Because what acts upon us is death (in this sense we’re, according to verse 27, free to choose life! That leaves us with the second death, that man is free (not from the first death) but from the second death. It is not that man has no knowledge before and gains knowledge, or that to know good and evil means to experience evil in addition to good. If we were to continue in exploring connections between Alma 42 and 2 Nephi 2 the first 12 verses of Alma 42 could be seen as an expansion of this one short verse. Sin and death are related, in my reading, because the Nephites use death analogically as a species of separation or cutting off. 2 Nephi 25:2 Jews The name indicated first of all a man of the kingdom of Judah, as distinguished from persons belonging to the northern kingdom of Israel. 16:6, about 740 BC. . How is being brought out from under death’s sway a kind—apparently the most important kind—of freedom? The resurrection only uproots sin, and that makes it all the more sinful to remain in sin. But the words “punish” and “law” appear together in fourteen verses in the Book of Mormon; the two chapters with the highest frequency are 2 Nephi 2 and Alma 42 (three each). Inherent in the ability to be free to make wise decisions is knowledge. So, it could be (as you said in our past discussion) that Samuel is actually contrasting the knowledge given to the Nephites with that given to the Lamanites and may be saying something more like the following: 30 And now remember, remember, my brethren, that whosoever perisheth, perisheth unto himself; and whosoever doeth iniquity, doeth it unto himself; for behold, ye are free; ye are permitted to act for yourselves; for behold, God hath given unto you [Nephites in contrast to the Lamanites] a knowledge [of God/the Lord/the truth] and he hath made you [Nephites] free. After Orson Pratt’s death, Mormon interpreters went the other way and argued that Adam and Eve could not have children in the Garden and its been that way ever since. I know for Lehi’s narrative to make sense he has to convince us that Adam and Eve could do no good in the Garden. My only other observation is that I still think Samuel diverges from Lehi because in Lehi that knowledge never makes you free. And I realize I may be misreading “to do good.” But at the very least, Lehi never grants the possibility that Adam and Eve were obedient to God’s commandment during the time they abstained from the forbidden fruit (as others have recognized). Semi-annual reminders to follow the prophet. Lehi may have his own logic in crafting his particular narrative that has a much different emphasis and goal than the author of the Book of Moses. It think the time is ripe to consider omissions in the Book of Mormon to interpret the narrative. Point B-3: Drawing on B-2, we then have the Atonement as a graceful, unmerited interruption of entropy. Mormons are faced with confusing doctrine every time they open their scriptures. Should we trust someone who's involved with these things? There are not any significant textual variants. 25 Adam fell that men might be; and men are, that they might have joy.”, Posted in Mormon Dilemmas, tagged 2 Cor 11:3-4, 2 Nephi 2:25, Adam and Eve didn't sin, bible, fall of man, false doctrines of Mormonism, false prophet Joseph Smith, Jesus, Moses 5:10-11, original sin, sin is not transgression on 12/16/2013| Mormon vocabulary is vastly different from the norm. What would it mean for StL to have studied Lehi (as opposed to, say, Nephi)? Why do Mormons accept and applaud Adam and Eve’s rejection of God while at the same time teach that behaving inappropriately isn’t acceptable? There is a separation of flesh from spirit in the one, and a separation of man from God in the other. Lehi’s narrative might make sense if we eliminate the commandment to multiply and replenish the earth. Rico, I know I have hardly begun to respond to your comment and I apologize for stopping short. All, this is a comment I’ve had in draft for a week or so, so it might look like I’m ignoring some of the discussion that occurred after I wrote it, but I’m just trying to kick out these ideas with the little time we have left, and trying not to worry about how they fit into our larger discussion. This is seen very clearly in Mormon’s words: “For behold, my brethren, it is given unto you to judge, that ye may know good from evil. Thank you John for continuing our discussions. In addition, there seem to be only two options here. And behold, ye do know of yourselves, for ye have witnessed it, that as many of them as are brought to the knowledge of the truth, and to know of the wicked and abominable traditions of their fathers, and are led to believe the holy scriptures, yea, the prophecies of the holy prophets, which are written, which leadeth them to faith on the Lord, and unto repentance, which faith and repentance bringeth a change of heart unto them— Therefore, as many as have come to this, ye know of yourselves are firm and steadfast in the faith, and in the thing wherewith they have been made free. Samuel:  “He hath given unto you that ye might know good from evil, and he hath given unto you that ye might choose life or death; and ye can do good and be restored unto that which is good, or have that which is good restored unto you; or ye can do evil, and have that which is evil restored unto you.” (Helaman 14:31). I can certainly see a son of Laman and Lemuel reading Fall experiences in terms of knowledge gained and ultimate trajectories toward God rather than in terms of specific instances of sin that result in death. It is temporal because it will only last for a time and all will be resurrected; their body and spirits will be reunited to die no more (Alma 11:45). But in either of these two scenarios, I don’t see a causal nexus between knowledge and freedom. I suspect that we are using different definitions for death, mortal, flesh, sin, resurrection, atonement, all the building blocks of a conversation on point, so I’m not entirely confident how to proceed. “that he may redeem the children of men from the fall” — The preceding dozen verses have outlined the Fall in great detail, and now we’re prepared to see what’s at stake in redemption from it. Might that tell us something? Why is Lehi not satisfied with the J account? 3. Why not say, instead, something like “not be acted upon by the law that incurs or affixes death“? Given Lehi’s theology, I’m inclined to agree Lehi sets things up as if to say God is intending the fall (another theological move), but if that is the case, I don’t understand what you mean by it “failed.”. Lehi Blessing His Posterity. The fall of Adam initiates a cascade of events-events predicted and planned for in the pre-mortal sphere. We act. (277-78). The biblical temple and Mormon temples have virtually nothing in common; find out why. Hypothesis B: For Alma, said higher causes can be either divine (i.e., God) or natural (i.e., law). No where in the Book of Mormon is this phrase repeated, but just a thought. Are comments like "blacks are slaves mentally" really from the God of the Bible or racist men? 9:10-12). I agree with others that the atonement applies in every age and in all times, so in that sense it is a-historical, but I don’t want to read that concept into the specific phrase “fulness of time” which I think is very strongly pointing to a specific moment in salvation history. I think you are right Joe that we need to think more about what free means. Your suggestion to be cautious when interpreting narrative omissions, gaps, and silence,  is very well taken. ( Log Out /  . There are numerous passages where individuals stand or are brought or come in the presence of God or before God or this bar to be judged by Him. -In addition to your comment that “Lehi seems to say that two things happened as a result of partaking the forbidden fruit” I would add a third. This would eliminate the problems associated with atonement theory. However, I still don’t quite understand why a person cannot do good if he or she does not resurrect. And either way we decide we have serious theological problems. :). 4) Whether Adam and Eve together in the Garden in their prelapsarian state could have had children or not is still an unresolved tension. We’re freed from sin and death, and we begin to do whatever work God would have us do. Can someone please read 2 Nephi 2:25-29? Christ overcame death via the resurrection, and therefore overcame sin via the resurrection. What relationship does the sermon of 2 Nephi 2 bear to scripture generally—whether in terms of its immediate setting, its reliance on other scriptural texts, or its influence on other scriptural texts? Unfortunately, with the long sentence, I really can’t tell what “the thing” is. I did some digging and it appears to me that Samuel is quite prolific in his allusions to the words of previous prophets not just Lehi (for examples, compare Mosiah 3:8/Helaman 14:12, 2 Nephi 26:3-10/Helaman 13:24-30, 2 Nephi 6:11/Helaman 15:12). Eve was cast out of the Garden, separated from Adam, and became mortal. Discuss these teachings as to why they are included in Nephi's account, what major messages can be gained from these teachings, and what they mean for the House of Israel, of which Nephi and his family were a part. Yea, I say unto you, that the more part of them are doing this, and they are striving with unwearied diligence that they may bring the remainder of their brethren to the knowledge of the truth; therefore there are many who do add to their numbers daily. Not only is Lehi alone in framing things in terms of opposition, but I see it that Lehi alone makes sure that Adam and Eve can act for themselves before they fall. In Alma 42:16-22 Alma ties the idea of punishment with law. Sternberg discusses the importance of the Narrator’s Reticence and Omissions. Why would you place your salvation into the hands of a false prophet? All of this is to say that we have to be cautious (and I know that you are) about imputing motives to Lehi because we have so little to go on. ), Alma 58, 61 (? 3) Samuel the Lamanite and knowledge. For example, you ask why Lehi “chooses to utilize the Genesis account in the manner he does. Posted by John Hilton III in Uncategorized. land on the other hand the intense prophetic aspect of 1 nephi 19 to 2 nephi 5 with its citations ofisaiah zenock zenos neum lehi and joseph suggests it might be a transitional subsection where 3 Axelgard: 1 And 2 Nephi: An Inspiring Whole Published by BYU ScholarsArchive, 1986 And suppose Adam runs into a burning building and saves his child from burning to death. All must die and all must resurrect and the choices of man play zero role as to whether man will resurrect. Lehi describes creation of things to act and to be acted upon (a distinction not found in the Genesis account). Wherefore, he gave commandments unto men, they having first transgressed the first commandments as to things which were temporal, and becoming as gods, knowing good from evil, placing themselves in a state to act, or being placed in a state to act according to their wills and pleasures, whether to do evil or to do good (Alma 12:31). Why does he choose to highlight certain portions, omit certain portions, or add his own ideas to the narrative?”, This is a great question, but it also assumes that Lehi is intentionally omitting certain portions of the text because he doesn’t agree with them or wants to rework them in some fashion. The law condemns sinners, but that is not God’s doing, that is up to the basic actions that each individual faces.” Ultimately man’s agency eliminates that argument that God is not just. I’ve tried to engage some of them in my comment below in terms of why Lehi does not speak of the fall as being reversed, and also in our discussions on freedom. Why is that the whole of Lehi’s focus again (as it was, note, in verse 8)? Man would determine himself what was good and what was not—a divine prerogative. After they fall they still can act for themselves but now can do evil and good, and Alma is simply repeating that last part (skipping over Lehi’s elaboration of opposites and the opposing enticements as a necessary initial state in the Garden, etc). I love how you are helping me worm deeper into the text. Is it a law of nature, something out of the control of God, or something that he is in charge of? Whether there is one redeeming event or two, does not factor into my analysis. Our flesh ends up with a certain sort of evil in it—not because that’s just the nature of flesh per se, but because flesh ends up subject to death, ends up oriented to death. According to Randall Spackman, this verse seems to imply that Jerusalem was destroyed the very next year after Lehi left. I’ll confess, though, that I’m finding I have little to say in response to it all. I do not take the second death to have more than an analogical relationship to physiological death, as the second death cannot be cured by the resurrection, because, according to Nephite theology, the wicked are resurrected but not considered to be redeemed, but filthy still. Both texts came through Joseph Smith, and the texts are close in time (as well as D&C 29) compared to other texts. I suggested previously that this is a departure from Lehi. So, yes I would agree with you but it seems there are legitimate textual reasons to read “free” to mean “permitted to act” rather than “free from death.”  I know you are arguing that redemption here specifically refers to the resurrection, but the connection seems too tenuous for me. It seems to me that the usages are very distinct. -Your point about knowing good from evil before the fall is interesting. The Nephites also understand that the spirit or soul cannot die (Alma 12:20; 43:9. However these details are worked out, it seems to me that the crux of Lehi’s theology of atonement is here in this line: the atonement is, so far as Lehi sees, entirely a question of the event of the resurrection, and it’s a matter of death’s enslaving power being removed so that human beings are finally free. Right? Well, my complete inability to communicate this clearly may make perfectly obvious that there’s a good deal of theological work on the Book of Mormon presupposed in everything I’m saying. It doesn’t form a perfect chiastic structure but it is repetitive in nature: for behold, ye are free; ye are permitted to act for yourselves; for behold, God hath given unto you a knowledge [of good and evil] and he hath made you free [to act for yourselves]. 9: 7-12). I will have to explain what I mean by that in a later comment. If we can follow the development of the Garden narrative from pre-J, to J, to Lehi, it could highlight Lehi’s meaning. First point: I don’t see a strong difference between the two readings of “free.” Why? (Indeed, at that point, my sin binds me to spiritual rather than temporal death; it binds me to a kind of death that won’t be overcome.) I think Samuel is following Alma here, rather than Lehi, who doesn’t use the language of restoration. That’s crucial, and it may give me a starting place for my paper…. The phrase in StL’s words “God hath given unto you a knowledge and he hath made you free” could be seen as a re-visioning of the Fall, one that sees transgression in terms of blessing/opportunity/opening rather than straight-cut sin. However, his approach fell out of favor and was replaced by Widtsoe’s approach, which, among other things, seeks to remove the element of sin all together from the narrative (here is where a special distinction between sin and transgression is born, with transgression being offered as a non-sins). Lehi wants his audience to accept that God has provided opposing enticements that entice Adam and Eve one way other or the other, thereby allowing them to act for themselves, and that simultaneously Adam and Eve are unaware at a cognitive level of their being enticed one way or the other because they lack knowledge of good and evil. Free as in “not in slavery” (1 Nephi 4:33, 2 Nephi 10:16), free as in “without cost” (2 Nephi 26:33), free as in “without compulsion” (Mosiah 22:10), free as in generously (Jacob 2:17, Mosiah 22:10), and free as in “open” (Alma 23:2) (and there are still other ways the word is used). I’m still trying to work through how Lehi’s discourse compares to these narratives, so please jump in, but my tentative observations are as follows: 1) Like J, Lehi is not so much focused “on the content of knowledge but on man’s moral autonomy.”  Lehi eliminates all together reference to the name of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, preferring instead to use the term “forbidden fruit” and thereby highlighting the “tree of command.”  The focus is not on knowledge but the fact that the fruit was forbidden by God. First, my thanks for the post and subsequent discussion. Or do they mean different things by the phrase “knowing good and evil”? What should be read into the use of the phrase “the children of men” (when the preceding verses have almost exclusively focused on “man” and “men”—except, note, in verse 21)? 2:3b-4. 2:16). Are you then saying that God created things to act death and things to be acted upon by death? By taking the Book of Moses as an extension of the narrative in Lehi, we risk overlooking the possibility that the texts contain their own distinct narrative logic. What meaning should we take from the fact that despite borrowing Lehi’s ideas and language, they seem to throw out these steps? An examination of the LDS' latest teachings from the presidency to the women's groups. One question that keeps coming to me is why Lehi (or the text) chooses to utilize the Genesis account in the manner he does. Given that atonement theory is highly problematic (penal substitutionary theory, etc. Find out who and why we shouldn't trust their testimonies. Hopefully this is something else we can continue to discuss in the comments below! This is why Pratt argues that Adam and Eve would not be able to have children due to being separated in proximity (Eve being cast out for eating the fruit and Adam remaining in the Garden). That’s a complicated philosophical and theological story that would require me to start providing bibliographies, etc. Third point: I think you’re reading Lehi right, but I’m not particularly mystified by the claims. But there’s a twist. By this I mean that StL’s words reflect (in my opinion) the kind of thematic and literary constructions that occur when a reader has absorbed a prior text and is incorporating that text into their own linguistic expression. (2 Ne. On the other hand, there are good reasons to look to the Book of Moses when seeking to interpret Lehi. 3)  I would like to know more about the context of your search for the phrase “good and evil.”  My own searches show that the phrase “good from evil” occur very frequently in the context of the larger phrase “distinguishing good from evil” or “discern good from evil” in addition to “know good from evil.”  So to recap, here is what we have:   The KJV Bible never uses the English construction “know good from evil” but it does use the construction “good and evil.”  It would seem that 17th to 19th century English texts often use the construction “distinguish good from evil” or “discern good from evil” and “know good from evil.”  The Book of Mormon uses both constructions “good and evil” and “good from evil.”  Based on this alone, what does this tell us, if anything?

Madison County Arkansas Circuit Court, Transition Skills Activities, Chinese Stuffed Duck Recipe, Characteristics Of A Bible Teacher, Isaiah 6 Usccb, A Lament Central Idea, Private Transportation Companies, Demi Tasse Cup And Saucer, Arcgis Rest Services Directory Login,