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

[Calm]

46 minutes ago, Obeone said:

"Joseph Smith used it in translating the Book of Mormon and in obtaining other revelations."

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/bd/urim-and-thummim?lang=eng

I know, where does it say it gives a perfect translation?

The counsel to Oliver suggests there is a preparation effect on translation, so quality of translation might vary.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/9?lang=eng

My memory is that Brigham Young said something about scripture not being the same if Joseph had translated it when older/at a different time…anyone remember something like that?

Brant Gardner did some research into what has been said about the translation process.  Been awhile since I looked into it (he used to post here), so memory may be faulty, but my impression is that translation is more fluid than we usually think about it.

https://bycommonconsent.com/2011/09/14/review-gardner-the-gift-and-the-power-translating-the-book-of-mormon/

Edited June 12, 2022 by Calm

[webbles]

6 minutes ago, Obeone said:

I use the entirety of the revealed word of God as my context here. It is very obvious from that context that:

1. God does not contradict Himself, and 
2. does not give impossible commandments.

Therefore the use of the word "could" here would make the scripture a lie. And fortunately we see "would" there. So all is well  

Sure, that is one way to look at it.  But I was just pointing out that you can't depend on the Book of Mormon being a "perfect translation".  The doctrine taught in the Book of Mormon is correct, but the actual words and phrases could have problems because it is written, translated, scribed, and published by man.

[CV75]

54 minutes ago, Obeone said:

You are still working under assumption that the fall was necessary. It was not.

Now, to make sure we speak the same language:

Necessary here means:

1. God commanded it.
2. It is your duty to do it.
3. You will be blessed if you do it, and 
4. You will be cursed if you do not.

That's what "necessary" means here. 

An alternative proof:

1. God commanded (invited) progress.
2. It is our covenant to progress.
3. We will be blessed in progress and cursed in retrograde.
4. Therefore it is necessary to be less, even in awareness, before becoming more. Any time spent in any lesser estate constitutes a fall (i.e. "I was happy, and then content, but no longer").

Thus, a fall is necessary and part of the plan of happiness -- no other way in that sense. Now the devil twisted this a bit in his attempted power grab, but that is to be expected. 

[Obeone]

14 minutes ago, CV75 said:

A fall, or failure of some sort, even if only anticipated, is always a necessary (an inevitable) part of progress for those who have not attained the fulness of the stature of Christ: those who do not wish to progress can avoid it by staying where they are, which is actually a retrograde relative to God’s design. That the Fall may have come by another way, or taken on a different appearance relative to other, prior worlds makes no difference since the principle is the same. It is also the same principle irrespective of how many worlds, Divine Councils creating them, or Sons leading the process of creation and redemption, past present or future (or rebellious angels, for that matter).

The serpent / Lucifer was not punished for tempting Adam and Eve, or for their transgression, but for his own rebellious action. He did something based on his own experience, observation and assumption, not knowing the mind of God. He may have pridefully presumed that after so much time and so many worlds, God would blink and he could grab an active role in the inevitable failure of Eden.

I agree that a fall was a certainty. Jesus said it best: 

Then said he unto the disciples, It is impossible but that ^aoffences will come: but woe unto him, through whom they come! (Luke 17:1)

Or if I could paraphrase: "It is impossible but some world somewhere will fall, but woe to that world that falls."

 

[Obeone]

20 minutes ago, Calm said:

I know, where does it say it gives a perfect translation?

The counsel to Oliver suggests there is a preparation effect on translation, so quality of translation might vary.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/9?lang=eng

My memory is that Brigham Young said something about scripture not being the same if Joseph had translated it when older/at a different time…anyone remember something like that?

Brant Gardner did some research into what has been said about the translation process.  Been awhile since I looked into it (he used to post here), so memory may be faulty, but my impression is that translation is more fluid than we usually think about it.

https://bycommonconsent.com/2011/09/14/review-gardner-the-gift-and-the-power-translating-the-book-of-mormon/

I agree, but as I said, my reasoning does not depend on the translation being letter perfect. I rely on the entirety of the context of the revealed word of God, and it seems to support my conclusions (as I explained here).

[Bernard Gui]

8 hours ago, The Nehor said:

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

Everything he says is a lie?

[Obeone]

15 minutes ago, CV75 said:

An alternative proof:

1. God commanded (invited) progress.
2. It is our covenant to progress.
3. We will be blessed in progress and cursed in retrograde.
4. Therefore it is necessary to be less, even in awareness, before becoming more. Any time spent in any lesser estate constitutes a fall (i.e. "I was happy, and then content, but no longer").

Thus, a fall is necessary and part of the plan of happiness -- no other way in that sense. Now the devil twisted this a bit in his attempted power grab, but that is to be expected. 

There is a problem with this reasoning: God cannot "invite" progress by encouraging us to transgress his commandments.

In fact, Adam would have progressed much faster if he resisted the temptation as the Father commanded him. 

[Obeone]

4 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Everything he says is a lie?

Every liar lies via context. Even when they tell you 2+2=4 it is for the purpose of deceiving you elsewhere. 

So, since Satan's context is always a lie, everything he says is a lie (via context). 

As Jesus put it: "When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it." (John 8:44)

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Obeone said:

There is a problem with this reasoning: God cannot "invite" progress by encouraging us to transgress his commandments.

In fact, Adam would have progressed much faster if he resisted the temptation as the Father commanded him. 

That would be a problem if only half of the principle’s application is acknowledged.

Transgressing commandments -- passing from one estate with one set of laws into a higher – is the whole idea; it is how we progress. You cannot accept the invitation to progress without realizing you are fallen relative to where you are going (for example, John 12:24, “Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone: but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit.”). The Lord consistently progressed from grace to grace in a fallen body and thus controlled its eventual failure, but we go not have that capacity not to ever fail temporally or spiritually. The Fall, along with sin and death, also brought about an expansion of spiritual maturity in the form of guilt and regret. The devil leveraged this maturity into fear and shame, while the Savior leveraged it into hope and lessons learned.

The fuller application is that is necessary to transgress a lesser law to keep a higher law. It is necessary to face the pain of our limitations in connection with the desire to advance. I think God both invites and encourages this principle, and suffered accordingly. In addition, the principle of progress is independent of speed.

Regarding invitation and encouragement in relation to commandments, God is as active, neutral or inactive as necessary to preserve Adam and Eve’s (and by extension, our) agency, which gives Him a lot of latitude as to how much or how little to render in His various interactions with Adam and Eve in Eden.

[teddyaware]

18 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?

Have you ever considered the fact that many generations of Latter-Day Saint children have been taught that they are under God’s commandment to marry and have children, and that they are taught of their need to be obedient to this commandment during the years of their innocence, while they are yet physically incapable of having  children?  In the same manner, God’s commandment to Adam and Eve to bring forth children was given to them while they were yet in a state of childlike innocence, prior to the time when their eyes were opened when they lost their innocence, and their bodies transitioned from a state of infertility to state of fertility.

 

Edited June 12, 2022 by teddyaware

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Everything he says is a lie?

Pretty much.

[The Nehor]

4 hours ago, Obeone said:

I agree. One correction though: temptation existed in the Garden of Eden BEFORE they ever partook of the fruit. 

Yes, which was unfair. I believe that our first parents agreed to this so they would fall. It wasn’t some performative thing so it wasn’t God’s fault. I agree with the apostles that the decision was a bold one and I suspect bolder than was generally thought.

The only potential scriptural flaw is that it disagrees with some of what Lehi taught though you can argue it works if you buy into why God said hell was eternal.

[Hamba Tuhan]

3 hours ago, Obeone said:

In fact, Adam would have progressed much faster if he resisted the temptation as the Father commanded him. 

This is a damnable heresy. We used to have a man in our ward who tried to teach such nonsense before his excommunication.

[Bernard Gui]

15 hours ago, Obeone said:

Every liar lies via context. Even when they tell you 2+2=4 it is for the purpose of deceiving you elsewhere. 

So, since Satan's context is always a lie, everything he says is a lie (via context). 

As Jesus put it: "When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it." (John 8:44)

Sounds to me that you are making an argument for Original Sin. 

Edited June 13, 2022 by Bernard Gui

[Obeone]

4 hours ago, CV75 said:

Transgressing commandments -- passing from one estate with one set of laws into a higher

That is a mistake. You never progress higher by transgressing commandments, only lower. This is why it was called a Fall, not Ascent.

This  goes to the foundation of what good and evil are. 

Good is that which is according to the commandments of God, and evil is that which is contrary to His commandments. 

There are no exceptions to this law, or God would cease to be God, for He would be contradicting Himself, which He never does. 

 

4 hours ago, CV75 said:

The fuller application is that is necessary to transgress a lesser law to keep a higher law.

That is a misnomer.  Each law has conditions attached to it. When those conditions are not present it is impossible to "transgress" a law that is not in force.  Therefore he who keeps the higher law cannot transgress a lesser law that no longer applies.

In the case of Adam, the law was "Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it," (Moses 4:9) and it was in full force at the time, therefore it was not a "lesser law" but the higher law, and it was wrong to transgress it. They could have had their eyes opened without transgression, and had posterity without the fall, had they resisted the temptation and done as the Lord commanded them.

In a word: They would have progressed much faster if they listened to the Lord more than to the devil. 

[Obeone]

4 hours ago, teddyaware said:

prior to the time when their eyes were opened when they lost their innocence

They could have had their eyes opened, and had children without losing their innocence, had they resisted the temptation as God commanded them.

Does God lose His innocence? No. As long as you define innocence as being free from sin. 

Edited June 13, 2022 by Obeone

[Bernard Gui]

13 hours ago, The Nehor said:

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?

Because pretty much everything he says is a lie…even when talking to himself.

[Obeone]

13 hours ago, The Nehor said:

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?

Because there was:

Plan A = Adam resisting temptation and starting the world in a terrestrial (Millennial) state, and there was 

Plan B = transgression, curse and fall into a tellestial state.

Plan A was better and commanded by God.

Plan B was worse and forbidden by God, though certainly prepared for.

Thus Satan wanted to destroy the better option, the option that God commanded, the option taken by millions of worlds before this one.

And if you do not think there was Plan A, then what is it that they fell from? 

Edited June 13, 2022 by Obeone

[Bernard Gui]

9 hours ago, Obeone said:

They could have had their eyes opened, and had children without losing thei innocence, had they resisted the temptation as God commanded them

It seems to me we moved past the woulda/coulda/shoulda argument too quickly. “Adam fell that men might be...”  Lehi describes the status of Adam and Eve had they not transgressed. Then…

1. They would not have fallen
2. They would have remained in the Garden.
3. Everything would have remained in the unfallen state forever.
4. They would have had no children.
5. They would have remained in a state of innocence.
6. They would have had no joy or misery.
7. They could not do good, for they knew no sin.

Clearly, if Adam had not fallen then men would not be (1&4). Reading this in context, it can’t be waved away so easily.

Quote

Does God lose his innocence? No. As long as you define innocence as being free from sin.

That may not be the right definition of innocence in this context. Innocence can also mean lacking knowledge or experience. 

“…and men are that they might have joy” According to Lehi’s Law of Opposition, being in a state of innocence means they could not know joy nor could they do good. How does one know sin? By sinning. Adam became capable of sinning, ie., knowing good and evil. If Adam had not fallen - had not learned good and evil from his own experience - had remained in a state of innocence (ignorance or inexperience) - there would have been no purpose for his creation. “Wherefore, this thing must needs destroy the wisdom of God and his eternal purposes, and also the power, and the mercy, and the justice of God.” Neither God nor man would exist. 

God knew what was going to happen in the Garden. It was His Plan A. There was no other plan. He provided a Savior who was ordained from before and slain from the foundation of the world. All this was in the works long before Adam and Eve were placed in the Garden.

Quote

This is why the devil complains that he is cursed after doing the same thing that has been done before. If the devil was cursed millions of times before for offering forbidden fruit in other worlds, why should he complain now? 

Because in other worlds their Adams rejected his offer, therefore the devil was not cursed there. But here his temptation produced an actual fall, therefore the devil was cursed here for it for the first time.  Hence his complaining. 

Was Lucifer telling the truth when he said he was doing what had been done on other worlds? How do we know he was the one doing this in all those millions of worlds?And…it seems to me that by saying that simply offering a choice was sufficient, there really is no need for Satan in your proposed scenario.  

Edited June 13, 2022 by Bernard Gui

[Calm]

14 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

How does one know sin? By sinning. Adam became capable of sinning, ie., knowing good and evil. If Adam had not fallen - had not learned good and evil from his own experience - had remained in a state of innocence (ignorance or inexperience) - there would have been no purpose for his creation.

But there has to be something more to the need to sin than that because Lucifer sinned as a pre mortal, prefallen being and was judged/punished/had to leave heaven because he couldn’t tolerate the purity of goodness that is God any more.  We had to have known about sin and its consequences enough before mortality to understand why Lucifer was condemned by his unrighteousness.

[teddyaware]

59 minutes ago, Calm said:

But there has to be something more to the need to sin than that because Lucifer sinned as a pre mortal, prefallen being and was judged/punished/had to leave heaven because he couldn’t tolerate the purity of goodness that is God any more.  We had to have known about sin and its consequences enough before mortality to understand why Lucifer was condemned by his unrighteousness.

Just because Adam (the archangel warrior of righteousness, Michael) and Eve obviously well understood the difference between good and evil in the preexistence doesn’t mean that they carried that knowledge with them when they received their earthly bodies of flesh and bone. As each informed Latter-Day Saint should know, each man and each women become an Adam and an Eve when they are born into this life, and when they do they become innocent because a veil of forgetfulness is placed over their minds that prevents them from consciously remembering the lessons they learned and the wisdom they gained in the pre-earth life. I believe the best way to understand our first parent’s state of innocence in Eden is to realize that prior to the fall they were in a state of childlike innocence in which they forgot all that went before, and for that reason they became like little children. 

Edited June 13, 2022 by teddyaware

[Calm]

2 hours ago, teddyaware said:

Just because Adam (the archangel warrior of righteousness, Michael) and Eve obviously well understood the difference between good and evil in the preexistence doesn’t mean that they carried that knowledge with them when they received their earthly bodies of flesh and bone. As each informed Latter-Day Saint should know, each man and each women become an Adam and an Eve when they are born into this life, and when they do they become innocent because a veil of forgetfulness is placed over their minds that prevents them from consciously remembering the lessons they learned and the wisdom they gained in the pre-earth life. I believe the best way to understand our first parent’s state of innocence in Eden is to realize that prior to the fall they were in a state of childlike innocence in which they forgot all that went before, and for that reason they became like little children. 

Yes, but the question is why that was required. We talk about the need to learn right from wrong as part of our mortal existence, but we already knew that in the preexistence. Why is there the apparent necessity to suppress that knowledge to create the condition of the Fall?

Knowing that could reconcile the apparent contradiction of commandments because the contradiction exists because of the suppression of knowledge. 
 

My belief is we needed to live an existence outside of God’s presence in order to discover who we really are.  I noticed a big difference in the way my husband reacted to adversity once retreating to his family home was not an option when we moved out of state. I assume the same thing happened to me to some extent when I went to college and then further when I got married and was no longer returning home for summers.  I assume something similar happens to us spiritually when we have to stand on our own and make a choice to accept God rather than him being always there even without any action on our part as likely was the condition of our preexistent home with him.  He dominated us whether or not he wanted to because veiling his presence was not something possible or appropriate in the conditions of Heaven. 

There appear to have been those who were selfish and prideful (self centered rather than God centered) enough they could block his influence even in Heaven and chose to follow Lucifer. Perhaps the rest of us had to experience mortality and a time we are inherently self centered because we are unable to be one with each other fully yet to truly trust ourselves as independent agents though.  

Edited June 13, 2022 by Calm

[Bernard Gui]

6 hours ago, Calm said:

But there has to be something more to the need to sin than that because Lucifer sinned as a pre mortal, prefallen being and was judged/punished/had to leave heaven because he couldn’t tolerate the purity of goodness that is God any more.  We had to have known about sin and its consequences enough before mortality to understand why Lucifer was condemned by his unrighteousness.

Being in God’s presence limited our ability to fulfill his work that we become like him. It must have been some unfathomable kind of anger that drove so many away. The purpose of the creation was to provide a place where those who kept their first estate could be tested to see if they would obey all God’s commandments. Gaining a physical body was fundamental to the test and the resultant promises of eternal lives.

Edited June 13, 2022 by Bernard Gui

[CV75]

9 hours ago, Obeone said:

That is a mistake. You never progress higher by transgressing commandments, only lower. This is why it was called a Fall, not Ascent.

This  goes to the foundation of what good and evil are. 

Good is that which is according to the commandments of God, and evil is that which is contrary to His commandments. 

There are no exceptions to this law, or God would cease to be God, for He would be contradicting Himself, which He never does. 

 

That is a misnomer.  Each law has conditions attached to it. When those conditions are not present it is impossible to "transgress" a law that is not in force.  Therefore he who keeps the higher law cannot transgress a lesser law that no longer applies.

In the case of Adam, the law was "Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it," (Moses 4:9) and it was in full force at the time, therefore it was not a "lesser law" but the higher law, and it was wrong to transgress it. They could have had their eyes opened without transgression, and had posterity without the fall, had they resisted the temptation and done as the Lord commanded them.

In a word: They would have progressed much faster if they listened to the Lord more than to the devil. 

We are getting into semantics here. We customarily use the word “transgress” to indicate sin, but it also means to change or go beyond the bounds of the current standard; doing that which is prohibited in one realm or context but permitted in another. The direction of change can go both ways, sometimes simultaneously as in Moses 5:11. Adam an Eve fell into a telestial world, but also received the way to exaltation as a result. The popular notion that they could have been redeemed from paradise without a telestial fall (and now we add the notion of faster?) would prevent Christ from coming into a telestial world to descend below all things: paradise by definition isn’t below all things, and a telestial realm must exist somewhere otherwise he could not overcome it.

A misnomer by any other semantic is a correct name Every kingdom has its laws, and there are semantics involved with “law” and “commandment” also.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/1993/11/the-great-plan-of-happiness.p17?lang=eng#p17

“Some acts, like murder, are crimes because they are inherently wrong. Other acts, like operating without a license, are crimes only because they are legally prohibited. Under these distinctions, the act that produced the Fall was not a sin—inherently wrong—but a transgression—wrong because it was formally prohibited. These words are not always used to denote something different, but this distinction seems meaningful in the circumstances of the Fall.” I would add that the act that produced the Fall, while formally prohibited in Eden, was right for the condescension of Christ below all things, and His ascension above all things.

[Bernard Gui]

On 6/12/2022 at 2:26 AM, Obeone said:

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]."

Why do you put words in Eve’s mouth without which you could not make your point? John warned against this.

Quote

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 wasnecessary to open Adam's eyes to know good and evil. But his transgression was not.

Ditto. Why do you change the scripture?

Quote

…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. 

Didn’t you also question Elder Oak’s understanding of the Fall? Something about a mistaken opinion -the opinion virtually all prophets and apostles have held? Please explain how they have been so far out of bounds from the start, but now you have the straight scoop.

Edited June 13, 2022 by Bernard Gui