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

[Calm]

4 minutes ago, Obehave said:

And let's not neglect to mention that the spirit is the most important part, because the spirit of a person is the life and personality of that person.  The spirit does the thinking and perceiving, with or without a mortal body. And we all have the or a spirit of God.

This mortal body I have is a weird thing.  I like it, mostly.  It looks decent and is still in reasonably good condition, but I'm looking forward to my next upgrade.  The immortal shell for my spirit to bond with without ever needing to separate from it. Or so I hear.

Or maybe a spirit is limited in its ability to think and the reason why a physical body is necessary for exaltation is because it adds to the intelligence and potential of a person by adding expanded thinking processes. 
 

You guys are talking like there has been a manual issued when what has been actually said fills a pamphlet at best. 

Edited June 14, 2022 by Calm

[Bernard Gui]

3 hours ago, Obehave said:

Why is it that asking a question on a message board is seen as somehow related to fishing?  And I wonder if Jesus taught his apostles to troll when he taught them to become fishers of men?

Thanks for making my point. Sock puppet?

[Obeone]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

I don't think Nephi, Paul, Joseph Smith, and others had that in mind when they said what they said about the Lord not commanding without providing a way to fulfill the commandment.   What you are talking about is redemption from sin.  While there may be some truth to what you speak, I am fairly confident that is not what they had in mind.  Nephi was confident that the Lord would provide a way to obtain the plates as he commanded.  He was not going to give up until he fulfilled the command.  He could have left without the plates and later repented for it, but he never could do that and say "see I told you the Lord would provide a way to fulfill his commandment to get the plates" because the plates would have forever been out of his possession.  He may have received redemption and forgiveness as if it never happened.  But the command was never fulfilled.  He would have never obtained the plates which was the command.  That is not what he had in mind when he said what he said.  I think we both know that deep down.  Same with all the other passages that I quoted.  They were not exegesis on redemption from transgression, but rather they were conviction that the Lord would provide a way to fulfill his command in the first place.  

Brilliant!

[Calm]

32 minutes ago, Obehave said:

Back to the beginning, Adam and Eve chose to be mortal by choosing to do what God told them would cause them to die.  So they started it, on this planet, by becoming mortal.  Which meant they would stay dead (spirit separated from other outer body) unless someone could save them from that situation. Which is what Jesus Christ did.  He became a proxy for Adam so that Adam's spirit would be able to reunite with his other outer body, rather than remaining separated forever.  And what Jesus did for Adam he also did for Eve and all of their descendants who became mortal through them.

It was a bother, I think.  If Adam and Eve had not become mortal they could have remained in the garden of Eden forever and all of their children would have also been immortal, if they ever had any, which some people today think they should not have had.

back to a previous post, but using this one to link into the ongoing conversation as my quoting function is all screwed up today:

“My idea of an exalted couple is to be like Adam and Eve were before they fell, and I believe Adam's body was like our Lord Jesus Christ's body after he was resurrected.”

You mean when they were in the Garden here?  I assume you mean they were spirits before they were placed in the Garden. For some reason your phrasing made me jump to Adam-God theories, so I would appreciate you confirming I misunderstood you. 

[Obeone]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

Adam and Eve were static. This is why Moses 5:11 expresses the joyous breakthrough from their prior experience to their new reality.

Adam and Eve were not static, because God allowed them to be tempted by the devil. And they would have had a much more joyous breakthrough if they resisted the temptation. Then their eyes would have been opened without transgression, and they could have had posterity without the fall, precisely as God commanded them. 

 

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

I do not see the commandments as conflicting because the atonement of Christ, already the foundation of what was going on in Eden, reconciles them. Through Christ we fulfill both. 

Christ does fix what is broken. But by denying the fact that things were broken, we devalue what Christ did.

Adam and Eve made a serious and deadly error in the garden. By denying this you, unwittingly deny the virtue of the atonement that fixed it.

[Calm]

3 minutes ago, Obehave said:

but I don't think so considering how any mortal body is when there isn't a spirit in it. Dead, with no life in it, that is.  

I am not saying a physical body can think by itself. Think of it as more as if a spirit body had only arms to move itself about, but when it inhabits a physical body and meshes with it, it now has legs to expand its movement capability. 

Think of it like a spirit might only be process basic mathematics, but the addition of a physical brain with its thinking processes gives it the ability to calculate and understand calculus and other higher mathematics. 
 

The spirit may be superior in its ability ti think and reason and imagine to our basic intelligence. The physical body may include an additional upgrade for the thought process.  And then resurrection again expands our mind, exaltation expanding it even further.  Assuming our mental process was the same from our beginning is a huge assumption. 
 

There are so many assumptions in both of your scenarios (both Obeone and Obehave).  Even if your reasoning logically follows, until you demonstrate the assumptions are valid, I see no reason to accept either of your interpretations as valid to be blunt.

[Calm]

2 minutes ago, Obehave said:

With my idea of the atonement being that it was to restore what was lost.  Each person's spirit no longer separated from that person's other outer body, and no longer subject to separation.  The level of glory and intelligence of a person is another issue.

I prefer the idea of progression rather than simple restoration. 

[Obeone]

58 minutes ago, Calm said:

Do you believe we have more than one mortal life, we are mortal and die, get resurrected and are given immortality and then set that aside, repeat the process, get our immortal bodies restored again, and this occurs as we progress up to the ability to be exalted?

Except you do not "set aside" a resurrected body. Instead it becomes the foundation for your next spirit body in the next eternity. (Think Russian dolls: one body, closed with the next body, and so on).

[mfbukowski]

23 minutes ago, Obeone said:

God does know the future, but he always gives us options. Not because He doesn't know what we will choose, but because He wants US to choose.

Example:

Here is your Plan A and B. 

I didn't say anything to the contrary and you have confused God with mortals.  You have been discussing other options fo God, like giving Adam another wife etc, remember?

But now you are saying that we MORTALS have plan A or B. Of course, that is called "agency".

[manol]

14 minutes ago, pogi said:

I am really impressed with halconero's response and ideas.  I think they are pretty profound and feel true to me.  I think it is beautiful exegesis on holistic redemption and becoming a new creature in and through Christ. 

Having said that, do you think that is what Nephi had in mind when he said what he said in the context of getting the plates? 

Before this thread I reasoned that God does not give us commands we cannot obey (on the assumption that God is good and doing so would be cruel), but I hadn't realized there was a scriptural basis for that conclusion in 1 Nephi 3:7.  My guess is that Nephi had come to the same conclusion, though presumably with a lot more confidence than me, and he applied the principle to his situation and surmised that he needed to keep trying.  

Nor had I thought to extrapolate this principle to the story of the Fall, though the "conflicting commands" thing vaguely bothered me.  I appreciate being jostled out of my comfort zone and having to mull this over. 

[Obeone]

49 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

So your theory is that Enoch, who was the one who supposedly recorded a lot of this and it was then given to Moses, so Enoch wrote did what Eve said and wrote it badly in a way that was easily misunderstood. Yet you also say that correcting this error is vital to returning to a terrestrial state. Returning people to a Terrestrial state is what Enoch is probably most known for in our faith.

I don't think Enoch believed the lie that their was no better way for Adam in the garden but to transgress. If he believed that, he could not be translated. 

I think the Lord allowed this subtlety into the scriptures, so that members would not be too hard on Adam, because they were just as easily deceived as Adam was. 

But enough is enough. So God will correct this misunderstanding soon enough, by sending Adam himself to apologize for the fall, and before that God will soften or remove all the heads that obstruct His work, especially in the Church.

We are in for quite a ride. I give it 5 more years.

[Calm]

25 minutes ago, Obeone said:

Except you do not "set aside" a resurrected body. Instead it becomes the foundation for your next spirit body in the next eternity. (Think Russian dolls: one body, closed with the next body, and so on).

Yeh, that was my bad.  I was thinking of the repeat cycle and death slipped in there unnoticed when that might just be a novel experience…though death can be related to the veil of forgetfulness in my view.

added:  oops, I lost track of the conversation. I am actually correct in what I was saying because I wasn’t talking about LDS doctrine. In multiple mortal probations you do go through a cycle of setting aside your immortal, resurrected bodies to become mortal again.  Like I said, the Mormon version of reincarnation…in no way am I claiming this is truth. 
 

That separation of that which is actually inseparable post resurrection is why most members view it as a heresy because it requires separation after resurrection, something contrary to doctrine.  I don’t remember how this is rationalized by them.

Edited June 14, 2022 by Calm

[Calm]

2 minutes ago, Obehave said:

Until then just consider what I say to be an expression of what I think and believe and am trying to convey to you to help you to know what I think and believe.

As long as that is your purpose and not to present it as fact as Obeone is, I don’t have an issue with your presentation.  It is unfortunate that both of you joined at almost the same time as you are blending in my head instead of being distinct personalities.

Perhaps if you shared some back story and how you came to be here, give some body to hang the ideas on, so to speak

[mfbukowski]

31 minutes ago, Obeone said:

Adam and Eve made a serious and deadly error in the garden. By denying this you, unwittingly deny the virtue of the atonement that fixed it.

This is the opposite of LDS Doctrine, so either you do not know this or are not endowed.

We call it the "fortunate fall".

[Obeone]

52 minutes ago, pogi said:

Good and evil were present before their eyes and they could not decipher it.  Temptation and transgression, and the opposite of obedience is not enough to decipher good and evil without a critical key.  The knowledge of good and evil is only possible via the light of Christ.  That is what the tree represented.  

The tree of life (the love of God) represented the Father, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil represented Jesus Christ (the light of Christ).   These two trees were planted central (symbolically) in the garden by the Gods and were deemed "very good".  In the Salt Lake temple the tree of knowledge is standing on the right hand of the tree of life in mural. 

I am afraid the current popular interpretation of these events misses that critical piece of symbolism.   The fruit belonged to Christ.  It was his to give.  Satan was trying to take the place of Christ and confuse evil for Good.  He initially succeeded - causing Adam and Eve to feel safe and secure in the presence of Lucifer while fearing and hiding from the presence of God.  

The fruit represents the light of Christ.  That is what caused their eyes to be opened and to see and comprehend morality - good and evil. 

I don't think the tree represented the light of Christ. That makes absolutely no sense. You do not die by partaking His light. The opposite happens.

I think you have your Tree of Life, and you have your tree of death. One is sweet, the other bitter. 

Quote

15 And to bring about his eternal purposes in the end of man, after he had created our first parents, and the beasts of the field and the fowls of the air, and in fine, all things which are created, it must needs be that there was an opposition; even the forbidden fruit in opposition to the tree of life; the one being sweet and the other bitter.

(2 Nephi 2:15)

They had to be enticed by one or the other to open their eyes. So they were. But they made the wrong choice. But it is the exposure to temptation/opposition that opened their eyes, not the fruit. This is why God allowed them to be tempted.

But their duty was not to yield to it, and to listen to God more than to the devil. They failed at the time. But there was a better way, had they listened to the Father. 

[Calm]

Going back to a comment one of the O’s said…that Adam’s prefallen body was immortal in the same way Christ was immortal post resurrection, I don’t see that as possible because Adam was not only able to fall, but able to die. Postresurrection immortality death where the body and spirit separate is no longer possible it seems (will get a reference).  At the very least, that is a massive difference in my view between Christ post mortal body and Adam’s premortal one. 
 

But restoration is an understandable interpretation/phrasing given Alma 11 and Alma 40. It is something more than a restoration though in my view.

Edited June 15, 2022 by Calm

[Calm]

9 minutes ago, Obehave said:

Even Obeone is only sharing what he thinks and believes is the truth, or not true.  Take everything everyone says that way and you'll be on good ground.  My goal, and I think probably yours too, is to take only God's word as God's word.

... and Jesus's word as his word, and the word of the Holy Ghost as his word, both of which I esteem as highly as the word of his/our Father.  Everyone else though is only sharing his or her own words until God tells me he agrees with them.

True, but he is proclaiming it as fact, Truth…doctrine in essence, the Word of God or at least the Truth from the Word of God. Not his role Imo. 
 

He is also assuming the right to declare others under godly condemnation. Again not his role. 

Edited June 15, 2022 by Calm

[Calm]

17 minutes ago, Obeone said:

One is sweet, the other bitter. 

For those not prepared, the Word of God may be bitter, a hard saying according to Christ.

[Calm]

42 minutes ago, Obehave said:

just don't agree that the mortal body adds more intelligence.

Intelligence is used in multiple ways in this context, so better to use “our minds expand” or don’t or something like that imo to avoid confusion.

We are taught that we cannot experience a fulness of joy until our spirit and body are reunited after death.  Something about the physical adds to our emotional/mental processing it would seem.  If our personhood/our identity/our mind is by then still just our spirit, then the lack of our body shouldn’t interfere with an experience of joy logically since it is our minds that experience joy.

Quote

For man is spirit. The elements are eternal, and spirit and element, inseparably connected, receive a fulness of joy;

34 And when separated, man cannot receive a fulness of joy.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/93?lang=eng&id=33-34#p33

Edited June 15, 2022 by Calm

[Obeone]

8 minutes ago, Calm said:

He is also assuming the right to declare others under godly condemnation. Again not his role.

Never used that word, only in response to someone using it. 

As for judgement, I like this scripture:

Quote

He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day. ( John 12:48 )

You do not have to believe a word I am saying, unless it is true 😉

[Hamba Tuhan]

6 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

Ooo, the word heresy isn't tossed around here very often. Would you like the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Roman and Universal Inquisition to lend you a hand in investigating this?  

Many thanks for the generous offer! But it seems to me that there isn't anything to investigate at this point. The OP has shown up to tell us that he alone has figured out the truth and that we and the prophets have been deceived. Coincidentally, the 'truth' he has discovered reduces in importance and centrality the Atonement of our Lord. 

[pogi]

39 minutes ago, Obeone said:

I don't think the tree represented the light of Christ. That makes absolutely no sense. You do not die by partaking His light. The opposite happens.

I think you have your Tree of Life, and you have your tree of death. One is sweet, the other bitter. 

They had to be enticed by one or the other to open their eyes. So they were. But they made the wrong choice. But it is the exposure to temptation/opposition that opened their eyes, not the fruit. This is why God allowed them to be tempted.

But their duty was not to yield to it, and to listen to God more than to the devil. They failed at the time. But there was a better way, had they listened to the Father. 

On the contrary, it is the only thing that makes sense.  

The tree of knowledge of good and evil was planted by the Gods in the center of the garden and was deemed "very good".  What God calls "good" I would hesitate to disagree.  

The knowledge of good and evil has potential for both the bitter and the sweet - how could knowledge of good be "bitter", for example?  

AS I noted previously, sex is a good analogy.  It can be both bitter and sweet, good and evil.  If partaken of while "forbidden" it is bitter, if partaken of after one is prepared, it is "sweet".  So it is with the fruit of knowledge of good and evil.

The passage says that the "forbidden" fruit was bitter.  The bitter being in reference to the fact that it was forbidden, not that it was inherently bitter.  God said it was good, and Eve said it was delicious to the taste and very desirable.   It was not inherently bitter, on the contrary, it is inherently good when used in proper context.  Again, it was only bitter in the sense that it was forbidden.   It was only presented in opposition in that it was forbidden.  Sex can be in opposition to God the it is forbidden, but that doesn't make it inherently opposite of God or good.  So it was with the tree.

Do you deny that the light of Christ is the source of knowledge of good and evil?  

It is as plain as it gets:

The following are passages which support my theory in that the fruit was intended as a gift from God predicated upon obedience, and represents the light of Christ which opens our eyes to know good from evil:

Quote

The Spirit of Christ is given to every man that he may know good from evil (Moroni 7:16)

Knowledge is a precious gift (Prov. 8:10; Hos. 6:6; Prov. 1:7; Prov. 9:10; Col. 2:3; Prov. 14:18).
  
He that keepeth his commandments receiveth truth and light, until he is glorified in truth and knoweth all things [knowledge of good & evil]…Behold here is the agency of man, and here is the condemnation of man; because that which was from the beginning is plainly manifest unto them, and they receive not the light. And every man whose spirit receiveth not the light is under condemnation.” (D&C 93: 28,31-32)
  
And the light which shineth…is through him who enlighteneth your eyes and quickened your understanding D&C 88:11

By the power of the Spirit our eyes are opened and our understanding quickened - D&C 76:12 and D&C 138:29 (clear reference to Eden)

We are taught that the light of Christ is our conscience.  Several biblical translations actual translate the "tree of knowledge of good and evil" as "the tree of conscience".  

The opposition was Satan.  He was trying to make the sweet bitter and the bitter sweet.  He succeeded in making the sweetness and goodness inherent in the fruit as spiritually bitter as it was still forbidden. 

Edited June 15, 2022 by pogi

[Calm]

51 minutes ago, Obeone said:

I don't think the tree represented the light of Christ. That makes absolutely no sense. You do not die by partaking His light. The opposite happens.

Yet we are taught the Light of Christ is the knowledge of right and wrong, good and evil.

Quote

Regardless of whether this inner light, this knowledge of right and wrong, is called the Light of Christ, moral sense, or conscience, it can direct us to moderate our actions—unless, that is, we subdue it or silence it.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/2005/04/the-light-of-christ?lang=eng

Quote

“The Lord said … they are the workmanship of mine own hands, and I gave unto them their knowledge, in the day I created them; and in the Garden of Eden, gave I unto man his agency” (Moses 7:32).

The knowledge…given through the Tree?  The knowledge which is the Light of Christ?

You do not die by partaking, but you must progress forward or risk falling back…which if falling far enough is death.

Or you can look at it like baptism, which is in the form of death followed by rebirth.  The death that comes through the tree is followed by a rebirth in Christ.  The natural/carnal (the physical without the harness or influence of the spiritual) man must die for the Light of Christ to fully fill us.

Edited June 15, 2022 by Calm

[Calm]

17 minutes ago, Obehave said:

One example I can think of that would prevent me from experiencing a fulness of joy is to not be able to hug someone with only a spirit.  A dead relative, for example, if one would appear to me in only his or her spirit.

I think I would need to be resurrected to do that.  For some reason a mortal body with a spirit in it can't hug a spirit, but I think someone who is resurrected could, at least one of celestial glory.

But that is your personal response.  Not everyone will experience joy that way.  What really fills me up is being able to use my brain and share ideas with someone else where we are en sync somehow, each using the other’s ideas to build our own, to create together something more than we had originally by ourselves or could have achieved that way.  I don’t even have to be in the same room with a person for that to happen.  Just give me a way to communicate.

Quote

.  For some reason a mortal body with a spirit in it can't hug a spirit, but I think someone who is resurrected could, at least one of celestial glory.

Perhaps, but again an assumption…which seems inappropriate therefore to dismiss my speculation as possible.  To assume it is talking about the types of experiences (opportunity) instead of actual capability (mind power) for joy also seems off to me given the greater context.

Edited June 15, 2022 by Calm

[Calm]

Quote

Who knows, not being subject to death (separation) isn't necessarily the same thing as not being able to separate.  Maybe an immortal person can separate his spirit from his body if he wants to separate them., but it would not be required. 

If the only difference is it is no longer required, where is the progression?