Jump to content

The Fortunate Fall as a later invention.


Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, teddyaware said:

Read 2 Nephi 9 and you’ll see how a prophet of God speaks of the effects of the fall in the most negative terms imaginable. The prophet Jacob testifies that the fall, on its own, without the counteracting effects of the atonement of Christ, is totally and completely destructive without even a single positive element that can be mentioned. It would therefore be more accurate to say “the fall is the ultimate curse of destruction, but the fall coupled with the atonement of Christ is the greatest imaginable fount of every blessing.

It’s erroneous to speak of the fall, on its own, as being a blessing. In fact, Jacob goes so far as to call it an ‘awful monster’ that drags every member of the human family down to an everlasting hell with the devil and his angels. There is ZERO good that comes out of the fall because it offers nothing but total physical and spiritual destruction. The only reason why good exists is because of Christ; there is nothing good that can be found in the fall because it is the ultimate disaster. Christ is the one and only source of goodness. Without Christ the fall is an irresistible abyss into a hell that has no end.

24 And behold, there were divers ways that he did manifest things unto the children of men, which were good; and all things which are good cometh of Christ; otherwise men were fallen and there could no good thing come unto them. (Moroni 7)

In other words, the fall is the absence of good.

 

I agree, thanks.

My comment "very puzzling" was not intended to be an actual question, but a rhetorical device assuming @theplains position, that the fall was NOT what God intended to give us a choice between good and evil.

I have never understood what Protestants believe regarding God's original plan, of what was supposed to happen if there was no fall.

Link to comment
9 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

But again, if there was not to be a fall, how would the story come out?

The fact that no one can answer that indicates that the fall WAS part of the plan, and only a story.

The two are taught and progress. Then, when they are ready, God commands them to partake of the forbidden fruit. They can then have terrestrial children and create bodies for unfallen spirits. These children go through the same process. They then face the challenge of evil (possibly at the same time) in a terrestrial environment. At some endpoint temptation is fully loosed and you get a scenario similar to the end of the millenium. Those who pass the test (probably most of them) have their bodies transformed into celestial bodies and become exalted.

Link to comment
11 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

What's wrong with Eve being wiser than Adam about the female body?

This is not some big mystery.

In the story, before the fall they were not fully human, IMO, they were not fully immanent, they could not die, there was no need for them to reproduce, because they would not have been able to die. Mankind consisted of only of two beings hand constructed by God

This is in my opinion, not Doctrine.

There was no death before the fall, no need for reproduction.

Of course this all a temple play, and not historical, but the story is logically consistent

But again, if there was not to be a fall, how would the story come out?

The fact that no one can answer that indicates that the fall WAS part of the plan, and only a story.

That particular quote is from theplains, not me… my reply was to emphasize that God’s love for Adam and Eve (and us) overrides any other attitude He has about their (and our) transgressions no matter His presumed level of expectation to the contrary.

According to 2 Nephi 2, without their transgression and the consequential Fall, “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” without joy (i.e., “the whole earth would be utterly wasted” in terms of the eternal round and plan of happiness). 

I think that “same state” would have included us who must have remained stuck in the first estate. For human beings, I like your idea that we are not fully human until we are fully mortal; perhaps we are not even more fully human until we are perfect, or complete, in Christ.

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

The two are taught and progress. Then, when they are ready, God commands them to partake of the forbidden fruit. They can then have terrestrial children and create bodies for unfallen spirits. These children go through the same process. They then face the challenge of evil (possibly at the same time) in a terrestrial environment. At some endpoint temptation is fully loosed and you get a scenario similar to the end of the millenium. Those who pass the test (probably most of them) have their bodies transformed into celestial bodies and become exalted.

I noticed your post and wonder how 2 Nephi 2: 22- 27 (without teh Fall, nothing would have changed, forever -- they would have never progressed to being "ready") fits into this idea.

Edited by CV75
Link to comment
13 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

What's wrong with Eve being wiser than Adam about the female body?

This is not some big mystery.

In the story, before the fall they were not fully human, IMO, they were not fully immanent, they could not die, there was no need for them to reproduce, because they would not have been able to die. Mankind consisted of only of two beings hand constructed by God

This is in my opinion, not Doctrine.

There was no death before the fall, no need for reproduction.

Of course this all a temple play, and not historical, but the story is logically consistent

But again, if there was not to be a fall, how would the story come out?

The fact that no one can answer that indicates that the fall WAS part of the plan, and only a story.

I have to apologize that, in this post, responding to @theplains, I made it appear that I was responding to you.  Error!

Link to comment
1 hour ago, CV75 said:

That particular quote is from theplains, not me… my reply was to emphasize that God’s love for Adam and Eve (and us) overrides any other attitude He has about their (and our) transgressions no matter His presumed level of expectation to the contrary

Yes sorry. I copied his comments out of your reply to him by mistake. The software made me do it. 😱

I agree with you 150%. ;)

 

Link to comment
6 hours ago, The Nehor said:

The two are taught and progress. Then, when they are ready, God commands them to partake of the forbidden fruit. They can then have terrestrial children and create bodies for unfallen spirits. These children go through the same process. They then face the challenge of evil (possibly at the same time) in a terrestrial environment. At some endpoint temptation is fully loosed and you get a scenario similar to the end of the millenium. Those who pass the test (probably most of them) have their bodies transformed into celestial bodies and become exalted.

Interesting!

But really the only difference is more preparation time before being "fallen", and then living in a terrestrial world instead of a telestial one?

Was that what was done in "other worlds"?

And there would then be no need for a savior?

Edited by mfbukowski
Link to comment
On 12/17/2021 at 11:47 PM, mfbukowski said:

What's wrong with Eve being wiser than Adam about the female body?

This is not some big mystery.

In the story, before the fall they were not fully human, IMO, they were not fully immanent, they could not die, there was no need for them to reproduce, because they would not have been able to die. Mankind consisted of only of two beings hand constructed by God

This is in my opinion, not Doctrine.

There was no death before the fall, no need for reproduction.

    I do not see Eve as the wiser of the two. They had been given a commandment to multiply and fill up the earth. Reproduction was essential in order to carry out that commandment. At that point in time, but they had no idea how to accomplish that task. Some have espoused the idea that in time, they would have been taught all of that. If I am reading the lesson that Lehi taught as well as Eve's statement in Moses 5:11, that never  would have happened. When Eve ate that fruit, she did not know that it was necessary, nor did Adam.

Glenn

Link to comment
On 12/18/2021 at 7:14 AM, mfbukowski said:

I have never understood what Protestants believe regarding God's original plan, of what was supposed to happen if there was no fall.

Here is the original plan.

"The Lord God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to work it and keep it.  And the
Lord God commanded the man, saying, “You may surely eat of every tree of the garden, but of
the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you
shall surely die
.”

Link to comment
On 12/17/2021 at 10:25 PM, CV75 said:

Given the Atonement of Christ and that it was arranged even before Creation, it doesn’t matter if Eve was the wiser of the two, or if God was displeased with them for transgressing the law. We can infer that the overriding feeling was love for them, given that He had already committed to His Only Begotten Son’s Atonement.

Did the Fall cause the need for the Atonement or did the Atonement cause the need for the Fall?

Link to comment
11 minutes ago, theplains said:

Here is the original plan.

"The Lord God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to work it and keep it.  And the
Lord God commanded the man, saying, “You may surely eat of every tree of the garden, but of
the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you
shall surely die
.”

Can't you see that's not a plan for anything?  "Work"

Not exactly heavy theology

We still work anyway, by itself, it says nothing.

There are plenty of poisonous plants in this world that will kill you instantly, no savior required.

 

Edited by mfbukowski
Link to comment
On 12/16/2021 at 4:25 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

All humans, including Jesus, were conceived in the same way:  Reproductively.  LDS theology rejects miracles.  A miracle violates natural law.  God never violates natural law.

I suppose that's why the church refers to this as a Celestial Sireship.

Since you reject miracles, how do you think Jesus walked on water, quieted the storm, or healed the
leper?

Link to comment
7 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Can't you see that's not a plan for anything?  "Work"

Not exactly heavy theology

We still work anyway, by itself, it says nothing.

There are plenty of poisonous plants in this world

 

How long do you reckon Adam and Eve were 'working' and 'keeping' the garden of Eden?

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, theplains said:

Did the Fall cause the need for the Atonement or did the Atonement cause the need for the Fall?

Why believe in Jesus without a fall?

Why the bible without Jesus?

How would we know anything about God?

WHAT WAS THE PURPOSE OF CREATION?  

By your logic, Jesus caused the fall.

Link to comment
5 minutes ago, theplains said:

How long do you reckon Adam and Eve were 'working' and 'keeping' the garden of Eden?

Temple allegories don't prune gardens.

Bye

Edited by mfbukowski
Link to comment
22 minutes ago, theplains said:

I suppose that's why the church refers to this as a Celestial Sireship.

Since you reject miracles, how do you think Jesus walked on water, quieted the storm, or healed the
leper?

Higher as yet undiscovered technology.

Would tv be a miracle then?

Had to answer that one

Merry Christmas 

Edited by mfbukowski
Link to comment
57 minutes ago, theplains said:

suppose that's why the church refers to this as a Celestial Sireship.

There is one quote that gets used that has the phrase in it.  Other than that I have never seen or heard the phrase “Celestial Sireship”.  I checked the Church’s website to be sure and there were 4 instances of the quote from Talmage, but nothing else. 
 

Looked at Google and looks like member sites use the quote on occasion, but it looks used as a phrase by itself on antimormon sites primarily. 
 

So I think saying the “church refers to this” is not that accurate. The Church uses the quote, which includes other points, occasionally. They don’t use the phrase itself.  Nor do members typically. 
 

Not saying they don’t use the intent of the word phrased using other words, just saying it is going to confuse people if this is presented as a typical wording by the church or church members. 
 

Added:  Google says “Celestial Sireship” has been used twice on this site, once by you in August and another time by a poster named Markk, who was a fundamentalist critic of the Church, a former member who wasn’t that accurate with his descriptions at times iirc.
 

Now it may have missed one, but I think it unlikely. 

https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/73974-defining-the-only-begotten-and-firstborn/

https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/9079-errors-of-jerald-sandra-tanners-mormonism/?do=findComment&comment=247758

In a day or two Google will be likely showing the only usage of the term “Sireship” by a member on this board is me.  (How long does it take for Google to update searches…maybe I will use this as a way to find out).

So again not something it is that accurate to say “the Church refers to”.

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
44 minutes ago, Calm said:

There is one quote that gets used that has the phrase in it.  Other than that I have never seen or heard the phrase “Celestial Sireship”.  I checked the Church’s website to be sure and there were 4 instances of the quote from Talmage, but nothing else. 
 

Looked at Google and looks like member sites use the quote on occasion, but it looks used as a phrase by itself on antimormon sites primarily. 
 

So I think saying the “church refers to this” is not that accurate. The Church uses the quote, which includes other points, occasionally. They don’t use the phrase itself.  Nor do members typically. 
 

Not saying they don’t use the intent of the word phrased using other words, just saying it is going to confuse people if this is presented as a typical wording by the church or church members. 
 

Added:  Google says “Celestial Sireship” has been used twice on this site, once by you in August and another time by a poster named Markk, who was a fundamentalist critic of the Church, a former member who wasn’t that accurate with his descriptions at times iirc.
 

Now it may have missed one, but I think it unlikely. 

https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/73974-defining-the-only-begotten-and-firstborn/

https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/9079-errors-of-jerald-sandra-tanners-mormonism/?do=findComment&comment=247758

In a day or two Google will be likely showing the only usage of the term “Sireship” by a member on this board is me.  (How long does it take for Google to update searches…maybe I will use this as a way to find out).

So again not something it is that accurate to say “the Church refers to”.

I had never noticed it before it was mentioned here and found it offensive. 

The Incarnation referred to with words associated with animal breeding?  Horrid and disgusting 

Edited by mfbukowski
Link to comment
1 hour ago, theplains said:

I suppose that's why the church refers to this as a Celestial Sireship.

Have never heard that term.  Which church uses it?  Could you cite the official church source?  Thanks, Jim.

1 hour ago, theplains said:

Since you reject miracles,

LDS theology rejects miracles, while normative Judeo-Christian tradition accepts them.  By definition, miracles abrogate natural law, which is a contradiction in terms.

1 hour ago, theplains said:

how do you think Jesus walked on water, quieted the storm, or healed the leper?

Jesus walked on water, quieted the storm, and healed the leper the same way He brought Lazarus back to life, the same way He was resurrected:  By complete mastery of natural law, by virtue of the power of God and faith in that power.  This applies as well to Elijah healing a leper, or the widow's son, or to the apostles of Jesus doing the same.  All are exercising the power of God to control natural law.  Modern medicine can sometimes do such "miraculous" acts through fully natural means -- through advanced technology.  The same applies to modern human ability to send probes to other planets, and to send men to the moon.  A modern man need see nothing at all miraculous about a GPS device, even if Lehi may have considered the Liahona miraculous.  A modern man need not consider a smart phone miraculous, even if Joseph Smith may have considered his seerstone to be miraculous.  A matter of perspective, Jim.

Link to comment
2 hours ago, theplains said:

Did the Fall cause the need for the Atonement or did the Atonement cause the need for the Fall?

Given Moses 1:39; 2 Nephi 2: 24 – 25; and John 3: 16 -17, God’s love causes His work and His glory, each of which, inseparable one from the other, entail the Atonement of Jesus Christ and the Fall.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

I had never noticed it before it was mentioned here and found it offensive. 

The Incarnation referred to with words associated with animal breeding?  Horrid and disgusting 

It was Talmage who used the phrase first and his quote is used in at least one manual iirc, Doctrines of the Gospel, so I don’t think it is typically viewed as offensive by those who notice it in the Church if it is the quote being referenced. 
 

The critics did latched on to it and do typically present it as a shocker though. 
 

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/jesus-the-christ/chapter-7?lang=eng

For example, the book Jesus the Christ is itself online on the Church’s website now. 

Quote

His message delivered, Gabriel departed, leaving the chosen Virgin of Nazareth to ponder over her wondrous experience. Mary’s promised Son was to be “The Only Begotten” of the Father in the flesh; so it had been both positively and abundantly predicted. True, the event was unprecedented; true also it has never been paralleled; but that the virgin birth would be unique was as truly essential to the fulfillment of prophecy as that it should occur at all. That Child to be born of Mary was begotten of Elohim, the Eternal Father, not in violation of natural law but in accordance with a higher manifestation thereof; and, the offspring from that association of supreme sanctity, celestial Sireship, and pure though mortal maternity, was of right to be called the “Son of the Highest.” In His nature would be combined the powers of Godhood with the capacity and possibilities of mortality; and this through the ordinary operation of the fundamental law of heredity, declared of God, demonstrated by science, and admitted by philosophy, that living beings shall propagate—after their kind. The Child Jesus was to inherit the physical, mental, and spiritual traits, tendencies, and powers that characterized His parents—one immortal and glorified—God, the other human—woman.

Referenced as a supporting statement here:

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/doctrines-of-the-gospel-student-manual/4-jesus-christ?lang=eng

The website search engine brings the quote up for a third and final time in an 1998 Ensign article, so definitely not a popular phrasing and not a popular quote.

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
28 minutes ago, Calm said:

It was Talmage who used the phrase first and his quote is used in at least one manual iirc, Doctrines of the Gospel, so I don’t think it is typically viewed as offensive by those who notice it in the Church if it is the quote being referenced. 
 

The critics did latched on to it and do typically present it as a shocker though. 

Well I am sure farmers who breed animals would not find it offensive.

Context is everything.

And in Utah at that time,  virtually everyone was a farmer who bred animals.  So it is the shifting context that makes it offensive, and THAT is how scoundrels pretend innocence while using such language.  

But they know better 

Edited by mfbukowski
Link to comment
On 12/6/2021 at 5:54 PM, Rivers said:

I’m a faithful church member.  I’m not a critic.  However I’ve come up with a criticism against the Book of Mormon  I haven’t heard before.  It concerns the doctrine of the fortunate fall.  Consider this a Devil’s Advocate critique.
 

As far as I can tell, the there is no mention or allusion to the fortunate fall in the large plate portion of the Book of Mormon. 
The doctrine is taught in 2 Nephi  chapter 2 which is in the small plates.  The small plates as we all know were translated after the large plates were finished.  Thus, can it be argued that the fortunate fall is a later invention of Joseph Smith?

If it is in the small plates, then its in the small plates.  Unless one believes Joseph Smith made the small plates, it could not be an invention by Joseph?

Link to comment
2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Well I am sure farmers who breed animals would not find it offensive.

Context is everything.

And in Utah at that time,  virtually everyone was a farmer who bred animals.  So it is the shifting context that makes it offensive, and THAT is how scoundrels pretend innocence while using such language.  

But they know better 

Looks like it is a made up word (can’t even be used for Scrabble) and Talmage was a geologist and son of innkeepers, so maybe it didn’t occur to him it would be seen as too earthy in the future. ;) 

https://findwords.info/term/sireship#

https://www.poetrysoup.com/quotes/sireship

Added:  did find it in a fantasy book published in 2014 as a substitute for “your Lordship”.

And added again:  am seeing it now in academic papers on animal mating. :) 

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...