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

[Cruiserdude]

This goes squarely with the false teachings of the Church about the fall:

Study Finds 100% Of Men Would Eat Any Fruit Given To Them By A Naked Woman

WEST OF EDEN - A double-blind study conducted by angel scientists has confirmed that 100% of men would eat any fruit given to them by a naked woman. The study seems to suggest that the fall of Adam and Eve was unavoidable.

"Our results were conclusive," said the angel Gabriel, who led the study. "Of the 30,000 male test subjects we studied, we found literally 100% of them would happily accept and eat any piece of fruit handed to them by a woman who was naked. Even in cases where it wasn't fruit - or even edible - all the males gratefully accepted every single object offered and ate it with a dumb look on their face."

Gabriel then motioned to a male test subject on the other side of the glass as he happily chewed on a rubber ball that had just been handed to him by a gorgeous unclothed woman.

"See what I mean?"

Researchers say the results should serve to humble any man who thinks he would have made a different decision than Adam. "According to the science, you would have likely done the exact same thing Adam did," said Gabriel.

Women around the world started to gloat upon hearing the news until Gabriel revealed they also conducted a study showing that 100% of women can be tricked by a talking snake.

https://babylonbee.com/news/study-finds ... aked-woman

Now that's funny!!

[Ciams]

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

I think these three are closely linked.

How?

The Fall of Adam was caused by an ancient lie.

What lie?

That “there was no other way” for him in the garden but to transgress.

Why is that a lie?

Proof:

1. God does not give impossible commandments (1 Nephi 3:7)
2. God commanded Adam and Eve to have children AND not to partake of the forbidden fruit. Which means:
3. They COULD do it. See point (1).

End of proof.

And redemption of Zion?

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

It makes a lot of sense to me that when Adam visits the Church in Adam-ondi-Ahman, he will end this lie that has been with us for too long.

Then Zion will be redeemed and New Jerusalem built.

Its not very complicated.

1. Sex before marriage is bad.
2. Sex after marriage is vital.

Is sex bad or is it to be engaged in within a certain framework?
Is eating the fruit bad or is it to be engaged in within a certain framework?

It seems painfully obvious to me that Eve listening to the serpent and acting unilaterally was the wrong. Her actions forced Adam's and forced the Lords timing.

Is it possible the appropriate lesson (that which was even done in other worlds) was to reject the serpent, but then talk to Adam and prayerfully wait on the Lord for further light and knowledge?

And could the Lord then have explained and taught Adam and Eve the full picture of what they were about to do and set off the learning experience into this world that didn't start with listening to the devil but listening to God and acting in faith?

This version sounds better than yours.

[tmac]

Although I missed this thread the first time around, now that it has been resurrected and is tracking with the BBC-related Original Sin thread, it seems like a good time to stick my toe in the already long-channeled waters of this discussion.

My first observation is an acknowledgement that when folks insistently state their theories as if they are established fact, it usually inevitably has a chilling effect on productive discussion, but in this case this thread has survived quite a few pages of such insistence, so I don’t see any reason not to stir the water at this point.

In my case I am going to fully acknowledge that my current thoughts on this subject are pure theory. I don’t pretend otherwise. But I am not yet sufficiently sold on the other dominant theory/ies that have been postulated, to just go along with the flow.

On that score, contrary to the seemingly dominant theory/ies (at least in this thread) that A&E were not yet ready, and the forbidden fruit and applicable timing were not yet “ripe” for consumption, I am going to take the tentative, arguably counter-intuitive position that both A&E, the forbidden fruit and the timing were all completely ripe for the experience, and that is exactly why A&E were placed in the garden, to experience opposition and temptation probably for the first time, and to have the opportunity to have a full mortal/telestial, “fallen” experience, including the opportunity to have children.

Having already (according to commonly accepted Mormon doctrine/theory and tradition) had a full pre-mortal, “spiritual” experience, and arguably additional preparatory physical experience, in a previous, terrestrial, millennial-like existence, that would have arguably given them a lot of additional largely theoretical spiritual knowledge that had never been fully tested by mortal/telestial opposition, temptation, and parenthood, although A&E/we may have been prepared for eternal life as fully resurrected angels in the CK, they/we were not yet, and could not yet be fully prepared and/or qualified for exaltation and to become gods, with further increase, without having the full, fallen, mortal/telestial experience, with a full veil of forgetfulness, which served as a seemingly and largely impervious barrier to the theoretical/spiritual knowledge that they had obviously previously acquired.

According to this theory, based on the natural and logical steps of progression, both A&E (and we), as well as the fruit, and the timing in the GoE, were all ripe for what happened next, which is exactly why they/we were given that opportunity, and why it happened when it did.

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.

It’s just a theory, but in my view it holds just as much water as others that have been advanced as if they are proven, established fact.

And in the dichotomy of Malum in Se versus Malum Prohibitum, I am not prepared to say that premarital sex is inherently bad or evil. As far as I can tell it is simply prohibited. From what I can tell, in practical terms the real issue isn’t having sex out of wedlock. Until there is a marital contract, having sex isn’t inherently bad or evil. The real issues are having children out of wedlock OR violating the marital contract. As far as I can tell, there isn’t anything inherently bad or evil (Malum in Se) about having sex before or after marriage.

Thoughts?

[simpleton]

the millenium will be without temptation until the very end. satan will have power to gather his armies(I don't know all the details) and there will be a great war which can be a problem for those who are born in the milllenium. but that will be their great test.

also, God is perfect, had a perfect plan . . . ONLY ONE PLAN, never two or more. If he had more plans then he is NOT God and he is NOT perfect, knowing all. btw he doesn't progress anymore . . .he is perfect . . .he just expresses his work and glory in his creations but they do not make him ascend cuz he is there. . .finished . . done . . perfect

if his creations, us do not reach perfection it doesn't take God away from his perfection . . .

If I am God and continue to have children, let's say I have one billion children today, at this point of time, (wait, there is no such a thing as time in the eternities) but tomorrow or up the road in time in a few more millenia, I have say twenty billion children, wouldn't that be progression? Wouldn't that be advancement? Wouldn't that be ascension?.

[simpleton]

Seems fairly clear that without the Fall, there would be no men. A higher law or commandment supersedes a lower one. Eve, in her wisdom, disobeyed a lower law to fulfill a higher one. This necessitated Adam following her. You can argue that they did it too soon, but I am unaware of any scriptural backing to that.

Higher law was NOT to partake of the forbidden fruit.

I already explained that in context with other scriptures, they COULD have had posterity without the fall, if they simply resisted the temptation enough.

Both Adam and Eve were wrong, for which they were cursed.

That is the plain reading of the scriptures, and the testimony of the Spirit.

The Church has been in the wilderness for almost 200 years without Zion in part because it believes the very lie that caused the fall in the first place, and it cannot be redeemed while believing the very lie that caused the fall in the first place.

Therefore God will soften or remove all the heads in the church that impede His work. I give it another 5 years or so, and we are going to have an apology from Adam himself when he will testify to the stubborn church that he was wrong, and that there indeed was a better way for him in the garden had he listened to the Father more than to the devil.

He who has ears to hear, let him hear.

Quite a bit of assuming here... but Adam will not be apologizing for anything. And no, there was or is no better way...

[simpleton]

Adam and Eve were resurrected beings before they came to this earth. The fall was necessary for them to become mortal again so they could have children and create mortal bodies for all of mankind.

The fall happens on every earth. It's part of the plan of plan of salvation. There literally is no other way.

Finally, three pages in and someone who understands better...

[Mindfields]

...or Adam and Eve are fictional characters created to give the Israelites an origin story. Historical evidence clearly points this way.

[tmac]

It is entirely possible that A&E are largely metophorical, and, if that is true, it still doesn’t change all that much about underlying substantive theories and/or narratives.

The underlying question: Is there a “Plan” of/for Salvation? If so, what is it?

[Luke]

...or Adam and Eve are fictional characters created to give the Israelites an origin story. Historical evidence clearly points this way.

Then there is literally no touchstone for truth since the Scriptures are just essentially myths.

[Niemand]

Disarming the lie so widely implied through Eve's quote:

 Moses 5:11 
11 And Eve, his wife, heard all these things and was glad, saying: Were it not for our [temptation] we never [could] have had seed, and never [could] have known good and evil, and the joy of our redemption, and the eternal life which God giveth unto all the obedient.

Why? Because temptation was necessary, but transgression was not.

There was a better way for Adam in the garden, had he chosen to obey God more than his fallen wife and the devil.

He who has ears to hear, let him hear.

The first MAJOR sin was not taking the fruit, it was them lying about it when God asked them about it later. When they ate the fruit they did not understand good and evil, but when they tried to cover it up they did.

[Niemand]

And in the dichotomy of Malum in Se versus Malum Prohibitum, I am not prepared to say that premarital sex is inherently bad or evil. As far as I can tell it is simply prohibited. From what I can tell, in practical terms the real issue isn’t having sex out of wedlock. Until there is a marital contract, having sex isn’t inherently bad or evil. The real issues are having children out of wedlock OR violating the marital contract. As far as I can tell, there isn’t anything inherently bad or evil (Malum in Se) about having sex before or after marriage.

Thoughts?

Adam and Eve were never married in the modern LDS sense AFAIK. No trip to the government, no recommend interview by bishops and presidents, and no temple sealing.

As for sex before marriage. I believe marriage is there partly to create social cohesion, and prevent inbreeding, and also to stop disease spreading. If people only had sex in marriage then there would be almost no STIs around.

[Luke]

And in the dichotomy of Malum in Se versus Malum Prohibitum, I am not prepared to say that premarital sex is inherently bad or evil. As far as I can tell it is simply prohibited.

What’s the difference between it being “inherently bad or evil” and “prohibited”?

[LDS Watchman]

...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.

[Luke]

...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.

[tmac]

And in the dichotomy of Malum in Se versus Malum Prohibitum, I am not prepared to say that premarital sex is inherently bad or evil. As far as I can tell it is simply prohibited.

What’s the difference between it being “inherently bad or evil” and “prohibited”?

What is the difference between Malum in Se and Malum Prohibitum?

Malum in Se involves things that are inherently bad or evil, and hurt other people, like killing, stealing, lying, etc. Those things are wrong and inherently bad/evil regardless of any express prohibitions. Many of the 10 Commandments and our criminal laws and applicable social expectations are based on that premise.

Malum Prohibitum involves things that are not inherently wrong, bad or evil, but are only considered to be so because they are prohibited/illegal, like speeding, or failing to stop for a stop sign, which are not inherently evil.

Many government regulations, including traffic laws, etc., involve stuff that is not inherently wrong, bad or evil, but are only considered to be "wrong" because of applicable legal prohibitions.

Sex fits into this category. There is nothing inherently wrong, bad, evil or even illegal about sex. But if a spouse breaks the marital contract and commits adultery, regardless of the fact that there is nothing inherently wrong or evil about sex itself, there is in inherent evil or wrong involved in harming/hurting one's spouse, and everything that goes with that. And certainly there are other situations where it is likewise inherently wrong/evil, including non-consensual, etc., etc.

It is true, there are all kinds of bad things that can potentially happen from having sex outside of wedlock, from sexually transmitted diseases, hurting one's spouse, and/or children born out of wedlock, but none of them are consequences of sex being inherently wrong or evil, and are all products of other factors.

The prohibition against premarital sex is a classic example of Malum Prohibitum -- something that is not inherently wrong or evil, but is mostly considered such simply because of applicable prohibitions. Notice that all of God's own commandments and admonitions in this regard have dealt with Adultery rather than Fornication.

[Cruiserdude]

That is entirely possible, and, if true, still doesn’t change all that much about underlying substantive theories and/or narratives.

The underlying question: Is there a “Plan” of/for Salvation? If so, what is it?

Unequivocally, without a doubt, God prepared a plan of salvation(plan of eternal progress), so to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man.

[Obeone]

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.

[nightlight]

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.

And they will grow up without sin unto salvation

What would they need to be saved from?

[Obeone]

Higher law was NOT to partake of the forbidden fruit.

I already explained that in context with other scriptures, they COULD have had posterity without the fall, if they simply resisted the temptation enough.

Both Adam and Eve were wrong, for which they were cursed.

That is the plain reading of the scriptures, and the testimony of the Spirit.

The Church has been in the wilderness for almost 200 years without Zion in part because it believes the very lie that caused the fall in the first place, and it cannot be redeemed while believing the very lie that caused the fall in the first place.

Therefore God will soften or remove all the heads in the church that impede His work. I give it another 5 years or so, and we are going to have an apology from Adam himself when he will testify to the stubborn church that he was wrong, and that there indeed was a better way for him in the garden had he listened to the Father more than to the devil.

He who has ears to hear, let him hear.

Quite a bit of assuming here... but Adam will not be apologizing for anything. And no, there was or is no better way...

Well that sounds like thinking of one of the heads that will be softened or removed before Zion is redeemed, as I said in the quote you responded to.

Not too long now. If you survive, you will know I was right.

[Obeone]

And in the dichotomy of Malum in Se versus Malum Prohibitum, I am not prepared to say that premarital sex is inherently bad or evil. As far as I can tell it is simply prohibited. From what I can tell, in practical terms the real issue isn’t having sex out of wedlock. Until there is a marital contract, having sex isn’t inherently bad or evil. The real issues are having children out of wedlock OR violating the marital contract. As far as I can tell, there isn’t anything inherently bad or evil (Malum in Se) about having sex before or after marriage.

Thoughts?

Adam and Eve were never married in the modern LDS sense AFAIK. No trip to the government, no recommend interview by bishops and presidents, and no temple sealing.

They were married by God in the Garden.

[Obeone]

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.

And they will grow up without sin unto salvation

What would they need to be saved from?

First of all this is direct quote from the Lord:

 D&C 45:
56 And at that day, when I shall come in my glory, shall the parable be fulfilled which I spake concerning the ten virgins.
57 For they that are wise and have received the truth, and have taken the Holy Spirit for their guide, and have not been deceived—verily I say unto you, they shall not be hewn down and cast into the fire, but shall abide the day.
58 And the earth shall be given unto them for an inheritance; and they shall multiply and wax strong, and their children shall grow up without sin unto salvation.
59 For the Lord shall be in their midst, and his glory shall be upon them, and he will be their king and their lawgiver.

Secondly, no one who makes a mistake, however small, can be saved on his own merit, no matter what world they are in, and therefore need a Savior.

[Niemand]

They were married by God in the Garden.

Primitive marriage was always a lot simpler than the state-mandated variety, but in no way was Adam and Eve's pairing anything like marriage today. For a start there were no other humans around, for another Eve and Adam were formed from the same body and arguably close family biologically.

[simpleton]

Higher law was NOT to partake of the forbidden fruit.

I already explained that in context with other scriptures, they COULD have had posterity without the fall, if they simply resisted the temptation enough.

Both Adam and Eve were wrong, for which they were cursed.

That is the plain reading of the scriptures, and the testimony of the Spirit.

The Church has been in the wilderness for almost 200 years without Zion in part because it believes the very lie that caused the fall in the first place, and it cannot be redeemed while believing the very lie that caused the fall in the first place.

Therefore God will soften or remove all the heads in the church that impede His work. I give it another 5 years or so, and we are going to have an apology from Adam himself when he will testify to the stubborn church that he was wrong, and that there indeed was a better way for him in the garden had he listened to the Father more than to the devil.

He who has ears to hear, let him hear.

Quite a bit of assuming here... but Adam will not be apologizing for anything. And no, there was or is no better way...

Well that sounds like thinking of one of the heads that will be softened or removed before Zion is redeemed, as I said in the quote you responded to.

Not too long now. If you survive, you will know I was right.

Oh I most definitely agree that "Heads will be removed" but do not think that not a one will be "softened" or that not one single one of them will get softened.
As far as this assumption that Adam will apologize or Eve, IMO is ridiculous. But then, I believe that they were celestial Beings when then arrived upon this earth, (that was a much bigger planet than it is now).
The fall, imo, was not as most assume it was, in the few little remote scratches of script we have.
I do not believe in the clay molding fairytale.
See how that eliminates all of the arguments in this thread?

[tmac]

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?

[Obeone]

But then, I believe that they were celestial Beings when then arrived upon this earth, (that was a much bigger planet than it is now).
The fall, imo, was not as most assume it was, in the few little remote scratches of script we have.
I do not believe in the clay molding fairytale.
See how that eliminates all of the arguments in this thread?

They were celestial spirits.
Not believing dust of the earth statement is Brigham Young's error. He cannot imagine God having such power, even though it is clearly described in Ezekiel.

Falsehoods do not eliminate the truth.