LDS Freedom Forum

sisterp wrote: ↑July 3rd, 2019, 7:30 pm Also, God commanded them to have joy therein. Mind blown. Thank you.

I know, right?! Thank you.

I don't agree with the notion that God cannot give contradictory commandments or else he would cease to be God. He commands certain behaviors for one person or group at one period of time and then he commands the opposite for someone else. Thou shalt not kill, yet he commanded Nephi to kill. The specific commandments are never as important as where the hearts are of individuals. He gives different commandments to teach us lessons about true love and sacrifice, and changes things up to stretch us. I think the contradiction in the garden was necessary to see if Adam and Eve were willing to not only obey, but obey for the right reasons, to think a little deeper than about what was comfortable, but to think about others and the whole purpose of existence. Was Eve transgressing for selfish reasons? That is the important question. I don't think so, as she states afterward that it is better for them to pass through sorrow that they may know the good from the evil. This shows that in her heart she belived that this was the only way to know good from evil, and it would be worth the experience. Maybe she realized that to bring forth fruit of any kind takes sacrifice, and that true, deep opposites needed to be experienced at least by some willing to go through it, to rise to the level of her Father. So even if there was another way, Father in Heaven tested them to see where thir hearts were, and thankfully they both demonstrared that they were willing to do whatever sacrifice was required to multiply and replenish the earth. They were willing to gain knowledge by experiencing opposites, which I am thankful for, as it has given me that opportunity to gain that knowldege. I don't know how spirits born in the millenium will progress in knowledge, but no doubt all who desire to become heirs to all the blessings of Abraham, will have to gain a comprehension of mortality.

Sarah wrote: ↑July 9th, 2019, 11:36 am I don't agree with the notion that God cannot give contradictory commandments or else he would cease to be God. He commands certain behaviors for one person or group at one period of time and then he commands the opposite for someone else. Thou shalt not kill, yet he commanded Nephi to kill.

I answered this already in the OP:

Simultaneous vs. Sequential commandments

Some say: "If God does not give contradictory commandments, then how do we explain what he did with Abraham?"

Simple. He gave one commandment; then he gave a different commandment that superseded the first. Commandment to sacrifice Isaac was superseded by the commandment not to sacrifice Isaac.

These were sequential, and were not in force at the same time, but one AFTER the other, with the latter explicitly canceling the former. And you cannot transgress a commandment that has been revoked.

This however was not the case in the garden of Eden. The first commandment did not supersede or cancel the second. BOTH were in full force SIMULTANEOUSLY, at the same time.

If it were not so, then the punishment attached to the breaking of the second commandment would not have been applied to Adam and Eve, but it was. Why? Because BOTH commandments were in force at the same time.

God, in principle, cannot give contradictory commandments that are in force simultaneously, or he would cease to be God, because he would be contradicting himself, because he said he gives no commandments unto anyone unless they can accomplish what he commands them.

Sarah wrote: ↑July 9th, 2019, 11:36 am she [Eve] states afterward that it is better for them to pass through sorrow that they may know the good from the evil.

This implies a lie that the devil told them, the lie that 'there was no other way." The truth however is that they could have had passed through sorrow and learned good from evil without any transgression required on their part, just like Jesus learned good from evil by RESISTING temptations, instead of yielding to them.

Adam and Eve could have had all the sorrow they needed WITHOUT the fall. The Father in heaven experienced greater or more intense sorrow than anyone else, yet He never fell. You do NOT have to fall to know all the sorrow there is.

So the devil lied, and many still fall for the lie. But the truth is unconquerable, and it will silence every fool who repeats with the devil, against what God has commanded, the lie that "there was no other way."

Sarah wrote: ↑July 9th, 2019, 11:36 am This shows that in her heart she belived that this was the only way to know good from evil, and it would be worth the experience.

That's why she fell, because she believed the devil more than the Father. This is the reason--her belief in a lie against the express advice and commandments of God--that brought the curse of death upon her and her posterity.

She was stupid. That was the reason.

Yes, I said it. It is the truth. Deal with it.

Sarah wrote: ↑July 9th, 2019, 11:36 am Maybe she realized that to bring forth fruit of any kind takes sacrifice, and that true, deep opposites needed to be experienced at least by some willing to go through it, to rise to the level of her Father. So even if there was another way, Father in Heaven tested them to see where thir hearts were, and thankfully they both demonstrared that they were willing to do whatever sacrifice was required to multiply and replenish the earth.

It was not a sacrifice but the opposite of sacrifice. As I already said in the OP:

"It [partaking of the forbidden fruit] was a great sacrifice necessary to provide mortal bodies for their spirit children" fallacy.
It was a great error. Not a divinely appointed sacrifice.

"Will I receive at your hands that which I have not appointed? And will I appoint unto you, saith the Lord, except it be by law" ( D&C 132:10-11) And the law was: "But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it, ... remember that I forbid it." (Moses 3:17) That was the law.

Secondly, the Father commanded them to provide immortal (not fallen) bodies for his children, instead of mortal and fallen ones. Why? Because he commanded them to multiply and replenish the earth and NOT to fall by partaking the fruit. Adam and Eve failed on both counts, which was the reason of their fall.

Sarah wrote: ↑July 9th, 2019, 11:36 am They were willing to gain knowledge by experiencing opposites, which I am thankful for, as it has given me that opportunity to gain that knowldege. I don't know how spirits born in the millenium will progress in knowledge, but no doubt all who desire to become heirs to all the blessings of Abraham, will have to gain a comprehension of mortality.

The Father who lives in heaven, a celestial world, experienced " true, deep opposites" without ANY transgression on His part. You do not need to fall to experience all the extremes of sorrow and suffering. No one suffered more than the Father, yet He never fell.

So too those who will live in the Millennium will never know fallen lone and dreary world. Yet they will have a chance to suffer no less than you.

You have been taught lies, and you believed them. I do not judge you. But it is your duty to grow in reason and in truth.

Self-contradiction is the definition of error.
Intentional self-contradiction is the definition of sin.

God who contradicts himself is not God.
The devil is the father of self-contradiction.

Not God.

Learn this.

LoveIsTruth wrote: ↑July 9th, 2019, 6:20 pm

Sarah wrote: ↑July 9th, 2019, 11:36 am I don't agree with the notion that God cannot give contradictory commandments or else he would cease to be God. He commands certain behaviors for one person or group at one period of time and then he commands the opposite for someone else. Thou shalt not kill, yet he commanded Nephi to kill.

I answered this already in the OP:

Simultaneous vs. Sequential commandments

Some say: "If God does not give contradictory commandments, then how do we explain what he did with Abraham?"

Simple. He gave one commandment; then he gave a different commandment that superseded the first. Commandment to sacrifice Isaac was superseded by the commandment not to sacrifice Isaac.

These were sequential, and were not in force at the same time, but one AFTER the other, with the latter explicitly canceling the former. And you cannot transgress a commandment that has been revoked.

This however was not the case in the garden of Eden. The first commandment did not supersede or cancel the second. BOTH were in full force SIMULTANEOUSLY, at the same time.

If it were not so, then the punishment attached to the breaking of the second commandment would not have been applied to Adam and Eve, but it was. Why? Because BOTH commandments were in force at the same time.

God, in principle, cannot give contradictory commandments that are in force simultaneously, or he would cease to be God, because he would be contradicting himself, because he said he gives no commandments unto anyone unless they can accomplish what he commands them.

Sarah wrote: ↑July 9th, 2019, 11:36 am she [Eve] states afterward that it is better for them to pass through sorrow that they may know the good from the evil.

This implies a lie that the devil told them, the lie that 'there was no other way." The truth however is that they could have had passed through sorrow and learned good from evil without any transgression required on their part, just like Jesus learned good from evil by RESISTING temptations, instead of yielding to them.

Adam and Eve could have had all the sorrow they needed WITHOUT the fall. The Father in heaven experienced greater or more intense sorrow than anyone else, yet He never fell. You do NOT have to fall to know all the sorrow there is.

So the devil lied, and many still fall for the lie. But the truth is unconquerable, and it will silence every fool who repeats with the devil, against what God has commanded, the lie that "there was no other way."

Sarah wrote: ↑July 9th, 2019, 11:36 am This shows that in her heart she belived that this was the only way to know good from evil, and it would be worth the experience.

That's why she fell, because she believed the devil more than the Father. This is the reason--her belief in a lie against the express advice and commandments of God--that brought the curse of death upon her and her posterity.

She was stupid. That was the reason.

Yes, I said it. It is the truth. Deal with it.

Sarah wrote: ↑July 9th, 2019, 11:36 am Maybe she realized that to bring forth fruit of any kind takes sacrifice, and that true, deep opposites needed to be experienced at least by some willing to go through it, to rise to the level of her Father. So even if there was another way, Father in Heaven tested them to see where thir hearts were, and thankfully they both demonstrared that they were willing to do whatever sacrifice was required to multiply and replenish the earth.

It was not a sacrifice but the opposite of sacrifice. As I already said in the OP:

"It [partaking of the forbidden fruit] was a great sacrifice necessary to provide mortal bodies for their spirit children" fallacy.
It was a great error. Not a divinely appointed sacrifice.

"Will I receive at your hands that which I have not appointed? And will I appoint unto you, saith the Lord, except it be by law" ( D&C 132:10-11) And the law was: "But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it, ... remember that I forbid it." (Moses 3:17) That was the law.

Secondly, the Father commanded them to provide immortal (not fallen) bodies for his children, instead of mortal and fallen ones. Why? Because he commanded them to multiply and replenish the earth and NOT to fall by partaking the fruit. Adam and Eve failed on both counts, which was the reason of their fall.

Sarah wrote: ↑July 9th, 2019, 11:36 am They were willing to gain knowledge by experiencing opposites, which I am thankful for, as it has given me that opportunity to gain that knowldege. I don't know how spirits born in the millenium will progress in knowledge, but no doubt all who desire to become heirs to all the blessings of Abraham, will have to gain a comprehension of mortality.

The Father who lives in heaven, a celestial world, experienced " true, deep opposites" without ANY transgression on His part. You do not need to fall to experience all the extremes of sorrow and suffering. No one suffered more than the Father, yet He never fell.

So too those who will live in the Millennium will never know fallen lone and dreary world. Yet they will have a chance to suffer no less than you.

You have been taught lies, and you believed them. I do not judge you. But it is your duty to grow in reason and in truth.

Self-contradiction is the definition of error.
Intentional self-contradiction is the definition of sin.

God who contradicts himself is not God.
The devil is the father of self-contradiction.

Not God.

Learn this.

Okay, let's start with this quote:

God, in principle, cannot give contradictory commandments that are in force simultaneously, or he would cease to be God, because he would be contradicting himself, because he said he gives no commandments unto anyone unless they can accomplish what he commands them.

I see no reason why God cannot give a commandment, then give another commandment that requires breaking the other commandment. The Fall was a very special and unique event, in the same category with the Atonement and Resurrection. No reason why it could have some very unique features to it. Your reason why this could never happen is that you say God always provides a way to obey his commandments. But he did exactly that in the Garden. The way to multiply and replenish the earth was provided - it was the tree of knowledge of good and evil. He did provide a way, and even told Adam and Eve it was their choice to eat of the fruit or not, even though he gave His commandment to them. He made a point to remind them of their agency. So I see a huge assumption being made that God could never give contradictory commandments, when I see no reason why he could not.

Joseph Smith is quoted as saying, "by proving contraries, truth is made manifest." So what does it mean to prove contraries? It does not mean to dismiss one in favor of the other, it is to prove how both can be true at the same time. If this profound idea was important to Joseph, no doubt it was because it was important to God. The truth can be found when you reconcile the contradiction, not when you condemn one side of the coin in favor of the other.

Another assumption you make is that Satan was telling a lie, but Satan doesn't always lie. He more often uses truth mixed with slight deception. So was there no other way? If there was another way, using Satan as the argument doesn't hold any weight.

One question I have for you is, why, if God was only testing obedience, why did he make Adam and Eve innocent with no knowledge of good and evil, and remove their memory? It's as if he intentionally set them up to fail. Why did he do this? It's apparent that the tree opened up Eve's eyes to recognize Satan, so there was a real mental change from eating the fruit , and it shows Eve was lacking knowledge that could have helped her. Your argument is that at some point they would have become more accountable and knowledgeable through experience, but I see no way you can prove this. How would this have happened? How do you know they would have figured out the baby-making thing for example? There's a reason why the scriptures say they were like children, and did not recognize the fact that they were naked. What would have suddenly let them know that they were naked if it were not the fruit?

I don't know for sure, but my feeling is that Heavenly Father set them up to make that choice and to fall, and that it was something that Eve and all women coming into the world understood as a necessary sacrifice which would require the partaking certain consequences and responsibilities for bringing about God's plan for his children. I look at Eve's role in the Fall and the attending consequences the same as I do the Savior's role in the atonement. She and all women bear the souls of men in one way and so does the Savior in another. This isn't putting her as his equal, but simply recognizing the balance of roles needed, and the need for justice and mercy. Eve's choice brought about the consequences of transgression and justice. Heavenly Father and Jesus bring about mercy through the atonement, and they give men that ability to extend mercy through Priesthood ordinances. But the Lord's atoning sacrifice wouldn't have been possible without death. Without his death no mercy would be possible for sin and transgression. I don't see how a terrestrial sphere without death could have provided a Savior for us, or justice or mercy for that matter.

Do you believe that there would never be any disobedience or transgression in a terrestrial state, so no need for a Savior? We see in the pre-mortal realm, those who disobeyed Heavenly Father, and rejected the offer to partake of mortal life and Jesus's role in the plan to provide mercy, did receive justice, by being cast out. So even in the pre-mortal realm, God's plan and the Savior's atonement were offered as mercy, and the other choice was justice. That leads me to believe that justice and mercy would have to also operate in a terrestrial sphere as well. There would be no way we could agree to accept Jesus's sacrifice for us as our Savior in the pre-mortal realm if He would never receive a mortal body and attending death to atone for sins, death the Fall provided. Someone needed to bring death into the world for there to be a Savior, and Eve was the fall-guy, or rather girl Good for her I say!

Sarah wrote: ↑July 9th, 2019, 11:25 pm I see no reason why God cannot give a commandment, then give another commandment that requires breaking the other commandment.

God can give one commandment, then a different commandment that supersedes the previous one. Example: He commanded Abraham to kill his son Isaac, and then commanded Abraham not to kill Isaac. The first commandment was not broken, because it was revoked by God, and a second commandment was in force. You cannot break a commandment that has been revoked by a new commandment.

So God never contradicts Himself. These are sequential commandments, as I said, with the last one revoking the previous one.

This was not the case in the garden of Eden. Both commandments were in force AT THE SAME TIME. One did not overrule or cancel out the other. Therefore Adam and Eve were under the obligation to obey BOTH commandments simultaneously.

If such simultaneous commandments were contradicting each other, then God would cease to be God because He would have required or commanded that man should disobey Him. This constitutes a self-contradiction.

God is God for only one reason: He does not contradict Himself.

As I said: self-contradiction is the definition of error. And intentional self-contradiction is the definition of evil.

If God contradicts Himself, then He would be evil by definition, and thus no God at all.

Satan is the father of lies and therefore the father of self-contradiction. Not God.

This is the key attribute of God, that He cannot lie.

“And he answered: Yea, Lord, I know that thou speakest the truth, for thou art a God of truth, and canst not lie.” (Ether 3:12)

If God gave self-contradictory commandments, He would be a liar, because He would have commanded man to disobey Him, while at the same time commanding man to obey Him, for God said:

“Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man.” ( Eccl. 12:13 )

So you can clearly see, that only a Satan would contradict himself in such a manner, and not God.

You cannot obey God’s commandments by transgressing them.
Adam could not obey God’s commandments by transgressing them.
To disobey God in order to obey Him is a doctrine of the devil, who is the father of all lies.

Why? Because this is a self-contradiction, and thus is evil and error by definition.

Unless you make God an evil liar, you cannot assert that He contradicts Himself.

Anyone who persists in asserting that God contradicts Himself will be damned, because they are repeating Satan’s lies, and Satan is the king of self-contradiction and the source of it.

Please learn the difference.

Thank you.

LoveIsTruth wrote: ↑July 10th, 2019, 1:43 am

Sarah wrote: ↑July 9th, 2019, 11:25 pm I see no reason why God cannot give a commandment, then give another commandment that requires breaking the other commandment.

God can give one commandment, then a different commandment that supersedes the previous one. Example: He commanded Abraham to kill his son Isaac, and then commanded Abraham not to kill Isaac. The first commandment was not broken, because it was revoked by God, and a second commandment was in force. You cannot break a commandment that has been revoked by a new commandment.

So God never contradicts Himself. These are sequential commandments, as I said, with the last one revoking the previous one.

This was not the case in the garden of Eden. Both commandments were in force AT THE SAME TIME. One did not overrule or cancel out the other. Therefore Adam and Eve were under the obligation to obey BOTH commandments simultaneously.

If such simultaneous commandments were contradicting each other, then God would cease to be God because He would have required or commanded that man should disobey Him. This constitutes a self-contradiction.

God is God for only one reason: He does not contradict Himself.

As I said: self-contradiction is the definition of error. And intentional self-contradiction is the definition of evil.

If God contradicts Himself, then He would be evil by definition, and thus no God at all.

Satan is the father of lies and therefore the father of self-contradiction. Not God.

This is the key attribute of God, that He cannot lie.

“And he answered: Yea, Lord, I know that thou speakest the truth, for thou art a God of truth, and canst not lie.” (Ether 3:12)

If God gave self-contradictory commandments, He would be a liar, because He would have commanded man to disobey Him, while at the same time commanding man to obey Him, for God said:

“Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man.” ( Eccl. 12:13 )

So you can clearly see, that only a Satan would contradict himself in such a manner, and not God.

You cannot obey God’s commandments by transgressing them.
Adam could not obey God’s commandments by transgressing them.
To disobey God in order to obey Him is a doctrine of the devil, who is the father of all lies.

Why? Because this is a self-contradiction, and thus is evil and error by definition.

Unless you make God an evil liar, you cannot assert that He contradicts Himself.

Anyone who persists in asserting that God contradicts Himself will be damned, because they are repeating Satan’s lies, and Satan is the king of self-contradiction and the source of it.

Please learn the difference.

Thank you.

Therefore Adam and Eve were under the obligation to obey BOTH commandments simultaneously.

I think we should take into account the fact that we don't have any record of them covenanting to obey God. Yes, they did want to obey God, as they recognized Him as their father, creator, and provider. But did he make it clear that obedience was rule #1? I believe obedience is the first law of Heaven and that it is rule #1, but I bring this up only to show that God put them in a very unique position to bring about these circumstances. I believe he needed someone to break one of his commandments to bring about death and sin, just as he needed someone to suffer unjustly for all the sins of mankind. This is also contradicting God's nature, don't you think? At the risk of sounding like Amonhi, consider that commanding Christ to atone for everyone else's sins contradicts everything we know about justice. But I believe in a law of sacrifice, and that for those whose hearts are set on giving more than they receive, and taking the punishment to help lift others, the law requires a greater reward for those willing to endure more for others.

So you can clearly see, that only a Satan would contradict himself in such a manner, and not God.

I can't think of any times that Satan has done this, commanding someone to do something, and then also commanding the person not to do something else that would allow them to do the first thing. Can you think of any?

To disobey God in order to obey Him is a doctrine of the devil, who is the father of all lies.

I agree with you here that anyone who preaches that we should disobey God in order to show our allegiance to him is being deceived by Satan. We've had someone on this forum preach this. Obedience is the 1st law of Heaven, and that is why the Fall happened, and the attending consequences or punishments were put in place. It was a just consequence for the transgression of disobedience. I don't argue that it wasn't deserved, but again, my argument is that it was a necessary requirement that someone had to do, to take upon him or herself the punishment. We could also argue that it is a doctrine of the devil today for anyone to claim today that he or she can atone for the sins of another by allowing himself to be hurt or killed, right? Yet that is exactly what God commanded Christ to do.

Sarah,
You are missing a bigger picture here.
God that contradicts Himself is not a God.
God that simultaneously requires of someone contradictory things is not a God.
Why? Because He would simultaneously require someone to both obey and disobey Him.
In any court of justice such self-contradiction is the definition of falsehood. Any one engaged in such behavior is a liar by definition.
Every lie is a self-contradiction, because it is negation of the truth.
Self-contradiction is the essence and spirit of the evil one.
Self-contradiction is darkness. It is error.
This is why I said a God that contradicts himself is a liar and not a God at all.
Satan is the source of all self-contradiction.
By asserting that God engages in self-contradiction one condemns herself to damnation of self-inflicted hell-fire, if she so continue. Why? Because self-contradiction is the spirit of the devil, and not of God.
So this is the main point that you missed.
As for your other points:

Sarah wrote: ↑July 10th, 2019, 9:57 am“I believe he needed someone to break one of his commandments to bring about death and sin, just as he needed someone to suffer unjustly for all the sins of mankind. This is also contradicting God's nature, don't you think?”

Jesus answered it best: “It is impossible but that offences will come: but woe unto him, through whom they come!” (Luke 17:1)
God allows men their agency that they may receive the reward of their own works unto life or unto death, according as their desires shall be — good or evil.
It does not contradict God’s nature at all, because by allowing this agency God does not contradict Himself at all, and He will reward everyone according to their works.
Self-contradiction, on the other hand is contrary to God’s nature.

Sarah wrote: ↑July 10th, 2019, 9:57 am “commanding Christ to atone for everyone else's sins contradicts everything we know about justice”

Not at all. Christ VOLUNTEERED for this. Therefore justice is perfectly intact in sending Him to atone, because He voluntarily chosen to do so.

Sarah wrote: ↑July 10th, 2019, 9:57 am“I can't think of any times that Satan has done this, commanding someone to do something, and then also commanding the person not to do something else that would allow them to do the first thing. Can you think of any?”

Yes. Satan contradicts himself like this ALL the time. Example: Satan’s very “plan” was to bring all back to God, yet to deny them the very agency that would allow them to become like God so they can live with Him.
Satan is the father and the source of all self-contradiction, because the scriptures say that all “evil cometh from the devil.” (Omni 1:25)
Self-contradiction is evil, and evil is self-contradiction.
Self-contradiction is the defining characteristic of the evil one. And complete absence of self-contradiction is the defining characteristic of God.

Sarah wrote: ↑July 10th, 2019, 9:57 am “I agree with you here that anyone who preaches that we should disobey God in order to show our allegiance to him is being deceived by Satan. We've had someone on this forum preach this. Obedience is the 1st law of Heaven, and that is why the Fall happened, and the attending consequences or punishments were put in place. It was a just consequence for the transgression of disobedience. I don't argue that it wasn't deserved, but again, my argument is that it was a necessary requirement that someone had to do”

Here you engage in blatant self-contradiction. On one hand you say: “anyone who preaches that we should disobey God in order to show our allegiance to him is being deceived by Satan”, yet in the same paragraph you say: “it was a necessary requirement that someone had to do”.
Who’s requirement? Certainly not God’s, because He has expressly forbidden it. Then it has to be a “requirement” of the devil. The word “necessary” here is where the deception lies. Jesus said “It is impossible but that offences will come: but woe unto him, through whom they come!” So “necessary” here is a lie. It was inevitable, but not “necessary.” Why? Because “necessary” means a duty, when in reality, transgressions are the OPPOSITE of duty. Therefore God rightly said: “woe unto him, through whom they come!”

Sin, by definition, is NEVER necessary, or God is a liar.

Transgression, by definition, is NEVER necessary, or God is a liar.

Yes, it is inevitable, as Jesus said that some will do wickedly, but He warned: “woe unto him, through whom they come! It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones.” ( Luke 17:1-2)

Don’t do devil’s work by asserting that transgression and sin are necessary, because they are not.

If you keep teaching such errors, you will be damned. All damnation is self-inflicted through self-contradiction.

Sarah wrote: ↑July 10th, 2019, 9:57 am “We could also argue that it is a doctrine of the devil today for anyone to claim today that he or she can atone for the sins of another by allowing himself to be hurt or killed, right? Yet that is exactly what God commanded Christ to do.”

Only a perfect being could atone for the sins of others. Christ was commanded this because a) He volunteered to do so, and b) because He was actually perfect.
So “today”, yesterday and tomorrow, there is only one who can rightly claim this.
It has nothing to do with “today”, it has everything to do with who is perfect.

Do not imagine that Adam and Eve were an exception to God’s laws. They were not.

God never gave them a contradictory commandment. They COULD do EVERYTHING He commanded them, precisely as He said.
Anyone asserting otherwise is repeating Satan’s lies, who is the father of all self-contradiction.

God is God for only ONE reason: He does not contradict Himself at all.
But you do.

Would it be self-contradictory for me to tell my children not to eat candy, if I keep placing candy before them?

It seems kind of contradictory for God to desire that all his children obey him and make good choices, but place them in a world where Satan is free to tempt them, they have forgotten everything, have become like little children, and also place before them the thing they are commanded not to partake, which is right in front of them daily, and the thing they are commanded to do they don't know how to do. It looks to me like Heavenly Father set them up to fail, and that doesn't seem very loving or honest to me. If I was a parent of a child who pulled the trigger of a gun that accidentally shot someone, and the judge found out that I had handed my child that loaded gun to look at, I would probably go to jail for that death, even if I had told the child not to pull the trigger. Contradictory to me.

And you still haven't addressed my comments about the need for death if there is to be a Savior, and how death should be brought about without a Fall. For God's plan to work, there had to be a Fall. So please tell me how we could all experience justice and mercy for our transgressions, which appeared to also be in affect in the pre-existence, if we did not have someone to atone for our sins and die for us and be resurrected. Do you believe the change going from a terrestrial being to celestial resurrected body could have still been possible without the Savior's resurrection?

Christ VOLUNTEERED for this. Therefore justice is perfectly intact in sending Him to atone, because He voluntarily chosen to do so.

You missed my point with this one. The issue is not if it was just because he volunteered or was commanded. Indeed it was both. My question was, is it just to command and allow another person to voluntarily take the punishment for another. Another poster on this board, Amonhi was arguing not too long ago that it is not just, and so anyone consenting to this blatant injustice of Christ's death should be dammed. Why is he wrong? It was unjust, but we both know that there are higher laws of agency, sacrifice, mercy, and love that overcome justice. So we take that example and apply it to the Fall. It is okay to allow someone to voluntarily be the fall-guy/girl and take the bait to transgress so that justice and death can be brought about, because that person is acting under the principles of agency, sacrifice, mercy, and love.

Sarah wrote: ↑July 10th, 2019, 11:26 pm Would it be self-contradictory for me to tell my children not to eat candy, if I keep placing candy before them?

It seems kind of contradictory for God to desire that all his children obey him and make good choices, but place them in a world where Satan is free to tempt them, they have forgotten everything, have become like little children, and also place before them the thing they are commanded not to partake, which is right in front of them daily, and the thing they are commanded to do they don't know how to do. It looks to me like Heavenly Father set them up to fail, and that doesn't seem very loving or honest to me. If I was a parent of a child who pulled the trigger of a gun that accidentally shot someone, and the judge found out that I had handed my child that loaded gun to look at, I would probably go to jail for that death, even if I had told the child not to pull the trigger. Contradictory to me.

God did not set up Adam and Eve to fail. Far from it! He set them up to succeed in every way.

Yes, He allowed them to be tempted by the devil, but He also provided them with perfect instruction and parenting so they were enabled to resist the temptation if they chose to, when it was presented to them. If God did not allow them to be tempted He would have prevented them from knowing good from evil, from learning, from growing, from having children, and above all, from receiving blessings according to their desires, that is He would have prevented them from having joy and from growing and becoming like Himself, which would have been unjust, and would negate the very purpose of existence.

So God was duty bound to allow Adam and Eve to choose for themselves all the blessings they were willing to enjoy. If He did not grant them that freedom He would have ceased to be God.

Adam and Eve could not know good and evil, nor have children, if opposites were not presented to them. If they were not allowed to be tempted they would forever remain frozen without development, progress, or joy.

But be not confused, Jesus was also allowed to be tempted, for the very same reasons, but neither He, nor Adam and Eve had to yield to the temptation. In fact, their duty was to listen to the Father and resist the temptation, and thus have their eyes opened to know good and evil without any transgression. (This is how good the Father's actual plan really was! Way better than the garbage we are taught in our Sunday School!)

So Jesus did just that, and resisted the temptation, and was blessed.
Adam and Eve did the opposite in the garden, and were cursed.

Each one received what they were willing to enjoy, unto life or unto death, for eternal justice of God demands it.

Sarah wrote: ↑July 10th, 2019, 11:26 pm And you still haven't addressed my comments about the need for death if there is to be a Savior, and how death should be brought about without a Fall. For God's plan to work, there had to be a Fall. So please tell me how we could all experience justice and mercy for our transgressions, which appeared to also be in affect in the pre-existence, if we did not have someone to atone for our sins and die for us and be resurrected.

Already answered it in the OP in the "Jesus had to be born into a Telestial, fallen world to redeem the Universe, therefore Adam had to fall" fallacy section. Please read it first, before saying that I didn't answer you. Thanks.

Sarah wrote: ↑July 10th, 2019, 11:26 pm Do you believe the change going from a terrestrial being to celestial resurrected body could have still been possible without the Savior's resurrection?

Of course not! Everyone below Holy Ghost needs a Savior, no matter when or where they are born. They who are born in the Millennium need the Savior no less than we do!

Thanks for your questions.

Sarah wrote: ↑July 10th, 2019, 11:35 pm

Christ VOLUNTEERED for this. Therefore justice is perfectly intact in sending Him to atone, because He voluntarily chosen to do so.

You missed my point with this one. The issue is not if it was just because he volunteered or was commanded. Indeed it was both. My question was, is it just to command and allow another person to voluntarily take the punishment for another. Another poster on this board, Amonhi was arguing not too long ago that it is not just, and so anyone consenting to this blatant injustice of Christ's death should be dammed. Why is he wrong? It was unjust,

What was unjust? The Savior volunteering? That was perfectly just.

Was Him choosing to suffer for our transgressions unjust? Not at all, because he voluntarily chose to do so, and justice demands that He must be free to do so.

So where is injustice here? Nowhere!

If He were forced to suffer for our transgressions against His will, that would obviously be unjust. But it was not so. He CHOSE to suffer for you and me because He loves us. There is no injustice in that at all. It was perfectly just. If it weren't just, there could not have been an atonement at all!

Of course, the people who crucified the Savior were unjust, and they will receive their just reward according to their works and desires of their hearts, unto life or unto death. If repentance is to be found, they will be forgiven, if not, they will drink the dregs of a bitter cup. No one escapes justice. No one.

And though the criminals who crucified the Savior were unjust, it does not mean that Jesus who volunteered to suffer for us so we might be saved through Him was unjust, nor does it mean that God who allowed Jesus to voluntarily suffer for us that Jesus might be honored and inherit the Father's throne was unjust.

God and Christ were perfectly just. The murderers who killed Jesus were not.

Don't confuse the two.

Sarah wrote: ↑July 10th, 2019, 11:35 pm but we both know that there are higher laws of agency, sacrifice, mercy, and love that overcome justice.

Nothing overcomes justice.

Nothing.

Or God would cease to be God.

Demands of justice can be appeased by a VOLUNTARY offering that enables a genuine repentance, but justice cannot be denied.

Not one whit!

 Alma 42:25 
What, do ye suppose that mercy can rob justice? I say unto you, Nay; not one whit. If so, God would cease to be God.

Sarah wrote: ↑July 10th, 2019, 11:35 pm So we take that example and apply it to the Fall. It is okay to allow someone to voluntarily be the fall-guy/girl and take the bait to transgress so that justice and death can be brought about, because that person is acting under the principles of agency, sacrifice, mercy, and love.

Adam did not act under these principles when he disobeyed the Father. The principle he operated under was lust. And the principle Eve operated under was stupidity. Hence the FALL.

Christ on the other hand operated under the principles of agency, sacrifice, mercy, justice and love. Hence the ATONEMENT.

Don't confuse the two.

LoveIsTruth wrote: ↑July 11th, 2019, 1:55 am

Sarah wrote: ↑July 10th, 2019, 11:35 pm

Christ VOLUNTEERED for this. Therefore justice is perfectly intact in sending Him to atone, because He voluntarily chosen to do so.

You missed my point with this one. The issue is not if it was just because he volunteered or was commanded. Indeed it was both. My question was, is it just to command and allow another person to voluntarily take the punishment for another. Another poster on this board, Amonhi was arguing not too long ago that it is not just, and so anyone consenting to this blatant injustice of Christ's death should be dammed. Why is he wrong? It was unjust,

What was unjust? The Savior volunteering? That was perfectly just.

Was Him choosing to suffer for our transgressions unjust? Not at all, because he voluntarily chose to do so, and justice demands that He must be free to do so.

So where is injustice here? Nowhere!

If He were forced to suffer for our transgressions against His will, that would obviously be unjust. But it was not so. He CHOSE to suffer for you and me because He loves us. There is no injustice in that at all. It was perfectly just. If it weren't just, there could not have been an atonement at all!

Of course, the people who crucified the Savior were unjust, and they will receive their just reward according to their works and desires of their hearts, unto life or unto death. If repentance is to be found, they will be forgiven, if not, they will drink the dregs of a bitter cup. No one escapes justice. No one.

And though the criminals who crucified the Savior were unjust, it does not mean that Jesus who volunteered to suffer for us so we might be saved through Him was unjust, nor does it mean that God who allowed Jesus to voluntarily suffer for us that Jesus might be honored and inherit the Father's throne was unjust.

God and Christ were perfectly just. The murderers who killed Jesus were not.

Don't confuse the two.

Sarah wrote: ↑July 10th, 2019, 11:35 pm but we both know that there are higher laws of agency, sacrifice, mercy, and love that overcome justice.

Nothing overcomes justice.

Nothing.

Or God would cease to be God.

Demands of justice can be appeased by a VOLUNTARY offering that enables a genuine repentance, but justice cannot be denied.

Not one whit!

 Alma 42:25 
What, do ye suppose that mercy can rob justice? I say unto you, Nay; not one whit. If so, God would cease to be God.

Sarah wrote: ↑July 10th, 2019, 11:35 pm So we take that example and apply it to the Fall. It is okay to allow someone to voluntarily be the fall-guy/girl and take the bait to transgress so that justice and death can be brought about, because that person is acting under the principles of agency, sacrifice, mercy, and love.

Adam did not act under these principles when he disobeyed the Father. The principle he operated under was lust. And the principle Eve operated under was stupidity. Hence the FALL.

Christ on the other hand operated under the principles of agency, sacrifice, mercy, justice and love. Hence the ATONEMENT.

Don't confuse the two.

I agree with you that what the Savior did was just. The first part of this post is simply you not understanding what I'm saying about the Savior. I said mercy could overcome justice, you said no it's "appease." Okay, lets agree on that.

The next part I need to be more clear. What I am trying to get at is that any behavior can be justified by God if the motive is one if love. So God can certainly send us contraies to search out, he can send people strong delusion if he wants. He can do anything in his wisdom if he knows it will lead to our progression, including giving Adam and Eve a contadictory situation. This principle can apply to Adam and Eve and all of us. They each had good intentions when partaking the fruit despite the fact they were disobedient. If I give my children a rule that they should never run out into the street, but then they do to help save another, they will reap the consequences of getting hit by a car, but certainly they shouldn't be judged for what they did. You claiming that Eve was stupid and Adam lustful CONTRDADICTS scriprure. I would be more worried about having to account for these false accusations at judgement day than assuming that there was no other way.

Eve was “beguiled.” Tricked.

Consider that after giving Adam and Eve the commandment not to partake of the fruit, Elohim and Jehovah say they will return with more instructions.

When Lucifer comes to Eve, she asks him for his credentials, and he claims to be her brother.

Perhaps she mistakenly believed he was someone else, someone she could trust.

Of course, Adam knew what he was doing when he took the fruit, hence “Adam’s transgression.” Eve, while still guilty of breaking the commandment, could have been innocent in intention.

Davka wrote: ↑July 11th, 2019, 9:56 amConsider that after giving Adam and Eve the commandment not to partake of the fruit, Elohim and Jehovah say they will return with more instructions.

This, and it seems to go right over peoples heads. It wasn’t like the Gods just left Adam and Eve to chill in the garden forever, they were coming back to give further instructions. What were those further instructions?

An interesting article detailing the symbolic similarities between the veil of the sanctuary, and the fruit:

https://rsc.byu.edu/archived/ascending- ... ledge-veil

We see this image of the veil-keeper and fruit-giver being one and the same. Perhaps Eve did the right thing by taking the fruit, but did so from the wrong hands, from the false gatekeeper?

abijah wrote: ↑July 11th, 2019, 10:02 am

Davka wrote: ↑July 11th, 2019, 9:56 amConsider that after giving Adam and Eve the commandment not to partake of the fruit, Elohim and Jehovah say they will return with more instructions.

This, and it seems to go right over peoples heads. It wasn’t like the Gods just left Adam and Eve to chill in the garden forever, they were coming back to give further instructions. What were those further instructions?

An interesting article detailing the symbolic similarities between the veil of the sanctuary, and the fruit:

https://rsc.byu.edu/archived/ascending- ... ledge-veil

We see this image of the veil-keeper and fruit-giver being one and the same. Perhaps Eve did the right thing by taking the fruit, but did so from the wrong hands, from the false gatekeeper?

Very insightful article. Thank you for sharing!

Davka wrote: ↑July 11th, 2019, 1:01 pm Very insightful article. Thank you for sharing!

One of the main quoted sources is St Ephrem the Syrian. These past two weeks I’ve felt so strongly impressed by the spirit to study what this man had to say about Eden and how it connects with what we are given in the endowment, which has opened up a rabbithole resulting in some of the richest spiritual experiences of my life up till now.

abijah wrote: ↑July 11th, 2019, 3:32 pm

Davka wrote: ↑July 11th, 2019, 1:01 pm Very insightful article. Thank you for sharing!

One of the main quoted sources is St Ephrem the Syrian. These past two weeks I’ve felt so strongly impressed by the spirit to study what this man had to say about Eden and how it connects with what we are given in the endowment, which has opened up a rabbithole resulting in some of the richest spiritual experiences of my life up till now.

I will go look them up.

Davka wrote: ↑July 11th, 2019, 1:01 pm Very insightful article. Thank you for sharing!

I’d also recommend this one:

https://rsc.byu.edu/archived/ascending- ... ent-temple

I believe Eden is the Temple and Adam is the High Priest. I believe the story of Adam & Eve and the story of Israel are the same story.

Sarah wrote: ↑July 11th, 2019, 9:42 am I agree with you that what the Savior did was just. ... I said mercy could overcome justice, you said no it's "appease." Okay, lets agree on that.

Ok.

Sarah wrote: ↑July 11th, 2019, 9:42 am The next part I need to be more clear. What I am trying to get at is that any behavior can be justified by God if the motive is one if love. So God can certainly send us contraies to search out, he can send people strong delusion if he wants. He can do anything in his wisdom if he knows it will lead to our progression, including giving Adam and Eve a contadictory situation.

He CANNOT give them self-contradictory commandments, or He ceases to be God. Why? Because He cannot do wickedness. Self-contradiction is wickedness. There is no exception here. There cannot be. It is an absolute that defines good and evil. It what makes God a God. Period. The moment God contradicts Himself He is no God at all.
That's all.

Sarah wrote: ↑July 11th, 2019, 9:42 am This principle can apply to Adam and Eve and all of us. They each had good intentions when partaking the fruit despite the fact they were disobedient. If I give my children a rule that they should never run out into the street, but then they do to help save another, they will reap the consequences of getting hit by a car, but certainly they shouldn't be judged for what they did.

That was not the case with Adam and Eve. They did NOT obey a higher commandment that supersedes a lower one. No. They transgressed the higher commandment. In essence they pushed another, all of us, onto the street, instead of saving us. That is the whole point here. There was a BETTER way. There intentions AND their actions were wrong. That's why they fell. It was no accident. It was not a noble sacrifice. It was a really stupid error. Get it?

Sarah wrote: ↑July 11th, 2019, 9:42 am You claiming that Eve was stupid and Adam lustful CONTRDADICTS scriprure. I would be more worried about having to account for these false accusations at judgement day than assuming that there was no other way.

What I said is true. Where does it contradict scripture? Show me. You cannot.

But I can prove that it agrees with the scripture:

D&C 29:40, 41
40 Wherefore, it came to pass that the devil tempted Adam, and he partook of the forbidden fruit and transgressed the commandment, wherein he became subject to the will of the devil, because he yielded unto temptation.
41 Wherefore, I, the Lord God, caused that he should be cast out from the Garden of Eden, from my presence, because of his transgression, wherein he became spiritually dead, which is the first death, even that same death which is the last death, which is spiritual, which shall be pronounced upon the wicked when I shall say: Depart, ye cursed.

Davka wrote: ↑July 11th, 2019, 9:56 am Eve was “beguiled.” Tricked.

Consider that after giving Adam and Eve the commandment not to partake of the fruit, Elohim and Jehovah say they will return with more instructions.

When Lucifer comes to Eve, she asks him for his credentials, and he claims to be her brother.

Perhaps she mistakenly believed he was someone else, someone she could trust.

Not really.

She distrusted him right-away: "You, my brother, and come here to persuade me to disobey Father?"

Davka wrote: ↑July 11th, 2019, 9:56 am Of course, Adam knew what he was doing when he took the fruit, hence “Adam’s transgression.” Eve, while still guilty of breaking the commandment, could have been innocent in intention.

Her error was stupidity and not trusting the Father enough. She believed the devil more than God. That's why she fell.

abijah wrote: ↑July 11th, 2019, 10:02 am

Davka wrote: ↑July 11th, 2019, 9:56 amConsider that after giving Adam and Eve the commandment not to partake of the fruit, Elohim and Jehovah say they will return with more instructions.

This, and it seems to go right over peoples heads. It wasn’t like the Gods just left Adam and Eve to chill in the garden forever, they were coming back to give further instructions. What were those further instructions?

Good question.

abijah wrote: ↑July 11th, 2019, 10:02 am An interesting article detailing the symbolic similarities between the veil of the sanctuary, and the fruit:

https://rsc.byu.edu/archived/ascending- ... ledge-veil

We see this image of the veil-keeper and fruit-giver being one and the same. Perhaps Eve did the right thing by taking the fruit, but did so from the wrong hands, from the false gatekeeper?

I have a simpler explanation.

It was the exposure to the opposites that opened their eyes, and not fruits and trees.

Billions of children are born now, and will be born in the Millennium. Their eyes are not opened by trees, but by exposure to temptation, just like Adam and Eve were exposed to temptation.

God commanded them to resist the temptation, because resisting temptations opens eyes BETTER than yielding to them.

Adam and Eve failed to follow the better way, the way that the Father commanded them, therefore they fell, and got their eyes opened by yielding to the temptation as the devil wanted, instead of by resisting it as the Father commanded.

Remember, Jesus, who had the same veil over his mind when He was born, got His eyes opened by resisting temptations instead of yielding to them.

This is what the Father required of Adam and Eve. They failed.

This is why it was called "the tree of knowledge of good and evil," because whether they resisted or yielded to the temptation to partake of it, their eyes would have been opened.

They chose the lesser way. Hence it is called the fall.

What is it that they fell from? From a better way of course.

Because there WAS a better way. The way that the Father commanded them.

LoveIsTruth wrote: ↑July 11th, 2019, 8:34 pm

Sarah wrote: ↑July 11th, 2019, 9:42 am I agree with you that what the Savior did was just. ... I said mercy could overcome justice, you said no it's "appease." Okay, lets agree on that.

Ok.

Sarah wrote: ↑July 11th, 2019, 9:42 am The next part I need to be more clear. What I am trying to get at is that any behavior can be justified by God if the motive is one if love. So God can certainly send us contraies to search out, he can send people strong delusion if he wants. He can do anything in his wisdom if he knows it will lead to our progression, including giving Adam and Eve a contadictory situation.

He CANNOT give them self-contradictory commandments, or He ceases to be God. Why? Because He cannot do wickedness. Self-contradiction is wickedness. There is no exception here. There cannot be. It is an absolute that defines good and evil. It what makes God a God. Period. The moment God contradicts Himself He is no God at all.
That's all.

Sarah wrote: ↑July 11th, 2019, 9:42 am This principle can apply to Adam and Eve and all of us. They each had good intentions when partaking the fruit despite the fact they were disobedient. If I give my children a rule that they should never run out into the street, but then they do to help save another, they will reap the consequences of getting hit by a car, but certainly they shouldn't be judged for what they did.

That was not the case with Adam and Eve. They did NOT obey a higher commandment that supersedes a lower one. No. They transgressed the higher commandment. In essence they pushed another, all of us, onto the street, instead of saving us. That is the whole point here. There was a BETTER way. There intentions AND their actions were wrong. That's why they fell. It was no accident. It was not a noble sacrifice. It was a really stupid error. Get it?

Sarah wrote: ↑July 11th, 2019, 9:42 am You claiming that Eve was stupid and Adam lustful CONTRDADICTS scriprure. I would be more worried about having to account for these false accusations at judgement day than assuming that there was no other way.

What I said is true. Where does it contradict scripture? Show me. You cannot.

But I can prove that it agrees with the scripture:

D&C 29:40, 41
40 Wherefore, it came to pass that the devil tempted Adam, and he partook of the forbidden fruit and transgressed the commandment, wherein he became subject to the will of the devil, because he yielded unto temptation.
41 Wherefore, I, the Lord God, caused that he should be cast out from the Garden of Eden, from my presence, because of his transgression, wherein he became spiritually dead, which is the first death, even that same death which is the last death, which is spiritual, which shall be pronounced upon the wicked when I shall say: Depart, ye cursed.

6 And Satan put it into the heart of the serpent, (for he had drawn away many after him,) and he sought also to beguile Eve, for he knew not the mind of God, wherefore he sought to destroy the world.

Why would it say that Satan "knew not the mind of God?" Sounds like if Satan knew the mind of God, he might not have done what he did.

13 And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they had been naked. And they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves aprons.

They discovered they were naked after eating the fruit. That doesn't make a lot of sense if what you say is true that they simply needed to resist temptation to understand opposites. Why hadn't they recognized that they were naked before they ate the fruit while they were resisting the temptation to eat?

10 And in that day Adam blessed God and was filled, and began to prophesy concerning all the families of the earth, saying: Blessed be the name of God, for because of my transgression my eyes are opened, and in this life I shall have joy, and again in the fflesh I shall see God.

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.

The above verses prove that they were not acting under stupidity or lust. At this point when they say these things, they have been taught by God enough to prophecy and to know the truth, and that is that their eyes were opened because of their transgression, and were it not for their transgression, they would not have had seed. They are rejoicing over their transgression. You'd think if there was a better way, God would have pointed that out. Please show me the verses that prove that there was a better way, and how that way would look without a Savior coming to a fallen world.

God commanded them to resist the temptation, because resisting temptations opens eyes BETTER than yielding to them.

I think this is a simplistic view and not necessarily true. The things that have personally opened my eyes to understanding and knowledge have been opposition, whether it be experiencing the effects of my own poor choices, or the effects of other's poor choices. That is what I learn from. And even if I do resist temptation, I can see the effects transgression has on others who don't resist. I'm sure this was what also allowed the Savior to grow in understanding, because he experienced the pain others afflicted on him, he saw the sorrow of sinners, and then ultimately he did experience all sorrow and suffering and opposites in the garden. Because of that he has the ULTIMATE knowledge of good and evil, and that didn't come from resisting temptation. He really did experience it.

LoveIsTruth wrote: ↑July 11th, 2019, 8:39 pm

Davka wrote: ↑July 11th, 2019, 9:56 am Eve was “beguiled.” Tricked.

Consider that after giving Adam and Eve the commandment not to partake of the fruit, Elohim and Jehovah say they will return with more instructions.

When Lucifer comes to Eve, she asks him for his credentials, and he claims to be her brother.

Perhaps she mistakenly believed he was someone else, someone she could trust.

Not really.

She distrusted him right-away: "You, my brother, and come here to persuade me to disobey Father?"

Davka wrote: ↑July 11th, 2019, 9:56 am Of course, Adam knew what he was doing when he took the fruit, hence “Adam’s transgression.” Eve, while still guilty of breaking the commandment, could have been innocent in intention.

Her error was stupidity and not trusting the Father enough. She believed the devil more than God. That's why she fell.

“Gullible” or “naive” might be a better choice of words. Stupid implies lack of intelligence. I’d Eve really were “stupid,” then God wouldn’t hold her accountable for something she didn’t have the ability to understand.

She may have distrusted Lucifer at first...maybe something seemed off...but all it took was a little bit of sweet talking on his part and she became more comfortable with the story he was telling her. But the fact that she asked who he was tells us she was considering who this instruction was coming from. In the end, she fell for his trick.

LoveIsTruth wrote: ↑July 11th, 2019, 8:34 pm

Sarah wrote: ↑July 11th, 2019, 9:42 am I agree with you that what the Savior did was just. ... I said mercy could overcome justice, you said no it's "appease." Okay, lets agree on that.

Ok.

Sarah wrote: ↑July 11th, 2019, 9:42 am The next part I need to be more clear. What I am trying to get at is that any behavior can be justified by God if the motive is one if love. So God can certainly send us contraies to search out, he can send people strong delusion if he wants. He can do anything in his wisdom if he knows it will lead to our progression, including giving Adam and Eve a contadictory situation.

He CANNOT give them self-contradictory commandments, or He ceases to be God. Why? Because He cannot do wickedness. Self-contradiction is wickedness. There is no exception here. There cannot be. It is an absolute that defines good and evil. It what makes God a God. Period. The moment God contradicts Himself He is no God at all.
That's all.

Sarah wrote: ↑July 11th, 2019, 9:42 am This principle can apply to Adam and Eve and all of us. They each had good intentions when partaking the fruit despite the fact they were disobedient. If I give my children a rule that they should never run out into the street, but then they do to help save another, they will reap the consequences of getting hit by a car, but certainly they shouldn't be judged for what they did.

That was not the case with Adam and Eve. They did NOT obey a higher commandment that supersedes a lower one. No. They transgressed the higher commandment. In essence they pushed another, all of us, onto the street, instead of saving us. That is the whole point here. There was a BETTER way. There intentions AND their actions were wrong. That's why they fell. It was no accident. It was not a noble sacrifice. It was a really stupid error. Get it?

Sarah wrote: ↑July 11th, 2019, 9:42 am You claiming that Eve was stupid and Adam lustful CONTRDADICTS scriprure. I would be more worried about having to account for these false accusations at judgement day than assuming that there was no other way.

What I said is true. Where does it contradict scripture? Show me. You cannot.

But I can prove that it agrees with the scripture:

D&C 29:40, 41
40 Wherefore, it came to pass that the devil tempted Adam, and he partook of the forbidden fruit and transgressed the commandment, wherein he became subject to the will of the devil, because he yielded unto temptation.
41 Wherefore, I, the Lord God, caused that he should be cast out from the Garden of Eden, from my presence, because of his transgression, wherein he became spiritually dead, which is the first death, even that same death which is the last death, which is spiritual, which shall be pronounced upon the wicked when I shall say: Depart, ye cursed.

The church does not teach that there was a better way and if Adam and Eve didn’t eat the fruit that we all would be living our mortal probations in the environment they lived in. If they didn’t eat it then what exactly is the entire plan we know for? It makes little sense to me. Adam and Eve are not an original story.