LoveIsTruth

This is not speculation. This is calculation: 1) God does not give impossible commandments (1 Nephi 3:7), and 2) He commanded them to multiply without partaking of the forbidden fruit, which means 3) They COULD do what God commanded them. End of proof.

They were sent NOT to fall. How do I know this? Because that's what the Father commanded them.

Then how do you explain these scriptures: Acts 9:22 22 But Saul increased the more in strength, and confounded the Jews which dwelt at Damascus, proving that this is very Christ. Also this: 2 Nephi 11:4 4 Behold, my soul delighteth in proving unto my people the truth of the coming of Christ; for, for this end hath the law of Moses been given; and all things which have been given of God from the beginning of the world, unto man, are the typifying of him. ... 6 And my soul delighteth in proving unto my people that save Christ should come all men must perish. and this: D&C 20:8 8 And gave him power from on high, by the means which were before prepared, to translate the Book of Mormon; 9 Which contains a record of a fallen people, and the fulness of the gospel of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles and to the Jews also; 10 Which was given by inspiration, and is confirmed to others by the ministering of angels, and is declared unto the world by them— 11 Proving to the world that the holy scriptures are true, and that God does inspire men and call them to his holy work in this age and generation, as well as in generations of old; 12 Thereby showing that he is the same God yesterday, today, and forever. Amen. Still think that "There is no such thing as proof when it comes to the gospel?" Then what is exactly the point of being here on this forum, if you can never prove anything? Your very presence here suggests that you believe otherwise. That is clearly false. When one spouse brakes the covenant, God gives the faithful another spouse. "You will be left alone man in the garden of Eden" was a lie authored by the devil and transmitted through Eve. Adam would have gotten a new wife from the Lord, had he remained faithful, as the Father commanded him. I agree it was wrong. They were incapable of committing sins until after their eyes were opened. So partaking was not a sin, but a serious and deadly transgression, that brought a curse and death upon the whole human family of Adam on earth. It was a deadly mistake. (Pun intended.) And they could have lived with God without a fall, just like people in the Millennium will.

Already answered this in this section of the OP: "But the scriptures say if there were no fall there would be no Savior" It is like saying: "There would have been no opportunity for crutches, because the legs were not broken. So, let's break everybody's legs, so they can use the crutches." You are laboring under a delusion, taught by Satan, that if Adam did not partake of the forbidden fruit, his eyes would never have been opened. That is a lie. If Adam and Eve resisted the temptation sufficiently, their eyes would have been opened without a transgression, and they would have had posterity without a fall, precisely as the Father commanded them, in which case, the conditions on the earth would have been like those in the Millennium. So, far from being stuck in the garden, they would have been building intergalactic spaceships. And yes, they would have still been exalted in the kingdom of God, just like the righteous who will live in the Millennium.

Please show me where I said "the Prophets lied to us." I said they unwittingly repeat the lies of Satan in the garden. Do you see the difference? Moreover I said in the OP: "I know that the prophets and apostles called to lead this church are good men who are doing their best at the time. And if they error, these are honest mistakes, and God will be merciful to all those who seek to do His will with all their hearts." Do you understand the difference between an honest mistake and a lie?

Sins can be committed even in heaven. That's what Lucifer was thrust out for. You do not have to fall to be in the environment where you can commit sin. Agency and opposition exists in every kingdom. The only difference is how people deal with it.

A curious quote from an "anti-LDS" OP: wouldn't you think?

Ether 13:6 6 And that a New Jerusalem should be built up upon this land After the earth is destroyed and resurrected. Rev. 21 1 And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea. 2 And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. You are confusing building of New Jerusalem and the Second Coming. There is more than 2.5 centuries between the two events. Well said, but it is both. The incorrect opinions of the prophets is a sign that Zion is not yet ready to be redeemed. But it soon will be, all those who are left alive, because God will soften or remove all the heads that impede his work. Yes, it depends on the context. However, when I gave the formula: That which is according to the commandments of God is good, and That which is contrary to the commandments of God is evil. The context is perfectly clear: it is right and wrong, and in this context this formula is perfectly correct. I agree with that. He did say: "If thou cursest me for doing the same thing that was done in other worlds..." What is the point of saying "the same thing" if the outcome was always the same, a curse? It wasn't. All other worlds rejected the temptation in the garden. There was no fall, and no curse before. This earth was the first one that fell. Which also proves that God had a much better way for Adam and Eve had they listened to Him more than to the devil in the garden. The temptation happened on other worlds. The fall did not. Otherwise Lucifer should have fully expected to be cursed again, if he was millions of times before. Then please explain to me how billions of children who will be born in the Millennium, and will live out their lives without ever knowing a fallen, lone and dreary world, who will live in the world where "there shall be no sorrow because there is no death" (D&C 101:29), how will they be exalted? Do you doubt they will be? This is exactly what God offered Adam and Eve had they listened to him. As for the Savior, I answered it in this section of the OP: "But the scriptures say if there were no fall there would be no Savior..." So whether you listen to God or the devil, the result is the same? Yes. But it doesn't mean God did not have a better plan for Adam and Eve. Nor does it mean "there was no other way for them but to transgress." These are doctrines of the devil, not God. Did you forget the words of God: "there shall be no sorrow because there is no death" (D&C 101:29)? All true. My vision is not skewed, but matches yours on this point. That is what Adam could have had right off the bat, without a lone and dreary world phase. As for "death" it is not worthy to be called "death," because they are changed in a twinkling of an eye. Therefore God says of the Millennium for the righteous: "there is no death." (D&C 101:29) Moses 6:54 54 Hence came the saying abroad among the people, that the Son of God hath atoned for original guilt, wherein the sins of the parents cannot be answered upon the heads of the children, for they are whole from the foundation of the world. He did both: atoned for the mistakes of the individual, and for the mistakes of the parents. I hope so. Nevertheless, what I said is true. Correction has already started. This OP is a part of the process Before this decade is out, you will see it, if you live through it. Then you will know that I told you so. You are welcome.

I do not criticize men. I criticize incorrect opinions, because they contradict the words of God. God criticizes incorrect opinions plenty in the scriptures. I just follow his example. And it is not lazy. It is a labor of love. I agree with that. Context is everything. Any statement without context is meaningless. In fact, context gives meaning to any statement. But we have plenty of context from our prophets, to know that "Adam did what needed to be done" is in contradiction to the words of God. It is very plain to me. I agree with that. Please give me a context for "We and all mankind are forever blessed because of Eve’s great courage and wisdom. By partaking of the fruit first, she did what needed to be done. Adam was wise enough to do likewise." https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/1993/10/constancy-amid-change?lang=eng And how is this not a repetition of Satan's lie: "there is no other way"? I support the prophets and apostles because they are called of God. But I do not support Satan's lies, and I do not support or repeat errors, because it is a disservice to God and to His cause.

After Eve fell, Adam could not keep the first commandment "with Eve", because God commanded Adam to have children in a terrestrial/paradisaical state, which was Plan A. Not in a fallen world. Therefore Adam should have refused the temptation of the devil delivered by Eve, in which case Adam would have been given another wife who would listen to God more than the devil in this thing. Even in regular life, if one spouse breaks the covenant and leaves the church, the other one is not obligated to follow the fallen one. We are commanded to be faithful to God first and foremost. Adam made a wrong choice in the garden. We are also taught, if one spouse is unworthy of blessings of a higher kingdom, and the other is, the faithful will be given a new spouse who is worthy. That is what would have happened to Adam if he resisted the temptation and chose God over his wife and the devil. But Adam chose wrong. An example of what definitely NOT to do. Those who choose spouse over God, will bring a curse upon themselves and their posterity, and are unworthy of the presence of the Lord. This is why Adam was cast out, and suffered a spiritual death. Partaking of the forbidden fruit made her foolish, not wise. Wisdom is defined as: "The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom: a good understanding have all they that do his commandments." (Ps. 111:10) She would have been wise if she resisted the temptation. This is the difference between opening of eyes by resisting temptations vs. yielding to them. One is wise, the other is stupid. Here is one: We and all mankind are forever blessed because of Eve’s great courage and wisdom. By partaking of the fruit first, she did what needed to be done. Adam was wise enough to do likewise. https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/1993/10/constancy-amid-change?lang=eng This is why Zion is not redeemed almost 200 years later. O, it is well beyond that. They glorify the transgression as an act of wisdom and courage, unwittingly insulting God in the process. They opened the door to a fallen, lone and dreary world, and to death itself. In a very real way, through her transgression, Eve became the death of all living. This is not an opinion, this is what God said: 2 Nephi 2:21 ... he showed unto all men that they were lost, because of the transgression of their parents. Moses 6:59 59 ... by reason of transgression cometh the fall, which fall bringeth death ... It is a good thing they repented, or the blood of the whole earth would have been required at their hands. The higher the position, the greater the responsibility. This is what Eve's words should mean, in the context of what God said in the scriptures. Yes we do know. God gives no commandments unless you CAN do it. This is not my opinion, it is the word of God: 1 Nephi 3:7 7 ... 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 commandeth them. And as transgressing commandments is NOT accomplishing them, therefore it inescapably means that Adam and Eve COULD both have children AND not partake of the forbidden fruit, because God commanded them so. These are not opinions, these are facts. I agree that it doesn't mean there was no other way. Glad to hear you admit that! Thank you. And I never accused Eve of lying in this verse. I just said that in context of other scriptures it meant something other than what we are taught these days. Glad to hear that! We agree then. I already answered this in detail in this section of the OP: "But the scriptures say if there were no fall there would be no Savior..." Protestants and most of Christian world are more correct on this one point than us. Peculiar, how that happened, but true. I guess God has a sense of humor, and did not want LDS to be arrogant in the hereafter. So He allowed them one big blunder in the doctrine for 200 years! But this will be corrected before this decade is out. Those who survive will be told from the pulpit that God indeed had a better way for Adam and Eve, had they listened to Him more than to the devil in the garden. That's what Adam-ondi-Ahman will be in part about. You will see. It would have been the same as in the Millennium, after their eyes were open without transgression. That's what happened on countless other worlds. No, he refers to the mercy of God as a blessing, not the transgression. Only the devil and his followers glory in their transgressions. Adam would have been damned if he gloried in his transgression. Taken in context Adam's words mean: Blessed be the name of God, for [despite] of my transgression my eyes are opened, and in this life I shall have joy [because of God's mercy], and again in the flesh I shall see God [who redeemed me through His Son]. Righteous people do not glory in their transgressions, but in God's mercy and grace who redeemed them from their transgressions. When Zion is redeemed neither church in general, nor her leaders, will any longer believe that Adam had no better way but to transgress, because it is a doctrine of the devil, which doctrine caused the fall of Zion in the first place, and God will not suffer that this error should continue in His Church. No one is "bound" by anything unless it is true. And God will show you before the decade is out that what I told you is true. Adam and Eve also had good and evil presented to them BEFORE the fall. You do not have to be in a "fallen" world to have good and evil. If it were not so, all those in the Millennium would have been damned because they do not live in a fallen world. But they are blessed. I covered this in the OP under section: "But how then will they get the opposition and the experience necessary to be exalted?" Glad to hear that. Then you must admit that Adam and Eve could have had their eyes opened without transgression, precisely as the Father commanded them, which means that there was a better way, just as I said. Already covered this in the OP under section: "But the fall was necessary, some will say!" The church in essence asserts "there was no better way" which makes God a liar, and no God at all. I think this would be an important doctrinal point to fix, don't you think? Those who say that "Adam did what needed to be done" are missing the mark, because unwittingly they are repeating the doctrine of the devil. If "Adam did what needed to be done" then he did right, not wrong. We are taught the exact opposite of the truth on this point. It is shameful! Granted, people do it mostly unwittingly, but it is not good enough. It is a gross error (that will be corrected soon enough). I already mentioned this: It is like saying the scriptures state that 1+1=2, but we do not know if 2+2=4. It is our duty to apply correct principles and discover more truth. I am not speculating. I am calculating. This is an inescapable conclusion, because it is the only one that agrees with the words of God in the scriptures. The one we are taught in the church on the subject is in blatant contradiction to the revealed words of God, (and frankly, is an insult to reason). Care to show where it goes against scripture? As for the "words given by the Lord's servants his prophets," it is a classic error of conflating prophets opinions with words of God. Joseph Smith warned against that. Do you believe him? I know it is hard for most members to imagine, but it is nevertheless true. Every true prophet of God that ever lived, except Jesus only, made mistakes and had incorrect opinions on one subject or another. But there is no error in the revelations they have taught. And how do you know the difference where revelation ends and opinions begin? Use reason and the Spirit. What we are taught in the church about the fall is an insult to reason, because it makes God to be a self-contradictory psychopath! Just think about it, in essence what we are taught is that God supposedly said to Adam and Eve: "Here is this great and wonderful garden I have planted for you. Be fruitful and multiply, be happy and have joy therein.... But, by the way, you cannot multiply until you are kicked out of here into a lone and dreary world, and suffer spiritual death; and you cannot have joy unless you disobey me and fall." This is deranged! They make God a self-contradictory non-God, to fit their own lack of understanding, and to venerate incorrect opinions of the prophets! We have to learn to think for ourselves. I think this is one reason why God allowed this error to continue in the church for so long. Already answered it in these two sections of the OP: "But the fall was necessary, some will say!" and "But was it not a part of God’s plan that Adam should fall?" Interesting, "if we do not know" then why are we taught that the fall is a standard part of every world? You cannot have it both ways. Either the fall is "standard" because it is "necessary" or it is not necessary. Which is it? I think I do. Think about it: Enoch, Melchizedek, and many others were given a fallen world, and overcame it by obtaining a non-fallen one. Adam, on the other hand, was given a paradise, and sent it to hell, the exact opposite of what these men have done. This is why Adam was not translated, but returned to the dust from which he was taken, and these men did not. God is perfect. But Adam had to learn something about Adam. This is why he was placed here and was allowed to fall. I teach what I know to be true. Revealed words agree with what I teach. The opinions of the prophets about the fall, do not. Cheers. Thanks for posting.

If my interpretation of scripture is not "sound," you need to prove it, my friend. Just saying it does not make it so. Overtly true? It's like saying: "The scriptures say that 1+1=2, but we do not know if 2+2=4. My conclusion is an inescapable consequence of what God has said: He said 1) He does not give impossible commandments (1 Nephi 3:7), and 2) He commanded Adam and Eve to multiply AND not to partake of the fruit, which inescapably means 3) They COULD do both.

Already answered this in this section of the OP: "But the scriptures say if there were no fall there would be no Savior" Thanks.

It was certainly a deadly transgression [pun intended]. And your point about the plan is brilliant. Thanks. Good point as well, but it is all related: Majority of the church believes the incorrect opinions of the prophets about Adam and Eve, including the leadership of the church. So Zion, the Church, believes this lie. It is a symbol of all the inner problems you mentioned, but as a matter of fact: Zion in principle CANNOT be redeemed while believing the very lie that caused it's fall in the first place! Therefore God Himself will correct this problem, as I described in the OP. Thanks for posting.

Thank you. Could you please be more specific: which parts exactly do you agree with? I don't think it is speculation. It is an inescapable logical conclusion: If there were no better way, there was no fall. Disloyalty to what? To error? The prophet himself said his opinions were not always correct. I think you would agree with Joseph. As for me, I support my priesthood leaders, which makes me different from the lynchers. I hope you can see that. Indeed. I hope then you can appreciate the value of His words, even when they contradict the opinions of the prophets? Not really. I do not advocate disobedience to church leaders. God will steady the ark as I explained in the OP. The only path I am interested in is truth.

True, but that coming closer to Him involves learning and embracing the truth, which necessarily means identifying and rejecting the lies and errors, even if those unwitting errors were opinions of venerated prophets. Even Peter, the first president of the church after Jesus, was in error, and Paul withstood him to his face: This is just one example of many, where the prophet was wrong in his personal opinions. Joseph warned against equating such opinions to the words of God. Will we believe Joseph's warning? I do.

Added this paragraph to the OP: This is why it was called "the tree of knowledge of good and evil," because whether they yielded to the temptation to partake of it, or resisted it, their eyes would have been opened; because it is the exposure to temptation/opposition that opens eyes, and not fruits and trees. Their duty was to resist the temptation sufficiently, which would have opened their eyes without transgression.

Redemption of Zion and the Fall of Adam Apology first: I have been a member of the Church for almost 30 years. I love the Church. I know it is the only true and living church of God in this world. Despite of all the errors and shortcomings of its members and leaders, it is the only church in possession of the keys of the priesthood of God in this world. And God will hold men responsible to the respect and deference they show to the keys He has entrusted in this church. And if we are merciful to our priesthood leaders, God will be merciful to us, and God knows, I need all the mercy I can get! I know that the prophets and apostles called to lead this church are good men who are doing their best at the time. And if they error, these are honest mistakes, and God will be merciful to all those who seek to do His will with all their hearts. Now having said this, let’s come back to the reason I am writing this post, because I love the Church and want Zion “in her beauty rise.” Here we go: The Point: Zion has not been redeemed yet. It’s been almost 200 years since the founding of the Church. Redemption of Zion was spoken of multiple times by the Lord, yet for almost two centuries it eluded the Church. What is redemption of Zion? It is building of the New Jerusalem. In that city Christ will reign personally and the curse of Adam will be lifted. So in a very real way, Millennium starts in that city with Terrestrial state restored in that city, while the rest of the world is still in a Telestial, fallen state. Then the City begins to grow until it fills North and South America, at which time the Second Coming happens, and then the Terrestrial/Millennial state covers the whole earth. So Zion has not been redeemed yet. There is no New Jerusalem yet, even though the Lord offered it to the church almost 200 years ago, but the church failed to receive the blessing. Why? Because the Church is stubborn, closed minded, and is willing to believe incorrect opinions of its prophets more than words of God and Reason. Are you pitting the church against its prophets? Are you insane? No, I am pitting the words of God, correctly delivered through the prophets, against the incorrect opinions of the prophets (which opinions the prophets themselves readily admit could be wrong). Give me an example of such incorrect opinion. Ok. The fall of Adam. What about it? Well, we are taught in the church that a heroic Adam and wise Eve did exactly what they were supposed to do in the garden of Eden, and there was no better way for them but to transgress. This is a doctrine of the devil, because the devil was literally the first one who taught it in the garden, and our church leaders unwittingly repeat this lie to this day! Zion CANNOT be redeemed and restored to a Terrestrial state while believing the very lie that caused the fall in the first place! Why do you say it’s a lie? Do not scriptures teach the same? They do not. Let’s look at 2 Nephi 2 Does this not say that there was no way for Adam to keep the first commandment to multiply without transgressing the second commandment not to partake? No it does not. First of all, I bring your attention to the fact that it says “they WOULD have had no children.” It does not say “they COULD have had no children.” What’s the difference? Because they COULD have, but WOULD not. And why wouldn’t they? Because they were disobedient and foolish. So, far from Adam being heroic in the garden, and Eve being wise, they were both foolish and disobedient (not in general, but in that thing). I am sure they became heroic and wise afterwards, but not in the transgression. There is nothing heroic, ever, in transgressing the commandments of God! But the prophets in the church say they were wise and heroic. Do you go against the prophets? The scriptures and God never said Adam was heroic and Eve was wise in the garden. It is an opinion of the prophets, probably as far back as Joseph Smith. But it is an incorrect opinion, because it directly contradicts the words of God Himself, and makes Him a self-contradictory God that gives self-contradictory commandments that His children supposedly cannot do, even though the word of God says: Transgressing commandments is NOT accomplishing them. Therefore it necessarily means that there WAS a better way for Adam and Eve in the garden to multiply and replenish the earth, that did not require any transgression at all. What way would that be? Did not Eve say: Yes she did. But in the light of the words of God it does not mean what you think it means. Taken in context with the other words of God spoken elsewhere it means: Notice again, she says “never SHOULD have had seed,” not “never COULD have had seed.” What’s the difference? One is a lie, and there other is not, because they indeed COULD have had, had they listened to the Father. One means physical impossibility, the other means choice. Adam and Eve made the WRONG choice in the garden, or God is a liar and a self-contradictory God, which is no God at all! Either there was a better way for Adam and Eve to keep all the commandments of God in the garden, or there was no fall. Otherwise, what is it that they fell from, if there was no better way? But the devil said “There is no other way.” Yes he did. Does it not give you a pause? When the father of all lies speaks, you should not take it to be a gospel truth! It is a lie. Well, says you, the devil sprinkles a little bit of truth here and there to sell you the lie. “Is there no other way?” was not a little question. It was THE main question of the whole Eden experience. If the devil answered truthfully to this, the most important question, he would not be the devil. Therefore he lied. There was another way. Ok, so you say there was a better way. What was it? Why, to keep the commandments of the Father of course, and to resist the temptation of the devil! But their eyes were not opened then. They didn’t even know they were naked, for crying out-loud, how can you expect them to multiply and replenish the earth in such a state? They were like little children and forever would remain such unless they were exposed to opposition/temptation. That is true. And opposition/temptation was presented to them, as God said. But what most in the church miss, is that: Even though it was necessary for Adam to be tempted to open his eyes to know good and evil, it was NOT necessary for him to yield to the temptation. Resisting temptations opens eyes better than yielding to them. This is why it was called "the tree of knowledge of good and evil," because whether they yielded to the temptation to partake of it, or resisted it, their eyes would have been opened; because it is the exposure to temptation/opposition that opens eyes, and not fruits and trees. Their duty was to resist the temptation sufficiently, which would have opened their eyes without transgression. This is how Jesus got His eyes opened to know good and evil, by resisting temptations, instead of yielding to them. But the devil said: “This is how the Father gained his knowledge.” That is a lie. Here is proof: Here is how God gained His knowledge: Jesus was born with the same veil over His mind that Adam and Eve had. He did not know good from evil when he was born: Jesus got His eyes opened to know good from evil by resisting all temptations: Therefore He knew good and evil better than anyone who ever lived on this earth, without committing any transgression! The better way: Plan A. If Adam and Eve resisted the temptation of the devil to partake of the forbidden fruit, their eyes would have began to be opened sufficiently to have children, which obedience to the first commandment, would have opened their eyes completely. Thus if Adam and Eve resisted the temptation in the garden, they COULD have had their eyes opened without any transgression, and could have had children without any fall, precisely as the Father commanded them, in which case the world would have continued in a Terrestrial/paradisaical glory, the same state that will prevail on the earth, but now only in the Millennium. Thus the plan of God was much more magnificent and generous than what we are taught in the church. There was a MUCH better way! And if there was no Plan A, no better way, then there was no fall, or what is it that they fell from? Wait a minute! But the scriptures say if there were no fall there would be no Savior, and without a Savior all of the creation would have been lost. Therefore Adam had to fall, or all of creation would have been lost! Not really. Yes you have to have the Savior. Anyone in ANY world, celestial, terrestrial, or telestial, who makes even one mistake cannot be saved on his own merit, and therefore needs a Savior. That is true. But it is never man’s duty to transgress God’s commandments. In fact it is his solemn duty not to. Jesus said it best: Did you get this? It is impossible, but some world somewhere will fall, but WOE to that world that falls. It is not honorable or heroic or wise. It is WOE. It was not heroic, honorable nor wise that Adam and Eve fell. It was wrong, because there was a much better way to open their eyes. Just to drive this point home a little bit further, let’s take Lehi’s words and apply them to Lucifer. According to Lehi’s logic, this statement is obviously true: If Lucifer did not rebel, he would not have fallen, and would not have become the devil, and without the opposition, Adam’s eyes would never have been opened, and therefore he would never have children. It is all true. But it does NOT mean that there was no better way for Lucifer but to rebel. No one in their right mind will argue that Lucifer did the right thing. If he did, why was he cursed for it? If he did the right thing, he should have been blessed instead of cursed! This is how proponents of “there was no better way” lie go off the rails. The fundamental truth in any analysis is this: That which is according to the commandments of God is good, and That which is contrary to the commandments of God is evil. Adam and Eve went contrary to the commandments of God, therefore it was not good, nor honorable, nor brave, nor wise. It was disobedient and foolish. If Lucifer did not fall, someone else would have, and would have been cursed for it. If Adam did not fall, someone else would have fallen on some other world, and would have been cursed for it, and the Savior would have been born there. It is ALWAYS wrong to transgress the commandments of God. There are no exceptions to this rule. None. But the scripture says: Does it not then mean, that Adam’s case was special, and that God wanted him to fall? No it does not. What God said to Adam in the garden was no different than what He says to us today: How much more free can you possibly get? This is exactly the same choice that was given to Adam in the garden, and he chose wrong. Why? Because there was a better way, that God commanded. But the fall was necessary, some will say! No it wasn’t. If the fall was necessary, then the atonement was unnecessary. Think about it: If the fall was necessary, then Adam had done what he was supposed to do, and therefore he fulfilled his duty, and therefore he had done nothing wrong, and therefore there is no need for an atonement! Those who say that the fall was necessary, unwittingly make the atonement of Christ unnecessary. This is the true definition of necessary: Necessary means: a) God commanded it, and b) It is your duty to do it, and c) You will be cursed if you do not do it, and d) You will be blessed if you do it. That’s what “necessary” means to God, and only a devil would disagree with that. By this definition, the fall of Adam was UNNECESSARY. Just like every sin and transgression is unnecessary by definition, or they are not sins and transgressions. But was it not a part of God’s plan that Adam should fall? And does it not then make it necessary? Ah! This is the subtlety that Satan exploits. The definition of “necessary.” We spoke of it before. Necessary, to God, means duty. It was necessary that Adam should be cast out of the garden, BECAUSE he transgressed. But it was unnecessary FOR Adam to transgress. So the key here: who you apply the word “necessary” to? The correct application is that of “duty.” If you cannot say it was someone's duty to do something, then you cannot justly say it was necessary FOR THEM. The outcome of the punishment was necessary, but the transgression that caused the punishment was unnecessary. Furthermore, if something is a part of the plan, it does not mean it is your duty to transgress. Hell is also a part of God’s plan, but it is not recommended. In fact, it is forbidden. People get there AGAINST God’s advice and instructions. So also the fall was accounted for in God’s plan, but just like hell, it was forbidden. Adam and Eve got there against the Father’s advice and instructions, and were cursed for it. So the punishment was NECESSARY, but the transgression that brought the punishment was UNNECESSARY by definition, or it was not a transgression. But don’t all sin? Not all. Well, all make mistakes? Not all. And even though most make mistakes, it does not mean there is no better way. Otherwise they are not mistakes, and God is a liar because He expressly forbade people to transgress and to sin. And why did He forbid them transgressions and sins? Because there is a better way, or God is not God. So what would conditions on the earth be like if Adam did not fall? First of all, if he did not fall but Eve did, Adam would not have been left alone in the garden, as Satan lied through Eve, but Adam would have been given another wife, who would have listened to the Father more than the devil in the garden. (Thus it was not Adam’s duty to follow his fallen wife and the devil. It was Adam’s duty to resist the temptation, even though it was greater because he had to choose between his wife and God. Unfortunately he chose wrong. Another example of what not to do.) Secondly, if Adam resisted the temptation sufficiently, his eyes would have been opened without transgression, and he would have had posterity without a fall, precisely as the Father commanded him. Therefore, the world would have began in a Terrestrial/paradisaical state, which is the same state that will exist on the earth, but now only in the Millennium, when billions of children will be born and live out their lives without ever knowing a fallen, telestial, lone and dreary world. But how then will they get the opposition and the experience necessary to be exalted? Do you doubt that they in the Millennium will be exalted? To be sure, Satan will still try to tempt them, but he will not be successful. Opposition exists in any kingdom, celestial, terrestrial, or telestial. The only difference is how people deal with it. No one suffered more than Heavenly Father and His Son. No one suffered more intensely than they. Yet they did not fall to get that suffering. The righteous suffer because of the transgressions of others, and the wicked suffer because of their own transgressions. But all must suffer, or they cannot know the fullness of joy, which is the purpose of life. Ok, but by saying all these things about Adam, do you not sow discontent, and humiliate a great man? No. Either make God true, or Adam in the garden, but not both. They are mutually exclusive. In the words of Paul: Besides, Adam’s is the great redemption story. Though he caused the fall, he will be the man to announce earth return to paradisaical glory: Adam is Michael, the seventh angel. He will appear in Adam-ondi-Ahman long before the events described in verse 110, and declare to stubborn Zion, that he, Adam, made a mistake in the garden of Eden, and that there indeed was a better way for him and his posterity, had he listened to the Father more than to the devil. Then the New Jerusalem will shortly begin to be built, for then the church will be disabused from the very lie that caused the fall of the world in the first place! He who has ears to hear, let him hear. But didn’t the devil say that this has been done in other worlds? Does it not mean that all worlds follow the same fallen course? No! Think about it: The devil while speaking to God says: “If thou cursest me for doing the same thing that has been done in other worlds...” Wait a minute! If the devil was cursed in millions of other worlds (and we are taught that there were millions of worlds before this one), for doing the same thing, then why is he surprised that he is cursed now? Was he not cursed millions of times before under the same circumstances? No, he wasn’t! The other world’s did not fall. He tempted them, their Adams and Eves, but those other worlds rejected his temptation. That’s why though he tempted them just as he has done here, he was not cursed before, because his temptation did not produce a fall, until this earth. Otherwise he should have fully expected to be cursed if he was cursed for doing the same thing millions of times before! This means that this earth was the first one that fell. Millions of other worlds created by God before did not fall! This is why the Savior was born here, because this was the most wicked world of all. But is it fair, that we should be born in such a world? Fear not, God compensates everything. The trial in this world is intense but short. In other less wicked worlds it takes much longer to be exalted, because there is less intense opposition. Besides, even in this fallen world, many overcame it and gained a terrestrial state: Enoch and his city, Melchizedek and his city, John the Beloved, the three Nephites, and many, many others. By the way, if Enoch or Melchizedek were in the garden of Eden instead of Adam, they would not have fallen. Does it mean they are greater than Adam? No. It means they were less volatile, or more steadfast in that point. So everyone gets all the blessings they are willing to enjoy, as soon as they are ready to receive them. Therefore, we are never waiting for God. He is always waiting for us. Because He is ready, and we are not. Besides, because of Christ, the curse of Adam is removed from little children. Therefore, everyone will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression. Thus, all is fair in the end. So the summary is: 1) There was a better way for Adam and Eve in the garden, had they listened to the Father, or there was no fall, and God is not God. 2) That better way was to listen to the Father and to resist the temptation. 3) Which if they had done, their eyes would have been opened without transgression, and they would have had posterity without a fall, precisely as the Father commanded them. 4) Which would have produced conditions on the earth similar to those which will prevail, but now only in the Millennium. 5) All is just in the end. Christ compensates for the mistakes and transgressions of parents, if the children embrace the truth, instead of justifying and glorifying the transgressions of their parents. 6) Zion cannot be redeemed, ie restored to a Terrestrial glory, while believing the very lies that caused the fall from that glory in the first place. 7) Adam/Michael himself will tell the stubborn church (those who are left alive), that he did wrong in the garden of Eden, and that there indeed was a better way for him and his posterity, had he listened to the Father more than the devil. 8 ) Then, shortly after, Zion will be redeemed, and the New Jerusalem built. 9) The church is true, and God will not suffer Satan’s lies regarding the fall to continue in His church much longer. He who has ears to hear, let him hear.