Question About The Fall Of Adam

[jana at jade house]

Were they, at any point, immortal before the fall in your theory?

We don't have enough scriptural or apologetical information to state with any kind of surety that Adam and Eve were immortal in the Garden. Premortal , yes.

Immortal suggests an ante-mortal permanently fused physical body fused with a spiritual body like Jesus post resurrection .

[LifeOnaPlate]

We don't have enough scriptural or apologetical information to state with any kind of surety that Adam and Eve were immortal in the Garden. Premortal , yes.

Immortal suggests an ante-mortal permanently fused physical body fused with a spiritual body like Jesus post resurrection .

But apparently they couldn't die, "for in the day ye eat, ye shall surely die."

I don't know. I've always felt that "the fall" from the preexistent spirit world to the flesh was about as much of a fall as humans would need.

Being embodies was a step forward.

[cjcampbell]

This thread is directed to those who generally believe there is sone truth in the Adam and Eve story we read in the bible; not for those who want to make a mockery of the idea of Adam and Eve. The thread is seeking the non-LDS view on the subject.

According to Genesis, God created the heavens and the earth, and then created man and woman:

In the Garden, God says the two are married:

So here in the Garden of Eden, we have God telling Adam and Eve to be fruitful, multiply and replenish the earth, and that they were married as husband and wife.

In this state they were immortal, they would never die unless they ate of the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

A few questions here:

-Adam and Eve were married for eternity in the Garden. Did God intend them to stay in the Garden, then?

No. God does not have 'intentions.' God just does. God showed Adam the entire history of the world, from beginning to end. He showed it to Abraham and Moses, too, and probably to Joseph Smith, Moroni, and other prophets. God did not show them what 'might' be. He showed them what is and will be. When Isaiah saw the crucifixion of the Savior, he saw the actual event. He did not see a vision of what might happen or a simulation of the event.

Our perception is radically different than God. As we move along the thread of time, we see only the moment in which we live. God sees the whole thread. He can insert Himself and His presence at any point along the thread. From God's point of view, He is only in one place at a time. But from our point of view, God might make multiple simultaneous appearances.

It is necessary for us to pass through the lens of mortality. Like light passing through a prism, we pass through mortality and are filtered into our levels of obedience. Adam had to do this. So do we. Adam had to be subjected to the temptations of Satan in order to learn the difference between good and evil. So do we.

-Does this illustrate God intended for eternal marriage?

God desires that all will accept eternal marriage. It is manifest that many will not.

-If Adam and Eve had not partaken of the fruit, would they still be there?

Adam and Eve not partaking of the fruit would have created an untenable paradox.

-Would they be able to follow God's command to multiply; ie, would they have had children in the Garden of Eden?

They would have ceased to exist entirely, as would the rest of the universe.

-If yes, would their children also be immortal?

They would have had no children, nor would there have been any meaning to immortality.

-Were Adam and Eve "gods" in the sense that they were immortal beings with the capacity to procreate?

Yes.

-If God did not intend for Adam and Eve to stay in the Garden, but that they should fall, why did he want them to fall?

If Adam and Eve had failed to procreate, they would have been cast out of the Garden for disobedience. Partaking of the fruit also would cast them out of the Garden for disobedience. They were going to be cast out one way or the other! Inasmuch as Adam volunteered for this mission, and God accepted it, we can be assured that this was the plan from the beginning. They had no choice. God cannot be God without an eternal increase. That eternal increase is not going to happen without eternal spirit children who pass through mortality and themselves become gods. This is the essence of the paradox that mortality and the Fall are expected to solve: we cannot exist without God, and God cannot exist without us. I suspect that the Fall is meant to address this chicken and egg paradox.

-Did Christ atone for the sins of Adam and Eve, thus enabling them to return to God?

Yes. All of the scriptures attest to this.

-If so, would they "go to heaven" in a smaller capacity, unmarried and unable to procreate, as they had that ability in the Garden?

No.

-Why?

The whole point of the Fall is to ensure an eternal increase for God. If the Fall had not occurred, there would be no God, for godhood is defined by this eternal increase.

-Would a full "atonement" repair ALL effects of the Fall?

-Why or why not?

It must repair all the negative effects. Obviously, an atonement cannot undo the Fall completely because that would be undesirable. Repairing ALL effects of the Fall would send everybody back to being pre-mortal spirits, which would obviate the whole point of the Fall.

[LifeOnaPlate]

No. God does not have 'intentions.' God just does. God showed Adam the entire history of the world, from beginning to end. He showed it to Abraham and Moses, too, and probably to Joseph Smith, Moroni, and other prophets. God did not show them what 'might' be. He showed them what is and will be. When Isaiah saw the crucifixion of the Savior, he saw the actual event. He did not see a vision of what might happen or a simulation of the event.

Our perception is radically different than God. As we move along the thread of time, we see only the moment in which we live. God sees the whole thread. He can insert Himself and His presence at any point along the thread. From God's point of view, He is only in one place at a time. But from our point of view, God might make multiple simultaneous appearances.

It is necessary for us to pass through the lens of mortality. Like light passing through a prism, we pass through mortality and are filtered into our levels of obedience. Adam had to do this. So do we. Adam had to be subjected to the temptations of Satan in order to learn the difference between good and evil. So do we.

God desires that all will accept eternal marriage. It is manifest that many will not.

Adam and Eve not partaking of the fruit would have created an untenable paradox.

They would have ceased to exist entirely, as would the rest of the universe.

They would have had no children, nor would there have been any meaning to immortality.

Yes.

If Adam and Eve had failed to procreate, they would have been cast out of the Garden for disobedience. Partaking of the fruit also would cast them out of the Garden for disobedience. They were going to be cast out one way or the other! Inasmuch as Adam volunteered for this mission, and God accepted it, we can be assured that this was the plan from the beginning. They had no choice. God cannot be God without an eternal increase. That eternal increase is not going to happen without eternal spirit children who pass through mortality and themselves become gods. This is the essence of the paradox that mortality and the Fall are expected to solve: we cannot exist without God, and God cannot exist without us. I suspect that the Fall is meant to address this chicken and egg paradox.

Yes. All of the scriptures attest to this.

No.

The whole point of the Fall is to ensure an eternal increase for God. If the Fall had not occurred, there would be no God, for godhood is defined by this eternal increase.

It must repair all the negative effects. Obviously, an atonement cannot undo the Fall completely because that would be undesirable. Repairing ALL effects of the Fall would send everybody back to being pre-mortal spirits, which would obviate the whole point of the Fall.

Thanks for replying with your thoughts, bro. I have one question; you belive if Adam and Eve didn't partake they would lose their exaltation, or they would simply left the garden another way?

Thanks!

[Anijen]

Facinating post.

-Would they be able to follow God's command to multiply; ie, would they have had children in the Garden of Eden?

They would have ceased to exist entirely, as would the rest of the universe.

what about;

"... for I know that the Lord giveth no commandments unto the children of men, save he shall prepare a way for them that they may accomplish the thing which he commanded them."

It would seem that according to Nephi (Nephi 3:7) that it was possible without sinning.

I think G-d is omnipotent and could have thought/made a zillion ways for them to obey his commandments without breaking his commandments. savvy?

[katherine the great]

But apparently they couldn't die, "for in the day ye eat, ye shall surely die."

If I said to you, "for in the day you drive your car off a cliff, ye shall surely die", would that insinuate that you would never die otherwise?

[katherine the great]

But apparently they couldn't die, "for in the day ye eat, ye shall surely die."

Being embodies was a step forward.

Getting bodies was a step forward, yes, but going from a pain free, spiritual existence in the presence of a nurturing God to a carnal, difficult existence away from God would surely be considered a "fallen" state.

[LifeOnaPlate]

If I said to you, "for in the day you drive your car off a cliff, ye shall surely die", would that insinuate that you would never die otherwise?

Nope. Interesting, to be sure.

[katherine the great]

The whole point of the Fall is to ensure an eternal increase for God. If the Fall had not occurred, there would be no God, for godhood is defined by this eternal increase.

I completely disagree with this statement. In fact, I think it borders on blasphemy. God was God before Adam was even created.

[Cold Steel]

Intending something to happen would appear to suggest complicity in helping to bring it about - setting up the conditions for a Fall that one desires to happen. ... I wonder what type of parent would create children intending them to 'fall' â??and then, in a sort of psychopathic glee, providing the means for them to do soâ??knowing full well the damage it's going to do.

Not necessarily. Recall, please, that all of us used our free agency to come to the Earth. It's even written that we "shouted for joy" at the prospect. In the premortal councils, it was anticipated that Adam and Eve would fall, as had others on worlds previously created. For this cause a Savior was provided to bring us back into the presence of God, specifically so that man could partake of eternal life and exaltation with the Father and the Son. It was put forth and all agreed to it save the third of the hosts who rejected it.

I recall the old joke by Bill Cosby when he said: "And God told Adam and Eve, don't eat the forbidden fruit...and Eve said, 'Where is it?'" Remember that God allowed Satan full access to Adam and Eve. He was a master of deception and they were like children. They never had a chance.

[cjcampbell]

Thanks for replying with your thoughts, bro. I have one question; you belive if Adam and Eve didn't partake they would lose their exaltation, or they would simply left the garden another way?

Thanks!

If they did not partake of the fruit, they would not have had children, thus breaking a commandment and resulting in their expulsion from the Garden of Eden.

[cjcampbell]

I completely disagree with this statement. In fact, I think it borders on blasphemy. God was God before Adam was even created.

God cannot be God without His creations. It is pointless to be a God of nothing.

[solomarineris]

Nephi broke it down quite nicely, "Adam fell that men might be, men are that they might have joy".

Booooya!

You broke it down even better; by sweeping those unanswerable Q's under the the rug by an nonsensical quote of Nephi.

Whomever wrote the Bible definitely did not have the same idea in mind.

Besides, in the same BoM somebody says; "Man is the natural enemy of God".

the absurdity of the "Creation" story cannot be answered by a sentence.

It is a Cromagnon allegory over thirthythousand years old.

[Oracle]

God cannot be God without His creations. It is pointless to be a God of nothing.

But according to the prelife story, God had already created spirits. Spirits aren't nothing.

[LifeOnaPlate]

You broke it down even better; by sweeping those unanswerable Q's under the the rug by an nonsensical quote of Nephi.

Whomever wrote the Bible definitely did not have the same idea in mind.

Besides, in the same BoM somebody says; "Man is the natural enemy of God".

the absurdity of the "Creation" story cannot be answered by a sentence.

It is a Cromagnon allegory over thirthythousand years old.

You need to look that scripture up again, buckaroo, because, unless you're dyslexic, it is an egregious misrepresentation of the scripture.

Also, your sweeping generalization of the story as being a "Cromagnon [sic] allegory" is very debatable, yet you bring it forth as gospel truth. I'd like to see your reference. CFR. Thanks.

[SquarePeg48]

Facinating post.

what about;

"... for I know that the Lord giveth no commandments unto the children of men, save he shall prepare a way for them that they may accomplish the thing which he commanded them."

It would seem that according to Nephi (Nephi 3:7) that it was possible without sinning.

I think G-d is omnipotent and could have thought/made a zillion ways for them to obey his commandments without breaking his commandments. savvy?

This is a very interesting take, and one I have thought of in light of quantum reality, which is that there are basically almost infiinte possibilities and choices. My personal perspective is that when God tells us something that "will" happen, it is just the most likely of the range of possibilities, given his knowledge of each individual so intimately, knowing how they are most likely to respond in any given situation. I think he sees all possibilities at once, therefore, he always knows what will happen. That doesn't mean, I think, that he intends for any particular outcome to happen. I do agree with what was said in an earlier post: at some point, I believe he would have introduced the fruit to Adam and Eve. I also think that the story is metaphorical, and the fruit represented self-awareness, or even sexual awareness.

[LifeOnaPlate]

This is a very interesting take, and one I have thought of in light of quantum reality, which is that there are basically almost infiinte possibilities and choices. My personal perspective is that when God tells us something that "will" happen, it is just the most likely of the range of possibilities, given his knowledge of each individual so intimately, knowing how they are most likely to respond in any given situation. I think he sees all possibilities at once, therefore, he always knows what will happen. That doesn't mean, I think, that he intends for any particular outcome to happen. I do agree with what was said in an earlier post: at some point, I believe he would have introduced the fruit to Adam and Eve. I also think that the story is metaphorical, and the fruit represented self-awareness, or even sexual awareness.

Just to be clear, several prophets, most notably Joseph Fielding Smith and Spencer W. Kimball, have said your last comment is essentially heretical.

[SquarePeg48]

Just to be clear, several prophets, most notably Joseph Fielding Smith and Spencer W. Kimball, have said your last comment is essentially heretical.

Wow. I hadn't heard this. Could you give me a place to read about this? I went to LDS.org and did a search using Spencer W. Kimball and forbidden fruit, Adam and Eve, etc., and found nothing along those lines. I'd be interested in knowing more...and changing my viewpoint if this is what the prophets have taught.

[cjcampbell]

But according to the prelife story, God had already created spirits. Spirits aren't nothing.

The defining characteristic of God is an eternal increase. If those spirits just remain spirits, then God is essentially doing nothing.

[cjcampbell]

This is a very interesting take, and one I have thought of in light of quantum reality, which is that there are basically almost infiinte possibilities and choices. My personal perspective is that when God tells us something that "will" happen, it is just the most likely of the range of possibilities, given his knowledge of each individual so intimately, knowing how they are most likely to respond in any given situation. I think he sees all possibilities at once, therefore, he always knows what will happen. That doesn't mean, I think, that he intends for any particular outcome to happen. I do agree with what was said in an earlier post: at some point, I believe he would have introduced the fruit to Adam and Eve. I also think that the story is metaphorical, and the fruit represented self-awareness, or even sexual awareness.

I also agree that this statement is heretical. When God shows Adam, or Moses, or Moroni, or anybody else the history of the world from beginning to end, He is doing just that. When God showed the crucifixion of Jesus to Isaiah, He was showing Isaiah the actual event. He was not showing them probabilities along an infinite series of time lines.

As to the doctrine that anything in the Garden of Eden was allegorical, I refer you to Joseph Fielding McConkie in Man Adam.

EDEN: FIGURATIVE OR LITERAL?

The scriptural account of the birth of Adam is a sacred metaphor, as is the account of the birth of his eternal companion, Eve. Indeed, it is Adam and the Lord who are quoted in the discourse by Enoch in which we are told that all mankind are born of the dust of the earth (see Moses 6:49-59). Thus the promise to Adam that in death his body would return to the dust from whence it was taken (Moses 4:25) is extended to all his posterity. "All are of the dust, and all turn to dust again" (Eccl. 3:20; see also Mosiah 2:25).

The imagery used to veil the account of Eve's birth is most beautiful, particularly so in a day when there is so much confusion about the role of women. Symbolically, she was not taken from the bones of Adam's head nor from the bones of his heel, for it is not the place of woman to be either above the man or beneath him. Her place is at his side, and so she is taken, in the figurative sense, from his rib-the bone that girds the side and rests closest to the heart. Thus we find Adam declaring: "This I know now is bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of man" (Moses 3:23). Eve, unlike the rest of God's creations, was of Adam's bone and of his flesh, meaning that she was equal to him in powers, faculties, and rights.

"Therefore," the divine word attests, "shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife; and they shall be one flesh" (Moses 3:24). Thus, because Eve was of his flesh and of his bone-because she was his equal in creation and in divine endowment-Adam was to leave his father and his mother, as all men were to do after him, and cleave unto his wife and none else (see Matt. 19:5-6). All men and women are commanded to do likewise; that is, they (the newly formed couple), like their first earthly parents, are to be "one flesh"; they are to be as if they had one body, thus suggesting that they cannot properly have separate cares or concerns, different rights or varied privileges. The phrase also suggests that as Adam and Eve were in the image and likeness of their parents, so their posterity would be in their image and likeness.

How literally do we take the story of the Garden of Eden? This we know: Adam was real. He was as real as Christ. For if Adam was not real the Fall was not real; and if the Fall was not real the Atonement was not real; and if the Atonement was not real Jesus the Christ is not and was not necessary. Of some parts of the Eden story it matters little if we choose to view them as figurative or literal, but of others it is not so. The testimony of Christ, of necessity, embraces the testimony of Adam. Had there been no Eden there could be no Gethsemane; had there been no Eve there could be no Mary; if we have not inherited death from Adam, we have no claim on everlasting life through Christ.

What then became of Eden? This we know: it constituted sacred space when mother earth resided in her paradisiacal state, for it was here that Adam and Eve walked and talked with God, and it was from the confines of Eden that they were cast following their transgression. Further, we know that it existed after the Fall for a period of time and that God continued to instruct Adam and Eve from its sacred groves. (Moses 5:4; 6:4) In likening Tyrus to Eden, Ezekiel made use of the term "mountain of God" (Ezek. 28:13-14), a phrase used throughout the scriptures to depict a place where one went to commune with God, to worship, to make sacrifices, and to enter into sacred covenants. Mountains were most suited for such purposes and thus became symbols for the temple, the place where heaven and earth meet. Perhaps Ezekiel was implying that Eden was a mountain or at least had a high place suited for worship.

As to what became of Eden, the scriptures are silent. Perhaps, after Adam and his righteous posterity had built the city of Adam-ondi-Ahman-which undoubtedly would have had a temple-Eden was no longer needed as a place of God's presence. A place of sacrifice and of covenant, Eden thus could either be taken into heaven or be allowed to be assimilated into the earth.

What of the trees of Eden? Was there actually a tree whose fruit would make one wise, and another whose fruit would assure everlasting life? The scriptural account, for instance, tells us that the Lord planted "the tree of knowledge of good and evil" in the midst of the garden (Moses 3:9). He then gave Adam and Eve the command: "Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat, but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it, nevertheless, thou mayest choose for thyself, for it is given unto thee; but, remember that I forbid it, for in the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die" (Moses 3:16-17). "Again," wrote Elder Bruce R. McConkie, "the account is speaking figuratively. What is meant by partaking of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is that our first parents complied with whatever laws were involved so that their bodies would change from their state of paradisiacal immortality to a state of natural mortality." 2 Elder McConkie also wrote elsewhere: "We do not know how the fall was accomplished any more than we know how the Lord caused the earth to come into being and to spin through the heavens in its paradisiacal state." 3

If we were to reason that it was the fruit itself that brought about this change in the bodies of Adam and Eve, we would then have to suppose that our first parents fed some of the fruit to all the other living things upon the whole earth. Had they not done so, "all things which were created must have remained in the same state in which they were after they were created; and they must have remained forever, and had no end" (2 Ne. 2:22; see also Moses 3:9). Every plant and animal, including all sea life and the fowls of the air, would have been required to eat some of this fruit (and must also have been precluded from partaking of it either by design or accident before this point of time).

What of the serpent that beguiled Eve into partaking of the forbidden fruit? Did animals in Eden have the capacity to converse in the language of men, as some ancient traditions suggest? Was it then a natural thing for Eve to have a conversation with a serpent? And what of the curse which consigned the serpent to crawl upon its belly and eat of the dust of the earth? Does this suggest that snakes once stood upright, having legs and arms, as they are so commonly depicted in ancient Egyptian drawings? The key question is, Did Satan actually possess the body of a serpent and speak to Eve through that medium, or did Moses choose to describe Eve's confrontation with the father of lies as a discussion with a snake because a snake is such a vivid metaphor to dramatize the subtle, crafty, and dangerous nature of the devil?

Whether a serpent was actually the agent of deception in the Eden story or merely a metaphorical representation of the devil, it matters little. Neither point of view changes or tampers with the integrity of the story. If, however, we assume the partaking of the fruit to have been a figurative representation of what actually brought about the transformation of the earth from a paradisiacal to a natural or mortal sphere, then it might follow that the speaking serpent would also have been figurative.

What, then, do we conclude of the Eden story? Was it figurative or literal? We answer by way of comparison. It, like the temple ceremony, combines a rich blend of both. Our temples are real, the priesthood is real, the covenants we enter into are real, and the blessings we are promised by obedience are real; yet the teaching device may be metaphorical. We are as actors on a stage. We role-play and imagine. We do not actually advance from one world to another in the temple, but rather are taught with figurative representations of what can and will be.

EDEN AS AN ALLEGORY

Should it ever be our privilege to call upon father Adam and ask him to share with us his treasured memories of Eden, can we not confidently suppose that he would speak in reverent terms of walking with God and being instructed by him? Would he not speak of hands that were laid upon his head to convey the priesthood and its keys? Would he not tell of his marriage with his beloved companion, Eve, and the charge given to them to multiply and fill the earth with their posterity? Would he not recount that instruction given him and his eternal companion by which they could obtain the fulness of heavenly knowledge and power? Would he not rehearse how he had been taught the law of sacrifice (Moses 5:1-8 ) and how he and Eve had been clothed in the garments of salvation preparatory to their entering the lone and dreary world, where they were to be tried and tested in all things?

A rehearsal of the key events of Eden brings the realization that we too are privileged to leave the lone and dreary world and enter the sacred sanctuaries of the Lord, where we participate in essentially the same experiences known to our first parents before the Fall. The temple is to us as Eden was to Adam and Eve. It is in the temple that we, like Adam and Eve, are invited to walk with God; it is in the temple that we are instructed in those things that we must do to return to his holy presence; it is in the temple that we are married for eternity and commanded to multiply and replenish the earth; it is within these sacred walls that we are taught the law of sacrifice, placed under covenant to be true and faithful, and clothed in a garment of protection.

After Adam and Eve had partaken of the forbidden fruit, but before they were expelled from the garden, the Father taught them the law of sacrifice. Animals were slain that Adam and Eve might be clothed in "coats of skins" (Moses 4:27) that were to be a protection to them in our fallen world. Adam and Eve subsequently learned that the shedding of the animals' blood was in similitude of the atoning blood of Christ (Moses 5:7). Thus the garments given them in Eden were to serve as a constant reminder that through the atoning blood of Christ they could be protected from all the effects of a fallen world. Through his blood they could obtain a remission of sins, be born again, and return to the divine presence.

Adam and Eve were further instructed by an angel of the Lord that they were to take upon them the name of Christ and that all they did was to be done in his name (Moses 5:8 ). Thus as God had clothed them in coats or garments of skin as a token of the protection provided them through Christ, a protection from the effects of a fallen world, so they were to clothe themselves in his name by faith, and in that name they were to do all that they did that pertained to salvation or to things of the Spirit. Thus they were assured that they could overcome.

"He that hath an ear, let him hear," John wrote unto the seven churches in Asia, "what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life" (Revelation 2:7). The fruit is the gospel of Jesus Christ and is described by Lehi as being "desirable to make one happy" and as filling the soul with "exceedingly great joy" (1 Ne. 8:10-12). To Nephi it was revealed that the tree of life-that tree which stood in the midst of Eden-represented the love of God, and by extension, the eternal life made possible by the atonement of the Son of God (see 1 Ne. 11:4-21).

EFFECTS OF THE FALL

After Adam and Eve had partaken of the forbidden fruit-thus becoming mortal and imposing mortality upon the earth and all forms of life-they were driven out of the Garden of Eden to till the earth, which is to say that the whole earth was destined to lose its paradisiacal splendor. The change of the earth from its incorruptible state to that of a fallen world is symbolized by Adam and Eve's expulsion from the garden. The garden-earth that once was-became the lone, dreary, and often hostile earth that now is. The "cherubim and a flaming sword, which turned every way to protect the tree of life" (Moses 4:31), constituted a symbolic announcement that the earth could not return to its paradisiacal state while death reigned. Until the great millennial day, the earth would be subject to corruption.

As to the procreation that attends mortality, Lehi said: "They [Adam and Eve] have brought forth children; yea, even the family of all the earth" (2 Ne. 2:20). Eve is truly the mother of all living; every living soul on earth is a descendant of Adam and Eve. "God

[LifeOnaPlate]

Wow. I hadn't heard this. Could you give me a place to read about this? I went to LDS.org and did a search using Spencer W. Kimball and forbidden fruit, Adam and Eve, etc., and found nothing along those lines. I'd be interested in knowing more...and changing my viewpoint if this is what the prophets have taught.

I'll see what I can find. I believe JFS discusses it in Answers to Gospel Questions.

[SquarePeg48]

I also agree that this statement is heretical. When God shows Adam, or Moses, or Moroni, or anybody else the history of the world from beginning to end, He is doing just that. When God showed the crucifixion of Jesus to Isaiah, He was showing Isaiah the actual event. He was not showing them probabilities along an infinite series of time lines.

I think that just as in quantum mechanics, the reactions and outcomes of large groups of atoms can be predicted with relative accuracy (as in chemical reactions), the behaviors of groups (nations, tribes, humanity as a whole) can be predicted accurately, thus shown to the prophets. But just as individual atoms behavior cannot be predicted and in fact change by the simple act of observation, individual human behavior is on a realm of infinite possibility, with God's involvement changing the outcome by our invitation for his involvement and being aware of all possible outcomes. This, to me, is the only explanation for individual agency without taking away God's omniprescience. If this is heresy, then so be it.

[solomarineris]

You need to look that scripture up again, buckaroo, because, unless you're dyslexic, it is an egregious misrepresentation of the scripture.

Also, your sweeping generalization of the story as being a "Cromagnon [sic] allegory" is very debatable, yet you bring it forth as gospel truth. I'd like to see your reference. CFR. Thanks.

Hmm, this is the first time I'm accused of being a dyslexic; (how could I be since I did master six languages and a reasonable grammer).

I don't bring anything to table such as "Gospel Truth", I guess that because before JS of OT Prophets bragged about good ol' "Gospel Truth" I've read (whenI was a kid, the stories of Gilgamesh, commandments of Hammurabi, The story of Osiris, Ahura Mazda, Later I marveled the sophistry of drawings of CroMagnon Man in Lacheux Canyons. When I was able to travel myself in my neck of the woods in Utah, I saw hundreds of Petroglyphs/Pictographs like in Horseshoe Canyon/Chaco Canyon/Mesa Verde.

Do you think I found any link to any scriptures? Say BoM?

Actually no, then I decided to go Metropolitan Museum of Art, British Museum, Luvre...You name it...

I know who left their traces on this planet and who didn't, anyone can prove it.

Because if you want to prove othervise, you have to show me something like a wheel, or a breast plate.

[valkator]

The defining characteristic of God is an eternal increase. If those spirits just remain spirits, then God is essentially doing nothing.

"And they would have had no children; wherefore they would have remained in a state of innocence, having no joy, for they knew no misery; doing no good, for they knew no sin" (2 Ne. 2:23). Until Adam and Eve transgressed they were innocent. There was no righteousness because there was no wickedness; there was no good because there was no evil. Hence, as we have seen, Adam needed to transgress in order to be put on probation and be subject to sin, that he might reject sin, overcome, and embrace righteousness.

The above is very true, but perhaps not in the sense that justifies 'god's' increase at the expense of the spirit forms he creates, despite the 'carrot' being held out that man after his fall, too, will increase if he gives himself over to this higher being. It's ironic that the Fall is being justified as some sort of 'necessary outcome' by the 'higher being' in order that man would not simply 'know' good and evil -- but that this knowing can only be understood when one actually does 'evil'. It's like saying that one can only know it is wrong to kill, commit adultery, or steal unless one actually goes out and does these things. This is a false argument for 'knowing ' good and evil -- 'right and wrong' -- and even 'death' in the material sense. ALL forms on every level of manifsted existence are transient and are not permanent. What 'animates' them -- or operates THROUGH them, though, is. This is hinted at through the doctrine of 'eternal progression'.

However, immortality has nothing to do with the form remaining 'incorruptable'. Beings who frame immortal existence in terms of material form (no body is incorruptable) - no matter what their level of existence - are displaying a type of existence that might best be described as petrified and entropic. A being whose primary identification is with their current state of manifestation will require greater and greater amounts of 'food' to sustain themselves in the fleeting attempt to do so. 'Death' of the form, though, is inevitable. We see this quite clearly in the real, manifested world right in front of our eyes. Higher realms, even though the forms are different 'there', are still subject to the same reality. Eternal 'prgression' in this 'negative feeding pattern' sense is not actually an increase in anything, but a downward spiral for all participating - much akin to a blackhole. If that's one's choice, like one suffering from Stockholm Syndrome, then all we can say is 'good luck with that'.

Though Adam did, indeed, Fall, he didn't HAVE to in order to know good and evil, joy, or even 'death' of the material form. If he hadn't, he would have remained in the same realm as his parents and would have began his learning experience 'there'. Inexplicably, the deck was stacked against him by his own parents (or someone posing as his parent once he Fell and lost his memory of who his real parents are). The Fall only drove Adam farther into the very things he is supposed to 'overcome' in a weakened state, while also losing connection to his own higher self/soul/spirit and the higher realms he fell from. It also placed him in an inferior position to the higher realms and the higher beings who occupy those realms. This higher self or soul/spirit, conversely, isn't to be identified with - or as - the parents in the higher realms who ONLY created the spiritual body he once existed within in those higher realms. That spiritual body, due to the fall, does not exist today. The 'recessive seeds' of it, though, are still within the transformed body humans currently occupy and there is a possibility of 'retransformation', of course. The point, though, is that all of what's been interpreted through the 'revelations' is like saying that one's own human children only have their identity, purpose, and real existence through their human parents; who only provide the material form for the individual soul that is the REAL being living through that form. The parents who deal with their children in this manner are actually feeding off of and eating their own children -- though telling them they will be 'rewarded' for their seemingly voluntary choice to be on the 'dinner plate'.

In terms of Adam, this kind of thing only results in the higher being having power and authority over the 'fallen' children who, clearly, end up in a contracted state of existence; with only a dim reflection of awareness as to who they are, where they came from, and how they are being manipulated through their own weaknesses in a MORE material state. It isn't that this wasn't supposed to happen -- because it did -- but how does one return to their true nature and actually 'increase their being' - increase their potential for higher manifestations of existence in the process of eternal progression? Finally we should make a conscious effort to sincerely ask ourselves; 'Who ARE the liberating gods that are attempting to assist us in awakening?'

[katherine the great]

God cannot be God without His creations. It is pointless to be a God of nothing.

Isn't it a little ego centric to think that our physical world is Gods only creation?