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

[Calm]

I have got to quit.  May come back to this may not.  It was fun, but not joyful to be honest.

[Obeone]

It is sad that it is such a work to convince some Christians that it is ALWAYS a bad idea to transgress God's commandments.

Edited June 15, 2022 by Obeone

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, Obeone said:

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 believe that you can only be translated if you correct this one error. Enoch was translated so he did not believe this error.

Reason, of the very circular kind.

[The Nehor]

5 minutes ago, Obeone said:

It is sad that it is such a work to convince some Christians that it is ALWAYS a bad idea to transgress God's commandments.

So you came here to preach?

MODS? MODS!!!!

[Calm]

14 minutes ago, Obeone said:

It is sad that it is such a work to convince some Christians that it is ALWAYS a bad idea to transgress God's commandments.

The Spirit converts and convinces, not you.  Maybe your problem is you try too hard to do it all.

Edited June 15, 2022 by Calm

[mfbukowski]

8 hours ago, The Nehor said:

So you came here to preach?

MODS? MODS!!!!

Obeone and Obehave appear at the same time?

Where's Obegone?

Is Ahab suddenly resurrected?

[Obeone]

I do need to mention the core of the idea of Adam’s, Eve’s, and Lehi’s statement is this:

The value of lessons learned is always greater than the cost of the error through which the lesson came.

This is why God allows error, transgression and sin to occur.

Thus, the value of the lessons Adam and Eve learned because of the fall is greater than the cost of the fall.

This said, all need to remember: that the righteous learn from the mistakes of others, and not righteous learn from their own mistakes.

There was a better way for Adam in the Garden, but because of the Savior Adam could learn his lesson and progress.

But by denying that there was a better way, had Adam listened to God, we nullify the very lesson that needed to be learned.

[CV75]

14 hours ago, Obeone said:

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. 

 

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.

Moses 3:19 disallows that anyone but Christ would be able to live in paradise or mortality without transgression while facing any degree of temptation and adversity. The way God set things up in Eden accommodated Adam and Eve’s (and our) co-eternal, developmental standing and preparedness to advance, which are woefully inferior to Christ’s. Using your terminology, before we could “break” or become “broken,” we were “breakable”. Your assertion that Adam and Eve had the wherewithal to not “break” while also unable to advance to the fulness of the stature of Christ without His aid reflects a broken logic.

[CV75]

14 hours ago, pogi said:

I agree.  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? 

Nephi was expressing a conviction that had been forged of tried faith. Adam and Eve did not have that experience or perspective, and did not perceive any personal threat in obeying the commandments they were given, only perhaps some distress over how and whether to go about it.

[teddyaware]

1 hour ago, Obeone said:

I do need to mention the core of the idea of Adam’s, Eve’s, and Lehi’s statement is this:

The value of lessons learned is always greater than the cost of the error through which the lesson came.

This is why God allows error, transgression and sin to occur.

Thus, the value of the lessons Adam and Eve learned because of the fall is greater than the cost of the fall.

This said, all need to remember: that the righteous learn from the mistakes of others, and not righteous learn from their own mistakes.

There was a better way for Adam in the Garden, but because of the Savior Adam could learn his lesson and progress.

But by denying that there was a better way, had Adam listened to God, we nullify the very lesson that needed to be learned.

Please explain again how bringing forth children into a never-ending existence of innocence in which there is no joy a “better way?”

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. (2 Nephi 2)

If Adam and Eve had brought forth children without first falling , how would the joyless  “better way” of endless innocence provide a way for the children to comprehend and overcome evil?

39 AND IT MUST NEEDS BE that the devil should tempt the children of men, or they could not be agents unto themselves; for if they never should have bitter they could not know the sweet— (Doctrine and Covenants 29)

 

 

 

Edited June 15, 2022 by teddyaware

[Obeone]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

Moses 3:19 disallows that anyone but Christ would be able to live in paradise or mortality without transgression while facing any degree of temptation and adversity. The way God set things up in Eden accommodated Adam and Eve’s (and our) co-eternal, developmental standing and preparedness to advance, which are woefully inferior to Christ’s. Using your terminology, before we could “break” or become “broken,” we were “breakable”. Your assertion that Adam and Eve had the wherewithal to not “break” while also unable to advance to the fulness of the stature of Christ without His aid reflects a broken logic.

I did not understand a word of that! (Speaking of broken logic...)

[pogi]

1 hour ago, teddyaware said:

Please explain again how bringing forth children into a never-ending existence of innocence in which there is no joy a “better way?”

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. (2 Nephi 2)

If Adam and Eve had brought forth children without first falling , how would the joyless  “better way” of endless innocence provide a way for the children to comprehend and overcome evil?

39 AND IT MUST NEEDS BE that the devil should tempt the children of men, or they could not be agents unto themselves; for if they never should have bitter they could not know the sweet— (Doctrine and Covenants 29)

I don't know where Obeone stands on this.  We seem to take a different approach.  But from my perspective, with the devil present and being fallible humans, and with further instruction/commandments from the Lord, transgression happens.  It didn't need to be a forced fall. 

Edited June 15, 2022 by pogi

[Obeone]

1 hour ago, teddyaware said:

Please explain again how bringing forth children into a never-ending existence of innocence in which there is no joy a “better way?”

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. (2 Nephi 2)

If Adam and Eve had brought forth children without first falling , how would the joyless  “better way” of endless innocence provide a way for the children to comprehend and overcome evil?

39 AND IT MUST NEEDS BE that the devil should tempt the children of men, or they could not be agents unto themselves; for if they never should have bitter they could not know the sweet— (Doctrine and Covenants 29)

Sure. I'd be glad to.

The devil tempted Adam and Eve IN the Garden BEFORE the fall, which means that children born in the garden would have been tested in similar fashion. 

So, far from joyless, clueless existence, their lives would have been exactly like in the Millennium; and instead of treading through a lone a dreary world, they would have been building intergalactic spaceships (just like millions of worlds have done before). 

[pogi]

32 minutes ago, Obeone said:

Sure. I'd be glad to.

The devil tempted Adam and Eve IN the Garden BEFORE the fall

If it is mere exposure to temptation that opens our eyes, then why weren't their eyes opened before partaking of the fruit?  Without a moral conscience and compass, temptation alone has no power to open our eyes. 

Without the light of Christ, no temptation and no amount of the fruit of life (love of God) could open their eyes.  IT is only through the Sprit of Christ/light of Christ that our moral eyes are opened. 

Quote

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)

Quote

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

Quote

And the light which shineth…is through him who enlighteneth your eyes and quickened your understanding D&C 88:11

 

 

Edited June 15, 2022 by pogi

[teddyaware]

3 minutes ago, pogi said:

I don't know where Obeone stands on this.  We seem to take a different approach.  But from my perspective, with the devil present and being fallible humans, and with further instruction/commandments from the Lord, transgression was inevitable.  It didn't need to be a forced fall. 

In any case, how could it be a “forced Fall” when the very reason why God introduced the tree of life, the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, and Satan’s tempting presence into the garden is because “it must needs be that the devil should tempt the children of men, or they could not be agents unto themselves?”  (Doctrine and Covenants 29)

A question: Every couple sealed for time and eternity in the temple is given the solemn commandment to “multiply and replenish the earth,” yet there have likely been thousands of couples who were placed under that commandment who, for whatever medial reason, turned out to be infertile and therefore unable to have their own biological children. In these  instances, how is God going to enable such couples to obey and fulfill that all important  commandment when, in spite of their best and most faithful efforts, they eventually die without the commandment being fulfilled? 

[CV75]

2 hours ago, teddyaware said:

Please explain again how bringing forth children into a never-ending existence of innocence in which there is no joy a “better way?”

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. (2 Nephi 2)

If Adam and Eve had brought forth children without first falling , how would the joyless  “better way” of endless innocence provide a way for the children to comprehend and overcome evil?

39 AND IT MUST NEEDS BE that the devil should tempt the children of men, or they could not be agents unto themselves; for if they never should have bitter they could not know the sweet— (Doctrine and Covenants 29)

This “second plan” (Abraham 3:28) ignores that there was and is no other way for intelligences to act except to eventually rebel, fail or transgress. A third part of the first estate rebelled, and everyone fails in the second estate (Adam and Eve in their callowness, little children and the unaccountable in physical death, the rest of us in our sins). This second plan (oddly referred to in this thread as “Plan A”) falsely presupposes that all those intelligences are as intelligent as Christ so that instead of transgressing, Adam and Eve humbly submit to a “terrestrial” version of death and hell to climb the ladder to exaltation without their posterity descending and suffering any further than they. So much for agency, and so much for how far the Savior could actually descend.

[pogi]

15 hours 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.

It is not the light, or the fruit, that brought death into the world, it was transgression.  That is made clear throughout scripture.  It was forbidden.  They were being prepared to receive it.

If it didn't give Adam and Eve knowledge of good and evil, why do you think it was called the tree of the knowledge of good and evil?  Was it just a coincidence that they happened to gain knowledge of good and evil after eating it?  It wasn't the temptation that opened their eyes, as you mention they were tempted before eating.   And why do you think it was evil if God planted it by his own hand in the center of the garden and called it  "very good?"  Why do you think it was forbidden?  What was so evil about it?   

 

[CV75]

37 minutes ago, Obeone said:

I did not understand a word of that! (Speaking of broken logic...)

Point out the phrase/term/statement you do not understand -- not from a stance of refutation and arguing your own POV but from one of wanting to understand me -- and I will be happy to clarify.

[pogi]

37 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

In any case, how could it be a “forced Fall” when the very reason why God introduced the tree of life, the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, and Satan’s tempting presence into the garden is because “it must needs be that the devil should tempt the children of men, or they could not be agents unto themselves?”  (Doctrine and Covenants 29)

Temptation doesn't require impossible commandments. 

How was it "forced"?  I think that is obvious.  1) You must go through door A.  2) Don't go through door B.  3) The only way to door A is through door B.  Good luck!   By the way, if you go through door B, you're dead buddy!   

In viewing the garden as an analogy of our lives in that we should all view our selves respectively as Adam and Eve, I fail to see any parallel scenario or application of this interpretation in my life.  It makes no sense.  There is no equivalent scenario in my life.    

37 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

A question: Every couple sealed for time and eternity in the temple is given the solemn commandment to “multiply and replenish the earth,” yet there have likely been thousands of couples who were placed under that commandment who, for whatever medial reason, turned out to be infertile and therefore unable to have their own biological children. In these  instances, how is God going to enable such couples to obey and fulfill that all important  commandment when, in spite of their best and most faithful efforts, they eventually die without the commandment being fulfilled? 

There are several commandments that cannot be fulfilled in mortality - good thing that we are not limited by mortality to fulfill them.  The infertile are promised children and the imperfect are promised perfection.  "Be ye therefore perfect" - ya, not happening in this life. 

Edited June 15, 2022 by pogi

[Obeone]

24 minutes ago, pogi said:

If it is mere exposure to temptation that opens our eyes, then why weren't their eyes opened before partaking of the fruit?  Without a moral conscience and compass, temptation alone has no power to open our eyes. 

Without the light of Christ, no temptation and no amount of the fruit of life (love of God) could open their eyes.  IT is only through the Sprit of Christ/light of Christ that our moral eyes are opened. 

Little children have the light of Christ, but they do not yet fully know good from evil. It takes action to learn.

After Adam and Eve were exposed to temptation they needed to react/act relative to the opposition they encountered. There were too possible courses of action:

1. Resist the temptation and DO what God commanded, or
2. Yield to the temptation and DO what God forbade.

Either way their eyes will be opened, but in the first case with blessings, and in the second case with cursings. 

Action was required relative to the commandments of God, either one way or the other to open their eyes.

They acted wrong. 

Simple.

 

By the way, this brings up an interesting point:

Adam first rejected the temptation. By this very act his eyes began to be opened enough to begin to appreciate his wife Eve as a woman. Therefore, though he was not deceived at the first, he was seduced by his fallen wife later. 

 

The happy path designed by God was this: 

1) Adam resists the temptation, whereby

2) his eyes are opened enough to have children, and

3) the act of procreation (whereby they fulfill the commandment) opens their eyes completely,

all without transgression or fall.

That was the beautiful, generous, and glorious plan A God had for Adam and Eve, but they dropped the ball.

It also means that Adam's temptation was greater than Eve's. 

[CV75]

15 minutes ago, Obehave said:

My understanding of the LDS perspective regarding the Fall is akin to understanding how lemonade is made from lemons.  The idea is not that it was good for Eve and then Adam to transgress a commandment from God.  God just made some good out of it.

From Abraham 3:19, we are not as intelligent as Christ and therefore bound to transgress, but God makes us as intelligent as Christ through Him. So one may as well ask, is it good that there are differentials in the co-eternal intelligences among the children of God? Yes, in that the greater intelligences can help the lesser (e.g. Christ descending below them all to lift up the willing, despite some of the greater intelligences undermining the lesser (as Lucifer in the war in Heaven, which continues on earth today).

[CV75]

12 minutes ago, Obehave said:

What do you think Adam and Eve did in the garden of Eden?  I think they chose between good and evil.  God told them one thing, with God representing all that is good, and Satan later told them that what God said was not right.  Satan is evil that way.\

So how can you see yourself as an Adam or an Eve?  You can see yourself as someone who chooses between what is good and what is evil.  Every day of your life.  Wherever you are and wherever you go.  There you will be.  As you.  Forever.

I think they chose to obtain a knowledge of good and evil by partaking of the forbidden fruit, which is not the same thing as choosing between good and evil. 

Their knowledge up to that point consisted of options to taste familiar fruits and this forbidden fruit that was theretofore untasted. The relative sweetness of other fruits was known, along with their fundamentally "sweet" benefits. By all other senses but actual taste, the sweetness of this forbidden fruit was enticing, though the benefit was fundamentally "bitter."

Edited June 15, 2022 by CV75

[Obeone]

56 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

A question: Every couple sealed for time and eternity in the temple is given the solemn commandment to “multiply and replenish the earth,” yet there have likely been thousands of couples who were placed under that commandment who, for whatever medial reason, turned out to be infertile and therefore unable to have their own biological children. In these  instances, how is God going to enable such couples to obey and fulfill that all important  commandment when, in spite of their best and most faithful efforts, they eventually die without the commandment being fulfilled? 

If they did all they can, God may choose to revoke the commandment and not require it of them.

That clearly was not the case with Adam and Eve.

[Obeone]

55 minutes ago, pogi said:

It is not the light, or the fruit, that brought death into the world, it was transgression.  That is made clear throughout scripture.  It was forbidden. 

I agree.

55 minutes ago, pogi said:

They were being prepared to receive it.

Possibly. (Not important to my theory, but possible).

55 minutes ago, pogi said:

If it didn't give Adam and Eve knowledge of good and evil, why do you think it was called the tree of the knowledge of good and evil? 

Because whether they resisted or yielded to the temptation to eat of it their eyes would be opened, because it is the exposure to temptation/opposition that opens eyes, not fruits and trees.

55 minutes ago, pogi said:

Was it just a coincidence that they happened to gain knowledge of good and evil after eating it? 

Already answered it: Action was required relative to the commandment, either one way or the other to open their eyes.  Partaking of the forbidden fruit was such action, and it was negative action, which brought the curse.

Resisting the temptation and having children was the positive action that could have opened their eyes without transgression or fall, as God commanded them.

55 minutes ago, pogi said:

It wasn't the temptation that opened their eyes, as you mention they were tempted before eating.   

It was the exposure to the temptation/opposition combined with subsequent ACTION relative to the commandment that opened their eyes.

55 minutes ago, pogi said:

And why do you think it was evil if God planted it by his own hand in the center of the garden and called it  "very good?" 

I didn't say it was evil. 

55 minutes ago, pogi said:

 Why do you think it was forbidden?  

To test them.

55 minutes ago, pogi said:

What was so evil about it?   

Disobedience is evil, not the fruit. I agree on that. 

[Obeone]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

Temptation doesn't require impossible commandments. 

How was it "forced"?  I think that is obvious.  1) You must go through door A.  2) Don't go through door B.  3) The only way to door A is through door B.  Good luck!   By the way, if you go through door B, you're dead buddy!   

In viewing the garden as an analogy of our lives in that we should all view our selves respectively as Adam and Eve, I fail to see any parallel scenario or application of this interpretation in my life.  It makes no sense.  There is no equivalent scenario in my life.    

🤣 Brilliant!