Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

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.

Ok. 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.

 

What are your thoughts guys?

Edited by Obeone
spelling
Link to comment

@Obeone

I feel like I go down this path of conversation at least once a year.

your idea sounds epic and like the start of a restoration of truth! … well… until you read scripture.

 “And now, behold, if Adam had not transgressed he would not have fallen, but he would have remained in the garden of Eden. And 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.
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.
But behold, all things have been done in the wisdom of him who knoweth all things.
Adam fell that men might be; and men are, that they might have joy.“ - 2 Nephi 2:22-25

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


So one must insist on rejecting the Book of Mormon and the Pearl of Great Price to really go along with this 

 

Here are a couple thoughts that may help.

1. “the Lord God commanded the man, saying, 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: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.” - Genesis 2:16-17

This seems less of a “it is a sin to eat the fruit” and more of a standard that needs to be kept if one wishes to remain immortal in the garden. 
 

2. We often treat this issue as if God came down to them and said “I give you two commandments. 1. Multiply and replenish the earth. And 2. Don’t partake of the fruit.” The reality is that those two thing were said 20v versus apart. Additionally, the commandment to multiply and replenish was given to them at their creation. Along with it came the command to have dominion over the earth. After that, he finished the 6th day and on the 7th he rested. it wasn’t till later when he puts them in Eden that he says to not partake of the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil because it would kill them. This seemed to me to be more of a warning for if they wanted to remain in the garden. The conflict between the two commands seems to be amplified in the way we talk about them when we leave out the actual scriptures.

(side question: what were Adam and Eve doing on the 7th day while God was resting and they weren’t in Eden yet?)

3. To truely BE good, not just DO good, one must have the option to choose between good or evil. Without the option, one cannot become good. And that is the ultimate goal of our life on earth. To be good like our father who is in heaven. So him providing that opposition is an ultimate good

4. In Line with the previous point, there seems to be two points where someone can be worthy of God’s presence. When they are perfectly innocent, and when they are perfected in Christ. We all come into this world innocent and we need to traverse our own wildernesses in order to reach perfection.

Edited by Fether
Link to comment

From October 1993 General Conference, Dallin H. Oaks, “The Great Plan of Happiness”

To the first man and woman on earth, the Lord said, “Be fruitful, and multiply” (Moses 2:28; see also Gen. 1:28; Abr. 4:28). This commandment was first in sequence and first in importance. It was essential that God’s spirit children have mortal birth and an opportunity to progress toward eternal life. Consequently, all things related to procreation are prime targets for the adversary’s efforts to thwart the plan of God.
When Adam and Eve received the first commandment, they were in a transitional state, no longer in the spirit world but with physical bodies not yet subject to death and not yet capable of procreation. They could not fulfill the Father’s first commandment without transgressing the barrier between the bliss of the Garden of Eden and the terrible trials and wonderful opportunities of mortal life.
For reasons that have not been revealed, this transition, or “fall,” could not happen without a transgression—an exercise of moral agency amounting to a willful breaking of a law (see Moses 6:59). This would be a planned offense, a formality to serve an eternal purpose. The Prophet Lehi explained that “if Adam had not transgressed he would not have fallen” (2 Ne. 2:22), but would have remained in the same state in which he was created.
“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).
But the Fall was planned, Lehi concludes, because “all things have been done in the wisdom of him who knoweth all things” (2 Ne. 2:24).
It was Eve who first transgressed the limits of Eden in order to initiate the conditions of mortality. Her act, whatever its nature, was formally a transgression but eternally a glorious necessity to open the doorway toward eternal life. Adam showed his wisdom by doing the same. And thus Eve and “Adam fell that men might be” (2 Ne. 2:25).

Link to comment
1 minute ago, teddyaware said:

Are you able to harmonize your ideas with the following verses from the Book of Mormon?

22 And now, behold, if Adam had not transgressed he would not have fallen, but he would have remained in the garden of Eden. And 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.
23 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.
24 But behold, all things have been done in the wisdom of him who knoweth all things.
25 Adam fell that men might be; and men are, that they might have joy.

Yes!

First of all, notice it says: "And they would have had no children", not "could have had no children".

What's the difference? Would means choice. Could means physical ability. 

So in essence the scripture comments on Adam's choice, not ability.

 

Secondly, it is interesting to note that that if you change the word "transgressed" to "been tempted" you get a more general statement. Why? Because temptation was necessary to open Adam's eyes to know good and evil. But his transgression was not.

In other words, even though it was necessary to expose Adam to temptation, so his eyes could be opened to know good and evil, it was not necessary for Adam to yield to the temptation. 

If Adam resisted the temptation, as God commanded him, Adam's eyes would have been opened without transgression, and he would have had posterity without the fall, precisely as God commanded him. 

It is interesting in this context, that the tree was called "the tree of knowledge of good and evil" because whether Adam resisted or yielded to the temptation to partake of its fruit, his eyes would have been opened, because it is the exposure to temptation/opposition that opens eyes, and not fruits and trees. 

Link to comment
40 minutes ago, Fether said:

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

I think you would agree that all scriptures must be taken in context with all the other words of God.

So if you take Eve's words in context they actually say:

"[We were so disobedient and foolish, that] Were it not for our transgression [which forced us to learn obedience through a punishment of a curse] we never should have had seed, and never should have known good and evil, and the joy of our redemption, and the eternal life which God giveth unto all the obedient. [For there verily was a better way for us in the garden were we willing to listen to God more than to the devil]."

Link to comment
35 minutes ago, filovirus said:

When Adam and Eve received the first commandment, they were in a transitional state, no longer in the spirit world but with physical bodies not yet subject to death and not yet capable of procreation. They could not fulfill the Father’s first commandment without transgressing the barrier between the bliss of the Garden of Eden and the terrible trials and wonderful opportunities of mortal life.

That is at odds with the word of God. As was pointed out (1 Nephi 3:7) God does not give impossible or self-contradictory commandments. So this sounds to me like an opinion of a prophet, which is possible to be wrong, according to the words of Joseph Smith. He said, in his opinions, he was liable to be wrong as any other man. The words of God, on the other hand, are always true. 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Obeone said:

there was no other way

The above statement keeps me alive and keeps me going down the road.  IMO it also covers the general conditions we see in the world which are all so very depressing.  So trusting in the Lord I see it every day as "there is no other way".   After many iterations of earths I think if there was a better way it would of been found.

Edited by Metis_LDS
clarity
Link to comment
4 minutes ago, Metis_LDS said:

 After many iterations of earths I think if there was a better way it would of been found.

It has been found: Enoch and his city. Melchizedek and his city. John the Beloved, the three Nephites, and many, many others have overcome the curse of Adam i.e. Tellestial state, and have gained Terrestrial state, the same state that will prevail on the earth in general in the Millennium. 

Link to comment
45 minutes ago, Obeone said:

Yes!

First of all, notice it says: "And they would have had no children", not "could have had no children".

What's the difference? Would means choice. Could means physical ability. 

So in essence the scripture comments on Adam's choice, not ability.

 

Secondly, it is interesting to note that that if you change the word "transgressed" to "been tempted" you get a more general statement. Why? Because temptation was necessary to open Adam's eyes to know good and evil. But his transgression was not.

In other words, even though it was necessary to expose Adam to temptation, so his eyes could be opened to know good and evil, it was not necessary for Adam to yield to the temptation. 

If Adam resisted the temptation, as God commanded him, Adam's eyes would have been opened without transgression, and he would have had posterity without the fall, precisely as God commanded him. 

It is interesting in this context, that the tree was called "the tree of knowledge of good and evil" because whether Adam resisted or yielded to the temptation to partake of its fruit, his eyes would have been opened, because it is the exposure to temptation/opposition that opens eyes, and not fruits and trees. 

Your reasoning is faulty. Why in heaven’s name would God have wanted little children to be born into an unending existence wherein “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.”  An endless, aimless, purposeless existence is anathema to the wisdom, will and  purposes of God. In addition, your faulty and illogical interpretation is totally at odds with the consistent teachings of the Church since the beginning of the restoration. 

Edited by teddyaware
Link to comment
8 minutes ago, Obeone said:

It has been found: Enoch and his city. Melchizedek and his city. John the Beloved, the three Nephites, and many, many others have overcome the curse of Adam i.e. Tellestial state, and have gained Terrestrial state, the same state that will prevail on the earth in general in the Millennium. 

You have a nimble mind,  I have had personal revelation about Enoch and his city and it is out of reach at this time within the general Church.  John the Beloved, the three Nephites etc...  are completely a different thing all together.  For that you have to be called it doesn't apply otherwise.

Link to comment
4 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

Why in heaven’s name would God have wanted little children to be born into an unending existence wherein “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.”  An endless, aimless, purposeless existence is anathema to the will of God. In addition, your faulty and illogical interpretation is totally at odds with the consistent teachings of the Church since the beginning of the restoration. 

First of all, we are taught that in the Millennium "the earth will be renewed and receive its paradisiacal glory." (Articles of Faith 10)

Which means the conditions in the Garden were not that different from those that will prevail in the Millennium. It was Terrestrial state, from which the earth fell in to Tellestial state, and after the Second Coming the earth, as a whole, will be restored to a Terrestrial "paradisiacal" state.

The scripture says that they would remain in a state of innocence and have no joy, unless they were exposed to opposition and given an opportunity to overcome the opposition.  This is why God, our Father, allowed Lucifer to tempt and try Adam and Eve. Temptation was necessary to open their eyes, so they might know good and evil and have children. Yielding to the temptation, on the other hand was not necessary, and indeed forbidden. 

If Adam resisted the temptation, the conditions on the earth would have been much like those that will prevail on the earth, but now only in the Millennium, where billions of children would be born without ever knowing the "long and dreary," fallen world.  And they "shall grow up without sin unto salvation" (D&C 45:58).

 

Secondly, as for "teachings of the Church": this is why I said "Zion cannot be redeemed while believing the very lie that caused its fall in the first place." I believe Adam-ondi-Ahman event will be in large part fixing this error. 

Link to comment
5 minutes ago, Obeone said:

First of all, we are taught that in the Millennium "the earth will be renewed and receive its paradisiacal glory." (Articles of Faith 10)

Which means the conditions in the Garden were not that different from those that will prevail in the Millennium. It was Terrestrial state, from which the earth fell in to Tellestial state, and after the Second Coming the earth, as a whole, will be restored to a Terrestrial "paradisiacal" state.

The scripture says that they would remain in a state of innocence and have no joy, unless they were exposed to opposition and given an opportunity to overcome the opposition.  This is why God, our Father, allowed Lucifer to tempt and try Adam and Eve. Temptation was necessary to open their eyes, so they might know good and evil and have children. Yielding to the temptation, on the other hand was not necessary, and indeed forbidden. 

If Adam resisted the temptation, the conditions on the earth would have been much like those that will prevail on the earth, but now only in the Millennium, where billions of children would be born without ever knowing the "long and dreary," fallen world.  And they "shall grow up without sin unto salvation" (D&C 45:58).

 

Secondly, as for "teachings of the Church": this is why I said "Zion cannot be redeemed while believing the very lie that caused its fall in the first place." I believe Adam-ondi-Ahman event will be in large part fixing this error. 

You imagine you’ve made some great discovery, but you haven’t. Do you really think a state in which Adam and Eve “would have remained in a state of innocence, having no joy, for they knew no misery; doing no good, for they knew no sin” has all that much in common with the dynamic, sinful nature overcoming, forward-looking millennial reign of Christ, a state of existence that will be in direct opposition to a state in which there is no joy experienced and no good being accomplished? Meanwhile the following testimonies of Adam and Eve are at odds with your supposed insight:

10 And in that day Adam blessed God and was filled, and began to prophesy concerning all the families of the earth, saying: Blessed be the name of God, for because of my TRANSGRESSION: my eyes are opened, and in this life I shall have joy, and again in the flesh I shall see God.
11 And Eve, his wife, heard all these things and was glad, saying: Were it not for our TRANSGRESSION  we NEVER should have had seed, and NEVER should have known good and evil, and the joy of our redemption, and the eternal life which God giveth unto all the obedient. (Moses 5)

Only by more strained interpretations can you get around the above two verses. Time to get back to the drawing board.

Link to comment
2 hours ago, Metis_LDS said:

The above statement keeps me alive and keeps me going down the road.  IMO it also covers the general conditions we see in the world which are all so very depressing.  So trusting in the Lord I see it every day as "there is no other way".   After many iterations of earths I think if there was a better way it would of been found.

This statement assumes that this world is typical in creation. If it is an abnormality then it gets odd.

Who was it that insisted there was “no other way” again?

Link to comment
2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

This statement assumes that this world is typical in creation. If it is an abnormality then it gets odd.

Who was it that insisted there was “no other way” again?

It is a statement of belief I have, no one else has to share it.  If you have been Endowed in the Temple you already know who says there is no other way.

Edited by Metis_LDS
clarity
Link to comment
1 hour ago, Metis_LDS said:

It is a statement of belief I have, no one else has to share it.  If you have been Endowed in the Temple you already know who says there is no other way.

Yeah, and the more that guy talks the less I trust him.

Link to comment
7 hours ago, Obeone said:

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.

Ok. 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.

 

What are your thoughts guys?

My thought is that the idea of the redemption of Zion is not part of the story of the Fall of Adam and Eve, but part of Church History (when the saints in Missouri expected to return and reclaim their land and set up the Zion community). The perspective was that Zion was taken away from them, and will be returned to them by the power of God when they repent.

The central location of Zion, the New Jerusalem, in the general area of the Garden of Eden and Adam-ondi-Ahman, does connect it geographically to the Garden of Eden where the Fall of Adam and Eve took place, but Zion is the vehicle for redemption, not a telestial construct requiring its own redemption.

Building up Zion is part of the redemption of God’s children and the fallen world. It is a step up from “telestial” life and preparatory to “celestial” life in the Church of the Firstborn. If, as I think you suggest, it was the community of Adam and Eve in Eden, and had they pursued the “other way” for testing in a telestial world (by being given the forbidden fruit in due time or by continuing to steadily progress in a paradisiacal state), they or their posterity would still make choices that would undermine Zion and more importantly require a Savior. In this belief also, the redemption of Zion -- if it can be called such a thing -- would still be from the perspective that it would be on conditions of the saints’ repentance.

I think the principle of teh gospel is that people require redemption, and redemption of land is really the redemption of the people, its stewards. People will fall whether they become telestial or remain paradisiacal, and at best can only progress so far without making a mistake or being unable to go further, not being of the fulness of the stature of Christ.

Link to comment

It was one or the other but NOT both.  This is called exclusive OR.  NOT either or both or even neither.  Adam and Eve already had the utopia of being in the Garden of Eden and NOT subject to death.  But this bliss would NOT enable Adam and Eve to bear children.  For it would have been contrary to the Plan of Happiness.  This Plan could NOT have been started or implemented without them partaking of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.

Heavenly Father deliberately set up the CHOICE for Adam and Eve to voluntarily enter into the Second Estate so that they will truly exercise their Free Agency without being overwhelmed by the Presence of members of the Godhead.  There is a reason the Godhead excused Themselves away from the Garden of Eden, saying "we will go away" thus leaving the couple to grapple with Lucifer.  The choice had to be made.  They could obey one or the other but NOT both.

I have wondered if Adam and Eve understood that there was a conflict between the two commandments (1- be fruitful and multiply; 2- do not partake of the Tree of Knowledge).  Could they have decided to wait until the Godhead returned to them so they could ask how to resolve the dilemma?  How long could they have waited?

Link to comment
38 minutes ago, longview said:

It was one or the other but NOT both.  This is called exclusive OR.  NOT either or both or even neither.  Adam and Eve already had the utopia of being in the Garden of Eden and NOT subject to death.  But this bliss would NOT enable Adam and Eve to bear children.  For it would have been contrary to the Plan of Happiness.  This Plan could NOT have been started or implemented without them partaking of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.

Heavenly Father deliberately set up the CHOICE for Adam and Eve to voluntarily enter into the Second Estate so that they will truly exercise their Free Agency without being overwhelmed by the Presence of members of the Godhead.  There is a reason the Godhead excused Themselves away from the Garden of Eden, saying "we will go away" thus leaving the couple to grapple with Lucifer.  The choice had to be made.  They could obey one or the other but NOT both.

I have wondered if Adam and Eve understood that there was a conflict between the two commandments (1- be fruitful and multiply; 2- do not partake of the Tree of Knowledge).  Could they have decided to wait until the Godhead returned to them so they could ask how to resolve the dilemma?  How long could they have waited?

More interestingly if the fall is the normal plan why did the bad guy who knew enough of the plan to offer an alternative suddenly think that getting the couple to partake of the fruit would somehow destroy the plan?

Link to comment
5 hours ago, The Nehor said:

This statement assumes that this world is typical in creation. If it is an abnormality then it gets odd.

Who was it that insisted there was “no other way” again?

There is some ambiguity in Moses 7, but one interpretation is that this world is uniquely wicked, and perhaps not all worlds undergo the conditions of this world

36 Wherefore, I can stretch forth mine hands and hold all the creations which I have made; and mine eye can pierce them also, and among all the workmanship of mine hands there has not been so great wickedness as among thy brethren.

Link to comment
8 hours ago, Obeone said:

Yes!

First of all, notice it says: "And they would have had no children", not "could have had no children".

What's the difference? Would means choice. Could means physical ability. 

So in essence the scripture comments on Adam's choice, not ability.

 

It seems like, before we could make any conclusions about the use of "would" that we would need to know what the original word was to really judge what the original was trying to say. Since "would" is a translation and not all translations are straight across from one language to the other.

Link to comment
52 minutes ago, longview said:

It was one or the other but NOT both.  This is called exclusive OR.  NOT either or both or even neither.  Adam and Eve already had the utopia of being in the Garden of Eden and NOT subject to death.  But this bliss would NOT enable Adam and Eve to bear children.  For it would have been contrary to the Plan of Happiness.  This Plan could NOT have been started or implemented without them partaking of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.

Heavenly Father deliberately set up the CHOICE for Adam and Eve to voluntarily enter into the Second Estate so that they will truly exercise their Free Agency without being overwhelmed by the Presence of members of the Godhead.  There is a reason the Godhead excused Themselves away from the Garden of Eden, saying "we will go away" thus leaving the couple to grapple with Lucifer.  The choice had to be made.  They could obey one or the other but NOT both.

I have wondered if Adam and Eve understood that there was a conflict between the two commandments (1- be fruitful and multiply; 2- do not partake of the Tree of Knowledge).  Could they have decided to wait until the Godhead returned to them so they could ask how to resolve the dilemma?  How long could they have waited?

Perhaps if Eve had counseled with Adam after being confronted by the snake, they would have come to the conclusion that they did need to wait and discuss this with their Father before acting.

 

Link to comment
7 minutes ago, Lemuel said:

There is some ambiguity in Moses 7, but one interpretation is that this world is uniquely wicked, and perhaps not all worlds undergo the conditions of this world

36 Wherefore, I can stretch forth mine hands and hold all the creations which I have made; and mine eye can pierce them also, and among all the workmanship of mine hands there has not been so great wickedness as among thy brethren.

That is one source that led to my potentially blasphemous explanation of what is going on.

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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