Blogger of Jared

The Classics: You want me to do what now?

Posted by Ryan on February 20th, 2006

The next installment in our “Classics” symposium is the great debate surrounding the conflicting commandments in the garden of Eden (the assumption being that the only way for A&E to “multiply and replenish the earth” was to partake of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. The very same fruit of which they were commanded not to eat) and the resulting sin…errr… transgression of Eve and then Adam. Assuming that the first days of mankind really occurred as shown in the temple and as described in the scriptures, how can we reconcile a God that has promised to “lead us not into temptation” yet provided for no alternative method to process the fall of mankind?

12 Responses to “The Classics: You want me to do what now?”

The Post Reads:
Assuming that the first days of mankind really occurred as shown in the temple and as described in the scriptures…

This is the sticking point. When viewed as alegorical instead of “really occurred as shown”, I think a better understanding will come.

Comment # 1 left by Wade on February 20th, 2006

I don’t think so. I obviously accept the concept of the garden of Eden as allegory. So what is the allegorical meaning of God providing two conflicting commandments? Real or fable, it still is unfair.

Comment # 2 left by Ryan on February 21st, 2006

Ryan Asks:
So what is the allegorical meaning of God providing two conflicting commandments?

God gives “conflicting commandments” all the time! I believe the allegorical meaning of the so called “conflicting commandments” in Eden is trying to teach this. The Prophet Joseph Smith gives insight into how it works.

He said, “That which is wrong under one circumstance, may be, and often is, right under another.
God said, ‘Thou shalt not kill;’ at another time He said, ‘Thou shalt utterly destroy.’ This is the principle on which the government of heaven is conducted.” (TPJS p.255-256)

I call it situational ethics and it is good doctrine.

Comment # 3 left by Wade on February 21st, 2006

Nah. The situational ethics doesn’t apply here because with Nephi, for example, the spirit told him, “Yeah, go ahead and kill this guy. It’s the right thing to do.”

In Adam and Eve’s case, the Lord presented them with an impossible situation. There was no way out except to trangress the law. He didn’t say, “Look, I know I said don’t eat the fruit but you’ll have to do it to fall, so go ahead.”

Comment # 4 left by Ryan on February 21st, 2006

He didn’t say, “Look, I know I said don’t eat the fruit but you’ll have to do it to fall, so go ahead.”

This is where we part ways! I do believe he said this, in an indirect way through what he was asking them to do. Eve was more perceptive than Adam and was able to understand and see through Adam’s orthodoxy (rigorous adherence to what he thought was right under the circumstances, when really it was wrong).

It was impossible for Christians in Germany to abide by the command not to lie and at the same time not give Jews up to be murdered. So what did many of them do? They lied of course! And don’t make any arguments about their lies not really being lies because their hearts were in the right place; to lie means to intentionally deceive another person and this is what they did.

It’s simple, they chose the higher law! That’s situational ethics and this is what Adam and Eve faced in the Garden.

As Joseph said: “It is the principle on which the government of heaven is conducted.”

Comment # 5 left by Wade on February 21st, 2006

he said this, in an indirect way through what he was asking them to do. Eve was more perceptive

Here’s my problem with that theory: If God gives us conflicting laws, and then expects us to be insightful enough to determine which is the “higher law” then judgment day is doomed to be a massive failure. Here’s why: I can think of hundreds of scenarios where I can justify that I was obeying a higher law. Since there is nothing in scripture to specify (save for a few exceptions) which laws have a higher rank than others, we cannot be condemned if we break commandments at will claiming the higher law principle.

For example: Let’s say I neglect paying my tithing so that I can have some extra money to buy a bigger car and house. Have I sinned in neglecting my tithing? Nope. I bought the bigger car/house so that I could have a larger family. I guess the commandment to multiply and replenish the earth and care for our families trumps tithing right? Now you may argue my decision for various reasons. You may even be right. But it doesn’t matter, according to my capacity for insight. I should have neglected my tithing. I have done the right thing…. unless one of the qualifications for righteousness alongside obedience is ability for insight. I sure hope not. How do you quantify that?

As for the German/Jewish thing, again,

Comment # 6 left by Ryan on February 21st, 2006

whoops, got cut off…

The German/Jew concept would only apply in this discussion if GOD had said to the Germans, I have two commandments for you.

One: Don’t Lie
Two: Lie

This is exactly the conundrum A&E faced in the garden.

As it was, the Nazi’s, not God forced the righteous germans into telling them lies to protect the innocent. In this sense, I totally agree with situational ethics.

Comment # 7 left by Ryan on February 21st, 2006

I can think of hundreds of scenarios where I can justify that I was obeying a higher law. Since there is nothing in scripture to specify (save for a few exceptions) which laws have a higher rank than others, we cannot be condemned if we break commandments at will claiming the higher law principle.

You make some good points here, but I get a little lost because I think you have set up a straw man!

It is dubious to say that people would violate laws at will knowing they can claim the “higher law” principle because this argument disregards the light of Christ. Indeed, your tithing example presumes a person fully cognizant of the law of tithing in light of Malachi ch. 3 would honestly feel justified in withholding his tithing to buy a bigger car and house.

you said further:
…unless one of the qualifications for righteousness alongside obedience is ability for insight. I sure hope not. How do you quantify that?

This is yet another straw man: You are assuming God cannot quantify a person’s insight and judge accordingly!

Yes, I do believe “insight” is directly related to our judgment! See DC 82:3. In fact, this verse sums up my thoughts pretty well!

Comment # 8 left by Wade on February 21st, 2006

Straw man or no, the argument can still be valid can it not? In fact, recognizing a straw man argument and calling it out is something of a straw man itself
people would violate laws at will knowing they can claim the “higher law” principle because this argument disregards the light of Christ.

Not really, the light of Christ is nothing more than a vague ability to judge right from wrong. Not a compulsion to choose the right.

This is evident in the case of Adam and Eve. If Adam was so “orthodox”, why did the light of Christ not help him recognize the alleged higher law of multiplying and replenishing the earth. Someone so desirous to be obedient would surely be blessed with the ability to discern such a crucial part of the progession of mankind. So either multiplying is not a higher law or the light of christ provides insufficient insight….
As for God’s ability to judge our capacity for insight… touche. I have to concede that He will consider our circumstances and that likely we will be relieved to find that this particular judgment will be more merciful than the judgement of our actions. It may even prove to be our salvation.

Comment # 9 left by Ryan on February 22nd, 2006

Straw man or no, the argument can still be valid can it not?

Sure, that’s why I said you made some “good points”. However, your argument misses the mark. Claiming “hundreds of scenarios” and then using a really weak argument about choosing between tithing or a bigger car is a disingenuous way to argue that we can always “claim” we were obeying the “higher law”. Sure, people can use the “higher law” claim as a defense, but I give them more credit by acknowledging those who understand tithing will understand that their defense is a sham (through the light of Christ).

You then say:
…the light of Christ is nothing more than a vague ability to judge right from wrong. Not a compulsion to choose the right.

As for the “vagueness” of the light of Christ, I’ll leave this debate for another day. However, I never argued that the LOC is a compulsion (even though this is a position I would probably take to a certain extent). Moreover, I don’t see why denying its compulsive power has anything to do with choosing between laws? This issue is recognizing the Spirit, understanding God’s will and choosing to act accordingly.

You said further:
If Adam was so “orthodox”, why did the light of Christ not help him recognize the alleged higher law of multiplying and replenishing the earth.

Two points: First, you assume Adam did not perceive the light of Christ; indeed, you deny the LOC didn’t help him recognize. But this is an assumption I am not willing to make - and this leads to my second point. As you know, I think Orthodoxy is often a big stumbling-block for us to see things as they really are. Thus, the rigidity of Adam’s orthodoxy prevented his action on what he likely perceived.

This is one of the eternal truths about the necessity for the unity of masculinity and femininity (yet another issue for another time).

Also:
So either multiplying is not a higher law or the light of christ provides insufficient insight….

Here, you have crossed back and weakened your argument about the LOC being merely a “vague” understanding of right and wrong. Indeed, claiming evidence that the LOC provides insufficient insight because Adam DIDN’T follow it, reveals the innate belief that the Spirit would have “compelled” Adam to partake because he was so “righteous”.

Overall, I think our debate here is caused by this post’s attempt to understand something without recognizing the allegorical nature of the Garden Occurrences. It’s ill advised not to consider that the Garden Story is portrayed as a prototype of human existence and that we should consider ourselves as if we were A&E (i.e. consider that God is trying to teach us something about OURSELVES and not so much about the actual A&E). There are many many lessons and truths to be understood through the “conflicting commandments” predicament. Therefore, it’s hard to settle it all down into one tighty, cogent answer.