LDS Free Agency

[alfonsobonetti]

22 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.
2 Nephi 2

The trees and animals would have not died and would have not reproduced.

You can't make that interpretation from that verse.
Immortality does not "exclude" procreation as far I can know off hand. All that verse is stating is that all things remain immortal in the Garden.

As far as we know from scripture Adam & Eve didn't procreate until the partook of the fruit, i.e. having gained understanding reaching the age of accountability and capability intellectually speaking.

 

[BarryK]

Originally Posted by Phoebe Ann

22 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.
2 Nephi 2

The trees and animals would have not died and would have not reproduced.
​

You can't make that interpretation from that verse.
Immortality does not "exclude" procreation as far I can know off hand. All that verse is stating is that all things remain immortal in the Garden.

As far as we know from scripture Adam & Eve didn't procreate until the partook of the fruit, i.e. having gained understanding reaching the age of accountability and capability intellectually speaking.

what part of all things excluded trees and animals?
Please be concise and specific in your reply

 

[BarryK]

You can't make that interpretation from that verse.
Immortality does not "exclude" procreation as far I can know off hand. All that verse is stating is that all things remain immortal in the Garden.

As far as we know from scripture Adam & Eve didn't procreate until the partook of the fruit, i.e. having gained understanding reaching the age of accountability and capability intellectually speaking.

so being created in the image and likeness of God, they had no acountability and capability?

is this anouther example of meormon theology being bassed on what the scripture does not

how is this "intelectually speaking"?

 

[Rescued One]

You can't make that interpretation from that verse.

Anyone can interpret it that way; no one has to. The state that Adam and Eve were in was apparently one of abstinence. The animals apparently had no blood in their bodies of flesh and, therefore, could not die. So if Adam and Eve could not reproduce, why would other living things be the exception?

Immortality does not "exclude" procreation as far I can know off hand. All that verse is stating is that all things remain immortal in the Garden.

Adam and Eve had no blood before the Fall. They had bodies of flesh and bone. Blood is only present in mortality.

"The fall of man was a move from the presence of God to mortal life on earth. That move down to a lower place came as a consequence of a broken law.

"Fall may also describe a change in condition. For instance, one can fall in reputation or from prominence. The word fall well describes what transpired when Adam and Eve were driven from the garden. A transformation took place in their bodies. The bodies of flesh and bone became temporal bodies. Temporal means temporary. The scriptures say, 'the life of all flesh is the blood thereof.' (Lev. 17:14; see also Deut. 12:23; Joseph Fielding Smith, comp., Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1976, pp. 199–200, 367.)

"President Kimball explained, 'Blood, the life-giving element in our bodies, replaced the finer substance which coursed through their bodies before. They and we became mortal, subject to illness, pains, and even the physical dissolution called death.' (Ensign, Sept. 1978, p. 5).

"After the transformation of the Fall, bodies of flesh and bone and blood (unlike our spirit bodies) could not endure. Somehow the ingredient of blood carried with it a limit to life. It was as though a clock were set and a time given. Thereafter, all living things moved inexorably toward mortal death."
Boyd K. Packer, “Funerals—A Time for Reverence,” Ensign, Nov. 1988, p. 18

According to Mormonism, besides gaining an education by eating the fruit, their bodies also changed.

 

[cubinity]

what part of all things excluded trees and animals?
Please be concise and specific in your reply

He's not arguing that all things didn't maintain the same state.
He's arguing that they had the ability to procreate, which does not conflict with the passage.
So, ALL THINGS is not the issue. SAME STATE =/= to inability to reproduce.

 

[cubinity]

Anyone can interpret it that way; no one has to. The state that Adam and Eve were in was apparently one of abstinence. The animals apparently had no blood in their bodies of flesh and, therefore, could not die. So if Adam and Eve could not reproduce, why would other living things be the exception?



Adam and Eve had no blood before the Fall. They had bodies of flesh and bone. Blood is only present in mortality.

"The fall of man was a move from the presence of God to mortal life on earth. That move down to a lower place came as a consequence of a broken law.

"Fall may also describe a change in condition. For instance, one can fall in reputation or from prominence. The word fall well describes what transpired when Adam and Eve were driven from the garden. A transformation took place in their bodies. The bodies of flesh and bone became temporal bodies. Temporal means temporary. The scriptures say, 'the life of all flesh is the blood thereof.' (Lev. 17:14; see also Deut. 12:23; Joseph Fielding Smith, comp., Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1976, pp. 199–200, 367.)

"President Kimball explained, 'Blood, the life-giving element in our bodies, replaced the finer substance which coursed through their bodies before. They and we became mortal, subject to illness, pains, and even the physical dissolution called death.' (Ensign, Sept. 1978, p. 5).

"After the transformation of the Fall, bodies of flesh and bone and blood (unlike our spirit bodies) could not endure. Somehow the ingredient of blood carried with it a limit to life. It was as though a clock were set and a time given. Thereafter, all living things moved inexorably toward mortal death."
Boyd K. Packer, “Funerals—A Time for Reverence,” Ensign, Nov. 1988, p. 18

According to Mormonism, besides gaining an education by eating the fruit, their bodies also changed.

Again, you're arguing that these things are teaching that Adam and Eve COULD NOT REPRODUCE. However, I am not seeing anything you have presented that has said that.

Yes, it says they didn't have blood. Yes, it says they couldn't change state. Yes, it says they did not reproduce. However, it never says they could not, only that they did not. So, the argument you are making about the material you are presenting (which is the argument I was also referring to in my last post to you) continues to go unsupported.

It doesn't matter whether you believe it or not. If you are going to argue something about it, you have some responsibility in presenting its meaning.

 

[Rescued One]

Again, you're arguing that these things are teaching that Adam and Eve COULD NOT REPRODUCE. However, I am not seeing anything you have presented that has said that.

Yes, it says they didn't have blood. Yes, it says they couldn't change state. Yes, it says they did not reproduce. However, it never says they could not, only that they did not. So, the argument you are making about the material you are presenting (which is the argument I was also referring to in my last post to you) continues to go unsupported.

It doesn't matter whether you believe it or not. If you are going to argue something about it, you have some responsibility in presenting its meaning.

You are apparently jumping to conclusions. Have you read this entire thread?

"11 And Eve, his wife, heard all these things and was glad, saying: Were it not for our transgression we never should have had seed, and never should have known good and evil, and the joy of our redemption, and the eternal life which God giveth unto all the obedient."
Pearl of Great Price, Moses 5:11

"Adam fell that men might be..."
2 Nephi 2:22

BTW, I'm not out prove anything to anyone. This is not a formal debate. And I did NOT say that the ideas presented by myself or LDS leaders were fact. I posed a question: "So if Adam and Eve could not reproduce, why would other living things be the exception?"

For people who are still wondering after all these years:

I post because as a Latter-day Saint I was taught what Robert Millet said: "We never provide meat when milk will do." This saying was known among church members before Mr. Millet said it. This meant, "Don't share so much that you scare away potential converts." I think people deserve to know the teachings of Mormonism and I believe that God wants me to be totally honest, to not put a spin on it, and to correct those who might come barging in here with assumptions about Mormonism that are not true.

 

[Rescued One]

He's not arguing that all things didn't maintain the same state.
He's arguing that they had the ability to procreate, which does not conflict with the passage.

The passage doesn't say that they were able to procreate. Nor does what McConkie said conflict with the passage:

And the effects of his fall pass upon all created things. They fall in that they too become mortal. Death enters the world; mortality reigns; procreation commences; and the Lord’s great and eternal purposes roll onward."
Bruce R. McConkie, “Christ and the Creation,” Ensign, June 1982

 

[cubinity]

You are apparently jumping to conclusions. Have you read this entire thread?

"11 And Eve, his wife, heard all these things and was glad, saying: Were it not for our transgression we never should have had seed, and never should have known good and evil, and the joy of our redemption, and the eternal life which God giveth unto all the obedient."
Pearl of Great Price, Moses 5:11

"Adam fell that men might be..."
2 Nephi 2:22

BTW, I'm not out prove anything to anyone. This is not a formal debate. And I did NOT say that the ideas presented by myself or LDS leaders were fact. I posed a question: "So if Adam and Eve could not reproduce, why would other living things be the exception?"

For people who are still wondering after all these years:

I post because as a Latter-day Saint I was taught what Robert Millet said: "We never provide meat when milk will do." This saying was known among church members before Mr. Millet said it. This meant, "Don't share so much that you scare away potential converts." I think people deserve to know the teachings of Mormonism and I believe that God wants me to be totally honest, to not put a spin on it, and to correct those who might come barging in here with assumptions about Mormonism that are not true.

I don't know that I understand what drives you, then.

If your target audience is other people who don't know, and therefore do not believe this stuff, then why even discuss it with them?

 

[Rescued One]

I don't know that I understand what drives you, then.

Well, let's put it this way:

 

[cubinity]

Well, let's put it this way:

So, because God is your strength and power, you feel compelled to write anti-Mormon propaganda? Is that what you are saying?

I'm still curious to know why you bring stuff up that you seem to admit your target audience does not even believe. What's the point?

Is it some kind of self-imposed penance for once being duped, or something like that? I ask because there is a guys that protests the war on the street corner every week, and he does it because his brother died in Vietnam. It's like therapy for him. Is your motivation similar?

 

[alfonsobonetti]

what part of all things excluded trees and animals?
Please be concise and specific in your reply

Please pay attention to what you are actually reading.

The verse specifically states that "all things would remain in the same state they were created". In other words, if man was created in a state that didn't know about having sex, then that's how they would have remained while remaining in the Garden. Other creatures very well could have been created to reproduce. That verse says nothing about reproduction.

And I'm not going to respond to your previous post until you stop "flaming", by calling me Obiwan.

 

[alfonsobonetti]

so being created in the image and likeness of God, they had no acountability and capability?

is this anouther example of meormon theology being bassed on what the scripture does not

how is this "intelectually speaking"?

What kind of question is that? Do you enjoy creating contentious arguments against others that go against what even you yourself believe?

Did they not LATER partake of the fruit and THEN became as the Gods knowing Good and Evil? Being created in the image and likeness doesn't mean that they were entirely "as God" when they were created. They clearly became as the Gods when they partook of the fruit, per Gods own words as recorded in the Bible. "Man has become as one of us."

It's what the scriptures state. Not my problem if you don't want to believe them.

 

[alfonsobonetti]

Anyone can interpret it that way; no one has to. The state that Adam and Eve were in was apparently one of abstinence. The animals apparently had no blood in their bodies of flesh and, therefore, could not die. So if Adam and Eve could not reproduce, why would other living things be the exception?

LDS generally prefer to expound only what the scriptures state, save additional revelation. Not that we haven't ever gave our own views both correct and likely not, but, that is what we try to do.

The scriptures don't say one way or another as far as I know, so I'm not going to agree with you one way or another.

Adam and Eve had no blood before the Fall. They had bodies of flesh and bone. Blood is only present in mortality.

"The fall of man was a move from the presence of God to mortal life on earth. That move down to a lower place came as a consequence of a broken law.

"Fall may also describe a change in condition. For instance, one can fall in reputation or from prominence. The word fall well describes what transpired when Adam and Eve were driven from the garden. A transformation took place in their bodies. The bodies of flesh and bone became temporal bodies. Temporal means temporary. The scriptures say, 'the life of all flesh is the blood thereof.' (Lev. 17:14; see also Deut. 12:23; Joseph Fielding Smith, comp., Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1976, pp. 199–200, 367.)

"President Kimball explained, 'Blood, the life-giving element in our bodies, replaced the finer substance which coursed through their bodies before. They and we became mortal, subject to illness, pains, and even the physical dissolution called death.' (Ensign, Sept. 1978, p. 5).

"After the transformation of the Fall, bodies of flesh and bone and blood (unlike our spirit bodies) could not endure. Somehow the ingredient of blood carried with it a limit to life. It was as though a clock were set and a time given. Thereafter, all living things moved inexorably toward mortal death."
Boyd K. Packer, “Funerals—A Time for Reverence,” Ensign, Nov. 1988, p. 18

According to Mormonism, besides gaining an education by eating the fruit, their bodies also changed.

Yes, but please note that vegetation apparently "reproduced", given the fact that they could apparently eat. Remember God said that all things were for their use. The only thing that didn't occur in the Garden was apparently "death". And procreation in relation to Adam & Eve was apparently simply delayed. Note also how neither plants nor animals have "knowledge", thus do not sin. Remember what the reasons God gave to kick Adam/Eve out of the Garden?

 

[alfonsobonetti]

For people who are still wondering after all these years:

I post because as a Latter-day Saint I was taught what Robert Millet said: "We never provide meat when milk will do." This saying was known among church members before Mr. Millet said it. This meant, "Don't share so much that you scare away potential converts." I think people deserve to know the teachings of Mormonism and I believe that God wants me to be totally honest, to not put a spin on it, and to correct those who might come barging in here with assumptions about Mormonism that are not true.

1. You act as if milk before meat is some "big" thing within mormonism, it is not. People ask, we answer period. Further, you pervert it into something "sinister" in order to attack mormonism when it is not, when it's entirely BIBLICAL. Don't know why you have a problem with mormons teaching Biblical Doctrine, but that is more your problem rather than ours. Of course, I know why you do. Because you've created in your mind this perverted form of mormonism, so you think mormons follow some perverted doctrine on the matter rather than simply what the scriptures state. But, that again is on you and your own personal issues, rather than us.

2. The reason why you teach people the "basics" first is so they can understand the "deeper" stuff later. It's not that the deeper stuff is something "terrible" that we are trying to hide as you falsely and degradingly portray, it's simply common sense. You don't teach a child Algebra before he's even learned Basic Math. Nothing "sinister" about that sorry to tell you, as you people try to again degradingly portray.

3. You then falsely claim stating that:

a: we don't teach people mormonism.​

b: we aren't being honest and that YOU are the real "honest" person, though from my experience with you and those like you, you are anything but being "honest" when it concerns mormonism. Even Skylark sees it often, and she as you know isn't mormon (though she obviously won't say that, but she tries to correct you often and you ignore it).​

c: that we are putting a spin on mormonism, when in reality it is YOU who do so. We teach exactly what we believe, what our doctrines are. There is no "spin" there. Why do we need to "spin" something to people? We are in a religion because we believe in it. These are our most cherished beliefs. They make us happy. Thus, we share to people what we believe. There is no "spin" there. Why do you feel we are so obsessed with getting converts that we must "spin" a tale to them in order for them to believe it? But, I know it makes you feel good to believe mormons are "spinners" of lies in relation to our own beliefs. So, you go right ahead believing that, since it makes you feel good, and since it makes you feel justified and favored of God​

d: and then you claim you wish to correct peoples assumptions about mormonism, but sadly when you do so you entirely misrepresent mormonism, putting the most negative and false spin on it you can. So who is it really who has incorrect assumptions about mormonism? People who don't have a degrading agenda seem to understand us well even if they don't believe the same. Why not you?​

In another post you say you do what you do because of God, that he is your strength and portion. I say you do so because of you, your own insecurity's and false assumptions. God doesn't need his followers to misrepresent and degrade others and their faiths in order to make his own theology seem "better" than others.

 

[alfonsobonetti]

The passage doesn't say that they were able to procreate. Nor does what McConkie said conflict with the passage:

And the effects of his fall pass upon all created things. They fall in that they too become mortal. Death enters the world; mortality reigns; procreation commences; and the Lord’s great and eternal purposes roll onward."
Bruce R. McConkie, “Christ and the Creation,” Ensign, June 1982

Okay, so according to McConkie procreation commenced then. What is your actual problem?

He said the "effects of the fall" passed onto all things. He doesn't say anything about what all those effects are on all those things. But, according to him "procreation" began after. Again, your issue?

 

[Rescued One]

LDS generally prefer to expound only what the scriptures state, save additional revelation. Not that we haven't ever gave our own views both correct and likely not, but, that is what we try to do.

Which scripture states that there is a Heavenly Mother?

The scriptures don't say one way or another as far as I know, so I'm not going to agree with you one way or another.

Yes, but please note that vegetation apparently "reproduced", given the fact that they could apparently eat. Remember God said that all things were for their use. The only thing that didn't occur in the Garden was apparently "death". And procreation in relation to Adam & Eve was apparently simply delayed. Note also how neither plants nor animals have "knowledge", thus do not sin. Remember what the reasons God gave to kick Adam/Eve out of the Garden?

So then committing sin isn't necessary to procreation. In 2011, couples can marry first. You can not prove that Adam and Eve could not reproduce unless he disobeyed God. That is such an illogical teaching. Adam was obedient for a period of time. It would have been good for him to continue to obey his Creator and to be grateful for what God gave him.


If nothing including plants and animals could die in the Garden of Eden, the seeds in the fruit and herbs could be there, but they wouldn't grow. Therefore reproduction would not take place. The same fruit trees would live forever, producing fruit, but no new trees. "Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone: but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit" (John 12:24).

Do you remember what God said about reproduction?

"And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good" (Genesis 1:12). So the seed was to produce a tree, not only to provide fruit.

 

[Rescued One]

Okay, so according to McConkie procreation commenced then. What is your actual problem?

He said the "effects of the fall" passed onto all things. He doesn't say anything about what all those effects are on all those things. But, according to him "procreation" began after. Again, your issue?

I don't recall stating that I had an issue.

What I did was ask if the Gods caused Adam and Eve to reproduce or did they give them a choice?

 

[RufustheRed]

You should learn that doctrinal truth isn't found by quote mining one scripture as if that is the end all fact and truth to the subject in question, especially when the verse in question even further doesn't even support your position against another's such as mine.

And you should learn to read what the words say. Not what your religious organization tells you they say.

]It is a well known fact that the devil uses truth to lie. It is true that when someone uses truth to lie or lies to lie, there is in fact "no truth in them", that is because their whole premise, conclusion, viewpoint, etc. is ultimately LIE. It doesn't matter how they got there, they are ultimately lying, thus they become a father of lies.

So you say.

1. You misrepresented my words as if the scripture you quoted contended against them, when they don't.

I didn't misrepresent anything. I only pointed out what you said and compared it to what Jesus said. Like you say in a subsequent post "It's what the scriptures state. Not my problem if you don't want to believe them." Jesus said, ""Ye are of [your] father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it. (John 8:44 KJV)

You can believe what Mormonism teaches you, I'll believe what Jesus teaches me. Fair enough?

2. You ignore what I actually said, creating a straw man that you then attack with scripture.

I didn't attack you or your words. I merely pointed out the contradiction between what you said and what Jesus said.

I didn't say there was truth in him, I said he used truth to tell his lies, which in fact means that there is nothing but "lies" in him. Big difference..... It's the same thing I try to teach most of those who are critical of mormonism. Most do the same thing, they use a little truth to lie about mormonism, and they think they do God a service, but all they are really doing is lying even though they use some "facts" and "truth" while doing it. There is no truth either in those who misrepresent mormonism, for everything they claim of us is falsehood.

Amazing. Just amazing. You can carry on about who is telling falsehoods and who is not and yet deny that you ever posted under any other monikers. As I said, amazing.

Rufus

 

[alfonsobonetti]

[/size][/font]

And you should learn to read what the words say. Not what your religious organization tells you they say.

This is really a funny statement, because it applies to YOU not me or us. I can proove it also, not simply make a claim as you did.

Christ specifically says in that scripture that "the truth is not in him".
The operative word is "in". In basic language comprehension the word "in" in this context is an attribute of charater. It is not stating at all that satan doesn't use facts and truths in order to tell his lies. It says he is a liar. Thus, it is you that is interpreting the verse according to how your religion believes in order to attack me, instead of what the verse actually states. You are "adding" to the Word.

Again, I'll repeat. Truth and facts or falsehoods are entities by themselves. Thus, when Christ stated that the truth is not in satan, he's stating just that, that satan is nothing but a liar. He doesn't address anything about what I said, which is that satan is able us truths in order to tell lies. This is simple fact and it is also "reality". Are you trying to deny reality also? Are you telling me you've never seen people use some truth in order to tell a lie about someone or something? I see it all the time from Liberals, and I see it from people like you in relation to mormonism.

Heck, even this is an example of you using truth to misrepresent mormons. You use the truth and fact of that verse of scripture, and then pervert it to try and make it apply to what I said when it doesn't apply to what I said. Christ is talking about what is IN satan, not what he does in order to tell his lies, which is what I was discussing. A perfect example of how people use truth to lie. You've done it yourself in order to attack my statement.

So you say.

Would recommend a reality check since you think respectful discussion is just being "disagreeable" about everything someone says. "So I say"? Boy, can't get more disagreeable than that. That you aren't even able to acknowledge simple basic facts.

I didn't misrepresent anything. I only pointed out what you said and compared it to what Jesus said. Like you say in a subsequent post "It's what the scriptures state. Not my problem if you don't want to believe them." Jesus said, ""Ye are of [your] father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it. (John 8:44 KJV)

You can believe what Mormonism teaches you, I'll believe what Jesus teaches me. Fair enough?

Yep, you misrepresented things, and I prove it above.
Sorry, but you are believing what your religions tells you and not reading the verse for what it actually says. I'm reading what it actually says, while you are adding more to Christ's words. Thus, it is I who believe what Jesus teaches, not you.

I didn't attack you or your words. I merely pointed out the contradiction between what you said and what Jesus said.

But there is no contradiction because you misinterpret his words trying to use them to attack mine, when he wasn't addressing what I said. Again, he said truth is not IN Satan. That is a character attribute in case you don't know. He's not saying anything about whether satan uses truths and facts to tell his lies, which his lies would be something IN HIM, thus truth would not be in him. Are you getting it yet, you do you still insist on being disagreeable so you don't loose the argument???

Amazing. Just amazing. You can carry on about who is telling falsehoods and who is not and yet deny that you ever posted under any other monikers. As I said, amazing.

Rufus

I was under the assumption that this forum is for the discussion of mormonism, not conspiracy theory's on who someone is? Who I am or am not shouldn't matter. It is the truth and facts that matter as to mormonism and the doctrines of God in contrast to men.