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

[pogi]

58 minutes ago, halconero said:

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."

No commandment is a standalone mandate and without consequence.  Death, as we have learned, is the result of any transgression.  That is the inherent clause that comes with all commandments.  The atonement is the only way to overcome the clause and cause of death from transgression.  This was not a unique clause to the forbidden fruit.  Any transgression would have caused them to fall and die and require redemption through the atonement. 

58 minutes ago, halconero said:

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?

 By "upheld", do you mean "fulfilled"?  Not if the fruit was required for them to procreate, and thus "multiply".   Do you have any ideas?

 

Edited June 13, 2022 by pogi

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, Obeone said:

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. 

Perhaps, but Balaam was not a savory character. I’m not sure why you allude to his story.

The magus was beating the donkey which was trying to warn him about an angel blocking the road. Are you expecting a beating for warning the false prophets?😏

Whatever your intent, this does not explain why the prophets are wrong while you are right.

[Bernard Gui]

2 hours ago, pogi said:

One can only speculate,

There’s a whole lotta speculation going on.

[pogi]

22 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

There’s a whole lotta speculation going on.

That is all one can do, regardless of what you believe.  We will never know for certainty what that promised further instruction might have been had they not been deceived.  I can only guess based on my understanding of Nephi's testimony - which aligns with my own testimony. 

  

Edited June 13, 2022 by pogi

[Bernard Gui]

4 minutes ago, pogi said:

That is all one can do, regardless of what you believe.  We will never know for certainty what that further instruction might have been had they not been deceived.  I can only guess based on my understanding of Nephi's testimony. 

  

 

Yep. Why do you think their transgression was inevitable?

Edited June 13, 2022 by Bernard Gui

[CV75]

2 hours ago, pogi said:

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

They transgress a lesser law to keep a higher law. Like deciding to break the speed limit to take someone to the emergency room. Now they did it, predictably, with very little experience and practice, and even less tradition. But they were putting the pieces together on their way from innocence to beguilement to wisdom. In the end, in exaltation, they keep the second commandment as well by not partaking of anything forbidden again.

[ksfisher]

35 minutes ago, pogi said:

eventually they would have transgressed and moved on from the garden.

What would they have transgressed?  They had been commanded not to partake of the fruit and to multiply and replenish.  

 

37 minutes ago, pogi said:

given the sacrament of the fruit

I've never heard of the sacrament of the fruit.  Where in the revealed word is it discussed?

[halconero]

36 minutes ago, pogi said:

No commandment is a standalone mandate and without consequence.  Death, as we have learned, is the result of any transgression.  That is the inherent clause that comes with all commandments.  The atonement is the only way to overcome the clause and cause of death from transgression.  This was not a unique clause to the forbidden fruit.  Any transgression would have caused them to fall and die and require redemption through the atonement.

Would they have died if they had transgressed the commandment to multiply?

36 minutes ago, pogi said:

 Not if the fruit was required for them to procreate, and thus "multiply".   Do you have any ideas?

 

Some. What if God made a second Adam that undid the violation of the 2nd commandment in the garden?

[CV75]

2 hours ago, Obeone said:

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. 

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. 

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. 

I’m not seeing much in the way of consistency between these doctrinal assertions and other doctrine. For example, Adam and Eve were not like people in the Millennium because they were immortal, they had no prior history to draw from, and they were given no prophecy to fulfill. All this plays into their capacity under their circumstances. There were many, many other differences as well.

It is said that doctrine doesn’t require much if any explanation or rationale, but at least it needs to tie together well.

God did not trick Adam; see my other posts. Adam and Eve listened to God and the serpent with no more capacity to discern than that with which they acted, so the transgression was not a sin, getting beguiled was not a sin, coming up solutions were not sins, etc., as serious as the consequences were. But they were inevitable.

[pogi]

19 minutes ago, CV75 said:

They transgress a lesser law to keep a higher law. Like deciding to break the speed limit to take someone to the emergency room. Now they did it, predictably, with very little experience and practice, and even less tradition. But they were putting the pieces together on their way from innocence to beguilement to wisdom. In the end, in exaltation, they keep the second commandment as well by not partaking of anything forbidden again.

But why was it forbidden in the first place?  It was required for exaltation, after all.  Surely God would have prepared a way to partake innocently of that which is required for exaltation, no?  It has been said that he could not command them to partake of it because it brought death into the world.  But was it truly a fruit which God deemed "good" that brought death into the world, or was it transgression?  

Quote

Romans 6:23
For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Proverbs 11:19
Genuine righteousness leads to life, but the pursuit of evil brings death.

Romans 5:12
Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin;

Romans 5:17,21
For if by one man's offence death reigned by one..

Here is another powerful scripture which testifies of this interpretation:

Quote

He that keepeth his commandments receiveth truth and light, until he is glorified in truth and knoweth all things [0knowledge of good & evil]. Behold here is the agency of man, and here is the condemnation of man; because that which was from the beginning is plainly manifest unto them, and they receive not the light. And every man whose spirit receiveth not the light is under condemnation. (D&C 93: 29,31-32)

  It is promised that Adam, by keeping God's commandments, would have received of the light of Christ, truth, and knowledge of good and evil.  Instead of first receiving the light that was inherent in the fruit, he received condemnation and the evil that accompanies moral consciousness because of his disobedience.   

   

[pogi]

45 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

What would they have transgressed?  They had been commanded not to partake of the fruit and to multiply and replenish.  

Those were just the first two commandments of more instructions to come.  God promised to return with further instructions... it could have been any part of the gospel that they transgressed after being given the fruit by God. 

48 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

  I've never heard of the sacrament of the fruit.  Where in the revealed word is it discussed?

That is my interpretation.  Once you understand what the fruit represents, it is hard to think of it in any other way.

[pogi]

46 minutes ago, halconero said:

Would they have died if they had transgressed the commandment to multiply?

I don't see why not. 

This transgression would have truly disrupted the plan of God.  Probably would have required a new Adam and Eve to take their place. 

46 minutes ago, halconero said:

Some. What if God made a second Adam that undid the violation of the 2nd commandment in the garden?

 Yes, Christ removed the consequences of the violation, but he did not remove the violation itself.  The law was transgressed and a way of redemption was provided.  That is very different from providing a way to fulfill the law, as Nephi testified God would do with every commandment. 

Edited June 13, 2022 by pogi

[filovirus]

I think Pogi and Obeone have many valid points. I will have to think a little more on the matter. Here is a question: Why would Lucifer temp Eve if it would bring about the Plan of Salvation? He knew exactly what the plan was and how it would work. My guess, he had to bring about the fall before God had a chance to fully prepare Adam and Eve to partake of the fruit. What am I not seeing? Did God foresee that Adam and Eve would transgress the law? As he is all knowing, the answer is yes. Was he keeping this knowledge from Lucifer.

[pogi]

2 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

 

Why do you think their transgression was inevitable?

I don’t think that specific transgression was inevitable, but that transgression itself was inevitable - they not being half God and all… 

I think think after a trillion years, Adam might have eventually transgressed after being commanded not to lie for example - “no Eve, that sheep skin doesn’t make you look fat…”  Or, “No Cain, I don’t know what happened to your squirrel dinner left-overs.”

[Obeone]

9 hours ago, pogi said:

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.

Thank you, pogi! Glad to hear that.

I came to this conclusion because I cannot believe in a God that contradicts Himself. It is like logic and reason are suspended till further notice when the church speaks of the fall. It is an insult to reason and in blatant contradiction to the revealed word of God! That's how I came to this. Glad to hear you have too!

As for Zion, it was revealed to me personally that no one who believes this garbage about "no better way but to transgress" can be resurrected or restored to Terrestrial glory or above. Which clearly means that all the honorable prophets and apostles who believed this nonsense will have to change their minds on the point before they are resurrected or before they receive a terrestrial glory or above.

It is clear to me that anyone who believes this lie, that was started by the devil himself(!), unwittingly makes God a liar, a self-contradictory God, which is no God at all!

I know probably no one means it that way, but if they think this through, this is exactly what this means.

This said, I understand that most everyone believing this error, do so in an "honest" mistake, because they cannot imagine that so many prophets can have a flawed opinion about this. 

But I know, most of the people so mistaken, are good people. And I have a sincere compassion for them. So God will correct it in His church soon enough.  

Thanks again for your support. Cheers. 

[CV75]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

But why was it forbidden in the first place?  It was required for exaltation, after all.  Surely God would have prepared a way to partake innocently of that which is required for exaltation, no?  It has been said that he could not command them to partake of it because it brought death into the world.  But was it truly a fruit which God deemed "good" that brought death into the world, or was it transgression?  

Here is another powerful scripture which testifies of this interpretation:

  It is promised that Adam, by keeping God's commandments, would have received of the light of Christ, truth, and knowledge of good and evil.  Instead of first receiving the light that was inherent in the fruit, he received condemnation and the evil that accompanies moral consciousness because of his disobedience.   

   

It was forbidden under the terms of immortality in paradise because they would die and paradise would end. But it was not forbidden under the terms of the kingdom of exaltation. The creation known as the forbidden fruit is good either way. Regarding the scriptures you listed, Adam and Eve were not making a moral choice between good and evil, so these principles may apply differently, or not at all, considering the disparate conditions before and after the Fall.

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, pogi said:

 

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. 

It was partially a “deception” but Satan thought it would nuke the plan. Satan wasn’t “in” on this part of the plan. I do believe Adam and Eve consented and even asked for this complication as part of a bold and dangerous rescue mission. They gave up more than anyone to make it work except for the Savior Himself. Adam became as a little child. Did Eve? Or did she somehow understand and possibly remember what they planned to do on some level.

[rongo]

8 minutes ago, pogi said:

I don’t think that specific transgression was inevitable, but that transgression itself was inevitable - they not being half God and all… 

I think think after a trillion years, Adam might have eventually transgressed after being commanded not to lie for example - “no Eve, that sheep skin doesn’t make you look fat…”  Or, “No Cain, I don’t know what happened to your squirrel dinner left-overs.”

Without the Fall (and their eyes being opened), they would not have been wearing anything,even trillions of years later. Remember, the Lord made them clothing of skin after their eyes had been opened by eating the fruit (plus,death didn't enter in until the Fall). Ditto with eating squirrel meat. Neither of your (admittedly tongue in cheek) examples were possible until after the transgression/Fall.

[Obeone]

9 hours 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. 

They could have started a family without partaking the fruit and without leaving the garden.

How do I know this?

Because God commanded them precisely that, and He cannot give self-contradictory commandments without ceasing to be God, which he never does. 

[rongo]

34 minutes ago, filovirus said:

I think Pogi and Obeone have many valid points. I will have to think a little more on the matter. Here is a question: Why would Lucifer temp Eve if it would bring about the Plan of Salvation? He knew exactly what the plan was and how it would work. My guess, he had to bring about the fall before God had a chance to fully prepare Adam and Eve to partake of the fruit. What am I not seeing? Did God foresee that Adam and Eve would transgress the law? As he is all knowing, the answer is yes. Was he keeping this knowledge from Lucifer.

Because he could only potentially defeat Jehovah if the plan were implemented. And he wouldn't have had a crack at the billions upon billions of sprit siblings who kept their first estates if the plan weren't implemented.

Satan's pride and hubris are limitless. He felt that he would be the one to finally defeat God, despite what had been done in other worlds. Come to think of it, why did the previous tempters implement the plan on those other worlds? They faced the same fact that by bringing about the Fall,they were actually playing an important role in the plan --- and they also chose to do it to try to win.

Doesn't this doctrine of the eternal pattern of creation, garden, Fall by eating the fruit, etc. run counter to the notion that this was unique to earth, this time around?

[Obeone]

9 hours 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!

A little reality check from the Bible:

Quote

 1 Tim. 2:14 
14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

 

[rongo]

4 minutes ago, Obeone said:

They could have started a family without partaking the fruit and without leaving the garden.

How do I know this?

Because God commanded them precisely that, and He cannot give self-contradictory commandments without ceasing to be God, which he never does. 

This is explicitly contradicted in the temple and in the Book of Mormon. Transgressing the commandment to not eat the fruit was required in order to fulfill the commandment to have children. They could not do this without disobeying and eating the fruit.

[Obeone]

8 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

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

I'd rather re-evaluate things than make God a liar. As Paul put it:

Quote

God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; (Romans 3:4)

[Obeone]

8 hours 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?

Of course not! As I said, if Adam did not fall, Christ would have been born on some other fallen world. 

Everyone who makes a mistake, however small, cannot be saved on his own merit, and needs a redeemer in ANY world: Celestial, Terrestrial, or Tellestial. Those in the Millennium will need Jesus no less than we do. 

[Obeone]

7 hours ago, CV75 said:

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

Laws are different but God is the same, and He cannot contradict Himself.