The Fall of Adam, Ancient Lie, and Redemption of Zion

For discussion of liberty, freedom, government and politics.
Post Reply
User avatar
Obeone
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1382

Re: The Fall of Adam, Ancient Lie, and Redemption of Zion

Post by Obeone »

tmac wrote: January 9th, 2023, 9:55 am
Obeone wrote: January 8th, 2023, 3:31 pm
tmac wrote: December 27th, 2022, 6:35 am On my end, I am prepared to buy the theory that a softer, terrestrial experience, without such a hard fall, might be sufficient to prepare/qualify God’s children for eternal life as resurrected angels in the CK, without increase, but at this point I am having a hard time buying/swallowing the theory that it is possible to learn ALL things, and be fully prepared for exaltation and to become gods, without first having a full mortal/telestial experience, with all the opposition and temptation (and opportunity for repentance and forgiveness), and opportunity for parenthood, that goes along with that.
In the Millennium countless billions will be born and live out their lives without ever knowing fallen, telestial, lone and dreary world. And they will grow up without sin unto salvation, and will be exalted. That contradicts your theory, my friend.
Personal theories contradicting personal theories. What’s new?

But one relevant question: What is the difference between salvation and exaltation?
About Millennium is not a personal theory, but a statement from the Lord. See the quote here.

User avatar
Shawn Henry
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4514

Re: The Fall of Adam, Ancient Lie, and Redemption of Zion

Post by Shawn Henry »

tmac wrote: January 9th, 2023, 9:55 am But one relevant question: What is the difference between salvation and exaltation?
Salvation is a scriptural term used consistently throughout scripture. Exaltation is a non-scriptural term found only in the fiction that is section 132.

Did I get it right? :D

User avatar
Shawn Henry
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4514

Re: The Fall of Adam, Ancient Lie, and Redemption of Zion

Post by Shawn Henry »

Luke wrote: December 27th, 2022, 1:35 pm This is literally what happens when you distance yourself from polygamy. Even the most ardent Book of Mormon believers on here who reject polygamy have expressed potential doubts over the Book of Mormon. Some I have watched throw the Book of Mormon overboard in a matter of weeks.

You distance yourself from one important truth (could be polygamy, could be anything) and then you start denouncing other truths. And round and round it goes.
Now you're delusional pretending that the BoM is a pro-polygamy book? Are you serious? Distance yourself from polygamy and you align yourself with BoM teachings.

How about you distancing yourself from the words of Christ that polygamy is an abomination?

User avatar
ransomme
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4014

Re: The Fall of Adam, Ancient Lie, and Redemption of Zion

Post by ransomme »

Obeone wrote: September 5th, 2022, 12:20 pm
Sarah wrote: September 5th, 2022, 12:16 pm God did provide a way to obey all his commandments. But the way included breaking one of his commands or rules of the Garden.
Transgressing commandments is NOT fulfilling them.
You cannot "obey" God's commandments by "breaking" them. Otherwise God would be a self-contradictory God, which is no God at all.
There is a difference. They transgressed, they did not sin. They disobeyed one of Father's rules not an eternal law.

Also Adam said there is no other way, but about what? He was saying that he understood that there needed to be opposition, which is true there is no other way. He wasn't saying that eating the fruit was the only way per se. But at that point Eve had already partaken, so in order for Adam to stay with Eve and fulfill the command to replenish and multiply there was no other way than to eat the fruit.

Besides, it may be that this world needed to be fallen so that the Only Begotten could be sacrificed.

User avatar
Obeone
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1382

Re: The Fall of Adam, Ancient Lie, and Redemption of Zion

Post by Obeone »

ransomme wrote: January 11th, 2023, 4:05 am
Obeone wrote: September 5th, 2022, 12:20 pm
Sarah wrote: September 5th, 2022, 12:16 pm God did provide a way to obey all his commandments. But the way included breaking one of his commands or rules of the Garden.
Transgressing commandments is NOT fulfilling them.
You cannot "obey" God's commandments by "breaking" them. Otherwise God would be a self-contradictory God, which is no God at all.
There is a difference. They transgressed, they did not sin. They disobeyed one of Father's rules not an eternal law.
They disobeyed an eternal law: listen to God more than to the devil. There is no principle more fundamental than this.
ransomme wrote: January 11th, 2023, 4:05 am
Also Adam said there is no other way, but about what? He was saying that he understood that there needed to be opposition, which is true there is no other way. He wasn't saying that eating the fruit was the only way per se. But at that point Eve had already partaken, so in order for Adam to stay with Eve and fulfill the command to replenish and multiply there was no other way than to eat the fruit.
Even though Eve had fallen, Adam should have followed God more than his fallen wife. A lesson in what not to do.
As for posterity, God would have given Adam another wife who would have listened to the Father in this thing.

In general, you are never required to break one commandment to keep another, because God never contradicts himself.
ransomme wrote: January 11th, 2023, 4:05 am Besides, it may be that this world needed to be fallen so that the Only Begotten could be sacrificed.

It is like saying, let us do evil that good may come. This is the doctrine of the devil. As Jesus put it: "It is impossible but that offences will come: but woe unto him, through whom they come!"

It is never right to disobey God. No exceptions.

This is where Church goes off the rails in regards to the fall. And this is the error Adam himself will correct within 5 years.

User avatar
ransomme
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4014

Re: The Fall of Adam, Ancient Lie, and Redemption of Zion

Post by ransomme »

Obeone wrote: January 11th, 2023, 8:06 am
ransomme wrote: January 11th, 2023, 4:05 am
Obeone wrote: September 5th, 2022, 12:20 pm
Sarah wrote: September 5th, 2022, 12:16 pm God did provide a way to obey all his commandments. But the way included breaking one of his commands or rules of the Garden.
Transgressing commandments is NOT fulfilling them.
You cannot "obey" God's commandments by "breaking" them. Otherwise God would be a self-contradictory God, which is no God at all.
There is a difference. They transgressed, they did not sin. They disobeyed one of Father's rules not an eternal law.
They disobeyed an eternal law: listen to God more than to the devil. There is no principle more fundamental than this.
ransomme wrote: January 11th, 2023, 4:05 am
Also Adam said there is no other way, but about what? He was saying that he understood that there needed to be opposition, which is true there is no other way. He wasn't saying that eating the fruit was the only way per se. But at that point Eve had already partaken, so in order for Adam to stay with Eve and fulfill the command to replenish and multiply there was no other way than to eat the fruit.
Even though Eve had fallen, Adam should have followed God more than his fallen wife. A lesson in what not to do.
As for posterity, God would have given Adam another wife who would have listened to the Father in this thing.

In general, you are never required to break one commandment to keep another, because God never contradicts himself.
ransomme wrote: January 11th, 2023, 4:05 am Besides, it may be that this world needed to be fallen so that the Only Begotten could be sacrificed.

It is like saying, let us do evil that good may come. This is the doctrine of the devil. As Jesus put it: "It is impossible but that offences will come: but woe unto him, through whom they come!"

It is never right to disobey God. No exceptions.
Wow so quick to put asunder what God Himself joined together.

Matthew 19:6
Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

You are so adamant about not breaking the Law yet you promote breaking it. Interesting.

There is zero reasoning that God would just give Adam another wife.

It's more likely that Adam fell that men might be. Adam and Eve were in a state of innocence. They didn't even understand death as they had no experience with it. They didn't understand much.

Isaiah 45:7
I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

User avatar
Mindfields
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1869
Location: Utah

Re: The Fall of Adam, Ancient Lie, and Redemption of Zion

Post by Mindfields »

Luke wrote: December 27th, 2022, 1:35 pm
LDS Watchman wrote: December 27th, 2022, 1:27 pm
Mindfields wrote: December 27th, 2022, 9:33 am ...or Adam and Eve are fictional characters created to give the Israelites an origin story. Historical evidence clearly points this way.
I guess we can now add the Book of Mormon to things you reject from Mormonism, which means you don't believe any of it anymore.

Or is there something I'm missing.
This is literally what happens when you distance yourself from polygamy. Even the most ardent Book of Mormon believers on here who reject polygamy have expressed potential doubts over the Book of Mormon. Some I have watched throw the Book of Mormon overboard in a matter of weeks.

You distance yourself from one important truth (could be polygamy, could be anything) and then you start denouncing other truths. And round and round it goes.
I would rephrase your statement as: You distance yourself from one giant lie (could be polygamy, could be anything) and then you start denouncing other lies. And round and round it goes until you suddenly realize you've been scammed.

"The masses have never thirsted after truth. They turn aside from evidence that is not to their taste, preferring to deify error, if error seduce them. Whoever can supply them with illusions is easily their master; whomever attempts to destroy their illusions is always their victim." -- Gustov Le Bon

User avatar
Obeone
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1382

Re: The Fall of Adam, Ancient Lie, and Redemption of Zion

Post by Obeone »

ransomme wrote: January 11th, 2023, 12:48 pm Wow so quick to put asunder what God Himself joined together.

Matthew 19:6
Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

You are so adamant about not breaking the Law yet you promote breaking it. Interesting.

There is zero reasoning that God would just give Adam another wife.

It's more likely that Adam fell that men might be. Adam and Eve were in a state of innocence. They didn't even understand death as they had no experience with it. They didn't understand much.
They understood enough, otherwise the judgement which God executed against them would not have been just.

As for Adam, God Himself would have given him another wife if Adam resisted the temptation to follow his fallen wife and the devil. There would be no reason to penalize Adam for keeping the commandments.

The same is in the Church, if one spouse falls, the other is not obligated to follow them to hell.

Same principle applied to Adam.

User avatar
ransomme
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4014

Re: The Fall of Adam, Ancient Lie, and Redemption of Zion

Post by ransomme »

Obeone wrote: January 11th, 2023, 3:03 pm
ransomme wrote: January 11th, 2023, 12:48 pm Wow so quick to put asunder what God Himself joined together.

Matthew 19:6
Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

You are so adamant about not breaking the Law yet you promote breaking it. Interesting.

There is zero reasoning that God would just give Adam another wife.

It's more likely that Adam fell that men might be. Adam and Eve were in a state of innocence. They didn't even understand death as they had no experience with it. They didn't understand much.
They understood enough, otherwise the judgement which God executed against them would not have been just.

As for Adam, God Himself would have given him another wife if Adam resisted the temptation to follow his fallen wife and the devil. There would be no reason to penalize Adam for keeping the commandments.

The same is in the Church, if one spouse falls, the other is not obligated to follow them to hell.

Same principle applied to Adam.
They understood the several commandments they were given, and that they were to keep them. That's enough to be cast out from God's presence as they had transgressed what they knew. What they didn't fully understand was the full impact of the consequences. That is a very different thing than knowing not to disobey Father.

In your scenario, both spouses are already fallen. The other spouse may choose to suffer as a savior on Mt. Zion to save their companion. This is the noble option Adam took to stay with his wife and fulfill the other commandments that God issued to them. Adam chose to not break the other commandments given in marriage and by covenant to Adam and Eve together.

You are saying that Adam should toss asunder what God had joined together, to break his vows, to break the covenant that he gave God concerning his wife, and break the commandment to multiply and replenish with the wife that God joined with.

Your view is conflicting with itself.

To be clear, do you believe that we could have had our entire mortal probation (2nd estate) in the Garden?

User avatar
Luke
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 10785
Location: England

Re: The Fall of Adam, Ancient Lie, and Redemption of Zion

Post by Luke »

“God would have just given him another wife” so ridiculous

User avatar
Obeone
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1382

Re: The Fall of Adam, Ancient Lie, and Redemption of Zion

Post by Obeone »

ransomme wrote: January 11th, 2023, 5:03 pm They understood the several commandments they were given, and that they were to keep them. That's enough to be cast out from God's presence as they had transgressed what they knew. What they didn't fully understand was the full impact of the consequences. That is a very different thing than knowing not to disobey Father.

In your scenario, both spouses are already fallen. The other spouse may choose to suffer as a savior on Mt. Zion to save their companion. This is the noble option Adam took to stay with his wife and fulfill the other commandments that God issued to them. Adam chose to not break the other commandments given in marriage and by covenant to Adam and Eve together.

You are saying that Adam should toss asunder what God had joined together, to break his vows, to break the covenant that he gave God concerning his wife, and break the commandment to multiply and replenish with the wife that God joined with.

Your view is conflicting with itself.

To be clear, do you believe that we could have had our entire mortal probation (2nd estate) in the Garden?
Yes, as millions of other worlds have done. This earth seems to be the first one that fell.

As for Adam, God does not give contradictory commandments. It is NEVER necessary to break one of His commandments to keep another. In fact it is the doctrine of the devil, because it makes God a self-contradictory God, which is no God at all.

Learn this. This is the principle the Church in general does not understand, including the Q15. This is why Zion has not been redeemed for 200 years. But in 2030, it will be.

User avatar
tmac
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4526
Location: Reality

Re: The Fall of Adam, Ancient Lie, and Redemption of Zion

Post by tmac »

Luke wrote: January 11th, 2023, 5:04 pm “God would have just given him another wife” so ridiculous
Oh, I don't know, it would have certainly gotten plural marriage off to a good, quick jump start. And, since most of what passes for "doctrine" in this thread and others is nothing more than personal speculation, Obeone's personal speculations are in fairly good company.

On my end, I'm still interested in a serious discussion of the difference(s) between salvation and exaltation. Or, despite Section 131, are folks attempting to to speculate that there actually aren’t three degrees of the Celestial Kingdom?

What I really want to know is exactly which of those three degrees Section 76 is referring to? And, how does 121 factor into all of this?

Does anyone have something other than personal speculation to bring to the table?

User avatar
Obeone
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1382

Re: The Fall of Adam, Ancient Lie, and Redemption of Zion

Post by Obeone »

tmac wrote: January 11th, 2023, 8:39 pm
Luke wrote: January 11th, 2023, 5:04 pm “God would have just given him another wife” so ridiculous
Oh, I don't know, it would have certainly gotten plural marriage off to a good, quick jump start. And, since most of what passes for "doctrine" in this thread and others is nothing more than personal speculation, Obeone's personal speculations are in fairly good company.

On my end, I'm still interested in a serious discussion of the difference(s) between salvation and exaltation. Or, despite Section 131, are folks attempting to to speculate that there actually aren’t three degrees of the Celestial Kingdom?

What I really want to know is exactly which of those three degrees Section 76 is referring to? And, how does 121 factor into all of this?

Does anyone have something other than personal speculation to bring to the table?
The difference between being saved and exalted is eternal marriage:
 D&C 132:
16 Therefore, when they are out of the world they neither marry nor are given in marriage; but are appointed angels in heaven, which angels are ministering servants, to minister for those who are worthy of a far more, and an exceeding, and an eternal weight of glory.
17 For these angels did not abide my law; therefore, they cannot be enlarged, but remain separately and singly, without exaltation, in their saved condition, to all eternity; and from henceforth are not gods, but are angels of God forever and ever.
If you do not play nice with others, you are not a God, because God is love.

Simple.

User avatar
Luke
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 10785
Location: England

Re: The Fall of Adam, Ancient Lie, and Redemption of Zion

Post by Luke »

Obeone wrote: February 4th, 2023, 8:46 am
tmac wrote: January 11th, 2023, 8:39 pm
Luke wrote: January 11th, 2023, 5:04 pm “God would have just given him another wife” so ridiculous
Oh, I don't know, it would have certainly gotten plural marriage off to a good, quick jump start. And, since most of what passes for "doctrine" in this thread and others is nothing more than personal speculation, Obeone's personal speculations are in fairly good company.

On my end, I'm still interested in a serious discussion of the difference(s) between salvation and exaltation. Or, despite Section 131, are folks attempting to to speculate that there actually aren’t three degrees of the Celestial Kingdom?

What I really want to know is exactly which of those three degrees Section 76 is referring to? And, how does 121 factor into all of this?

Does anyone have something other than personal speculation to bring to the table?
The difference between being saved and exalted is eternal marriage:
 D&C 132:
16 Therefore, when they are out of the world they neither marry nor are given in marriage; but are appointed angels in heaven, which angels are ministering servants, to minister for those who are worthy of a far more, and an exceeding, and an eternal weight of glory.
17 For these angels did not abide my law; therefore, they cannot be enlarged, but remain separately and singly, without exaltation, in their saved condition, to all eternity; and from henceforth are not gods, but are angels of God forever and ever.
If you do not play nice with others, you are not a God, because God is love.

Simple.
The difference is actually plural marriage.

“The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy. Others attain unto a glory and may even be permitted to come into the presence of the Father and the Son; but they cannot reign as kings in glory, because they had blessings offered unto them, and they refused to accept them.” (Brigham Young, JD 11:269, 19 August 1866)

User avatar
Obeone
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1382

Re: The Fall of Adam, Ancient Lie, and Redemption of Zion

Post by Obeone »

Also the idea that Adam got burned on a mere meaningless technicality is false.

Adam's test was who will he listen to: God or the devil. And he chose wrong.

Far from being a mere technicality, it is the most fundamental choice anyone can ever face.

And Adam was dead wrong in the garden. Literally.

User avatar
Obeone
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1382

Re: The Fall of Adam, Ancient Lie, and Redemption of Zion

Post by Obeone »

Well, Brigham Young went as far off the rails as was possible for a president of the Church without losing keys. He taught a lot of falsehoods, some of which, like "Adam did a good thing by falling" -- nonsense, are still with us.

While I do not support some of Rob Fotheringham's conclusions about the Church being generally apostate, he does bring up good points about blatant and blazingly obvious, -- later officially admitted -- errors committed by Brigham Young and others.
Image

These facts prove further the truth, that if you "follow the prophet" INSTEAD of following the Spirit of God, you will be cursed.

We have this in spades now with god-sent safe and effective abomination.

Supposed infallibility of prophets in all things, even when acting in official capacity, is an abomination before God. He will purge this abomination of prophet-idolatry from His church soon enough, before Zion can be redeemed in 2030.

Not long now.

The Church is true. The keys and the priesthood are with us. But the Church must grow up, and fast, before Zion can be redeemed, and the time is running out.

God will clean house, ready or not.

Thereafter it will never be said again "if the prophet tells you something, even if you think it is wrong, and you do it, you will be blessed for it." This abomination I have heard quoted in general conferences with my own ears. This falsehood, together with "Adam had no better way but to fall" lie, are going away. And soon.

God will remove or soften all the heads in the Church that believe these abominations.

This said, however, I emphasize again, that most of the leaders in the Church are good men doing their best. Especially Q15. My testimony is that their errors are honest ones.

We must have patience and charity for Church leaders if we wish that God have mercy for us. And God knows, I need all the mercy I can get!

Cheers.

User avatar
Luke
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 10785
Location: England

Re: The Fall of Adam, Ancient Lie, and Redemption of Zion

Post by Luke »

Obeone wrote: August 13th, 2023, 12:30 am Well, Brigham Young went as far off the rails as was possible for a president of the Church without losing keys. He taught a lot of falsehoods, some of which, like "Adam did a good thing by falling" -- nonsense, are still with us.
Lol, I think I’ll believe a man who was taught and schooled by Joseph Smith over someone like yourself who preaches such utter rubbish.
Obeone wrote: August 13th, 2023, 12:30 am The Church is true. The keys and the priesthood are with us.
If by the keys you mean what is referenced in D&C 132:7, I can’t agree. There are certain conditions to holding the keys which the leaders of the Church have not met from the time of Heber J. Grant onwards.

User avatar
Robin Hood
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 13112
Location: England

Re: The Fall of Adam, Ancient Lie, and Redemption of Zion

Post by Robin Hood »

Obeone wrote: August 13th, 2023, 12:30 am Well, Brigham Young went as far off the rails as was possible for a president of the Church without losing keys. He taught a lot of falsehoods, some of which, like "Adam did a good thing by falling" -- nonsense, are still with us.

Cheers.
So where does the "Adam fell that men might be, and men are that they might have joy" BoM scripture fit into your "nonsense" claim?
Mistranslation maybe? Off day for Joseph? Or maybe Brigham's revisionist history.

User avatar
Obeone
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1382

Re: The Fall of Adam, Ancient Lie, and Redemption of Zion

Post by Obeone »

Robin Hood wrote: August 13th, 2023, 1:47 am
Obeone wrote: August 13th, 2023, 12:30 am Well, Brigham Young went as far off the rails as was possible for a president of the Church without losing keys. He taught a lot of falsehoods, some of which, like "Adam did a good thing by falling" -- nonsense, are still with us.

Cheers.
So where does the "Adam fell that men might be, and men are that they might have joy" BoM scripture fit into your "nonsense" claim?
Mistranslation maybe? Off day for Joseph? Or maybe Brigham's revisionist history.
"Adam was tempted that his eyes might be opened, that men might be, and men are that they might have joy"
is probably a more correct translation.

Also,

"Adam fell because he believed the lie that men might be in no other way, and men are that they might have joy"
is also a correct translation.

So "Adam fell that men might be" means at least two things:

1) That Adam was allowed to be tempted, and if he yielded to the temptation to fall, that his eyes might be opened, that he might have posterity. But though temptation was necessary to open his eyes, Adam's yielding to the temptation was completely unnecessary and was a deadly error forbidden by God. Had Adam resisted the temptation as God commanded him, his eyes would have been opened without transgression, and he would have had posterity without the fall, precisely as God commanded him, which was plan A, from which Adam fell through disobedience.

2) "Adam fell that men might be" simply names the lie for which Adam fell.

The language in the Book of Mormon on this topic is intentionally ambiguous which forces the reader to consider these words in context with other scriptures to understand the truth.

This is part of the test that God gave to His Church, and on this point the Church has been wrong for almost 200 years.

But Adam-ondi-Ahman event will be about Adam visiting the Church and disabusing it from the lie they have believed all these years, so Zion can be redeemed and New Jerusalem built.

Why?

Because Zion cannot be redeemed from the fall while believing the very lie which caused its fall in the first place.

User avatar
Robin Hood
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 13112
Location: England

Re: The Fall of Adam, Ancient Lie, and Redemption of Zion

Post by Robin Hood »

Obeone wrote: August 13th, 2023, 3:46 am
Robin Hood wrote: August 13th, 2023, 1:47 am
Obeone wrote: August 13th, 2023, 12:30 am Well, Brigham Young went as far off the rails as was possible for a president of the Church without losing keys. He taught a lot of falsehoods, some of which, like "Adam did a good thing by falling" -- nonsense, are still with us.

Cheers.
So where does the "Adam fell that men might be, and men are that they might have joy" BoM scripture fit into your "nonsense" claim?
Mistranslation maybe? Off day for Joseph? Or maybe Brigham's revisionist history.
"Adam was tempted that his eyes might be opened, that men might be, and men are that they might have joy"
is probably a more correct translation.

Also,

"Adam fell because he believed the lie that men might be in no other way, and men are that they might have joy"
is also a correct translation.

So "Adam fell that men might be" means at least two things:

1) That Adam was allowed to be tempted, and if he yielded to the temptation to fall, that his eyes might be opened, that he might have posterity. But though temptation was necessary to open his eyes, Adam's yielding to the temptation was completely unnecessary and was a deadly error forbidden by God. Had Adam resisted the temptation as God commanded him, his eyes would have been opened without transgression, and he would have had posterity without the fall, precisely as God commanded him, which was plan A, from which Adam fell through disobedience.

2) "Adam fell that men might be" simply names the lie for which Adam fell.

The language in the Book of Mormon on this topic is intentionally ambiguous which forces the reader to consider these words in context with other scriptures to understand the truth.

This is part of the test that God gave to His Church, and on this point the Church has been wrong for almost 200 years.

But Adam-ondi-Ahman event will be about Adam visiting the Church and disabusing it from the lie they have believed all these years, so Zion can be redeemed and New Jerusalem built.

Why?

Because Zion cannot be redeemed from the fall while believing the very lie which caused its fall in the first place.
We're not far apart
I believe the fall was necessary, but the way it came about was not part of the plan. It was allowed for, and there was a default mechanism to address it, but it was not ideal.
The problem wasn't the eating of the fruit, it was eating it before they were ready, and at the insistence of Lucifer rather than the Father.

User avatar
Obeone
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1382

Re: The Fall of Adam, Ancient Lie, and Redemption of Zion

Post by Obeone »

Robin Hood wrote: August 13th, 2023, 5:37 am We're not far apart
I believe the fall was necessary, but the way it came about was not part of the plan. It was allowed for, and there was a default mechanism to address it, but it was not ideal.
The problem wasn't the eating of the fruit, it was eating it before they were ready, and at the insistence of Lucifer rather than the Father.
To say that the fall was necessary is a self-contradiction.

If it was "necessary" it was not a fall by definition.

Why?

Because "necessary" means:

1) God commanded it, and therefore
2) It is your duty to do it, and
3) You will be blessed if you do it, and
4) You will be cursed if you do not do it.

Under this definition, the fall, as well as any other transgression, was unnecessary.

This is what "necessary" means to God, and how it is used in the scriptures.

Language matters.

As for later partaking of the fruit that was previously forbidden and then allowed: That is possible, but does not change the bottom line, on which we agree:

The fall was a deadly error, and there was a better way, had Adam listened to God more than to his fallen wife and the devil.

User avatar
Robin Hood
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 13112
Location: England

Re: The Fall of Adam, Ancient Lie, and Redemption of Zion

Post by Robin Hood »

Obeone wrote: August 13th, 2023, 5:53 am
Robin Hood wrote: August 13th, 2023, 5:37 am We're not far apart
I believe the fall was necessary, but the way it came about was not part of the plan. It was allowed for, and there was a default mechanism to address it, but it was not ideal.
The problem wasn't the eating of the fruit, it was eating it before they were ready, and at the insistence of Lucifer rather than the Father.
To say that the fall was necessary is a self-contradiction.

If it was "necessary" it was not a fall by definition.

Why?

Because "necessary" means:

1) God commanded it, and therefore
2) It is your duty to do it, and
3) You will be blessed if you do it, and
4) You will be cursed if you do not do it.

Under this definition, the fall, as well as any other transgression, was unnecessary.

This is what "necessary" means to God, and how it is used in the scriptures.

Language matters.

As for later partaking of the fruit that was previously forbidden and then allowed: That is possible, but does not change the bottom line, on which we agree:

The fall was a deadly error, and there was a better way, had Adam listened to God more than to his fallen wife and the devil.
The fall wasn't necessary for Adam or Eve, but it was necessary for us. It provided the means for Adam and Eve's children to come to earth as mortals and follow the same path they did on a previous earth.
So necessity depends on perspective.

Don't misunderstand me, this world is a much worse place for the type of fall that occured, than it would otherwise have been if it had been at the behest of God (the original/normal plan).

The explanation as to why Lucifer went to the effort to pull off such an audacious manoeuvre on opposition territory, is that he absolutely loathes Adam (his principle opposition in the war) and wants to destroy him and his posterity... so he hates us too.

User avatar
Obeone
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1382

Re: The Fall of Adam, Ancient Lie, and Redemption of Zion

Post by Obeone »

Robin Hood wrote: August 13th, 2023, 6:46 am The fall wasn't necessary for Adam or Eve, but it was necessary for us. It provided the means for Adam and Eve's children to come to earth as mortals and follow the same path they did on a previous earth.
So necessity depends on perspective.

Don't misunderstand me, this world is a much worse place for the type of fall that occured, than it would otherwise have been if it had been at the behest of God (the original/normal plan).

The explanation as to why Lucifer went to the effort to pull off such an audacious manoeuvre on opposition territory, is that he absolutely loathes Adam (his principle opposition in the war) and wants to destroy him and his posterity... so he hates us too.
Jesus put it best: "It is impossible but that offences will come: but woe unto him, through whom they come!" (Luke 17:1)
Or to paraphrase: "It is impossible but some world will fall, but woe unto that world that falls!"

Jesus does not say, "It is NECESSARY that offences will come", because language matters, and God NEVER uses the word necessary in that way. Never. Because it would produce a lot of confusion and allow Satan deceive a lot of people.

Instead, He uses the word "impossible" as in "it is impossible but offences will come", but NOT necessary, because that would imply the necessity of sin and be a self-contradiction.

Again, sin a transgression are never necessary, or they are not sin and transgression, by definition. What God commands, if men obey, NEVER results in a fall, because God's commandments improve the state of man, not debase it.

Language matters, and God cannot contradict Himself, or He would cease to be God.

This said, I agree that it was necessary for us to come to this fallen world, just like it was necessary for Jesus to come to this fallen world, so we may overcome it.

But it is never necessary to yield to temptations, or to disobey God in the least, because God never contradicts Himself.

Cheers.

User avatar
Obeone
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1382

Re: The Fall of Adam, Ancient Lie, and Redemption of Zion

Post by Obeone »

I love how honest Brigham Young was here:
Image
Image

User avatar
Robin Hood
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 13112
Location: England

Re: The Fall of Adam, Ancient Lie, and Redemption of Zion

Post by Robin Hood »

Obeone wrote: August 13th, 2023, 10:24 am
Robin Hood wrote: August 13th, 2023, 6:46 am The fall wasn't necessary for Adam or Eve, but it was necessary for us. It provided the means for Adam and Eve's children to come to earth as mortals and follow the same path they did on a previous earth.
So necessity depends on perspective.

Don't misunderstand me, this world is a much worse place for the type of fall that occured, than it would otherwise have been if it had been at the behest of God (the original/normal plan).

The explanation as to why Lucifer went to the effort to pull off such an audacious manoeuvre on opposition territory, is that he absolutely loathes Adam (his principle opposition in the war) and wants to destroy him and his posterity... so he hates us too.
Jesus put it best: "It is impossible but that offences will come: but woe unto him, through whom they come!" (Luke 17:1)
Or to paraphrase: "It is impossible but some world will fall, but woe unto that world that falls!"

Jesus does not say, "It is NECESSARY that offences will come", because language matters, and God NEVER uses the word necessary in that way. Never. Because it would produce a lot of confusion and allow Satan deceive a lot of people.

Instead, He uses the word "impossible" as in "it is impossible but offences will come", but NOT necessary, because that would imply the necessity of sin and be a self-contradiction.

Again, sin a transgression are never necessary, or they are not sin and transgression, by definition. What God commands, if men obey, NEVER results in a fall, because God's commandments improve the state of man, not debase it.

Language matters, and God cannot contradict Himself, or He would cease to be God.

This said, I agree that it was necessary for us to come to this fallen world, just like it was necessary for Jesus to come to this fallen world, so we may overcome it.

But it is never necessary to yield to temptations, or to disobey God in the least, because God never contradicts Himself.

Cheers.
Ummm... have you ever heard the phrase "wresting the scriptures"?

Post Reply