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

[rongo]

22 hours ago, bluebell said:

Yes, maybe.

It is interesting that, like Nehor said, Lucifer--after watching this scenario play out in other worlds--seemed to believe that getting them to Fall would actually cause the Plan to fail, rather than begin it. 

It makes you wonder, what was happening in the other worlds that was different than what happened in this one?

I don't think anything different was happening on other worlds. There seems to be a divine pattern that requires an Adam and Eve, a Fall, and a Savior. I link this to what B.H. Roberts called "eternalism" (an infinite regress of eternal intelligences being the fuel and the motor behind the eternal Plan of Salvation), but I know that some people don't like ascribing the Gods' power to intelligences' honor. These people either say "it's a mystery I can't explain," or have some other theory (though I've never heard any actual alternatives that don't end up at "it's a mystery").

Satan often uses the truth (sans full context) or parts of the truth --- he doesn't 100% straight-up lie. "There is no other way" was a true statement, as was "ye shall be as the gods, knowing good and evil." 

I think the pride and hubris of the Satans leads them to have absolute self-assurance that they will be the one to "pull it off," so they don't see it from the perspective of "wait a minute --- this Fall thing actually is necessary for the Plan." They're fine with that, because they are very much in the ballgame, with many innings left to play. And they bring many souls down with them, even though when they fail to get the Saviors to fail it's pretty much "game over." Other than the individual casualties. 

19 hours ago, longview said:

As has been stated earlier in the thread, this Earth is the only planet in which the Savior performed the Atonement.  I suppose this Earth is host to the most wicked spirits (that still kept the First Estate) and the most righteous spirits, both from the Pre-Existence.  The Atonement not only is applicable to this Earth but is very much applicable to all the other worlds (even though they did NOT have the Savior be physically born into their respective worlds).  This is probably the only difference.

I am wondering if this Earth (with its special status of having the Savior be born into it) was held to be the last so as to allow Lucifer to complete his work of "subversion" of all other worlds before he finally was condemned in this last world.  In order for all the spirits from the pre-existence (the First Estate) to be able to participate in the Second Estate.  Which requires a Fall to be initiated.  Which is necessary for the Plan of Happiness to actually become operative.  So crucial for having mortal experiences that help them to become like Heavenly Father.

This is very much an open question, with people like Joseph Smith and Brigham Young disagreeing with you. At minimum, Joseph Smith taught that Elohim had also been a Savior, which would throw into the mix untold worlds with someone other than Jesus performing an atonement. I think that Brigham Young's explanation that each world has its own Savior and tempter makes much more sense, and it doesn't require explanations like "imagine how much faith it would require to believe in a Savior who wasn't even on your world!" or "this earth must be the most wicked, because we actually had the Savior here" (neither of which have any scriptural or prophetic support). 

[rongo]

Do people who believe that they will become Elohim (like our Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother) believe that they will create worlds that Saviors will be required for? Or, do they believe that all worlds before and after Jesus will be saved through His atonement --- that Jesus is the one and only Savior, worlds without end? 

I've never heard anyone actually discuss believing that. If they don't believe that, then there are an innumerable multitude of worlds (pre-Jesus, and post-Jesus) that won't have Jesus as their Savior. 

[pogi]

On 6/11/2022 at 11:11 PM, 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?

Welcome to the board Obeone!

You are the first person I have met that has come to the same interpretation of these events that I have come to.  I don't know if anyone remembers, but I have discussed this same interpretation on these boards before.  It is something that I have thought long and hard about and have written extensively on it (probably never to be completed or published - ha!).  It is refreshing to finally meet someone who has come to many of the same conclusions.  Just curious, is this something that you also have come to on your own, or are there any sources that you are aware of who teaches similar ideas?   I think I have a lot of ideas that can help strengthen your argument that I will share more of in response to other posts. 

I have not come to the same conclusion about this knowledge being necessary for the redemption of Zion - I don't know if I would take it that far as I believe redemption happens on an individual basis, but I do believe that there are many helpful redemptive truths in this interpretation of events which I will share further.

[pogi]

Here is how I have framed the introduction to this interpretation in a paper I started writing about 10 years ago and have not finished - ha!:

Quote

“And the Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed” (Gen 2:8).

            Naked, Adam stood in the midst of the Almighty with light’s pleasant rays meeting his fleshy frame.  The canopy above threw shadows, dancing upon his skin from the recoiling branches in the gentle, warm breeze.  The lips of the sun’s beam and the breath of the garden were his only clothing.

He walked exposed to the eyes of Holiness and knew no shame.  He had no fear, nor inhibition, no need that was not attended to.  He knew neither predator nor prey, but was nourished by the fruits and herbs of the garden, which blossomed in bounty. All things were prepared for him from the foundation. 

He was as pure and undefiled as the garden that he was placed in, as unexploited and organic as the majesty of pure nature in its paradisiacal glory.  Innocence radiated from all of creation and God smiled and said, “It is good.”  “Good?” Adam must have thought, wondering curiously at that empty and meaningless word, “what is good?”

“And the Lord God commanded the man, saying,  Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it…” (Gen 2:16-17).

Nourishment strengthened Adam as he partook of the tree of life.  The sustaining flesh and juice filled his soul like a sacrament, giving him life, for so is the love of God.  “…and I also beheld that the tree of life was a representation of the love of God” (1 Nephi 11:25).

Adam and Eve knew neither good nor evil.  Though they partook of God’s love, they were not and could not be intimately and thoroughly acquainted with its goodness, which brings “unspeakable joy”.   Though they were surrounded by God’s love, they knew not the emotional comfort of its embrace.  Though they were filled with His love, they were not satiated; nor could they be.  Their hearts longed for something…anything, and the adversary knew it.  Their patience would be tried.

Love without the knowledge of good or evil was for Adam and Eve like eating the flesh of fruit for life and sustenance without the ability to taste and savor of its sweetness and goodness.  Their eyes had not yet been opened, and thus their hearts remained untouched.  There was an all-encompassing spiritual and emotional emptiness that consumed them, keeping them from the nuanced delicacies and, at times, fervent flavors of joy and the opposing misery.  

Adam and Eve knew a peace beyond words with no misery, sorrow, or regret.  And yet it could be no more satisfying than a bottomless well of numbness springing up to eternal detachment and dispassion without the knowledge of good and evil.  The fruit of the tree of life offered them immortality, yet eternal life evaded them.  Though they knew no sin, innocence was insufficient to qualify them for eternal life.  Something was lacking yet.

            Be fruitful, and don’t eat of the fruit – two seemingly simple commandments.  To Eve, however, there was nothing simple about it.  The result of not partaking of the fruit of knowledge, as far as Eve was concerned, was fruitless.  Literally!  She could neither eat of the fruit of knowledge, nor rejoice in the fruit of her womb, leaving her unable to fulfill the first commandment. 

The consequence for not fulfilling the first commandment to be fruitful was never specified in scripture.  The consequence for disobedience to the second, however, was clear: “…thou shalt surely die” (Genesis 2:17).   “How?” they must have thought. “How do we fulfill the first without disobeying the second?” or, “how do we remain true to the second without leaving the first undone?”

In a later answer to a similarly difficult question, Adam revealed his devout and doubtless trust in the Lord when he said, “I know not, save the Lord commanded me.”   Only, this response was to the question “why obey?” instead of “how?”   “I know not, save the Lord commanded me” seems like an equally appropriate answer to the how of obedience. 

Similar patience and trust was found many generations later in a prophet who was equally troubled at the “how” of obedience.  After trying and failing twice to retrieve the brass plates from Laban, Nephi acted on his previous words, “I will go and do the things which the Lord hath commanded, for I know that the Lord giveth no commandments unto the children of men, save he shall prepare a way for them that they may accomplish the thing which he commanded them” (1 Nephi 3:7).  Like Adam, Nephi responded, and I paraphrase - I know not how, I know not why, but the Lord will always provide the way, the means, and the blessings of obedience. Of such was the faith of both Adam and Nephi.

For now, Adam was to wait upon the Lord.  In similar fashion, the Lord declared to the prophet Joseph Smith in the latter days, “Stop, and stand still until I command thee, and I will provide means whereby thou mayest accomplish the thing which I have commanded thee” (D&C 5:34). 

From these prophets, we learn that the “how” of obedience is not always clear; nor is it immediate.  However, two things are clear: Patience on the Lord and trust in his word are both required for perfect obedience.  Patience to endure and withstand the desire for immediate gratification of the fruit, whether it be good or evil, and complete trust that “the Lord giveth no commandments… save he shall prepare a way” to fulfill them.

There was a lot Adam did not know at this point.  He had no knowledge of good or evil, and he knew not how to fulfill both commandments.  All he was left with were two seemingly conflicting commandments, but he was also given a key and a promise that the Lord would return and give further instruction.

 In the meantime…

“And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:  For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil” (Genesis 3:4-5).

 

 

Edited June 13, 2022 by pogi

[bluebell]

56 minutes ago, rongo said:

I don't think anything different was happening on other worlds. There seems to be a divine pattern that requires an Adam and Eve, a Fall, and a Savior. I link this to what B.H. Roberts called "eternalism" (an infinite regress of eternal intelligences being the fuel and the motor behind the eternal Plan of Salvation), but I know that some people don't like ascribing the Gods' power to intelligences' honor. These people either say "it's a mystery I can't explain," or have some other theory (though I've never heard any actual alternatives that don't end up at "it's a mystery").

Satan often uses the truth (sans full context) or parts of the truth --- he doesn't 100% straight-up lie. "There is no other way" was a true statement, as was "ye shall be as the gods, knowing good and evil." 

I think the pride and hubris of the Satans leads them to have absolute self-assurance that they will be the one to "pull it off," so they don't see it from the perspective of "wait a minute --- this Fall thing actually is necessary for the Plan." They're fine with that, because they are very much in the ballgame, with many innings left to play. And they bring many souls down with them, even though when they fail to get the Saviors to fail it's pretty much "game over." Other than the individual casualties. 

 

Could be.  

[pogi]

On 6/11/2022 at 11:41 PM, 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 believe this was said by Eve based on what she knew and what she didn't know.  What she knew, 1) she knew that they would not have had seed without first partaking of the fruit, 2) she knew that the fruit was forbidden, 3) she knew that they could not have progressed to become as the God's knowing good and evil and enjoy the fruit of redemption and eternal life without partaking of the fruit.  Such things would have been impossible. 

What Eve didn't know, 1) Eve didn't know what "further instruction" the Lord had instore for them.  

Is it possible that the Lord was preparing them to partake of the fruit?  Is it possible that it was forbidden not because it was evil, but because it was pre-mature (much like sex is forbidden before marriage, not because it is evil, but because it is sacred).  Was the Lord preparing them to enter covenant in the sacrament of the fruit?  

It is a natural and understandable interpretation based on what she knew and what she didn't know.  This interpretation was passed down from generation to generation and found its way in the words of Nephi. 

[ksfisher]

5 minutes ago, pogi said:

Is it possible that it was forbidden not because it was evil, but because it was pre-mature

It was forbidden as a condition of staying in the garden.  Partaking of the fruit was necessary if Adam and Eve wished the leave the garden and start a family. 

The choice seems pretty clear.  Don't partake of the fruit and stay in the garden.  Partake and progress. 

[Tacenda]

6 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

It was forbidden as a condition of staying in the garden.  Partaking of the fruit was necessary if Adam and Eve wished the leave the garden and start a family. 

The choice seems pretty clear.  Don't partake of the fruit and stay in the garden.  Partake and progress. 

LOVE how the LDS church says Eve was doing the right thing, hate how the rest of Christianity condemn her or put women in a bad light for having done it!

[Bernard Gui]

51 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

LOVE how the LDS church says Eve was doing the right thing, hate how the rest of Christianity condemn her or put women in a bad light for having done it!

But in the current discussion LDS would have to repudiate that positive view of Eve. Because of her we have to have plan B. 

[pogi]

1 hour ago, ksfisher said:

It was forbidden as a condition of staying in the garden.  Partaking of the fruit was necessary if Adam and Eve wished the leave the garden and start a family. 

The choice seems pretty clear.  Don't partake of the fruit and stay in the garden.  Partake and progress. 

I think this is true to a certain extent, but I think the transgression came in partaking of the fruit before they were prepared.  I think the only true condition of staying in the garden was innocence.  Transgression (not the fruit) was the cause of banishment from the garden. 

I think the key to understanding this is in understanding what the fruit represented, which was the "knowledge of good and evil", aka the light of Christ, aka moral consciousness that made them like the Gods.   After God completed the creation of the garden he called everything in the garden "good".  This includes the tree and the fruit of the tree of knowledge...  This, I believe was a sacred sacrament they were being prepared for (God promised that he would return with "further instruction") and that Christ would have officiated in as the source of the fruit, or light of Christ.  Satan, as he did in the premortal existence, was attempting to take the place of God in offering them the fruit, and thus have first access and influence on their moral consciousness - he being the first thing their  newly opened eyes would see.  It worked!  By gaining first access, he convinced them that God is scary and to be feared and that they should hide from.  And we have hid ourselves from God ever since.  The only was to redemption is to follow the example of Adam in coming out of hiding and proclaiming "here I am", in full exposure of all our guilt and with a desire for reconciliation. 

Edited June 13, 2022 by pogi

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, ksfisher said:

It was forbidden as a condition of staying in the garden.  Partaking of the fruit was necessary if Adam and Eve wished the leave the garden and start a family. 

The choice seems pretty clear.  Don't partake of the fruit and stay in the garden.  Partake and progress. 

Lehi makes the consequences of both choices very clear. 

Edited June 13, 2022 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

41 minutes ago, pogi said:

I think this is true to a certain extent, but I think the transgression came in partaking of the fruit before they were prepared.  I think the only true condition of staying in the garden was innocence.  Transgression (not the fruit) was the cause of banishment from the garden. 

I think the key to understanding this is in understanding what the fruit represented, which was the "knowledge of good and evil", aka the light of Christ, aka moral consciousness that made them like the Gods.   After God completed the creation of the garden he called everything in the garden "good".  This includes the tree and the fruit of the tree of knowledge...  This, I believe was a sacred sacrament they were being prepared for (God promised that he would return with "further instruction") and that Christ would have officiated in as the source of the fruit, or light of Christ.  Satan, as he did in the premortal existence, was attempting to take the place of God in offering them the fruit, and thus have first access and influence on their moral consciousness - he being the first thing their  newly opened eyes would see.  It worked!  By gaining first access, he convinced them that God is scary and to be feared and that they should hide from.  And we have hid ourselves from God ever since.  The only was to redemption is to follow the example of Adam in coming out of hiding and proclaiming "here I am", in full exposure of all our guilt and with a desire for reconciliation…..

It is a natural and understandable interpretation based on what she knew and what she didn't know.  This interpretation was passed down from generation to generation and found its way in the words of Nephi. 

Did all this come as a surprise to the Gods? This interpretation passed on by Lehi is false?

Do I understand correctly that our current situation (fall, sin, death, Redermer) was a contingency in case plan A (stay in the Garden forever with no sin or death) failed? That the foreordination of Jehovah as the savior and redeemer of mankind was just a failsafe?

Edited June 13, 2022 by Bernard Gui

[pogi]

53 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Did all this come as a surprise to the Gods? This interpretation passed on by Lehi is false?

I'm not sure what you mean.  I don't think there is much that surprises the God's anymore.  

I believe it is an interpretation based on incomplete information.  I don't believe it is an interpretation of salvific consequence.  The Lord lets a lot of incorrect interpretations slide. This is evidenced throughout history with scriptural contradictions and prophetic imperfections.   

The fact is Bernard, either Eve had a false interpretation or Nephi had a false understanding when he said "...for I know that the Lord giveth no commandments unto the children of men, save he shall prepare a way for them that they may accomplish the thing which he commanded them (1 Nephi 3:7)".  

They can't both be true.

Edited June 13, 2022 by pogi

[CV75]

41 minutes ago, pogi said:

I think this is true to a certain extent, but I think the transgression came in partaking of the fruit before they were prepared.  I think the only true condition of staying in the garden was innocence.  Transgression (not the fruit) was the cause of banishment from the garden. 

I think the key to understanding this is in understanding what the fruit represented, which was the "knowledge of good and evil", aka the light of Christ, aka moral consciousness that made them like the Gods.   After God completed the creation of the garden he called everything in the garden "good".  This includes the tree and the fruit of the tree of knowledge...  This, I believe was a sacred sacrament they were being prepared for (God promised that he would return with "further instruction") and that Christ would have officiated in as the source of the fruit, or light of Christ.  Satan, as he did in the premortal existence, was attempting to take the place of God in offering them the fruit, and thus have first access and influence on their moral consciousness - he being the first thing their  newly opened eyes would see.  It worked!  By gaining first access, he convinced them that God is scary and to be feared and that they should hide from.  And we have hid ourselves from God ever since.  The only was to redemption is to follow the example of Adam in coming out of hiding and proclaiming "here I am", in full exposure of all our guilt and with a desire for reconciliation. 

I think perhaps a more fundamental key to understanding this is Abraham 3:19. No one had the wherewithal to remain in paradise without transgressing its laws eventually, necessitating a Savior. The God of life would/could not introduce death into His "good" immortal creation as a step in His children's eternal progress. He would have to subject Himself and overcome His descension below all things that were not of His making (sin and death in all their forms).

[CV75]

9 minutes ago, pogi said:

I'm not sure what you mean.  I don't think there is much that surprises the God's anymore.  

I believe it is an interpretation based on incomplete information.  I don't believe it is an interpretation of salvific consequence.  The Lord lets a lot of incorrect interpretations slide. This is evidenced throughout history with scriptural contradictions and prophetic imperfections.   

The fact is Bernard, either Eve had a false interpretation or Nephi had a false understanding when he said "...for I know that the Lord giveth no commandments unto the children of men, save he shall prepare a way for them that they may accomplish the thing which he commanded them (1 Nephi 3:7)".  

They can't both be true.

I think they can both be true. One is true in Eden and the other is true in this world. Different kingdoms, different laws.

[Calm]

4 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Being in God’s presence limited our ability to fulfill his work that we become like him.

I agree.  But I am curious as to why it did.  So I speculate.

[bluebell]

10 minutes ago, pogi said:

I'm not sure what you mean.  I don't think there is much that surprises the God's anymore.  

I believe it is an interpretation based on incomplete information.  I don't believe it is an interpretation of salvific consequence.  The Lord lets a lot of incorrect interpretations slide. This is evidenced throughout history with scriptural contradictions and prophetic imperfections.   

The fact is Bernard, either Eve had a false interpretation or Nephi had a false understanding when he said "...for I know that the Lord giveth no commandments unto the children of men, save he shall prepare a way for them that they may accomplish the thing which he commanded them (1 Nephi 3:7)".  

They can't both be true.

Doesn't the Fall make statements true?

The existence of the Fall, and it being an option prepared by God, seems to suggest that both Eve and Nephi were correct.

[Bernard Gui]

17 minutes ago, pogi said:

I'm not sure what you mean.  I don't think there is much that surprises the God's anymore.  

I believe it is an interpretation based on incomplete information.  I don't believe it is an interpretation of salvific consequence.  The Lord lets a lot of incorrect interpretations slide. This is evidenced throughout history.   

The fact is Bernard, either Eve had a false interpretation or Nephi had a false interpretation when he said "...for I know that the Lord giveth no commandments unto the children of men, save he shall prepare a way for them that they may accomplish the thing which he commanded them (1 Nephi 3:7)".  

They can't both be true.

Sounds like you accept the notion that we are living under Plan B. 

I understand that the way was prepared for Adam and Eve to keep all the commandments and that the plan proceeded as It was supposed to. Hence Adam and Eve’s acceptance of the results of the fall as a positive step.  It was the Father’s plan as he explained to us before the creation. He foreordained Jehovah to carry it out. It was not a fall-back position (a surprise) just in case the other plan failed, however that might relate to Nephi‘s statement. Perhaps I misunderstand your position. 

Edited June 13, 2022 by Bernard Gui

[pogi]

18 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I think perhaps a more fundamental key to understanding this is Abraham 3:19. No one had the wherewithal to remain in paradise without transgressing its laws eventually, necessitating a Savior. The God of life would/could not introduce death into His "good" immortal creation as a step in His children's eternal progress. He would have to subject Himself and overcome His descension below all things that were not of His making (sin and death in all their forms).

I agree 100%  transgression would have come eventually.  I also agree that God would not/could not introduce "death" as a step towards eternal progress...  That is why I think my interpretation makes so much more sense.  God would have prepared a way (as Nephi testified) to both fulfill his commandments and progress towards exaltation.  He didn't need to force a fall through contradicting commandments that were impossible to fulfill.  God is not a God of confusion and contradiction.   I believe God would have prepared a way to fulfill both commandments, and I believe that Adam and Eve would have fallen eventually on their own without the assistance of contradicting commandments.  There still would have been a fall, there still would have been a need for a savior and redemption.  There still would have been opposition in all things.   

[teddyaware]

33 minutes ago, pogi said:

I'm not sure what you mean.  I don't think there is much that surprises the God's anymore.  

I believe it is an interpretation based on incomplete information.  I don't believe it is an interpretation of salvific consequence.  The Lord lets a lot of incorrect interpretations slide. This is evidenced throughout history.   

The fact is Bernard, either Eve had a false interpretation or Nephi had a false interpretation when he said "...for I know that the Lord giveth no commandments unto the children of men, save he shall prepare a way for them that they may accomplish the thing which he commanded them (1 Nephi 3:7)".  

They can't both be true.

Both most certainly can be true! For instance, since the dawn of the restoration prepubescent Latter-Day Saint children are taught that God commands them to marry and have children, even though at the time they learn of their obligation to keep that commandment they are utterly incapable of having children. Why couldn’t precisely the same situation be true for Adam and Eve? After all, we are taught that at the time the preexistent spirit of Michael the archangel became incarnate he forgot all that went before and became like a little child.

Edited June 13, 2022 by teddyaware

[ksfisher]

8 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

Why couldn’t precisely the same situation be true for Adam and Eve?

Exactly.  When they were given the commandment to multiply and replenish the earth the time was not yet right for them to fulfill that commandment.  When the time came, one of the conditions was that they could no longer remain in the garden.  The garden was a place of innocence.  The world is the place where you take responsibility for yourself and raise your own family.

Edited June 13, 2022 by ksfisher

[pogi]

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

Do I understand correctly that our current situation (fall, sin, death, Redermer) was a contingency in case plan A (stay in the Garden forever with no sin or death) failed? That the foreordination of Jehovah as the savior and redeemer of mankind was just a failsafe?

You must have added this later.   I believe our current situation (fall, sin, death, Redeemer) was inevitable either way.  It doesn't change the plan of salvation one bit.  Adam and Eve would have transgressed one way or another eventually, I don't believe that the first transgression had to be partaking of the fruit while it was forbidden.   I don't believe that God set them up to fall by unavoidably disobeying one of the two commandments.  God doesn't make it impossible to obey Him. 

[pogi]

56 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

Both most certainly can be true! For instance, since the dawn of the restoration prepubescent Latter-Day Saint children are taught that God commands them to marry and have children, even though at the time they learn of their obligation to keep that commandment they are utterly incapable of having children. Why couldn’t precisely the same situation be true for Adam and Eve? After all, we are taught that at the time the preexistent spirit of Michael the archangel became incarnate he forgot all that went before and became like a little child.

The current popular interpretation is that they couldn't have children without partaking of the fruit.  So, it would have been impossible for Adam and Eve to fulfill the first commandment to replenish without violating the second.  It would have been equally impossible for Adam and Eve to fulfill the second command to not partake of the fruit without violating the first - making Nephi's testimony false.

 

[The Nehor]

13 hours ago, Obeone said:

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? 

This is where we part company.

Plan A is the norm.

Plan B is the insane rescue plan, the bold option, surrendering their kingdom for a righteous and dangerous cause. The one that God did not command but approved of. This is what Jehovah and Michael and Eve planned for and why they asked for the devil to be let in. This is why Eve’s decision and the one Adam made immediately afterwards are called valiant by apostles.

Again, I could very easily be wrong but I am am not sure that I am.

The flaw with your reasoning is that our first parent’s decision is somehow binding on all humanity which makes little sense. If it were a choice between an easier path and a harder one why do two people make the decision for everyone?

[pogi]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

Doesn't the Fall make statements true?

The existence of the Fall, and it being an option prepared by God, seems to suggest that both Eve and Nephi were correct.

The fall actually proves the testimony of Nephi false (if we accept the popular interpretation of events).

The Lord didn’t prepare a way to fulfill both commandments. Nephi said that the Lord doesn’t give commandment without preparing a way to fulfill and obey all that he commands.

How could Adam and Eve fulfilled both commandments under the current popular interpretation of events?