew the good they ought to do when God told them not to eat from the tree.”

    How could Adam and Eve know it was good when the Bible tells us that they did not have the knowledge of Good and Evil. We read in Genesis 3: 22 that “the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil.” How could Adam become this way if he already had the knowledge.
    The Bible itself proves that he didn’t have this understanding, that he could not have known that one choice was good and one was bad, and thus could not have fully exercised his agency. Thus, what James said does not apply to the actions of Adam and Eve before the fall, for he speaks to those who know good and evil.

    KENT

    “I have never said God has given commands we can’t obey”

    So you admit that it is possible for us to obey all the commands of God?

    “regarding God’s commandments, if people try to keep them 100 percent of the time our whole lives they do show the futility of trying to do so”

    So you don’t believe it is possible for us to obey all the commands of God?

    You seem to be the one contradicting yourself. Your argument is meaningless because you can’t keep your own words strait.
    If we are able to keep all the commandments, and thus Adam and Eve were able to have children, then there is no need for the Atonement.
    If, however, we are not able to keep all the commandments than your insistence that they could have children is without foundation as you cannot give one actually reference to support it.

    So, to try and clarify your words, answer the simple question: Is there any commandment that God has given that we do not have the power to obey?

    (PS: 1 Corinthians 15: 1-4 only tells us the first principle of the Gospel. It states this in verse 3. The question then is, what comes next. After all, if it is first, this means that there is at least something that is second.)

    TO CONCLUDE

    I find it funny when people who have such a lack of understanding regarding LDS doctrine try to claim contradictions.
    To set the record strait: Temple sealing does not ensure eternal life. Once one is sealed one must still live a righteous life and keep their covenants. I don’t care who is sealed, if they violate the laws of God they put themselves at risk of falling from their salvation.

    As to Joseph Smith and the wine, I do not say it is true, nor do I say it is false. People posting here do seem to have a habit of not siting their sources (and I will include myself in that). However, the idea that people of one age are given different commandments than people of another is what the New Testament is based on, and what Christianity as a whole relies on as the basis for its existence. After all, if there was no change in commands we would still be sacrificing animals. As this was required of those in the Old Testament, but is not required today, one can just as easily complain against Christ for his injustices in this matter, as want to complain about the Word of Wisdom and how it was applied through the history of the church.

    Thank you

  21. 21 steph
    February 7, 2012 at 4:01 pm

    Matthew 22:29 Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.

    Many people believe that they will stay away from error simply through prayer and influence of the Holy Spirit. And yet in denying the power of God’s word, and refusing to rely on it, they reject the very means God has given them to avoid error. Is it any wonder that the Lord said:

    Matthew 4:4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

    Shem said: “This does not say that Adam sinned. What it does say is that his actions caused sin to enter the world. That is not the same thing.”

    God said DO NOT EAT!
    Definition of sin per dictionary.reference.com: 1. transgression of divine law: the sin of Adam.

    We see the power of Scripture in the temptation of Jesus Christ by Satan:

    Matthew 4:1-11 Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil. And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward an hungred. And when the tempter came to him, he said, If thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread. But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. Then the devil taketh him up into the holy city, and setteth him on a pinnacle of the temple, And saith unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down: for it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning thee: and in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone. Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God. Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them; And saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me. Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve. Then the devil leaveth him, and, behold, angels came and ministered unto him.

    Three times Satan tempted the Lord, and three times the Creator of the universe (John 1:3), who had the power to simply strike Satan out of all existence, answered: it is written. Let this sink in. Consider that your God in the flesh, while being tempted by the Devil himself, used the sword of the spirit as his rebuke! If Scripture is the weapon of choice for Christ, how dare anyone who claims to follow Christ assume a greater weapon is at their disposal. How dare anyone who claims to follow Christ say that God’s Word is corrupt.

    The last place anyone should go for Biblical interpretation is from someone who believes the Bible does not stand as is.

    1 Corinthians 8:2 The man who thinks he knows something does not yet know as he ought to know.

  22. 22 shematwater
    February 7, 2012 at 5:07 pm

    dictionary.reference.com

    Sin

    1. transgression of divine law: the sin of Adam.
    2. any act regarded as such a transgression, especially a willful or deliberate violation of some religious or moral principle.

    So, if you want to get technical, you could call Adam’s act a sin. However, just as the second definition states, sin is more generally associated with willful of deliberate violation.
    So, Adam transgressed the law, but he did so without a full understanding of what it was, and thus it cannot be termed willful, as that suggests a full understanding of the nature of the act.

    So, for us to say that the act was not on the same level as those who act willfully is in perfect harmony with the connotations of the definition of the term sin. To make this distinction easier to say we simply state that a includes only those transgressions that are willful and deliberate.

    Our understanding is no different than what the definition allows for. We just make it simpler.

  23. 23 steph
    February 7, 2012 at 7:24 pm

    Simpler? Wading through Mormonism is worse than trying to navigate through the US tax code!

    Unfortunately, Mormon understanding is different than what God allows for.

    Galatians 6:7 Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows.

  24. 24 shematwater
    February 8, 2012 at 4:44 pm

    “Wading through Mormonism is worse than trying to navigate through the US tax code!”

    This is only true for those who do not want to understand. The Gospel is simple; the truths of eternity are simple; and for anyone who truly wants to know them there is nothing simpler.

    Galatians 6: 7 “Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.”

    Adam sowed the second greatest act in the History of Mankind when he partook of the fruit and made life possible for all of God’s children. And he will sow in like measure, being the second greatest of all men, giving preference to Christ only.

  25. February 8, 2012 at 6:08 pm

    When a child is told not to do something and then they turn around and do it, it is willful. They chose to go against what their parents said.

    God told Adam and Eve not to eat and they chose not to listen to God.

    Adam and Eve sowed the worst act in the History of Mankind when they partook of the fruit of that tree.

    When we tell our children to obey us and they don’t, that lead’s to death.

    How many children are told not to take a ride with strangers. If our children disobeyed us and took a ride with strangers, they would be murdered.

    Partaking of the fruit does not make life possible. It brings only death.

  26. 26 JBR
    February 9, 2012 at 2:30 pm

    Jen,
    I’m saying that a person needs to understand that if you’re going to try to make sense of how a person could conclude that the fall into sin could possibly be a good thing has to understand the mentality of the belief culture in Mormonism.

    For Mormonism to be true, the three pillars of absolutes needs to maintained:
    A:…. The BoM is “the most accurate book ever”
    B:…. True prophets “never leads the restored church astray”
    C:…. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is the restored church

    What the Mormon apologist will do to justify something that (by itself is contrary to the Bible) will be begin not from the Bible’s view, but to start to determine the truthfulness this way:

    Since “A” (The BoM is “the most accurate book ever”)
    +
    Since “B” (True prophets “never leads the restored church astray”)
    +
    Since the LDS Church just has to be the restored Church
    =
    anything spoken by a “prophet”\ or official written scriptures (outside the Bible)
    must have to be be absolutly true.

    That’s what makes it difficult to communicate with well meaning people in the LDS church. Mormon’s are convinced it is the truth because they normally begin with a priority of keeping intact the truthfulness of “A”, “B”, “C” (from above)….
    thus subsequently requiring the manipulation of the Bible accordingly.

  27. 27 Kent
    February 9, 2012 at 3:45 pm

    “Adam sowed the second greatest act in the History of Mankind when he partook of the fruit and made life possible for all of God’s children. And he will sow in like measure, being the second greatest of all men, giving preference to Christ only.”

    So by trusting and and obeying the devil by eating the fruit and not trusting and disobeying God that made life possible for all of God’s children?

    Genesis 3:2-3

    2 And the woman said to the serpent, “We may eat the fruit of the trees of the garden; 3 but of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God has said, ‘You shall not eat it, nor shall you touch it, lest you die.’”

    Eve, and then Adam by also eating the fruit, believed the devil instead of God.

    I think Shem may be alluding to the Mormon belief that spirit children from the pre existence were waiting to have bodies and that they couldn’t have bodies because the Book of Mormon says that Adam and Eve couldn’t have had children if they had remained in the garden.

    But if we go by the Bible, the only word of God we need, there was no spiritual creation before the physical creation hence there is no such thing as pre existent spirit children who would have needed bodies because the Mormon Book of Moses in the Pearl of Great Price tacks on to the end of the creation story of Genesis that there was a spiritual creation before the physical creation.

    So we eitther believe the Bible or we believe what the Mormons have added to what the Bible teaches. I choose to believe the Bible only and I give no weight to almost everything the Mormon scriptures teach.

    Ironcially one of the few Mormon scripture passages I listen to would be the ones that are essentially copied from the Bible especially where it says in its creation account that before the fall God told Adam and Eve to be fruitful and mulitply as God wouldn’t have told them to have children if they couldn’t have them and He didn’t tell them to disobey Him so that they would be able to have children.

    i know Shem may say that the Mormon scriptures clarify what the Bible teaches but they often don’t bring clarificaton to the Bible but actually they contradict what the Bible teaches.

  28. 28 choosethechrist
    February 9, 2012 at 3:59 pm

    Kent said: But if we go by the Bible, the only word of God we need, there was no spiritual creation before the physical creation hence there is no such thing as pre existent spirit children who would have needed bodies because the Mormon Book of Moses in the Pearl of Great Price tacks on to the end of the creation story of Genesis that there was a spiritual creation before the physical creation.

    1 Corinthians 15:45-49
    (45) So it is written: “The first man Adam became a living being”; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit.
    (46) The spiritual did not come first, but the natural, and after that the spiritual.
    (47) The first man was of the dust of the earth, the second man from heaven.
    (48) As was the earthly man, so are those who are of the earth; and as is the man from heaven, so also are those who are of heaven.
    (49) And just as we have borne the likeness of the earthly man, so shall we bear the likeness of the man from heaven.

    No translation needed. It means exactly what it says. We were not “spirit children” before we were born on earth.

  29. 29 shematwater
    February 9, 2012 at 5:12 pm

    ECHO

    “When a child is told not to do something and then they turn around and do it, it is willful. They chose to go against what their parents said.”

    While it is a choice, it is not willful. Or, to be more precise, it is not a choice made through the exercise of agency. As I have said, one must have a full knowledge of Good and Evil before they can exercise agency, and without agency the mercies of a loving Father rest on them and they are saved.
    In Deuteronomy 1: 39 God tells us that the little children do not have an understand of Good and Evil, and for this reason they were not to suffer the same punishment as the rest of Israel. The same is true of salvation. A child does not have the required knowledge to be subject to the extent of the law, but is saved through the grace and mercy of Christ.
    The same is true of Adam and Eve while they were in the Garden. Because they did not have a full understanding of Good and Evil the mercies of Christ have erased that act, and it will not be held against them.

    KENT

    Genesis 2: 4-5
    “These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens,
    And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew…”

    Notice that God created the plants and animals before they were in the Earth. Please explain how this was?

    Ecclesiastes 12:7
    “Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it.”

    How can the spirit return to God if it did not exist with God previous to being on the Earth?

    Also, what of the many references to God being the Father of Spirits, or to us being his offspring? The Bible is riddled with references to the Pre-existence. It is just that you choose to ignore them because you do not believe in the doctrine.

    CTC

    Actually, it says we were not spiritual, or heavenly; meaning that we could not be immortal, glorified beings until after we had lived an unglorified, mortal life.
    We were spirits, now we are mortal, and one day we will be spiritual, or immortal.

    (Don’t confuse spirit with spiritual. After all, even those who go to Hell have spirits, but they will never be heavenly, or “bear the likeness of the man from heaven.”)

  30. February 9, 2012 at 6:50 pm

    Shem said: “While it is a choice, it is not willful. Or, to be more precise, it is not a choice made through the exercise of agency.”

    By your reasoning, then a child molestor who molests a child for the first time did not commit a willful act. And since you “celebrate Eve’s act” (LDS.org), you should celebrate first time child molestors too.

  31. 31 shematwater
    February 9, 2012 at 7:16 pm

    ECHO

    Please stop lying and twisting my words. I know this is a personal attack, but when you start deliberately twisting the meaning of what I have said so that either start a confrontation or just accuse me of vileness then you have already launch your own, more subtle attack against me.

    So, either you are too ignorant to actually understand what I said, or you are purposefully ignoring parts of it. Either way you need to stop.
    I know how found you are at accusing others of sin, but I really think you need to examine yourself on this one, and bearing a false witness against others is one of those Ten big ones given to Moses.

  32. February 9, 2012 at 7:53 pm

    Just going by what you said…

    Echo said: “When a child is told not to do something and then they turn around and do it, it is willful. They chose to go against what their parents said.”

    Shem replied: “While it is a choice, it is not willful. Or, to be more precise, it is not a choice made through the exercise of agency.”

    To which I put two and two together…

    “By your reasoning, then a child molestor who molests a child for the first time did not commit a willful act. And since you “celebrate Eve’s act” (LDS.org), you should celebrate first time child molestors too.”

    My point? A child and an adult both KNOW something is wrong when they are told not to do it. They KNOW it is wrong before they do it.
    They have the free will to avoid something the moment they are told not to do it. Adam and Eve (both adults) knew it was wrong before they ate. They willfully chose to do it. Since you say they didn’t do it willfully, then I say, according to your reasoning, neither does a first time child molestor do it willfully. (which is absurd) Even a dog knows right from wrong by telling him: “no” and that dog will cower or hide when caught disobeying just like Adam and Eve acted after their disobedience. Dogs didn’t eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. The tree of the knowledge of good and evil doesn’t mean what you think it means.

    You also misused Deuteronomy 1: 39 Read the context. The reason these children did not know good and evil was because the adults were rebellious against God. Had they not been rebellious they would have told the children what to do and what they shouldn’t do.

  33. 33 choosethechrist
    February 9, 2012 at 9:06 pm

    Sorry Shem, the LDS view on spirit children is not Biblical and has it’s origins in Greek philosophy: “Before time began the soul was without a body, an archetype, the heavenly man pure in spirit in paradise, yet longing after the archetype, God. Some of the pure spirits descended into bodies and lost their purity” (Plato and the Stoics philosophy).

    The Bible teaches in1 Cor. 15:46-47: “However, the spiritual is not first, but the natural; then the spiritual. The first man is from the earth, earthy; the second is man is from heaven.” On this main point Mormonism disagrees with all of Christian teaching founded in the Bible. Gen. 2:7: “And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.”

  34. 34 shematwater
    February 10, 2012 at 3:04 pm

    ECHO

    You frequently try to put two and two together, but with your poor math skills you generally come up with some answer like 1.5. You see, your problem is that you never actually try to think outside your own doctrines and interpretations. As such you try to understand our doctrine in the context of yours and rarely get anything right as a result.

    First, your assumption that being told something automatically gives knowledge shows you have no understanding how the human mind works, or what is meant by the knowledge of Good and Evil. Let me illustrate with a famous psychological study performed some years ago. In this study several children, ranging in age from 4 to 12, were all told the following story.
    A man has two sons. Both know that they are not to be playing on their Father’s desk. One day the youngest sneaks into his father’s study and through carelessness accidentally knocks over a bottle of ink which spills over several papers. A few days later the older son, in a fit of anger, takes the pen from the bottle and scribbles all over a single sheet of paper.
    The question was then asked “which son is more guilty?” Or, what act was more wrong.

    Now, a person who possesses the knowledge of God and Evil immediately recognizes that the older son was more wrong, because his act was deliberate. However, one who does not possess this knowledge will say that it is the younger son, for he caused more damage.
    Not surprising, it was around the age of Eight that the children began to show the ability to make this distinction. All of knew what the sons had been told, and thus by your reasoning they knew good and evil. However, the younger ones lacked the mental capability of understanding that a deliberate act is worse than an accidental one.

    The Knowledge of Good and Evil does not come from someone telling you not to do something, or to do something else. It is an innate ability to evaluate a situation and understand the underlying elements of the situation that make one choice better than another. Now, I do not claim that all understanding in inherent, as much does come through learning and teaching (like the need to pray, or be baptized). But the basic understanding of what Good and Evil is is inherent and has to be present before any amount of instruction can help.
    In other words, until I know what good and evil is I cannot know that something is good or evil, even if I am told not to do it. Without this all I know that is someone doesn’t want me to do it, not that the action itself is good or bad.

    Now that we understand this, let us look at my reasoning.
    1. Without this knowledge one cannot exercise agency.
    2. Without agency one cannot be held responsible for ones actions.
    3. If one cannot be held responsible than the mercies of Christ save that person.
    4. The Bible tells us that Adam and Eve did not have this knowledge until after the Fall.
    Conclusion: Adam and Eve cannot be held responsible for any action taken before the Fall (including eating the fruit) and thus the Atonement of Christ has erased them all.

  35. February 10, 2012 at 6:22 pm

    Shem said: “You frequently try to put two and two together, but with your poor math skills you generally come up with some answer like 1.5. You see, your problem is that you never actually try to think outside your own doctrines and interpretations.”

    Shem, I believe that you are the one with “poor math skills” and that “you never try to think outside your own doctrines and interpretations.”

  36. 36 shematwater
    February 13, 2012 at 3:27 pm

    ECHO

    Nice try.

    The fact is that I do not try to think outside my own doctrines when it is those very doctrines that are being discussed, which is perfectly reasonable.
    Now, if you want to discuss your doctrine I am perfectly willing to think outside my doctrine, which I have done on several occasions.
    However, since these threads are dedicated to the discussion of LDS doctrine I feel no need to think outside that focus, while it seems that you do.

    CTC

    You still confuse Spirit with Spiritual.
    The Bible is full of evidence of the Spirit existence previous to this mortal existence. The Greek philosophy is simply a corruption of the original truth that all people once had. The origin of the doctrine is found in the book of Genesis and is supported by many other writings, all contained within the Bible.

  37. February 13, 2012 at 5:34 pm

    Shem, I see the errors hidden in LDS doctrine and you don’t. Try to put your focus and thinking on what I am saying. Try to think outside your own doctrine and interpretations when we discuss LDS doctrine.

    Shem said: “One day the youngest sneaks into his father’s study and through carelessness accidentally knocks over a bottle of ink which spills over several papers. A few days later the older son, in a fit of anger, takes the pen from the bottle and scribbles all over a single sheet of paper.”

    This has nothing to do with Adam and Eve. They did’t sin accidentally. They were told not to eat and they ate. The weren’t running by the tree when an apple accidentally fell down and they accidentally swallowed it.

  38. 38 shematwater
    February 14, 2012 at 3:27 pm

    ECHO

    You see errors because you want to see them. You search for them and your mind fabricates them so that you can claim they exist. Most of them are created by using your doctrine as a standard for understanding ours, and so you will never understand what we teach.

    As to the analogy, it has everything to do with Adam and Eve, you are just refusing to understand anything that I say. That is what you do. You ignore everything that I say that actually does contradict what you say and than twist everything else to fit your own desired perspective of our doctrine.
    Let me try one more time to explain it to you, and see if you can follow it this time.

    The study shows the meaning of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. This knowledge is the inherent understand of what Evil is and what Good is, the knowing of the two opposed forces. It is not a knowledge of whether a certain act is Good or Evil, but simple an understanding of what these things are.
    In other words, a child may be told that lying is wrong, but all they really know is that people don’t want them too lie. They have no understanding that lying is simply evil and should be avoid.
    This is the Knowledge of Good and Evil, without which there is no agency. Where there is no agency Christ’s grace saves.
    Adam and Eve did not have this knowledge, and thus they did not have agency, and thus the grace of Christ has erased their actions.

    You catch all that?

  39. February 15, 2012 at 1:10 am

    Shem said: “You see errors because you want to see them. You search for them and your mind fabricates them so that you can claim they exist. Most of them are created by using your doctrine as a standard for understanding ours, and so you will never understand what we teach.”

    Since I assume you are treating others the way that you want to be treated (Mathew 7:12 “So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets”) allow me to continue to treat you the way you treat others. Perhaps speaking to you in your own love language in this way will make it easier for you to understand what I am saying and what I mean.

    Shem, I see errors because there are errors. Shem, you don’t see the errors because you don’t want to see the errors. Shem, your mind fabricates all kinds of off the wall arguments that are not found in scripture, the scriptures you do use, you use out of context for example Deuteronomy 1: 39. Anyone can cherry pick any number of scripture verses taken out of context to support any false teaching which is something you have been programmed to do so well. You don’t seem to listen at all which is why you will never understand what we teach. You have been heavily influenced through mind control. Do you really have the free agency to listen to us and to accept our teaching if it is true?…No. I fully understand everything you have said in this thread and I still disagree with it, plain and simple. I see your blind spots and you don’t. You catch all that?

    Shem said: “As to the analogy, it has everything to do with Adam and Eve, you are just refusing to understand anything that I say. That is what you do. You ignore everything that I say that actually does contradict what you say and than[sic] twist everything else to fit your own desired perspective of our doctrine. Let me try one more time to explain it to you, and see if you can follow it this time.”

    As to your analogy Shem, it has nothing to do with Adam and Eve. You are just refusing to understand anything that I say. That is what you do. You ignore everything that I say that actually contradicts what you say and then you twist everything else to fit your own desired perspective while ignoring our perspective. After all, you cherry picked and twisted Deuteronomy 1: 39 to support your false teaching. Then once your position is shown for what it truly is (False), you turn around and attack me personally as always. Are personal attacks all you got in your bag to defend yourself? I don’t fall for these mind control techniques even though through Mormonism, you have fallen for them. Now because you are using these mind control techniques on me, I am using your tenchniques on you in hopes of snapping you out of it.

    Shem said: ” The study shows the meaning of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. This knowledge is the inherent understand[sic] of what Evil is and what Good is, the knowing of the two opposed forces. It is not a knowledge of whether a certain act is Good or Evil, but simple[sic] an understanding of what these things are.
    In other words, a child may be told that lying is wrong, but all they really know is that people don’t want them too[sic] lie. They have no understanding that lying is simply evil and should be avoid.[sic]
    This is the Knowledge of Good and Evil, without which there is no agency. Where there is no agency Christ’s grace saves.
    Adam and Eve did not have this knowledge, and thus they did not have agency, and thus the grace of Christ has erased their actions.”

    Shem, Let me try one more time to explain it to you, and see if you can follow it this time.

    When a parent tells their child not to do something and states that there will be consequences. It’s done. Children can now use their free agency to obey or disobey.

    When God told them not to eat or they would die. It’s done. Adam and Eve had the free agency to obey God or disobey God knowing there would be consequences for their disobedience. The Fact that God laid out the consequence to Adam and Eve should be enough for any thinking, reasoning man to understand that God knew Adam and Eve were already equipped with the knowledge needed to avoid that consequence.

    God commanded them NOT to eat from the tree …did you catch that?!

    If the Tree of the knowledge of good and evil meant what you say it means, God would have told them to go ahead and eat from the tree!!…did you catch that?!

    Here is how unreasonable your position really is…

    Shem you used the example and said: “In other words, a child may be told that lying is wrong, but all they really know is that people don’t want them too[sic] lie. They have no understanding that lying is simply evil and should be avoid.[sic] This is the Knowledge of Good and Evil, without which there is no agency.”

    Since you are stating that the understanding that lying is simply evil and should be avoided is the equivalent of the knowledge of good and evil, let me use you as an example of how your reasoning has completely flown out the window. (Disclaimer: This story about Shem is an example of his beliefs and what he believes about God and are not necessarily how he actually leads his children)…

    Shem has children, he tells them not to lie, but like Shem’s god (who told them not to eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil and in accordance with Shem’s understanding of what that means), Shem says “no” to his children ever having to learn how lying is evil and tells them if they want to learn how lying is evil they will die. Because of Shem, Shem’s kids are left without the knowledge of good and evil until they disobey him and find out for themselves. If they choose to do this they will die. ~end of story

    Getting back to the real truth here now…

    The tree of the knowledge of good and evil…

    Fact: God commanded Adam and Eve not to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

    Fact: God didn’t want them eating the fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

    Fact: God wanted them to turn to him for the knowledge of good and evil.

    Fact: they ate the fruit rather than turning to God

    God gave them a choice (free agency) between obeying God and disobeying God.

    They chose to disobey God and when they disobeyed God, they made themselves a God unto themselves. They rejected God as their God. They became God of their own existence. Now they would die.

    You catch all that?

  40. 40 shematwater
    February 15, 2012 at 3:12 pm

    ECHO

    Isn’t fun how often you have to twist my reasoning to fit yours. I find it twice as fun that you can be goaded so nicely into a pointless tirade. You made only one statement that I can agree with.

    “I still disagree with it, plain and simple”

    Now, I have no problem with you disagreeing with it. I couldn’t care less. In fact, the very fact that you do persuades me even more that it is right. However, your arguments make no sense, and that is my point.

    As to personal attacks, it was you that first attacked me, though you did it subtly so as to give yourself maximum deny-ability. In twisting my words to mean something they didn’t you have attacked my personal integrity. Yes, I find that to be a personal attack.
    Combine this with your frequent arrogance and constant ignoring of what I say and you might get some idea as to why I get annoyed with you.

    Just for example: Your claim that the study I outlined has no relation ignores basically everything I said. It only has no relation if you do this, and instead focus solely on what you said. This has been my point on the last few posts, and it is what you commonly do.
    You basic argument is this: I believe this, and what you say doesn’t matter in this context so it has no relation to the discussion.

    I find this insulting.


Comments are currently closed.

February 2012
M T W T F S S
« Jan   Mar »
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
272829  

Blog Stats

  • 182,308 hits

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 998 other followers


%d bloggers like this: