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

[Bernard Gui]

16 minutes ago, pogi said:

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. 

Sorry for the confusion. I do think it changes our understanding of the plan as it has been taught for millennia. Do you disagree with the doctrine of the Fall as it stands now?

I don’t believe that “set them up” accurately describes what happened. Even so, that would still be the case if their transgression was inevitable. Lucifer would have persisted tempting them until he finally nabbed them. Or would they have just slipped up on their own? One way or the other, apparently they were “set up” to Fall, just not so easily. This certainly is not reflected in the endowment or in scripture (especially 2Nephi2), but of course we have no way of knowing how long they were in the Garden.

I have a hard time believing God let this fundamental misinformation persist for millennia (perhaps since Abraham but certainly since Lehi) and go uncorrected by Joseph Smith in the Restoration. Stranger things have happened. Perhaps we are misunderstanding or misapplying Nephi’s statement in this situation. 

[Bernard Gui]

53 minutes ago, pogi said:

The current popular interpretation is that they couldn't have children without partaking of the fruit.

The forbidden fruit was integral to the transgression.

That interpretation was made popular by Lehi:

Quote

“…if Adam had not transgressed he would not have fallen, but he would have remained in the garden of Eden….And they would have had no children.” “Adam fell that men might be.

Seems clear to me, but who knows?

Edited June 13, 2022 by Bernard Gui

[pogi]

19 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Sorry for the confusion. I do think it changes our understanding of the plan as it has been taught for millennia. Do you disagree with the doctrine of the Fall as it stands now?

It doesn't change the core principles and concepts of the plan at all.  It only changes our understanding that the fall could have happened in a different way.   I don't disagree with any of the doctrines of the fall. 

20 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

I don’t believe that “set them up” accurately describes what happened. Even so, that would still be the case if their transgression was inevitable. Lucifer would have persisted tempting them until he finally nabbed them. Or would they have just slipped up on their own? One way or the other, apparently they were “set up” to Fall, just not so easily. This certainly is not reflected in the endowment or in scripture (especially 2Nephi2), but of course we have no way of knowing how long they were in the Garden.

The difference is that I believe Nephi when he says that God doesn't give commandments without preparing a way to fulfill them.  While I believe a fall was inevitable, I don't believe that there was no possible way to obey God.  It doesn't make sense to me why God would make it impossible to obey Him to force a fall, when we fall quite easily on our own.   

This is not the only problem with the current popular interpretation.  The other problem is that the fruit (knowledge of good and evil) was necessary for exaltation.  Why would God permanently forbid what was necessary for exaltation?  It makes no sense.

[CV75]

2 hours ago, pogi said:

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.   

I think rather than “forcing” a Fall by setting up an irresolvable contradiction, I think He set up options for two obtainable kingdoms: one command relating to the kingdom of their divine potential (multiply and replenish the earth is a celestial or exalted law) and one preserving their paradisaical status quo (refusing the forbidden fruit, for them, was a law of Eden*). Each was possible to fulfil, but not in the same kingdom. Eating the forbidden fruit may not be the only way they could fall, but inasmuch as it is allegorical, that would be the case.

*Denying someone the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil is also a means of ensuring they remain in their kingdom, the degree of consumption sustaining their kingdom of glory after the day of judgement.

[manol]

I have enjoyed the discussion on this topic immensely.  Thank you Obeone for bringing it up and for thoroughly articulating your position.  I'm still sorting through the constellation of ideas presented here, but I've never been completely comfortable with the teaching that God put Adam and Eve in the position of having to choose between contradictory commandments.  I have a little bit of experience with training animals, and if you put them in a situation where they receive negative consequences ("punishment") no matter what they do, it can be psychologically very damaging to them and/or to your relationship with them. 

 

On 6/12/2022 at 12:11 AM, Obeone said:

God does not give impossible commandments (1 Nephi 3:7)

 

2 hours ago, pogi said:

God is not a God of confusion and contradiction. 

I think these are correct principles.

 

22 hours ago, Obeone said:

God does not contradict Himself

 

22 hours ago, Calm said:

where does it say it gives a perfect translation?

I think both of these points are valid.  I agree that God does not contradict himself, but am not convinced that every (or even any) account of The Fall is complete enough to be accurate "history".   There is arguably enough for useful symbolism, but again I'm not sure about the completeness of that symbolism.  In other words, as Pogi said,

2 hours ago, pogi said:

The Lord lets a lot of incorrect interpretations slide. This is evidenced throughout history with scriptural contradictions and prophetic imperfections.  

 

15 hours ago, Obeone said:

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

The "litmus test" I gravitate towards is the one expressed in Moroni Chapter 7; namely, that which leads us to Christ being "good", that which leads us away being "evil".   For now I am working under the assumption that these two definitions of "good and evil" are entirely compatible. 

 

19 hours ago, The Nehor said:

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.

Could you explain what you mean by the bolded part?  I don't want to make an incorrect assumption.

 

10 hours ago, Calm said:

the question is why that [the Fall] 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?

Perhaps "knowing right from wrong" is not the same thing as experientially "knowing [in an intimate sense] good from evil", the latter calling for us to have the first-hand experience of struggling to "walk the walk" under the conditions imposed by the Veil.   If one day we become creators who ask our creations to "walk the walk", it would be hypocritical for us to never have done so.

At the moment my belief is that the choice to leave the presence of God and experience this earth life was voluntary on the part of each of us, and I THINK the story of the Fall is an incomplete symbolic description of how we wound up being separated from God.

Here is a description of one aspect of entering mortality, namely surrendering to the Veil, related by a man who claims to remember it happening.  The video is cued up to 4:56, and that part goes to about 6:26 or so.  Notice that it was voluntary:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7PO-Op38o-k&t=296s

Edited June 13, 2022 by manol

[Tacenda]

6 minutes ago, manol said:

I have enjoyed the discussion on this topic immensely.  I'm still sorting through the constellation of ideas presented here, but I've never been completely comfortable with the teaching that God put Adam and Eve in the position of having to choose between contradictory commandments.  I have a little bit of experience with training animals, and if you put them in a situation where they receive negative consequences ("punishment") no matter what they do, it can be psychologically very damaging to them and/or to your relationship with them. 

 

 

I think these are correct principles.

 

 

I think both of these points are valid.  I agree that God does not contradict himself, but am not convinced that every (or even any) account of The Fall is complete enough to be accurate "history".   There is arguably enough for useful symbolism, but again I'm not sure about the completeness of that symbolism.  In other words, as Pogi said,

 

The "litmus test" I gravitate towards is the one expressed in Moroni Chapter 7; namely, that which leads us to Christ being "good", that which leads us away being "evil".   For now I am working under the assumption that these two definitions of "good and evil" are entirely compatible. 

 

Could you explain what you mean by the bolded part?  I don't want to make an incorrect assumption.

 

Perhaps "knowing right from wrong" is not the same thing as experientially "knowing [in an intimate sense] good from evil", the latter calling for us to have the first-hand experience of struggling to "walk the walk" under the conditions imposed by the Veil.   If one day we become creators who ask our creations to "walk the walk", it would be hypocritical for us to never have done so.

At the moment my belief is that the choice to leave the presence of God and experience this earth life was voluntary on the part of each of us, and I THINK the story of the Fall is an incomplete symbolic description of how we wound up being separated from God.

Here is a description of one aspect of entering mortality, namely surrendering to the Veil, related by a man who claims to remember it happening.  The video is cued up to 4:56, and that part goes to about 6:26 or so.  Notice that it was voluntary:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7PO-Op38o-k&t=296s

That always bothered me too. That is a terrible way to go about it if actually true. I believe it's allegorical. At least I sure hope so. 

[CV75]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

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.

 

One way to look at Nephi's principle is that he observed the Law of Moses, which was for the kingdom of God on earth before Christ's coming. After Jesus fulfilled the law, the commandments became something else for His dispensation's kingdom of God. Two kingdoms, two sets of commandments. The prophets were cognizant of both sets of commandments. The Restoration brings yet another set of requirements for the kingdom as it stands today.

Likewise, Adam and Eve were cognizant of two sets of commandments, one more future-oriented than the other. If they felt a contradiction, or could not hold both thoughts simultaneously, I believe it was only because of their inexperience or innocence.

[pogi]

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

The forbidden fruit was integral to the transgression.

That interpretation was made popular by Lehi:

Seems clear to me, but who knows?

I agree that the forbidden fruit was integral to the transgression (as it happened).  My point is that I don't believe that the fruit had to be partaken of in transgression.  I don't believe that this is the way Adam had to fall.  The Lord promised to return with further instruction.  By the time he returned, they had already fallen.  What would that further instruction have been had they not fallen?  One can only speculate, but I suspect that he would have prepared them for the fruit.  In partaking of the fruit, they would have advanced towards Godliness and spiritual progression armed with the light of Christ, instead of falling.  Their moral eyes would have been opened and Lucifer would have still been present, but God would have made the first imprint on their newly opened moral consciousness.  God would have continued to give further instructions towards spiritual progression and Lucifer would have eventually deceived them in one instruction or another. 

I believe this is how it happened in other worlds.  I think this was the first world where the fruit was successfully given by someone other than God.   Lucifer was not trying to help along the plan by giving them the fruit.  He knew the plan, after all.  He was present in the premortal world when it was discussed.  He knew what had been done in other worlds.  He knew that the fruit was given to Adam in other worlds.  And with all of this knowledge, Lucifer was SHOCKED that he was so severely cursed for simply doing what had been done in other worlds.   Why was he surprised if other devils had succeeded in other worlds in doing the same thing and had been cursed?  Maybe they hadn't!  Maybe this was all new.  Maybe that is why it has been said that our world is the only one evil enough to kill their redeemer.  

 

Edited June 13, 2022 by pogi

[The Nehor]

13 minutes ago, manol said:

Could you explain what you mean by the bolded part?  I don't want to make an incorrect assumption.

D&C 19: 6-12

God let our understanding of endless torment stand because of the effect even though it was a simplification and easily misunderstood.

Edited June 13, 2022 by The Nehor

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

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

How so?  I don't read it that way.

Quote

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.

The Lord prepared for the Fall, and made it possible for it to occur and not stop the plan.

Quote

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

Kfisher explained it well I think.  I've got to run....

[Obeone]

12 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

“Adam fell that men might be...”

"Adam was tempted that men might be" is a more general statement.

Adam fell because he chose his fallen wife over God, for which he, his posterity, and the earth were cursed unto death. A lesson in what not to do.

As for the scripture: "Adam fell that men might be" has 2 simultaneously valid interpretations:

1) Adam was allowed to fall (i.e. tempted) that his eyes might be opened, that men might be. But, of course he did not have to fall to accomplish this. Men might be, and much better too if Adam did not fall, but resisted the temptation as God commanded him. Than we would have had Millennium right off the bat.

2) "Adam fell that men might be" was also a restatement of the lie for which Adam fell, the lie which the devil spoke through Eve. She told Adam that he would be left alone man in the garden of Eden, which was an obvious lie: God would have given Adam another wife, obviously, who would have listened to God more than to the devil in this thing. 

 

13 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

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.

All of what you just said is correct, provided you change "transgressed" to "tempted." If Adam and Eve were not tempted all of these 7 things you just mentioned would be valid. If they were not tempted they COULD not have their eyes opened, nor to have children, nor to have joy, etc., and the earth would have remained unchanged etc.

But what most members of the church miss is that: Even though Adam had to be tempted, he did not have to yield to the temptation. 

And again, Lehi is technically correct, because he did not use the word "could" but "would", so his statement becomes a comment on Adam's choices, not his ability. Because the truth is: 

Adam COULD have had his eyes opened without transgression, and COULD have had children without the fall, had he resisted the temptation as God commanded him. Why? Because it is the exposure to temptation/opposition that opens eyes, and not fruits and trees. 

 

13 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

How does one know sin? By sinning. Adam became capable of sinning, ie., knowing good and evil.

Couple of things here:

1) Sinning is never a requirement of God. It is contrary to His laws. One can progress much better if he chooses not to sin.

2) "Adam became capable of sinning, ie., knowing good and evil." That is correct. But being "capable of sinning" does not mean one has to sin. Jesus was "capable of sinning" but chose not to sin. Do you see the difference? 

  

13 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

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.  

God offered the choice. Satan was here to entice Adam via lying. 

Quote

2 Nephi 2
16 Wherefore, the Lord God gave unto man that he should act for himself. Wherefore, man could not act for himself save it should be that he was enticed by the one or the other.

 

 

 

[pogi]

23 minutes ago, bluebell said:

How so?  I don't read it that way.

Because the Lord didn't prepare a way for Adam to fulfill both commandments.  He had to violate one to fulfill the other (according to popular interpretation), which is contrary to Nephi's testimony.

25 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Kfisher explained it well I think.  I've got to run....

Perhaps you can show me where when you get back.  I don't see any explanation of how he could have fulfilled both commandments. 

[pogi]

48 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I think rather than “forcing” a Fall by setting up an irresolvable contradiction, I think He set up options for two obtainable kingdoms: one command relating to the kingdom of their divine potential (multiply and replenish the earth is a celestial or exalted law) and one preserving their paradisaical status quo (refusing the forbidden fruit, for them, was a law of Eden*).

So how would they achieve the first "celestial or exalted law" without an irresolvable contradiction with the second commandment?

[Obeone]

6 hours ago, CV75 said:

Adam an Eve fell into a telestial world, but also received the way to exaltation as a result.

Adam and Eve had a way to exaltation without falling into telestial world, just like those in the Millennium have the way to exaltation. Again the fall was not required but, in fact, forbidden by God. 

7 hours ago, CV75 said:

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.

Yes, tellestial realm must exist somewhere. It is unavoidable. But woe to that world that falls. If Adam did not fall, Jesus would have been born on a different fallen world. 

 

7 hours ago, CV75 said:

“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.

Adam's transgression was not a sin, because Adam was incapable of committing sin at the time, because his eyes were not yet opened to know good and evil. If Adam had done what he did with eyes fully opened, that would have been a grievous sin, and the blood of billions would have been required at his hand. 

Partaking of the fruit was not wrong just because of a technicality. It was a choice of who to listen to: to God or to the devil. So Adam's partaking was not just technically wrong, it was fundamentally wrong, in most profound way possible. 

God did not try to trick Adam. The choice was fundamental and profound. And Adam chose wrong at the time. 

[halconero]

23 minutes ago, pogi said:

Because the Lord didn't prepare a way for Adam to fulfill both commandments.  He had to violate one to fulfill the other (according to popular interpretation), which is contrary to Nephi's testimony.

Perhaps you can show me where when you get back.  I don't see any explanation of how he could have fulfilled both commandments. 

Question, pogi, have you ever witnessed the sealing of a child to their parents, either living or by proxy?

[ksfisher]

18 minutes ago, pogi said:

Perhaps you can show me where when you get back.  I don't see any explanation of how he could have fulfilled both commandments. 

The instructions given to Adam and Eve seem fairly simple.

God created a garden for them and provided them with the food and clothing that they would need.  The condition for remaining in the garden was that they not partake of the forbidden fruit.

God also asked Adam and Eve to multiply and replenish the earth.  In order to do so they would need to leave the garden (by partaking of the forbidden fruit) and make their own way in the world. 

God gave Adam and Eve their agency and left the choice to them, knowing that they would eventually choose to leave the garden bring other spirits to the earth.  This was the plan.

Because God knew that His children, after having their eyes opened and understanding the difference between good and evil, would at times choose incorrectly (sin) He provided a Savior, that on condition of repentance Adam and Eve and their children could be brought back into His presence and receive eternal life with Him.

 

 

[ksfisher]

9 minutes ago, Obeone said:

Adam's transgression was not a sin, because Adam was incapable of committing sin at the time, because his eyes were not yet opened to know good and evil.

I think this is the only thing you've written that I agree with.

[Obeone]

7 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

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.

Fair question. I guess I am not blinded by blindly following authority. I see the core truth that has no exceptions. Remember a mere donkey corrected an erring prophet (Numbers 22). I guess I am more intelligent than a donkey. 

[Obeone]

6 hours ago, rongo said:

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). 

No scriptural support?

Quote

Moses 1

32 And by the word of my power, have I created them, which is mine Only Begotten Son, who is full of grace and truth.

33 And worlds without number have I created; and I also created them for mine own purpose; and by the Son I created them, which is mine Only Begotten. 

If they all were created by the Son, then why not redeemed by Him?

Edited June 13, 2022 by Obeone

[pogi]

15 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? 

 

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

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?

I agree with both of you that plan A was the norm. 

I believe that by partaking of the fruit (and I do believe it was a genuine "deception" and not a pre-planned righteous sacrifice) Adam and Eve were more easily influenced by Lucifer.  He had gained first access to their moral conscience and caused them to fear and hide from God before God could even make a mark of goodness.  Before they tasted of the good that is inherent in the fruit, they became aware of evil.   I believe Satan was trying to take the place of God, as he had done in the pre-existence, in offering them the fruit.  He knew that he could have greater influence if he could have earlier access.  The first thing he did with their newly formed heart of moral consciousness is to write toxic shame on it.  He wrote something to the effect  - 'You are not good enough.  You have ruined everything.  You are a failure.  God will never accept you now!  Be afraid.  Quick hide!"   You know, all the same crap that he writes on our hearts today.  These deep seeded beliefs grounded in toxic shame are, I believe, the number one greatest tool of the adversary.  It is what causes us to hide from God.  This toxic shame is passed on from generation to generation (read Healing the Shame that Binds You).  It is not that our first parent's decision was binding by way of divine cause, but I believe that it had generational consequences that kept this world in a telestial state. 

[pogi]

33 minutes ago, halconero said:

Question, pogi, have you ever witnessed the sealing of a child to their parents, either living or by proxy?

I don't believe that I have. 

[pogi]

36 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

The instructions given to Adam and Eve seem fairly simple.

God created a garden for them and provided them with the food and clothing that they would need.  The condition for remaining in the garden was that they not partake of the forbidden fruit.

God also asked Adam and Eve to multiply and replenish the earth.  In order to do so they would need to leave the garden (by partaking of the forbidden fruit) and make their own way in the world. 

God gave Adam and Eve their agency and left the choice to them, knowing that they would eventually choose to leave the garden bring other spirits to the earth.  This was the plan.

Because God knew that His children, after having their eyes opened and understanding the difference between good and evil, would at times choose incorrectly (sin) He provided a Savior, that on condition of repentance Adam and Eve and their children could be brought back into His presence and receive eternal life with Him.

Right, which seems to show that he didn't prepare a way to fulfill both of his two and only commandments - thus making Nephi's testimony false.  I don't think his testimony was false.  I think he would have prepared a way to fulfill both commandments without violating one or the other. 

Edited June 13, 2022 by pogi

[ksfisher]

11 minutes ago, pogi said:

Right, which seems to show that he didn't prepare a way to fulfill both of his two and only commandments - thus making Nephi's testimony false.  I don't think his testimony was false.  I think he would have prepared a way to fulfill both commandments without violating one or the other. 

I don't see the garden as a place that God wanted Adam and Eve to stay forever.  I think He was fine with them staying there as long as they wanted (and not forbidden fruit), but the plan for them was to move on (partake of the fruit and understand the difference between good and evil).

I don't think there is a contradiction between the two and needs to be reconciled in any way.

 

[halconero]

9 minutes ago, pogi said:

I don't believe that I have. 

The sealer is careful to note that children born outside the covenant are sealed to their parents as if they had been born in it. Put another way, it renders them ipso facto born in the covenant.

Elohim is clear at multiple stages that the commandment to not eat of the forbidden fruit is not a standalone mandate, but comes with a clause: "lest ye die."

Quote

Right, which seems to show that he didn't prepare a way to fulfill both of his two and only commandments - thus making Nephi's testimony false.  I don't think his testimony was false.  I think he would have prepared a way to fulfill both commandments without violating one or the other. 

Can you think of any mechanism whereby the first commandment could be upheld while the violation of the second was undone as if it had not occurred?

[pogi]

1 hour ago, ksfisher said:

I don't see the garden as a place that God wanted Adam and Eve to stay forever.  I think He was fine with them staying there as long as they wanted (and not forbidden fruit), but the plan for them was to move on (partake of the fruit and understand the difference between good and evil).

I agree with all of this.  I think the plan was always for them to partake of the fruit, to learn and experience both good and evil, I just think the Lord was preparing them for it.  I don't believe that the fruit is what got them kicked out of the garden - it was transgression.  They would have been prepared, given the sacrament of the fruit which opened their eyes to good and evil, becoming as the Gods, and eventually they would have transgressed and moved on from the garden.  My interpretation doesn't contradict any of that.

1 hour ago, ksfisher said:

I don't think there is a contradiction between the two and needs to be reconciled in any way.

There is contradiction if God never intended to give them of the fruit.  It would put them in an impossible situation to fulfill both commands.  It would have made Nephi's testimony false.   

Edited June 13, 2022 by pogi