Do you agree with what the Book of Mormon Teaches?

[Pegg]

The only reason why the fence is important is because we are discussing are the cherubims guarding the whole garden or just a part of the garden. If the whole garden as you claim, why not place Cheribums all the way around the garden instead of in just one spot?

Where were Adam and Eve sent? Wasn't it outside of the garden?

The cherubs were guarding the way into eden. So Adam and Eve were not permitted to enter Eden again. Therefore it wasnt just the tree of life they were protecting.

Genesis 3:23 With that Jehovah God put him out of the garden of E′den to cultivate the ground from which he had been taken. 24 And so he drove the man out and posted at the east of the garden of E′den the cherubs and the flaming blade of a sword that was turning itself continually to guard the way to the tree of life.

and here is thought, if the garden was a place of dwelling with God, and a place of potentially everlasting life, then it makes perfect sense to remove them from that place and not let them back in. If the tree of life is representative of everlasting life as it is in the book of Ezekiel and Revelation, then it is being in union with God and under his care which gives the potential of life.... Adam lost that potential when he rebelled, so he had no access to everlasting life again....no more communing with God in either a spiritual or physical sense.

 

[Flat Earth Kyle]

Where were Adam and Eve sent? Wasn't it outside of the garden?

The cherubs were guarding the way into eden. So Adam and Eve were not permitted to enter Eden again. Therefore it wasnt just the tree of life they were protecting.

Genesis 3:23 With that Jehovah God put him out of the garden of E′den to cultivate the ground from which he had been taken. 24 And so he drove the man out and posted at the east of the garden of E′den the cherubs and the flaming blade of a sword that was turning itself continually to guard the way to the tree of life.

and here is thought, if the garden was a place of dwelling with God, and a place of potentially everlasting life, then it makes perfect sense to remove them from that place and not let them back in. If the tree of life is representative of everlasting life as it is in the book of Ezekiel and Revelation, then it is being in union with God and under his care which gives the potential of life.... Adam lost that potential when he rebelled, so he had no access to everlasting life again....no more communing with God in either a spiritual or physical sense.

It never said the Cherubims were blocking the way into the garden.
It never said they surrounded the garden. It said they were placed Eastward in Eden. I don't know about you but if I wanted to guard a garden I would spread my guards out and surround the garden, or put up a wall around it and surround the garden leaving one entrance and put all my guards there, but if no one is coming in and out of the garden what do I need a gate for? How about put up a big wall without a gate and then spread all my guards out again and put them on top of the walls around the garden. If they are protecting the garden it does not sound like a very strategic move to put all my guards in one place. Even if there was a holy high tech servalience system monitoring every part of the garden with the central hub in the East of the garden, would it not be a smarter idea to put the central hub and all my troops in the center of the garden where they can most readily get to any point of the garden in a moments notice?

 

[Flat Earth Kyle]

Over on those other links we discuss these scriptures and many others
I love the scriptural evidence of these New Testament Scripture Passages that we are Literal Sons and Daughters of God and have the potential to become God's ourselves.

1 John 3: 2-3
"1 Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not.
2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.
3 And every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure."

Phillipians 2:5-6; 3:14
5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:
6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
14 I press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus.

2 Corr. 12:1-7
1 It is not expedient for me doubtless to glory. I will come to visions and revelations of the Lord.
2 I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth such an one caught up to the third heaven.
3 And I knew such a man, (whether in the body, or out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth
4 How that he was caught up into paradise, and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter.
5 Of such an one will I glory: yet of myself I will not glory, but in mine infirmities.
6 For though I would desire to glory, I shall not be a fool; for I will say the truth: but now I forbear, lest any man should think of me above that which he seeth me to be, or that he heareth of me.
7 And lest I should be exalted above measure through the abundance of the revelations, there was given to me a thorn in the flesh, the messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I should be exalted above measure.

and Rev. 21:7; 3:21
7 He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son.
21 To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.

 

[Flankerl]

So if two people share a belief, one of them had to have copied the other? Interesting.

If one of them was a few thousand years late and then just copied it... yeah.

 

[Katzpur]

If one of them was a few thousand years late and then just copied it... yeah.

Whatever. I guess that makes every religion on earth a forgery of the very first one.

 

[Flat Earth Kyle]

If one of them was a few thousand years late and then just copied it... yeah.

Okay, do you believe God placed Cheribum and a flaming sword in the garden?
Why do you believe God did so?
was it to protect the tree of life and keep Adam and Eve from escaping punishment and living from living forever as this states?

'3 Now, we see that the man had become as God, knowing good and evil; and lest he should put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat and live forever, the Lord God placed cherubim and the flaming sword, that he should not partake of the fruit—
4 And thus we see, that there was a time granted unto man to repent, yea, a probationary time, a time to repent and serve God.
5 For behold, if Adam had put forth his hand immediately, and partaken of the tree of life, he would have lived forever, according to the word of God, having no space for repentance; yea, and also the word of God would have been void, and the great plan of salvation would have been frustrated."

Or do you agree with Pegg who believes that the tree of life was figurative and the cherubims were there to keep Adam and Eve out of God's presence?

 

[-Peacemaker-]

,but please don't leave me hanging on this thread, I am really curious as to your opinions on the statements made in this passage concerning the fall of Adam and Eve.

Based on comments in this thread as well as a brief scanning of the verses you posted I don't doubt that there are teachings in Alma that line up with Genesis. The biggest question I have is: if these verses were simply plagarized from Genesis why should I care about them?

 

[Flat Earth Kyle]

Based on comments in this thread as well as a brief scanning of the verses you posted I don't doubt that there are teachings in Alma that line up with Genesis. The biggest question I have is: if these verses were simply plagarized from Genesis why should I care about them?

Obviously you have not fully read my opening post, and if you have read my opening post you have not read Genesis chapters 1-3. I believe Alma was very familiar with Genesis chapters 1-3. This is basically his divine commentary expounding on those chapters to Alma's son Corianton.

Lets look at a clip from my opening post.

"2 Now behold, my son, I will explain this thing unto thee. For behold, after the Lord God sent our first parents forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground, from whence they were taken—yea, he drew out the man, and he placed at the east end of the garden of Eden, cherubim, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the tree of life—

Note how this compares to Genesis 3:23-24

"23 Therefore the Lord God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.
24 So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life."

Now here is the divine commentary that explains why it was nessicary for God to place cherubims in the garden of Eden

"3 Now, we see that the man had become as God, knowing good and evil; and lest he should put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat and live forever, the Lord God placed cherubim and the flaming sword, that he should not partake of the fruit—
4 And thus we see, that there was a time granted unto man to repent, yea, a probationary time, a time to repent and serve God.
5 For behold, if Adam had put forth his hand immediately, and partaken of the tree of life, he would have lived forever, according to the word of God, having no space for repentance; yea, and also the word of God would have been void, and the great plan of salvation would have been frustrated."

Now I ask do you agree with Alma, or do you agree with Pegg who says that the tree of life was never a literal tree that needed to be safeguarded?

 

[-Peacemaker-]

Now I ask do you agree with Alma, or do you agree with Pegg who says that the tree of life was never a literal tree that needed to be safeguarded?

I could care less about what Alma says until you can convince me that his teachings come from an actual historical document dated around 73 BC. I'm not even asking you to convince me that his teachings are correct or are actually the work of a guy named Alma, simply that they represent an actual work of antiquity. Heck, even if the date was off by 1000 years at 973 AD it would at least stir my interest. Can you present one shred of evidence that a secular scholar could use to prove the book of Mormon is an actual work of antiquity? I'm guessing you have been trained on how to "witness" to orthodox Christians. Such training would hopefully make you aware that the perception of your book outside the Mormon community is that it plagarizes the KJB, is filled with incorrect information about the ancient New World, and bears no linguistic ties to the languages of the period. That's besides the fact that the earliest existing copies are from the 1800's. As I said before though, I haven't done the necessary study to able to verify those claims either way. There's only so much time in life and it means we have to pick and choose which topics are most worthy of our efforts. If you can't or unwilling to do that, don't be surprised if people don't feel very motivated to invest any real time into your book.

 

[Flat Earth Kyle]

I could care less about what Alma says until you can convince me that his teachings come from an actual historical document dated around 73 BC. I'm not even asking you to convince me that his teachings are correct or are actually the work of a guy named Alma, simply that they represent an actual work of antiquity. Heck, even if the date was off by 1000 years at 973 AD it would at least stir my interest. Can you present one shred of evidence that a secular scholar could use to prove the book of Mormon is an actual work of antiquity? I'm guessing you have been trained on how to "witness" to orthodox Christians. Such training would hopefully make you aware that the perception of your book outside the Mormon community is that it plagarizes the KJB, is filled with incorrect information about the ancient New World, and bears no linguistic ties to the languages of the period. That's besides the fact that the earliest existing copies are from the 1800's. As I said before though, I haven't done the necessary study to able to verify those claims either way. There's only so much time in life and it means we have to pick and choose which topics are most worthy of our efforts. If you can't or unwilling to do that, don't be surprised if people don't feel very motivated to invest any real time into your book.

You don't believe the Book of Genesis is a historical document?

How do you know if anything the Book of Mormon says is right or wrong if you refuse to read it?

I could load you up with information concerning the places mentioned in the book of Mormon, the names and meanings of the names of the Book of Mormon, the different writing styles all throughout the Book of Mormon as evidence that the Book was not written by one man, the Chiasmuses (ancient form of poetry) found within the Book of Mormon and all these other evidences of the Book of Mormon, there are a ton of books published on that stuff, but that is not the intent of this thread.

As I said, I do not wish to argue about whether or not Alma or his son actually existed, I just want to discuss what this real or unreal character said and if it is right or wrong.

 

[Flat Earth Kyle]

Honestly we don't have any classes that teach "how to deal with other religions" we just focus on the gospel.

 

[-Peacemaker-]

You don't believe the Book of Genesis is a historical document?

How do you know if anything the Book of Mormon says is right or wrong if you refuse to read it?

I could load you up with information concerning the places mentioned in the book of Mormon, the names and meanings of the names of the Book of Mormon, the different writing styles all throughout the Book of Mormon as evidence that the Book was not written by one man, the Chiasmuses (ancient form of poetry) found within the Book of Mormon and all these other evidences of the Book of Mormon, there are a ton of books published on that stuff, but that is not the intent of this thread.

I'm sure you could bombard me with apologetics from Mormon scholars. I'd be more interested in hearing about evidence that even secular scholars would acknowledge as legitimate proof that the BoM was written before the 1800s. Based on the few debates I've read about the book's historicity, my understanding is that such evidence doesn't exist. Keep in mind I'm not even asking to be convinced that the book is the word of God or that it contains an accurate account of ancient New World history. I'd just be satisfied if someone could convince me that, regardless of its accuracy, The BoM represents an actual work of antiquity instead of a document dating to no earlier than the nineteenth century. At the very least such a book would have some historical value even if it didn't represent an account of actual events. I respect if you don't wish to take that up in this thread. I do think it'd be a good issue to eventually address if you're actually interested in convincing people to read your book.

 

[Flat Earth Kyle]

I'm sure you could bombard me with apologetics from Mormon scholars. I'd be more interested in hearing about evidence that even secular scholars would acknowledge as legitimate proof that the BoM was written before the 1800s. Based on the few debates I've read about the book's historicity, my understanding is that such evidence doesn't exist. Keep in mind I'm not even asking to be convinced that the book is the word of God or that it contains an accurate account of ancient New World history. I'd just be satisfied if someone could convince me that, regardless of its accuracy, The BoM represents an actual work of antiquity instead of a document dating to no earlier than the nineteenth century. At the very least such a book would have some historical value even if it didn't represent an account of actual events. I respect if you don't wish to take that up in this thread. I do think it'd be a good issue to eventually address if you're actually interested in convincing people to read your book.

It is kind of hard to do that without the Gold Plates the Book of Mormon was translated from. What kind of evidence are you looking for?
I believe things are the way they are for a reason, because people look too hard into tangible evidence and it isn't about tangible evidence, it is about spiritual evidence and that is what the Book of Mormon promise is. Why do you think we don't have the original Biblical manuscripts? Why was the New Testament not written on sheets of gold or written in stone that could stand the test of time? One thing is for certain, if we had the gold plates in a museum today you better believe the government would try to get their hands on it because it is a native american artifact and do you want to know what would happen then, instead of having one version of the Book of Mormon we would have 50+ versions of the Book of Mormon. How many different English versions of the Bible are out there that you are aware of, I am aware of quite a few and they are not even translated from the original manuscripts, but rather copies of copies of copies of copies, and with all that comes a ton of debate over the correct translation of things. Does God want hundreds of thousands of churches out there all battling over who has the most correct interpretation of the scriptures? I don't believe so. The Book of Mormon is one Book with one translation. It makes perfect sense to me.

 

[Flat Earth Kyle]

Alright Pegg, here is the recap.

1 And now, my son, I perceive there is somewhat more which doth worry your mind, which ye cannot understand—which is concerning the justice of God in the punishment of the sinner; for ye do try to suppose that it is injustice that the sinner should be consigned to a state of misery.

2 Now behold, my son, I will explain this thing unto thee. For behold, after the Lord God sent our first parents forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground, from whence they were taken—yea, he drew out the man, and he placed at the east end of the garden of Eden, cherubim, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the tree of life—

You agree with that because it is basically quoting Genesis 3:24

3 Now, we see that the man had become as God, knowing good and evil; and lest he should put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat and live forever, the Lord God placed cherubim and the flaming sword, that he should not partake of the fruit—

But you disagree with this because 1) you believe Adam and Eve already knew good and evil, and 2) you don't believe the fruit of the tree of life was literal.

4 And thus we see, that there was a time granted unto man to repent, yea, a probationary time, a time to repent and serve God.[/QUOTE]
I am pretty sure you agree with that.

5 For behold, if Adam had put forth his hand immediately, and partaken of the tree of life, he would have lived forever, according to the word of God, having no space for repentance; yea, and also the word of God would have been void, and the great plan of salvation would have been frustrated.

But you disagree with that again because you believed the tree of life was a figure of speech.

6 But behold, it was appointed unto man to die—therefore, as they were cut off from the tree of life they should be cut off from the face of the earth—and man became lost forever, yea, they became fallen man.

Death was their appointed punishment, you agree with that.

7 And now, ye see by this that our first parents were cut off both temporally and spiritually from the presence of the Lord; and thus we see they became subjects to follow after their own will.

You agree with that.

8 Now behold, it was not expedient that man should be reclaimed from this temporal death, for that would destroy the great plan of happiness.

Temporal= temporary. This is not saying that Christ was not needed. It was because of Christ that our deaths will be temporary. Do you believe that eliminating our temporal deaths would destroy God's intention for us to be happy?
You believe God is a just God, if men were not to die temporally, do you believe that would upset the demands of justice?

9 Therefore, as the soul could never die, and the fall had brought upon all mankind a spiritual death as well as a temporal, that is, they were cut off from the presence of the Lord, it was expedient that mankind should be reclaimed from this spiritual death.

I am curious as to your belief on this one.

10 Therefore, as they had become carnal, sensual, and devilish, by nature, this probationary state became a state for them to prepare; it became a preparatory state.

And I am pretty sure you agree with this one am I right?

 

[Pegg]

But you disagree with this because 1) you believe Adam and Eve already knew good and evil, and 2) you don't believe the fruit of the tree of life was literal.

the fact that Eve was able to inform the serpent of the law and the consequences of the law shows that they did have knowledge of it.
So when Genesis says 'they have become like God knowing good and bad' we believe it means that they had become like God in that they became 'self determined'... prior they were dependent on God for guidance, but by disobeying, they were rejecting Gods guidance and deciding for themselves what they will and wont do.

God is the one who sets all laws and standards and he has the right to do so. The man and woman were not in a position to act independently of Gods stated laws....but thats what they did when they chose to eat the fruit. To this 'knowing good and bad' means they began to set their own rules and standards....they set themselves in a position that only God has the right to be in....so now they had 'become like God'

and yes, the tree was symbolic of what was possible for them if they remained in the garden with God as their ruler.... but now they had lost that potential.

But you disagree with that again because you believed the tree of life was a figure of speech.

the reason why the tree is symbolic is because revelation, Ezekiel and Jeremiah all speak of the 'trees of life' that become available during Christs millenial reign.... and during that time, mankind will have the opportunity to live forever again. But whoever rejects God during that time can still die as is seen by what happens at the end of the millenial reign. So having these 'trees' does not automatically grant everlasting life even when people have access to them. Only God can grant everlasting life....hence the trees of life are symbols of what is on offer at that time.

Death was their appointed punishment, you agree with that.

Yes, Genesis says 'for dust you are and to dust you will return' .... The serpent told eve 'You will positively not die' He completely contradicted Gods warning about the tree. So who do you believe? The serpent or God? If you say we continue to live on after death in some form, then the serpent was telling the truth and God is a liar... We dont believe God lied to them when he said if you eat from it you will die. Thats why our belief is as the bible says "the dead are conscious of nothing at all"..."his spirit goes out, in that day his thoughts do perish"

Temporal= temporary. This is not saying that Christ was not needed. It was because of Christ that our deaths will be temporary. Do you believe that eliminating our temporal deaths would destroy God's intention for us to be happy?
You believe God is a just God, if men were not to die temporally, do you believe that would upset the demands of justice?

there will come the time when God says, "death will be no more"
So obviously death is not necessary for us to be happy....in fact i think it makes us all pretty miserable.

Justice has been served. Jesus paid the price of our redemption from sin and death. He paid that price for every man woman and child who has ever lived or is yet to live. So if we believe firmly that Jesus is our redemptor, then we can understand how it can be possible that "some will never taste death at all"

death is not going to be a part of our human condition for much longer... during Christs millenial reign, the potential for everlasting life will be freely available to all who return to God for curing
Revelation 22:1-2 And he showed me a river of water of life, clear as crystal, flowing out from the throne of God and of the Lamb 2 down the middle of its broad way. And on this side of the river and on that side [there were] trees of life producing twelve crops of fruit, yielding their fruits each month. And the leaves of the trees [were] for the curing of the nations

9 Therefore, as the soul could never die, and the fall had brought upon all mankind a spiritual death as well as a temporal, that is, they were cut off from the presence of the Lord, it was expedient that mankind should be reclaimed from this spiritual death.
I am curious as to your belief on this one.

we believe what the bible says...It is very clear in stating that the soul is subject to death, saying: “The soul that is sinning—it itself will die.” (Ezekiel 18:4

So i cant agree with the writer in this regard... souls are living humans. Adam was created and when he came to life he was a 'living soul'

SOS means 'save our souls' ... .save our lives from the danger so we can keep living. Soul is not an immaterial part of man...it is the entire whole man.

And I am pretty sure you agree with this one am I right?

i dont know what the 'preparatory' or 'probationary' state means????

 

[Flat Earth Kyle]

prepatory or probationary state, the time we spend in this life is a testing ground, a time when we are tested to see who we will follow, whether that will be God or Satan. It is a time for us to prepare to meet God before the Judgement bar of Christ.

 

[Pegg]

prepatory or probationary state, the time we spend in this life is a testing ground, a time when we are tested to see who we will follow, whether that will be God or Satan. It is a time for us to prepare to meet God before the Judgement bar of Christ.

oh yeah i see, yes that would be correct.

God allowed Adam and Eve to bring forth children, and he allows those children (us) to make a choice in the short life we have. true.

when he resurrects everyone, then all will be given further opportunity to live long enough for sin to be removed from us... but any who fail to respond positively at that time will earn a 'second death' because they rejected Gods offer. That is where the second death comes into the picture.... you can only die a second time if you have already died once. And if God puts you to death a second time, its because you were judged as unworthy during the 1000year judgement day.

 

[Flat Earth Kyle]

8 Now behold, it was not expedient that man should be reclaimed from this temporal death, for that would destroy the great plan of happiness.

God has all power, if he were not to have sent his son to atone for us and pay the ransom sacrifice, but instead just forgave us, do you believe that would leave the demands of justice unpaid. And if the demands of justice were left unpaid do you believe that would throw off God's plan of happiness of his children?

 

[Flat Earth Kyle]

11 And now remember, my son, if it were not for the plan of redemption, (laying it aside) as soon as they were dead their souls were miserable, being cut off from the presence of the Lord.

This is referring to the spiritual death. And with that I am pretty sure you agree with that.

12 And now, there was no means to reclaim men from this fallen state, which man had brought upon himself because of his own disobedience;
13 Therefore, according to justice, the plan of redemption could not be brought about, only on conditions of repentance of men in this probationary state, yea, this preparatory state; for except it were for these conditions, mercy could not take effect except it should destroy the work of justice. Now the work of justice could not be destroyed; if so, God would cease to be God.
14 And thus we see that all mankind were fallen, and they were in the grasp of justice; yea, the justice of God, which consigned them forever to be cut off from his presence.
15 And now, the plan of mercy could not be brought about except an atonement should be made; therefore God himself atoneth for the sins of the world, to bring about the plan of mercy, to appease the demands of justice, that God might be a perfect, just God, and a merciful God also.

Now I'm pretty sure you agree with all this am I right?

 

[Pegg]

God has all power, if he were not to have sent his son to atone for us and pay the ransom sacrifice, but instead just forgave us, do you believe that would leave the demands of justice unpaid. And if the demands of justice were left unpaid do you believe that would throw off God's plan of happiness of his children?

sure, justice would not have been paid if a life had not been given, so yes, the demands of justice would have remained unpaid and death would have continued to reign as king over mankind.

Gods plan was always to redeem Adams children from the condition of sin and death... he would not allow Satan to get the upperhand over anyone. As soon as the sin occured in Eden, God pronounced judgement on the Devil when he said "there will be emnity between you and the woman and between your seed and her seed, you will bruise him in the heel (Jesus was temporarily wounded) and he will bruise you in the head" Gen 3:16 Jesus will eventually deliver a head wound to satan... unlike a heel wound, a head wound is more serious and one he wont recover from.