Fullness of the Gospel: The Fall


The Ensign has had a feature almost monthly this year called ‘The Fullness of the Gospel’. It is described as ‘A series examining doctrines unique to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints’. I am thrilled at this direction for the Ensign, and in my simple way would like to promote this series with another review.

This month’s doctrine is the fall of Adam and Eve.

One of the primary doctrinal understanding we have is that the fall was a necessary step in Heavenly Father’s plan. Without the fall there would have been no death, no posterity, and no progress (see the best chapter in scripture 2 Nephi 2).

An interesting aspect that this article brings out is the teaching of Joseph Fielding Smith that partaking of the forbidden fruit was not a sin, but a transgression. The article then gives an explanation be Dallin H. Oaks. His explanation includes the idea that certain things are crimes because they are inherently wrong – murder for example. And that other things are crimes only because they are prohibited. He suggests that the act that produced the fall was not inherently wrong, but prohibited and thus a transgression and not a sin. Interesting idea and distinction. Perhaps a future post in there somewhere.

Of course another primary doctrine regarding the fall is our rejection of original sin. There are certainly effects of the fall that we inherit, but the second article of faith declares that we will be punished for our own sins, not for Adam’s transgression. This leads to our understanding that little children are alive in Christ (Moroni 8) and have no need of repentance or baptism.

Again, I am grateful for modern day revelation that leads to such great understanding. These ideas may seem basic and simple to many seasoned members of the church, but they are truly revelutionary ideas that help us gain a great understanding.

Advertisements

35 Responses to “Fullness of the Gospel: The Fall”


  1. 1 Rob Osborn June 26, 2006 at 11:02 pm

    I would just have to say that Adams transgression was sin. The penalty of such was spiritual death and of coarse the subsequent need to repent and be baptised to be once again spiritually alive.

    I think it strange to call Adams trangression something other than sin. If it wasn’t sin, then why was he cut off from the presence of God? If he gave over to Satans temptation then isn’t that sin? Seems to me like at that point in the garden Adam was trying to serve two masters.

  2. 2 Anchorage Activist June 27, 2006 at 1:35 am

    The distinction between a sin and a transgression is interesting. The Catholics make a similar distinction between mortal sins and venal sins.

    In the secular world, shoplifing could be considered a sin, while getting a parking ticket would be a mere “transgression”. Shoplifting is a criminal offense, while improper parking is a status offense.

    To Rob Osborn: In Adam’s case, the act he committed, which precipitated the Fall, was a sin, but since the Fall was part of the divine plan, the sin wasn’t gratuitous. Perhaps that’s why Adam’s sin is considered merely a transgression. I hope I explained myself in a reasonably comprehensible fashion.

    Perhaps being subsequently cut off from the presence of God for so long was intended to be a teaching device to drive home the lessons of the ultimate “wages” of sin.

  3. 3 Eric Nielson June 27, 2006 at 5:36 am

    Rob:

    I think what was done in the garden that brought about the fall had to happen. There were consequences, but these consequences were known. God’s plan was not frustrated, it was fulfilled. In general what has happened as a result of the fall in not necessarily a punishment, when one takes a long term view of things.

    I guess I would say it was not a sin because ultimately it was not against the will of God.

  4. 4 Connor Boyack June 27, 2006 at 7:40 am

    I’ve always found it interesting that the commandment to not partake of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil is the only commandment where God essential says “but if you want to, go right ahead.. but remember, I said no!” Usually, God’s commandments are firm decrees that are like a two-edged sword.. you must obey. But this one, being a commandment that when broken is only a transgression, seems a little intriguing.

  5. 5 Eric Nielson June 27, 2006 at 8:37 am

    anchorage activist:

    Thank you for visiting BofJ and for your thoughtful comments.

    Conner:

    I think you are on to something here. God does not say, ‘Thou shalt not commit adultry, nevertheless you may choose for yourself…’

    I also think it is interesting that before taking the fruit the tree is freely accessible, but that after the fruit was taken it was protected by cheribum and a flaming sword.

  6. 6 Wade June 27, 2006 at 9:24 am

    Eric:
    God does not say, ‘Thou shalt not commit adultry, nevertheless you may choose for yourself…’

    Sure he does; he commands us not to do it, but by default he always says “choose for yourself” — our agency is God’s way of saying “choose for yourself.”

    . . . before taking the fruit the tree is freely accessible, but that after the fruit was taken it was protected by cheribum and a flaming sword.

    The tree of knowledge of good and evil was never guarded by cheribum (angels) and a flaming sword (priesthood – IMO). Only the Tree of Life was so guarded. Adam and Eve made a conscious and knowledgeable choice to be part of what the Tree of Knowledge symbolized (Prophets have taught that the trees are metaphorical), thus they could no longer take part in what the Tree of Life symbolized (living in presence of God), because it was necessary for them to leave his presence to be tested etc.

    Rob:

    I think you’re right, but what Eric is saying is that there are gradations of “sin”. I really only think semantics separates you from what Eric has said here.

    Furthermore, in my opinion, I think it’s important to remember that Adam’s choice was an informed one (“I see that this must be”) etc.

  7. 7 Adam June 27, 2006 at 10:23 am

    Let me explain what happened:

    God told me he would return to give me further instruction after he gave me the two commandments (“multiply and replenish” and don’t eat of the tree of KOGAE).

    I unfortunately was too impatient and by transgressing the law, I lost my chance to hear the further instruction He had for me along with all the other consequences of the fall. I can only assume He was going to explain to me how to satisfy all of His commandments and still enable the progression of mankind.

    Since you are all supposed to apply my story to yourselves.. take a moment to consider all the important bits of instruction the Lord has never been able to give to you because of your failure to keep His commandments.

  8. 8 Eric Nielson June 27, 2006 at 11:46 am

    Wade:

    Of course agency always exists, but the commandments don’t go away because of it. But I think my oversimplified statement still holds. God appeared to go out of his way to express the option in this case.

    You’re right about the tree mix up on my part – top of the head comment pace I have to keep. I was merely illustrating that certain choices are given and certain ones are not. The consequences are different too. I mean, the affects of the fall are all good – long term right?

    Adam:

    Thank you for visiting BofJ. I believe this is the first time an old testament prophet has visited our blog. Thank you for this valuable insight, and feel free to visit anytime.

    Wow. Fist buzzards and eagles, and now Adam!

  9. 9 Rob Osborn June 27, 2006 at 11:51 am

    I do believe that there are gradations of sin, but, it still is sin, and sin cuts us off from his presence. D&C 29: 40-45 tells us that because Adam gave way into temptation, he became subject to the will of Satan. This transgression of the law which caused the first man (Adam) to fall both physically and spiritually had to happen of coarse, but it was an action that was sinful and one that Adam would have to repent of and be baptized for.

    We must also remember that it is not God’s will for us to follow Satan and give in to his temptations. The plan in the beginning allowed for God’s purposes without the need for Satan. Because we have agency as part of that plan though, Satan chose to rebel.

    It is God’s will for all of his children to be obedient all of the time. But because that is impossible because of human weakness we have a savior. The consequence of going against God’s will is being stripped of divine privelages and blessings which include living in his presence.

    The scriptures never speak of God being happy that Adam gave in to Satan according to God’s will. Sure, God probably knew what would happen by allowing Satan to tempt Adam, but he also knew that man would be miserable forever knowing he had transgressed the law and sinned without providing a means of resitution.

  10. 10 Wade June 27, 2006 at 1:28 pm

    The plan in the beginning allowed for God’s purposes without the need for Satan.

    I completely disagree. In fact, I would say it is false doctrine until someone can provide an authoritative source declaring otherwise.

    The Plan has ALWAYS included the need for a savior — a redeemer. But a Savior is only necessary if there is an opposition to Him (i.e. Satan). The Fall is one of the pillars of eternity and necessitates the opposition.

    This is why I think we have been deceived by “adam” who commented earlier. It obviously wasn’t the real Adam — nevertheless, he said: “I unfortunately was too impatient and by transgressing the law, I lost my chance to hear the further instruction He had for me along with all the other consequences of the fall.”

    This is false doctrine because it teaches there is a way to progress without a fall; this is in clear conflict with the three pillars of eternity in which the fall is essential and in which a Savior is always part of the plan.

    On his death-bed, Father Lehi taught there must be an opposition in ALL things (See 2 Nephi Ch. 2, verse 14 I believe); a key concept for us to understand.

  11. 11 Wade June 27, 2006 at 1:31 pm

    Rob:

    I agree with you, Adam’s “transgression” was technically a sin. However, getting bogged down in the semantics misses the mark.

  12. 12 Wade June 27, 2006 at 1:35 pm

    A key concept,

    The Father: “What have you been doing here?”

    Satan: “That which has been done in other worlds: giving the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil to them.”

  13. 13 Rob Osborn June 27, 2006 at 2:19 pm

    Wade,
    I believe that what Satan did in the garden and saying he was just doing what was done on other worlds was complete mockery to God. What was done on other worlds was probably done under God’s direction by holy angels. What Satan did was against God’s will. Satan was also trying to thwart God and would not of done as had been done on other worlds with the knowledge of the outcome.

    Opposition does not mean evil. Evil can only be brought to pass if there is opposition. I like to use the word agency to choose obedience or disobedience with consequences in place for both choices. Satan and his purpose is not part of the plan of heavenly Father to advance his children to become like him. If God knew in the beginning that he would have to create an evil character to advance his children he would thus be evil himself and cease to be God.

    In the beginning God wanted all of his children to advance like himself and the plan allows all of his children to advance like himself if they will just be obedient. It was not God’s will that Lucifer should fall and become the devil he now is.

  14. 14 Rob Osborn June 27, 2006 at 2:24 pm

    Wade,
    Also, the need for a Savior is only dependent upon disobedience and not Having Satan in place. Without Satan people would still need a savior if they chose to be disobedience. If it takes Satan for evil to even be brought to pass then who tempted Lucifer in the beginning? It is false logic to believe evil has to exist before more evil can be brought to pass.

  15. 15 Connor Boyack June 27, 2006 at 2:30 pm

    If it takes Satan for evil to even be brought to pass then who tempted Lucifer in the beginning?

    As we know, there will be sin during the Millenium, even though Satan will be bound and won’t be able to tempt people. People can sin without Satan tempting them. So, Satan most likely sinned simply because, having opposition in all things, he chose the path that was against God’s will. Nobody tempted him to do it, he chose it of his own accord.

  16. 16 Connor Boyack June 27, 2006 at 2:33 pm

    I unfortunately was too impatient and by transgressing the law, I lost my chance to hear the further instruction He had for me along with all the other consequences of the fall.

    I completely disagree with “Adam’s” opinion that the decision to partake of the fruit was due to impatience. I am of the belief that the decision to partake of the fruit was formed out of logic, thought, and understanding. Reading the Garden of Eden story at first glance may make it seem like Eve goofed and made a boo-boo, but I think if you ponder and study the story a bit deeper, it’s safe to assume that she wasn’t that naive, and was making a well thought out decision.

  17. 17 Wade June 27, 2006 at 5:19 pm

    Rob:

    I greatly appreciate your perspective and this engaging discussion; however, I fundamentally disagree with your view.

    “Opposition does not mean evil.”

    Unless you believe, as I do, that goodness has always existed. If good exists, then according to Lehi, ipso facto evil MUST exist.

    “If God knew in the beginning that he would have to create an evil character to advance his children he would thus be evil himself and cease to be God.”

    One of the most important doctrines taught by Joseph Smith is that intelligence is not created or made, neither indeed can it be. (See DC 93). God did not create evil, it has always existed; and because we have agency, we are able to choose evil over good. Satan chose evil and God knew he would. Moreover, God knew we needed to be subjected to evil in order to comprehend it and overcome its power. Thus, we needed to fall – it was a necessity!

    The allegory of the Garden of Eden teaches the truth that God did not force Adam and Eve (or us for that matter) into subjecting themselves to evil; rather he presented them with the opportunity, and in their wisdom they made an enlightened choice to “pass through sorrow so as to comprehend that everything has its opposite.”

    “Without Satan, people would still need a savior if they chose to be disobedient.”

    I understand this concept, but I don’t think it works in theory. How can we choose to be disobedient if we are not, as Lehi says, “enticed by the one or the other”? How can we be enticed by evil if there is no evil influence, i.e. Satan? In other words, when I refer to “Satan”, I mean evil influences in general because I understand the concept of satan to encompass the 1/3 host of heaven who fell with him and who were/are the constant influence on Adam and Even and us.

  18. 18 Eric Nielson June 27, 2006 at 6:53 pm

    Wow. So many good comments here!

    Rob

    One question. Do you feel that the fall was necessary for progression. It certainly seems to be a doctrine of the church that it was. The scriptures do say that Adam was forgiven for his transgression. I think the important distinction here is that what happened to bring about the fall was intended all along. The prohibition of the fruit mayu have been intended to show that it was completely the choice of Adam and Eve to participate in this whole thing.

    Conner

    I like your comments here. I’m with you here. I think there would be evil available with or without Satan. Neither God nor Satan originated evil. It just exists.

    Wade

    Thanks for taking up the discussion here. I have not had time to follow this as close as I would have liked. I particularly like your thoughts on Adam and Eve not being forced into being subject to evil (or mortality). I think that is a big part of what the fall was all about.

  19. 19 Rob Osborn June 27, 2006 at 10:27 pm

    Wade,
    I appreciate your comments. Maybe we are taking two different angles on this, but I believe it does not take enticement from an evil force in order to choose evil. Take Satan for example. He fell because he chose one path instead of the right one. But was he enticed by an evil influence? Was there someone else who tempted Lucifer?

    I believe that the answer to both questions are no. I do believe the fall was necessary but that it would of worked regardless of having a satan or not.

  20. 20 Wade June 28, 2006 at 8:47 am

    Rob:

    “. . . was he enticed by an evil influence? Was there someone else who tempted Lucifer?

    I believe that the answer to both questions are no.”

    Interesting! However, this is merely your belief and I don’t think it can be backed up by any authoritative text. It’s an interesting thought though.

    On the other hand, I think a close reading of 2 Nephi 2 will show the reality that we must actually be “enticed” by evil in order to choose it. Lehi says: “Wherefore, man could not act for himself save it should be that he was enticed by the one or the other.” (Verse 16, emphasis added).

    And it just so happens that in the very next verse he sets forth the concept of the “devil”. (See verse 17).

    In other words, evil exists as a general principle, but evil does not act for itself!! Thus, in order to be enticed by evil, there by necessity must be an actual active force (i.e. the “devil”) that is evil.

    However, I would be very interested to read any authoritative source that backs up your belief that evil can exist without a “devil”!

  21. 21 Wade June 28, 2006 at 8:58 am

    And yes, because evil has always existed, Satan was enticed by evil forces to rebell against God.

    You may also be interested to learn that you and I also commited sin in the preexistence! See DC 93:38, wherein the word “again” is very instructive.

    If you have access to any commentary on this verse, you’ll find that the prophets have taught that we learned through our mistakes prior to coming into this realm.

    So yes, Satan was enticed just as we were before we came here; only we ultimately chose good over evil and thus were blessed to be given physical bodies.

  22. 22 Rob Osborn June 28, 2006 at 12:20 pm

    wade,
    So what you are saying is kind of like “the dark side” in star wars. The dark side does not and cannot influence or effect every bad decision. Sometimes good spirits guide and direct us and sometimes bad spirits guide and direct us, but, there are times when neither good nor bad spirits guide and direct us. At these times are we inbetween the “dark side” and the “force”?

    Enticement is one of them strange words. We use the word always in an evil sense. But what exactly is it that enables us to be enticed and does it come from within us? I can be enticed to walk in a beautiful garden because it smells good and looks good- but yet nobody told me that it smelled good and looked good, it was something already within me to know. Same it is with evil-

    When Lucifer fell and became the devil he was not enticed by an outside evil force. His falling out was due to his prolonged disobedience to God’s will. All of this hinged off of his agency- to obey or disobey- Now the question arises as to whether or not Satan was enticed to obey or disobey from an outside force or entity. I believe that because our spirits are made up of the very laws of physics that it is an inherant trait to know the outcome to some extent of an action before it happens. It is our own intelligence and how we use it that entices us to do evil. All satan does is speed that process up or magnifys it. He does this through shorter dresses, sexier crazes, drugs and the like.

    The key to it is that opposition has to exist before both evil and good can be brought to pass. I call it the law of opposition closely associated with the law of consequence.

  23. 23 Wade June 28, 2006 at 1:26 pm

    I think we may be losing sight of the initial disagreement. Our fundamental disagreement is that I believe opposition to good cannot exist unless there is a force behind that opposition, i.e. Satan; whereas you believe evil can exist independent of individuals who act.

    It’s a basic philosophical/theological difference between us: I believe that good or evil is only present where there is an actor; and furthermore, I believe that a person cannot be presented with a choice between good or evil unless he is influenced by actors.

    To illustrate, imagine a hand gun. The gun by itself is not “evil” or “good”. However, all can imagine circumstances in which the gun can be used and the outcome of this action may be good or evil. But the point is that by itself the thing cannot be good or evil; there has to be an acting force behind it!

    So evil or good is only manifest in action. A person cannot act unless they have a choice. For every choice there is an opposite. The opposite may be good or evil; but there is a force behind the opposition–either the forces of “evil”, or “good”. And these forces are propelled by intelligences from the seen and unseen worlds.

    So, in summary of my point, your statement that “The plan in the beginning allowed for God’s purposes without the need for Satan”, in my opinion is not true because God’s purposes absolutely cannot be fulfilled unless there is a force enticing us to do evil. That force is “Satan” or whatever you want to call it (the forces of evil who are spirits).

  24. 24 rob osborn June 28, 2006 at 2:25 pm

    wade,
    I guess this is where we disagree or are confused with each other,eh eh.
    Logically the plan to advance us to become like god was well in place before lucifer fell. Because that fact exists it is logical to assume that a Satan would not have to be created or in force in order for us to be tested on earth. God allows Satan to tempt us because he cannot destroy Satan’s agency to do so. Satan is a determent to heavenly Fathers plan and not a help to it.

  25. 25 Wade June 28, 2006 at 2:56 pm

    Rob:

    Yes, we are in fundamental disagreement about God’s plan and about Satan.

    You say: Logically the plan to advance us to become like god was well in place before lucifer fell.

    This is true in regard to Lucifer’s fall; but it’s not true in regard to the forces of evil in general. Also, God’s foreknowledge allowed him to know Lucifer would fall and become an integral part of the plan (i.e. opposition to it, which allows us to exercise our agency).

    This is what Eve meant when she said: “It is good for us to pass through sorrow that we may know the good from the evil”.

    You said further: it is logical to assume that a Satan would not have to be created or in force in order for us to be tested on earth.

    No, this is not logical because in order to be tested, the forces of evil displayed through the actions of evil spirits MUST, by necessity, be present. This is why the Father said: “We will allow Lucifer, our common enemy whom we have thrust out, to tempt them and to try them; so they may learn from their own experience to distinquish the good from the evil.” (By the way, Satan was not created–see DC 93).

    Finally, you said: God allows Satan to tempt us because he cannot destroy Satan’s agency to do so.

    But this is only partly true. It is true that God cannot destroy Satan’s agency; but it is not true that Satan is allowed to tempt us only because God cannot help it! Indeed, God has the power to banish Satan elsewhere–does he not? Furthermore, the word “so” that I put in bold above, is very instructive as to why God allows Satan to tempt us. It is so we may learn from our own experience how to overcome evil in our own lives–not merely because God can’t prevent the temptation!

    So, you are right: we just have a fundamental disagreement about the plan. But that’s okay! In fact, the whole purpose of forums like this is to learn more about what other people believe without becomming bitter etc. So, I appreciate your willingness to engage me in this discussion!

  26. 26 Eric Nielson June 29, 2006 at 5:49 am

    Wade:

    So, do you think that Satan had a Satan?

    This is an interesting twist on does God have a God.

    It seems you feel that we are all neutral and are waiting to be enticed by either good or evil, and that there must be a being to entice us, and always has been such a being.

    Interesting stuff.

    This actually is generally adressed in the next fullness of the gospel series in the Ensign. I would like to post on that soon.

  27. 27 Rob Osborn June 29, 2006 at 6:49 am

    I doubt that God knew that Lucifer would fall and become Satan when he was still in good standing with God. If God really did know everything before it happened then God would of coarse be evil because he would of known that Lucifer would become the devil and that he must build him up for that failure-evil!

    If it requires Satan to properly test us, then what about all of the millions and millions of spirits who will grow up without his influence in the millenium? Don’t tell me that they have already been tested either cause that is without merit.

    I further would find it hard to believe that Satan is an integral part of the plan. The test of placing children in a room with no grown ups and telling them they cannot have the chocolate placed before them is a test that includes enticement and obedience and choice without the outside influence of evil spirits would be similar to our situation here on earth if there was not a Satan.
    We could still have our agency to make choices and be either obedient or disobedient.
    1/3 of God’s children who failed prematurely is also not according to God’s will. That high of a failure rate makes God out to be not very productive if he planned it that way. We see families of all sizes in the earth, and some families have all of their children turn out good when in others all or part of them turn out bad. We as parents want all of our children to turn out good and plan the best scenerio for that to happen. God is the same way, he wants all of his children to be obedient and succeed. I further believe that our situation on this earth is unique to the history of the God’s in the eternities.

  28. 28 Rob Osborn June 29, 2006 at 6:53 am

    This is like star wars man! -evil darth vader- how could he have ever turned from the good?

  29. 29 Wade June 29, 2006 at 8:05 am

    Eric:

    As far as my belief in the neutrality of beings at one point in their existence, I don’t know. This issue goes to the main “mystery” I’ve been thinking about from time to time for about a year now; that is, whether our character is determined by nurture (our choices and environment), or nature (the way we’ve always been).

    I’d like to hear what people have to say about this–maybe I’ll post on it?

    I look forward to your next review!

  30. 30 Wade June 29, 2006 at 8:19 am

    Rob:

    Again, you bring up interesting points/arguments, but we just have a fundamental disagreement.

    First, you state your belief that God is not all knowing (i.e. he didn’t know Lucifer would fall). Moreover, you say this is your belief because if God did know of this beforehand, he would by default be evil himself because He “must build him up for that fall”.

    Well, this belief is in direct conflict with your beliefs about agency that you have already stated in this dialogue. You have said that God allows Satan to tempt us only because God cannot “take away” Satan’s agency. So, if God can’t take away Satan’s agency, how is that God could have prevented his fall??? You’re out of step with all prophetic utterance when you say you believe God is not omniscient (i.e. he didn’t know Satan would fall). God did not “set him up for his fall”, rather Satan made his own choice to fall. We’re not God’s robots.

    As for the millions of spirits who will grow up without Satan’s influence in the millenium; a close read of the millenium happenings will reveal the truth that at the end of the millenium, Satan will be loosed from his shackles and allowed to have one final stab at his purpose in the plan–to tempt and to try those spirits!!! Also, your statement concerning those spirits already being tried as being “without merit” is wrong; you should actually read up on what prophets have said about these millenium spirits. Also, it is common teaching even in the Church today that those who are born nearer to the end-times have been “reserved because they were more valiant”. Being more valiant means passing more tests with better results etc. So, it is not “without merit”.

    Finally, you analogy to children and chocolate in a room is not instructive because whether one eats chocolate or not is not a choice between “good and evil”. And if it were, certainly there are forces from the unseen world who constantly influence us/them in regard to such decisions.

  31. 31 Ryan June 29, 2006 at 9:01 am

    If God really did know everything before it happened then God would of coarse be evil because he would of known that Lucifer would become the devil and that he must build him up for that failure-evil!”

    Sounds a bit like blaming the victim.

    Consider this:
    If I know that someone will kill me if I go to sleep tonight, does it make me evil if I decide to go to sleep? Did I somehow force the murderers hand by not responding to his declaration? Of course not. In the end, the murderer must decide if he will kill me or not. My actions are totally irrelevant. Similarly God’s foreknowledge is not a determinant of our behavior. In the end we are all responsible for our actions. Trying to hold God accountable for Lucifer’s fall is like saying God is evil because He made Gordon B. Hinckley. He must have known that Pres. Hinckley would sin at least once in his life and that his sin would probably cause at least one person some amount of pain. What sort of evil God would allow this?

    It’s flawed logic.

    millions and millions of spirits who will grow up without his influence in the millenium?

    Nobody will grow up without his influence. The scriptures specifically say that because of the righteousness of the people, Satan will have no power. In the millenium the people will not tolerate all the tools Satan uses to entice people. And why would they? They would have recently experienced the single greatest physical manifestation of the power of God in Christ’s return. (Think: 200 years of righteousness in the BoM) The millenial dispensation will be one marked by spirits whose exceeding righteousness effectively “binds” Satan. Just as Satan has far more power over me than he does over members of the Quorum of the Twelve. Righteousness, like light, diminishes the presence of darkness.

  32. 32 Connor Boyack June 29, 2006 at 2:15 pm

    Ryan,

    I think your last point is somewhat incorrect. Satan will be bound not only because of the people’s righteousness, but also because he will not have the power to tempt man.

    From lds.org:

    During the Millennium, Satan will be bound. This means he will not have power to tempt those who are living at that time (see D&C 101:28). The “children shall grow up without sin unto salvation” (D&C 45:58). “Because of the righteousness of his people, Satan has no power; wherefore, he cannot be loosed for the space of many years; for he hath no power over the hearts of the people, for they dwell in righteousness, and the Holy One of Israel reigneth” (1 Nephi 22:26).

    Being bound is a restrictive action. If it were simply because of the righteousness of the people, Satan would still be able to wander around performing his work.. but being “bound” indicates (to me, at least) that he will be prevented from doing so.

  33. 33 Wade June 29, 2006 at 4:42 pm

    Conner:

    It’s interesting that you should take such a position against our friend Ryan! Interesting, only to me perhaps, because I have actually discussed this with him at length. In fact, you may be interested in reading a past post I published on this very issue. You can read the post by going to the December archives, or by just clicking into it here.

    I appreciate your view and believe you are technically correct; but I think the verse you cite actually weakens your/our point. You’ll notice that Elder McConkie explained the process quite well.

    Thanks for paying attention to this ongoing discussion. (By the way, my brother, Paul Poulson and his family, live in your parent’s ward in Poway — in fact, I’ve worked with your brother when he use to work for my brother — small world eh?)

  34. 34 Connor Boyack June 29, 2006 at 5:11 pm

    Wade,

    Thanks for the reply.

    1. The scripture I cited, oddly enough, proves both points while disproving neither. That’s why I like it, and why I cited it. Some people often say that Satan will be bound, but not because we are righteous, or vice versa. But I believe, as I previously stated, that both cases hold true, which this verse essentially states.

    2. Yes, small world indeed. Your brother is a good guy. Odd that you worked with my brother, that makes the world even smaller. You may be interested in seeing a picture of what he looks like now w/ massively-long hair he intends to donate to “Locks of Love”. ūüėõ

  35. 35 Wade June 29, 2006 at 11:08 pm

    Conner,

    Nice pictures!


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s




Bloggernacle



I'm a Mormon.

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

Join 354 other followers

The Author

Archives

Blog Stats

  • 170,665 hits

%d bloggers like this: