The Fall (Gnosticism, LDS, and the Early Church Fathers)

[telnetd]

Here's an analysis according to ChatGPT

1. Was the Fall a “Good” Awakening or a Tragic Sin?

Gnostic view (with sources):
•    Apocryphon of John:
“He opened their minds… and they came to know…”
•    Hypostasis of the Archons:
“Your eyes will be opened.”

The Fall is an awakening into knowledge (gnosis)—a necessary step forward.

Church Fathers’ response (with sources):
•    Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies IV.38.1:
“Man… was a child… and for this reason was easily deceived.”
•    Augustine of Hippo, City of God XIII.13:
“Human nature was vitiated and altered.”

The Fall is a rupture caused by disobedience, not progress.

LDS (Mormon) view (with sources):

•    Book of Mormon, 2 Nephi 2:25:
“Adam fell that men might be; and men are, that they might have joy.”
•    Pearl of Great Price, Moses 5:11:
“Were it not for our transgression we never should have had seed…”

Teachings from LDS leaders (with direct quotes):

•    Brigham Young:
“The fall of man… was designed… we should never have known good and evil had not Adam 
partaken of the forbidden fruit.” (Journal of Discourses, 10:312)
•    Orson Pratt:
“The fall of Adam was a step necessary to enable the human family to be born into the 
world.” (The Seer, p. 23)

The Fall is transgressive but necessary for progression—closer to Gnostic “forward 
movement,” but still within a moral framework.

2. The Identity of the Serpent

Gnostic view (with sources):
•    Hypostasis of the Archons:
“The serpent… was wiser than all… and he persuaded them.”
•    Apocryphon of John:
The serpent acts against ignorant rulers (Archons).

The serpent is often a liberating figure.

Church Fathers’ response (with sources):
•    Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho 103:
“The serpent… was the devil… who deceived Eve.”
•    Tertullian, On the Flesh of Christ 17:
“Eve… believed the serpent… and so death entered.”

The serpent is Satan, the deceiver.

LDS (Mormon) view (with sources):
•    Book of Mormon, 2 Nephi 2:18:
“Because he had fallen from heaven… he became a devil… and sought the misery of all 
mankind.”
Teachings from LDS leaders (with direct quotes):
•    Brigham Young:
“The devil… is here to try us and prove us, to see if we will serve God.” (Journal of 
Discourses, 
13:282)
•    Orson Pratt:
“Satan… tempted our first parents for the purpose of bringing about their fall.” (The 
Seer, p. 17)

Even though the Fall is necessary, LDS leaders still affirm: the serpent is an adversary, 
not a revealer.

3. The Nature of God and Creation

Gnostic view (with sources):
•    Apocryphon of John:
“I am God and there is no other,” (spoken by a lesser, ignorant ruler)

The world is created by an inferior Demiurge and is fundamentally flawed.

Church Fathers’ response (with sources):
•    Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies II.1.1:
“There is one God… who made heaven and earth.”
•    Athanasius of Alexandria, On the Incarnation 4:
“God made all things… and saw that they were good.”

Creation is good and from one true God.

LDS (Mormon) view (with sources):
•    Book of Abraham, Abraham 4:1:
“The Gods organized and formed the heavens and the earth.”
Teachings from LDS leaders (with direct quotes):
•    Joseph Smith:
“The elements are eternal.” (King Follett Discourse)
•    Brigham Young:
“The earth… is organized from the native element.” (Journal of Discourses, 7:285)
•    Orson Pratt:
“Matter is eternal… it was not created out of nothing.” (The Seer, p. 37)

LDS teaching rejects the Gnostic “evil creator,” but also rejects creation out of 
nothing—offering a third model (organization of eternal matter).

4. Human Nature: Divine Spark vs Fallen Image

Gnostic view (with sources):
•    Apocryphon of John:
Humans contain a divine element (Epinoia).

Humans are divine beings trapped in matter.

Church Fathers’ response (with sources):
•    Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies V.6.1:
“Man… advances… toward perfection.”
•    Augustine of Hippo, On Nature and Grace 3:
“Human nature… was created sound… but… corrupted.”

Humans are created, fallen, and dependent on grace.

LDS (Mormon) view (with sources):
•    Doctrine and Covenants, D&C 93:29:
“Man was also in the beginning with God.”
Teachings from LDS leaders (with direct quotes):
•    Lorenzo Snow:
“As man now is, God once was; as God now is, man may be.”
•    Orson Pratt:
“Man… is destined to become a God.” (The Seer, p. 132)

LDS teaching echoes a divine potential, but not a trapped spark—humans are meant to 
progress embodied, not escape matter.

5. Salvation: Secret Knowledge vs Public Redemption

Gnostic view (with sources):
•    Gospel of Thomas, Saying 1:
“Whoever finds the interpretation… will not taste death.”

Salvation comes through hidden knowledge (gnosis).

Church Fathers’ response (with sources):
•    Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies III.3.1:
“The tradition of the apostles… has come down to us.”
•    Tertullian, Prescription Against Heretics 25:
“We want no curious disputation after Christ.”

Salvation is public, historical, and not secret.

LDS (Mormon) view (with sources):
•    Doctrine and Covenants, D&C 76:5–10:
God “reveals all mysteries… to those who serve him.”
Teachings from LDS leaders (with direct quotes):
•    Joseph Smith:
“It is the first principle… to know… God.” (King Follett Discourse)
•    Orson Pratt:
“Knowledge… will continue to increase… worlds without end.” (The Seer, p. 101)

LDS thought values knowledge and revelation, but it is expansive and shared, not secret 
or elitist like Gnosticism.

6. Was the Fall Necessary?

Gnostic view (with sources):
•    Apocryphon of John:
The Fall enables escape from ignorance imposed by rulers.

The Fall is often necessary for liberation.

Church Fathers’ response (with sources):
•    Augustine of Hippo, Enchiridion 11:
“Evil… is the loss of good.”

The Fall is not necessary, but a tragic misuse of free will.

LDS (Mormon) view (with sources):
•    Book of Mormon, 2 Nephi 2:22–23:
“They would have remained… in a state of innocence… having no joy…”
Teachings from LDS leaders (with direct quotes):
•    Brigham Young:
“We are here because of the fall… to learn… the difference between good and evil.” (Journal 
of Discourses, 9:305)
•    Orson Pratt:
“Opposition… was necessary… that man might be agent to himself.” (The Seer, p. 15)

LDS theology strongly affirms: the Fall is necessary for agency and progression, though 
still involving real opposition.

Big Picture Difference

If you zoom out, the disagreement looks like this:
•    Gnosticism: Fall = awakening, serpent = helper, world = flawed prison
•    Church Fathers: Fall = sin, serpent = deceiver, world = good but corrupted
•    LDS theology: Fall = necessary step, serpent = deceiver, world = purposeful and good

With the added LDS leader quotes, you can see even more clearly:
•    Brigham Young and Orson Pratt explicitly frame the Fall as necessary and educational
•    Yet they never rehabilitate the serpent the way Gnostic texts do
•    And they strongly affirm matter, embodiment, and creation as good

[Pyreaux]

You are missing some Jewish literature. Mainstream Judaism completely rejects the negative view of the Fall held by Catholicism and Protestantism. Judaism does not even have a doctrine like "Original Sin." Jewish scholars on Genesis 3 do not see a story about human nature becoming permanently depraved. The Talmud explicitly taught that every human being is born pure, innocent, and clean. In the Jewish view, the Fall made life harder, but it did not taint the human soul. You are punished for your own sins, not Adam's. Jewish view is you cannot be truly holy or make morally virtuous choices unless you fully understand the difference between good and evil. By gaining this knowledge, humans stepped out of an animal-like state of innocence and into the status of agents who can choose to obey God, it made them more like God, not less as Genesis 3:22, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil". 

Enochian Literature

In 1 Enoch 32, Enoch is taken on a guided tour, he beholds a magnificent tree emitting a wonderful fragrance. When he asks about it, the angel Raphael responds, "This is the tree of wisdom, of which thy father old (in years) and thy aged mother, who were before thee, have eaten, and they learnt wisdom and their eyes were opened, and they knew that they were naked and they were driven out of the garden." (1 Enoch 32:6)

Notice its called the Tree of Wisdom. "Wisdom" is at times defined as knowledge, knowledge normally possessed and reserved for the gods, the elohim-angels (Prov 9:10; 30:1). Knowledge thus is related to wisdom, and knowledge can be seen as destructive (1 Cor 8:1). Oil of the Tree of Knowledge came in its fruit were "pleasant to the eye" to "make one wise" granting Eve the secret knowledge of the elohim-angels (Gen 2:6-7).

The Temple's anointing oil (Ex 28:41-43; 29:1-8; Ps 133:2) was a synthesized version of the fragrant oils of the Tree of Life, was applied to the head of the priestly messiahs "between his eyelids" (Talmud, b. Horayoth 12a). This was thought to open his eyes, giving sight, spiritual sight, prophecies, dreams, visions, the signs of the royal priesthood. 

The Rabbinic doctrine of the Yetzer Hara (the evil inclination) is viewed as a necessary engine for human existence and creation.

Genesis Rabbah 9:7 (and Kohelet Rabbah 3:11)

Rabbi Nahman bar Samuel says Creation was very good’ "But is the evil inclination 'very good'? Yes! For were it not for the Yetzer Hara, a man would not build a house, nor marry a wife, nor beget children, nor engage in trade." The sages recognized that the "evil inclination" encompasses human passions, ambition, sexual desire, and competitive drive. If humans were entirely passive and lacked this impulse, human progression, societal growth, and the continuation of the human race would completely freeze.

Babylonian Talmud, Yoma 69b (The Day the Chicken Stopped Laying Eggs)

A famous, vivid story in the Talmud where the Sages of the Great Assembly manage to capture the spirit of the Yetzer Hara and imprison it in a lead cauldron to rid the world of sin. They thought they had saved humanity. However, the text records the immediate consequence. For three days, they searched throughout the entire Land of Israel for a freshly laid egg, and could not find one. Because the inclination was completely suppressed, all impulse in the world stopped. The Sages released it.

Talmud Berakhot 17a (Leaven in the Dough)

The rabbis often compared the Yetzer Hara to the leaven (yeast) in dough. Yeast causes the dough to ferment and rise. If you have no yeast, the bread is flat and lifeless. If you have too much yeast, the dough spoils and goes sour. So never eradicate the Yetzer Hara as if physical desires are an inherently evil defect, but rather to discipline and channel it through the commandments of God.

Irenaeus of Lyons

While later Western theology of Augustine viewed Adam and Eve as perfected, fully mature adults who committed cosmic high treason, Irenaeus argued that Adam and Eve had to be created weak first so that they could learn, grow, and eventually become like God. 

"Man was a child, and its mind was not yet mature; and for this reason he was easily deceived... It was necessary for him first to be created, then to grow, then to reach manhood, then to increase, then to be strengthened... and so at last to see God and become immortal." (Against Heresies Book IV, Chapter 38)

For Irenaeus, the deception happened because they were children, but the resulting journey through mortality was a necessary educational process designed to bring humanity to true maturity.

The Felix Culpa

Even though Catholic theology officially leans heavily on Augustine, the official Catholic liturgy itself features a positive statement about the Fall. Every year during the Easter Vigil, the priest chants the Exsultet (an ancient hymn dating back to the 4th or 5th century).

"O wondrous condescension of your loving-kindness towards us! O inestimable affection of love: you handed over your Son to ransom a slave! O truly necessary sin of Adam, which the death of Christ blotted out! O happy fault (Felix Culpa), which merited to have such and so great a Redeemer!"

It calls Adam’s transgression a "truly necessary sin" (O certe necessarium Adae peccatum). Because without the Fall, the full depths of God's love, the Atonement, and the joy of redemption through Jesus Christ could never have been manifested.

The idea that the Fall was a necessary backdrop for human progression, agency, and ultimately the cause of the intervention of a Savior is woven deeply into ancient thought. I think there are Gnostic views where the entire physical world as a mistake. LDS theology views the physical world is necessary for progression. We are structurally opposites on the subject of matter. Gnosticism is anti-material and anti-body. It teaches that the world is a prison, the Creator of it is a villain, and salvation means escaping your flesh. LDS theology is profoundly pro-material and pro-body. It teaches that the world is a divine creation, the Creator is a loving Father, and salvation comes by being resurrected into an eternal, perfected physical body.

All remnants of the apostasy are part true and part corruption. 2nd-century Gnosticism or 4th-century Creedal Catholicism are just two divergent, competing branches of Apostate Christianity that split off from the original root after the Apostles were killed. Anti-Fall views were late-stage innovations that scrambled the original by absorbing Greek philosophical ideas. In Neo-Platonism, spirit is inherently pure and good, while matter and the physical body are inherently corrupt, heavy, and evil. The Gnostics just took the "matter is evil" philosophy to its absolute logical extreme.

The Catholic argued that God did make the world good, but for the Fall. Yet, their own definition of God as an immaterial being who cannot touch matter without being defiled is deeply Gnostic. Matter is fundamentally incompatible with the divine essence of the Father; God cannot be a material, embodied being. I think mainstream "immaterial God" is a late-stage innovation born.

The Gnostics managed to hold onto a warped, mutated memory that humanity has divine potential and that the Fall was a forward step in a larger plan but they ruined it by attaching it to a hatred of the physical world. Gnostics are right to be against modern Christian Simplicity. Where the gospel is shallow and has nothing to teach beyond what base and evil men can understand. They are just wrong that it's meant only for a few.

Edited June 14 by Pyreaux

[MiserereNobis]

1 hour ago, Pyreaux said:

The Catholic argued that God did make the world good, but for the Fall. Yet, their own definition of God as an immaterial being who cannot touch matter without being defiled is deeply Gnostic.

Catholicism does not teach that God would be defiled if He touched matter. As you rightly point out, that is a Gnostic heresy. While God is immaterial, matter is not defiling. The Incarnation is God choosing to be embodied!

It's interesting reading the accounts of the Franciscan Friars who accompanied the Spanish conquistadors: their view of the undefiled beauty of nature is quite in contrast with the Puritans on the east coast.

In Catholicism, matter is not defiled, unholy, or evil. Quite the opposite: matter is used sacramentally. And St. Francis's "Canticle of the Sun" is a wonderful prayer/song showing how nature and matter praise God.

 

[The Nehor]

There is also nothing in the Garden of Eden story to indicate that they were immortal which is something some Christians added later.

I would note that gnosticism isn’t one religion. It is a complicated mixture of beliefs over an extended period. There are some generalities that are usually true but always be wary if someone tells you what ‘the gnostics’ believed. Most gnostics believed the world was evil and corrupted which was a contrast to Judaism and the philosophy of the Greco-Roman world. The latter was that the world was good but necessarily imperfect because of the nature of matter.

[Pyreaux]

51 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Catholicism does not teach that God would be defiled if He touched matter. As you rightly point out, that is a Gnostic heresy. While God is immaterial, matter is not defiling. The Incarnation is God choosing to be embodied!

It's interesting reading the accounts of the Franciscan Friars who accompanied the Spanish conquistadors: their view of the undefiled beauty of nature is quite in contrast with the Puritans on the east coast.

In Catholicism, matter is not defiled, unholy, or evil. Quite the opposite: matter is used sacramentally. And St. Francis's "Canticle of the Sun" is a wonderful prayer/song showing how nature and matter praise God.

Not literal Gnosticism. In Catholicism, creation can become "good," like water, wine, bread, oil, and the Incarnation. Catholicism doesn't explicitly call matter "evil" like the Gnostics did, but Catholicism did also adopt the Greek metaphysical definition of God that makes a physical body metaphysically impossible for the person of God the Father. Matter is somehow fundamentally incompatible with the supreme nature of God the Father, which I understood Catholicism affirms.

Thomas Aquinas and Greek philosophy, say since God is defined as absolute perfection, because material things can change, be divided, occupy space, and decay, classical theology concludes that matter is inherently a state of limitations. Therefore, God the Father cannot have a body of flesh and bone, a physical form would mean He is limited, localized, and subject to change. They absolutely maintain that a material body is metaphysically beneath the nature of God the Father.

The Incarnation actually highlights this. The Incarnation is viewed as the paradox that broke these rules of God’s nature.

Edited June 14 by Pyreaux

[MiserereNobis]

9 minutes ago, Pyreaux said:

In Catholicism, creation can become "good," like water, wine, bread, oil, and the Incarnation.

No, creation is good. God proclaimed it as such.

10 minutes ago, Pyreaux said:

Matter is somehow fundamentally incompatible with the supreme nature of God the Father, which I understood Catholicism affirms.

What do you mean by "incompatible"? God is not made of physical matter; God is not a creation, He is the Creator. God is not finite; He is infinite. In that sense he is not "compatible" with matter because He is not matter.

But that does not mean He is at odds with matter, or He and matter oppose each other. Contrarily, God the Father creates, sustains, and acts through matter. No metaphysical incompatibility there.

14 minutes ago, Pyreaux said:

Thomas Aquinas and Greek philosophy, say since God is defined as absolute perfection, because material things can change, be divided, occupy space, and decay, classical theology concludes that matter is inherently a state of limitations. Therefore, God the Father cannot have a body of flesh and bone, a physical form would mean He is limited, localized, and subject to change. They absolutely maintain that a material body is metaphysically beneath the nature of God the Father.

Ok, and yet... The Incarnation! 

15 minutes ago, Pyreaux said:

The Incarnation actually highlights this. The Incarnation is viewed as the paradox that broke these rules of God’s nature.

No,  you've got it backwards. The Incarnation highlights that God IS compatible with matter, because He became matter, became flesh.

I haven't heard any Catholic say that the Incarnation broke the rules of God's nature. Yes, Jesus is a paradox in the sense that he is 100% human and 100% God, but that paradox is a mystery to human understanding, not a breaking of what God is.

[InCognitus]

On 6/13/2026 at 10:39 AM, telnetd said:

“Matter is eternal… it was not created out of nothing.” (The Seer, p. 37)

Clement of Rome (Died, C 100 AD) : “For thou through thy operations didst make manifest the eternal fabric of the world; thou, Lord, didst create the earth.”  (Clement of Rome – First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians, 60:1, see also here). 

On 6/13/2026 at 10:39 AM, telnetd said:

LDS teaching rejects the Gnostic “evil creator,” but also rejects creation out of 
nothing—offering a third model (organization of eternal matter).

Early Christians taught that God created all things out of unformed matter (Justin Martyr) and that matter is eternal (see Clement of Rome quote above).

But the doctrine of creatio ex-nihilo was first introduced at around 177 AD by Tatian and Theophilus of Antioch, and was developed further by Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Origen.  The doctrine was later adopted in Judaism as well.  But the doctrine didn't exist in Christianity and Judaism prior to that time (nor in the Bible). 

And according to Gerhard May (author of Creatio ex Nihilo: The Doctrine of 'Creation out of Nothing' in Early Christian Thought, 2004 edition), the Christians (Tatian and Theophilus of Antioch) in the late second century AD got the doctrine of creatio ex-nihilo from the gnostics! 

On page 83 of May’s book, he writes: “We turn again to the problem of creatio ex nihilo. About the middle of the second century a surprising picture emerges: the gnostic Basilides advances a thoroughly thought out doctrine of the creation of the world out of nothing, while the contemporary church Christian teachers either pay scant attention to the problem of the creation of the world or - if they have a certain intellectual formation - can talk unthinkingly about shaping the world from eternal matter; we shall see this in the case of Justin. A generation later the situation has fundamentally changed. By then the church theologians are asserting the creatio ex nihilo and reproaching the gnostics for falsifying the Christian conception of the creation of the world through their attachment to the cosmology of the philosophers. Is it anything more than a curious accident of history, that the doctrine of the creatio ex nihilo first meets us in unambiguous form in the work of a gnostic theologian? Even if Basilides is dependent on an older tradition and the impression that he is the earliest exponent of the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo is mistaken, it remains striking that we find no comparable statements in non-gnostic theologians before Tatian.”  (Emphasis added).

[InCognitus]

On 6/13/2026 at 6:52 PM, MiserereNobis said:

On 6/13/2026 at 6:30 PM, Pyreaux said:

Matter is somehow fundamentally incompatible with the supreme nature of God the Father, which I understood Catholicism affirms.

What do you mean by "incompatible"? God is not made of physical matter; God is not a creation, He is the Creator. God is not finite; He is infinite. In that sense he is not "compatible" with matter because He is not matter.

But that does not mean He is at odds with matter, or He and matter oppose each other. Contrarily, God the Father creates, sustains, and acts through matter. No metaphysical incompatibility there.

I suspect he's referring to the idea that was formulated by Tatian and Theophilus in the late second century AD that anything eternal would be God, and therefore matter cannot be eternal.

Tatian wrote:  “For matter is not, like God, without beginning, nor, as having no beginning, is of equal power with God; it is begotten, and not produced by any other being, but brought into existence by the Framer of all things alone.”  (Tatian – Address to the Greeks, Chapter 5)

Gerhard May (who credits Tatian and Theophilus as the first to teach the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo) also explains this as part of the basic argument of Theophilus, in his book:  Creatio Ex Nihilo: The Doctrine of 'Creation out of Nothing' in Early Christian Thought, page 160 (emphasis in bolded italics is mine):

Quote

 

Theophilus opposes the acceptance of an unoriginate matter basically on the same lines as Tatian, but his argumentation is carried further and displays new aspects. Three main arguments can be distinguished: 1. If in the Platonist conception not only God but also matter is unoriginate, then God can no longer be thought of as in the fullest sense creator of everything and the divine Monarchy' is not preserved.  2. God is unoriginate and therefore by his nature immutable; if matter were also unoriginate, it would also be immutable and in that godlike. We have already found this argument in Tatian.  3. It would be nothing great if God had made the cosmos out of pre-existent matter.  There would be no difference between him and a human craftsman who out of a given material fashions what he wants.

 God's power is shown precisely in that he creates out of nothing what he wills, just as he alone confers life and movement. Theophilus thus puts creatio ex nihilo in parallel with the conferring of life. A man can of course put together an image, but he cannot give reason, breath and sensual awareness. God on the other hand creates beings who possess all these faculties. It also reflects his superior power that he creates and did create being out of nothing and that he creates what and how he wills.

 

One of the footnote references that May provides for Theophilus is this one:

“But if God is uncreated and matter uncreated, God is no longer, according to the Platonists, the Creator of all things, nor, so far as their opinions hold, is the monarchy of God established. And further, as God, because He is uncreated, is also unalterable; so if matter, too, were uncreated, it also would be unalterable, and equal to God; for that which is created is mutable and alterable, but that which is uncreated is immutable and unalterable.”  (Theophilus  - To Autolycus, Book II, Chapter 4.)

I have also come across other Christian Fathers making similar arguments, such as this one from Hippolytus of Rome (c. 170–235 AD):  

“The Logos alone of this God is from God himself; wherefore also the Logos is God, being the substance of God. Now the world was made from nothing; wherefore it is not God; as also because this world admits of dissolution whenever the Creator so wishes it.” (Hippolytus—Refutation Book 10 Ch. 29–30)