Sorry for these long exchanges, but there is much to discuss.....
I see a lot of what you have said is assumption and interpretation which I respectfully disagree with, and for me to explain my position any further, would be redundant.
I appreciate that we all have beliefs that are based on some assumption. Your own are based on assumption to a great extent as well. But we each have our reasons for accepting the truthfulness of what we are taught.
But, I will cite a couple of examples. You say " It was not until after they sinned that those lustful thoughts entered their minds. Lust between a husband and wife is not a sin. I don't think this was at issue in any case since as I stated their bodies were not yet capable of having children. I interpret that to mean that they were likely in a prepubescent state and simply had no interest in sex.
This is an example of assumption...is it not? If this idea is not in the Bible, then it is unsupported for anyone who is not Mormon. It makes no sense for God to give commands to his children if they have no comprehension of what is being asked of them. Why assume that they were unable to understand a clear command? They had seen animals give birth and they had seen animals die....they understood both concepts. They had perfect intellect and reasoning ability...what makes you assume that they were child-like? They were created as full grown, intelligent adults, not children.
I also think they would have remained this way as long as they did not partake of the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. I don't think Adam and Eve completely understood the command to multiply and replenish the earth at the first. I think it slowly dawned on Mother Eve first and she (with motherly instincts) what to have children. I personally think this was her reason for partaking of the fruit. Adam, recognizing the disparity between himself and his wife chose to partake as well because it finally came to him that this was necessary so that they could have children.
So all these assumptions are made by someone else and taught to you as truth? You accept these teachings as gospel because....? What proof do you have that Joseph Smith was a prophet or that he was ever visited by an angel? If what he wrote is contradicted by the Bible, who do you believe?
Now, of course, I believe what I just said on combining what it says in both the Bible and the Book of Mormon as well as the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price.
Another assumption is that these writings of Joseph Smith were inspired? Yes? I accept the writings of the apostles and other disciples of Jesus who had direct contact with him, but there is no mention of another gospel to come. All we need to know was written before the "weeds" of false Christianity took root. No additions were to be accepted after the apostolic period.
that it has nothing to do with Adam and Eve. They could not commit sexual sin in any case. God joined them together. You cannot get any more married than that. So sexual sin is not an issue here.
Could I ask you why these two, though married, covered their reproductive parts when there was no one else around to be exposed to their nakedness? Why did they feel shame at being naked, even with each other? And why did God make garments of animal skins for them?
And yes, sexual sin did have the death penalty in the theocracy that Israel was under at the time, and yes, adultery is second only to murder within the graded list of sins. However, as Jesus indicated concerning the woman taken in adultery and was about to be stoned, gave her the opportunity to repent by preventing the stoning. So, I take that to mean that the sin of adultery can be repented of as a consequence of Christ's atonement, and unless it is, the penalty is spiritual death; meaning, that individual cannot return to God after the resurrection (unless that individual repents).
That is one of the primary reasons why Jesus offered his life....so that sinners who repent could be forgiven. He paid the price by dying in their place. This alters nothing except to tie in the sin of Adam with the death of all his children. (Rom 5:12) How anyone can make that into a noble act is beyond me. There was no natural cause of death in the garden of Eden. The eating of the forbidden fruit was the ONLY cause of death. Can you see anything in Genesis that states otherwise?
In the context of my belief, Adam was faced with a choice. He understood that by partaking of the forbidden fruit he was going to die. On the other hand, he was commanded to multiply and replenish the earth. He could not do the later unless he remained with his wife. Adam's sacrifice consists in his knowingly choosing death so that we could be born.
That means that the words of the Creator were just a tease. Virtually what you are suggesting is that God told his children not to do something under penalty of death and then rewarded them for doing so? I can only hope you see how illogical that notion is.
You say "There is nothing in the Bible to suggest that humans existed as spirits before their birth." Again, here I respectfully disagree. Consider what God told Jeremiah. "Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee;..." Now you may have a different interpretation of this, but I see this as an indication that Jeremiah existed before he was born in the flesh. We all existed as God's children before being born into the mortality.
It is true that God specifically chose certain individuals before they were born for a special role in his purpose. Jeremiah and John the Baptist are notable examples of this. Is this saying that ALL humans come under this arrangement?
Where was Adam before God created him? Where was Eve? Search Genesis and you will find no mention of them living as spirits before they lived on earth.
"Adam and his wife would have been "fruitful and multiplied" without their disobedience." I see this as an assumption on your part. At least it is an interpretation that I do not share.
"No sentence of death would have been imposed on them or their children and the reason for Christ's sacrifice would have been eliminated...he would never have come into the world as a human child. Their obedience would have saved themselves." These really are assumptions and for me, they go contrary to the foreknowledge of God and the mission of Jesus Christ that God the Father ordained.
They are assumptions based on what the rest of the Bible says. Jesus was sent from heaven to become the "ransom" for obedient mankind. He is called the "last Adam" for the simple reason that he paid for what the first Adam did to his children. (1 Cor 15:45)
when you say that their obedience would have saved themselves, you are eliminating any concept of progression from one state to another. Saved in what state? They would not have gained the experience of mortality.
Can I ask where the teaching of this "progression" is found in the Bible. Why did humans need to "progress" from "one state to another"? The state in which God first created man was perfect. It was man himself who altered that by his disobedience. No disobedience would have meant no death...the tree of life was there in the garden to guarantee an everlasting existence in paradise conditions on earth. (Gen 3:22-24)
I know you see mortality as something bad, and it is only bad if we do not repent and accept God's plan for our progression through the atonement of Jesus Christ. Having gone through mortality and if we repent of the mistakes that we make because of the flesh, we will have gained knowledge and experience that we could not have otherwise had. The noble purpose consists in our being born in order to have the opportunity to progress.
That is a concept that is not taught in God's word. It might be one promoted in Mormonism, but it is definitely NOT supported by the Bible. "Mortality" is NOT "something bad"......it is perfectly wonderful when experienced as God intended at the start.
This is a state of being where external things are needed to sustain life. Air, food, shelter, a suitable environment that would impose no danger or hardship, and a perfectly designed body that would experience no ill health...ever.
This is what mortality meant in the garden of Eden. Everything that was necessary to not only sustain life but promote health and happiness was all there, supplied in abundance by the Creator. How could any of that be a bad thing?
"The rebel angels of Noah's time are the only spirits who wanted to taste the desires of the flesh. God punished them and exterminated their freakish offspring. So how does that factor in for you guys?"
When you say "rebel angels", I really don't see how you came to that conclusion. Adam and Eves children had made choices and had corrupted themselves to the point that God decided that they had failed the test of mortality and decided to end their trial with the flood. Only Noah and his family survived. I understand the rebellious angels to be those that followed Lucifer's rebellion and are spirits that (along with Lucifer who became Satan) never had the opportunity to have bodies because of their rebellion against God. These demon spirits without physical bodies could never have children, freakish or otherwise.
Read Genesis ch 6 and see that "sons of the true God" began to notice the daughters of men, that they were beautiful and they began taking them as wives. This is not mentioned as something that was the norm among humans (and had been since the beginning)....it was talking about something unusual.....rebellious angels materialising fleshly bodies and cohabiting with women. The Nephilim were their freakish offspring, gigantic bullies whose presence plunged mankind into ruin, necessitating the action God took to eliminate them from existence and sending their fathers back to the spirit realm where he placed them under restraint in a condition called "Tartarus". Only faithful angels are seen to materialize after this event. These were the "spirits in prison" to whom Jesus went to pronounce sentence upon them after his resurrection. (1 Pet 3:19, 20; 2 Pet 2:4-11) his 'preaching' to them was not to solicit repentance, but to reinforce the surety of their future punishment.
Since I believe we existed as spirits before coming to earth to gain physical bodies; as spirits, we had no conception of what id was like to have physical bodies. This being the case, sin was inevitable because physical bodies have appetites that we needed to learn to control. In that process of learning, we would make mistakes. If these mistakes were contrary to God's law, they would need to be repented of. The thing is that even though repentance has taken place, the fact that the sin happened in the first place, it needed to be covered. This is what the atonement of Jesus Christ does. It covers the mistakes we make which are contrary to God's law. The purpose it serves is to allow us to gain the experience of mortality and through the atonement of Jesus Christ still be allowed to return to our Father in Heaven where no unclean thing can dwell. we are made clean through the atonement of Jesus Christ.
To someone without the indoctrination of Morman beliefs, and because I find nothing like this concept this in the Bible, I am happy to leave that to you.
"What "heavenly parents" are we talking about here?" Mormons believe that we are indeed the spirit children of a Heavenly Father. We also believe that there is no father without a mother... ergo Heavenly Parents.
If we know who the Father is....who is the mother?
"Do you believe that angels were once humans who returned to heaven? What place do they have in your belief system if I may ask?"
We believe that angels are God's messengers, and that they are both un-embodied spirits (as yet) as well as resurrected beings who are sent from God to execute directives given by God. For example, we believe that the angel Moroni was a resurrected being sent to Joseph Smith to initiate the restoration of the gospel of Jesus Christ.
It is a fact that there are only two angels mentioned by name in the Bible. That is Gabriel and Michael. In all of Biblical history, not one other angel has been permitted to reveal his name. (Judges 13:15-18)
Why do you think that God chose another angel in this instance, whose name is revealed only in the BoM?
Can you give Biblical support for your belief that angels are the spirits of resurrected humans?
How much of Mormon belief is supported by the Bible and how much is only found in the BoM? If what is found in the BoM conflicts with the Bible, which will you yield to?
