Adam and Eve's story


Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, MarginOfError said:

. It doesn't bother me that a prophet could see a vision of a figurative man and assume that he was literal, having adopted a literalist point of view

If Adam turned out to be a figurative being and not real I would burn my scriptures and walk away from the church immediately. Our doctrine is founded upon the belief and doctrine that Adam and Eve we're real literal people. If they are fake, this religion is fake! But, they are real, and thus, our religion is real and true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

I think anytime you introduce "allegorical" into a historical context it ends up conflating it into something fictional.

Something can actually be both.  David is a prime example of this, being a type and shadow in representation of the Savior as being a literal King and Savior of Israel from it's enemies.

Another thing that probably can be taken as literal and yet is deeply symbolic is the story if Abraham and Issac.  Issac was Abraham's only begotten son via Sarah (though he had another, it was not his chosen son...one may even be able to see a symbolism in that via Adam...but that's another story) and Abraham was ordered to sacrifice Issac.  This story can be also seen as allegory in regards to the coming Lord and his sacrifice and atonement for us.

However, perhaps an easier item to see literally and yet allegorical would be that of animal sacrifice.  On it's face, animal sacrifice occurred in ancient Israel.  Historically it literally happened.  However, there is also a deeper meaning behind it than just a mere ancient ritual.  Christianity knows that the real meaning behind animal sacrifice was as an allegorical representation of the Lord.  It is full of symbolism and meaning that means a great deal.

Allegory is deeply imbedded in the scriptures and the ability to see it is very important for one to understand why the stories are told in the way they are and how many are fulfilled in the New Testament, as well as how prophecy has shown our latter days as well as the millennium to come.

12 hours ago, MarginOfError said:

I'll admit, I have a pretty complicated relationship with Moses. I think he existed, and I'm comfortable with the idea that he may be the originator of many of the ideas that turned into the Old Testament, but I don't really think much of what he taught or said survived to the compilation of what we consider the old Testament.

More likely, the Old Testament represents a compilation of ideas that had multiple goals. Some were religious and some were sociopolitical. So it would probably be more accurate for me to say, "the Hebrews didn't consider Adam to be a single distinct individual " but, I'm lazy.

Ultimately, I don't subscribe to biblical literalism, which many of the early revelations did. Joseph Smith, for example, was a firm believer that those with black skin were descendants of Ham, which has largely fallen out of favor. Early prophets were also convinced that the Lamanites were the principal ancestors of Native Americans. But now we claim they are only "among" the principal ancestors. It doesn't bother me that a prophet could see a vision of a figurative man and assume that he was literal, having adopted a literalist point of view.

In regards to Native Americans, DNA evidence is not yet perfect, and MUCH of it is very questionable.

The majority of DNA they are basing their evidence on regarding the Hebrews are the Jews...but the Jews are NOT the ONLY Hebrews.  They are Hebrew, but not all Hebrews are Jews. 

What science has correlated are the similar DNA between the Jewish Hebrews and what we may call the Caananites.  For all we know, they are correlating the Caananite or other tribal blood of the region which has NOTHING to do with the genetics of the actual Hebrew tribes. 

Much of the correlation between the Jews and the majority of the Lost tribes was several thousand years ago, and a correlation that far back is a lot tougher to predict.  In fact, much of their statements in regards to where DNA came from is reliant on what is basically guesses on anything over 500 years ago. 

Various ideas about where the Lost tribes went or where the remnants are cover a vast arena, including several tribal groups that are located in Asia.  Thus, if there was a connecting DNA between groups in Asia and North America it would make a LOT MORE SENSE that perhaps these may be the actual Hebrew DNA and related to the actual original DNA of the Hebrews rather than the DNA connected to groups in the Middle East.

In essence, we do NOT know what DNA really represents past the 500 year mark except for guesses regarding evidence we have from various sites we have found (and as DNA from the Middle East in some instances they would use would date PRIOR to the Hebrew arrival to that area...one could wonder if it represents those who originally inhabited the area of Canaan or if it represents the Hebrew tribes...science right now COUNTERS the bible and claims that they both were there originally and there was no Abraham, Issac, Jacob, Joseph or even Moses.

Right now, scientific ideas are that there is no Hebrew blood with Native American DNA.  If we have any evidence (though it is still pretty scarce on this point to be honest) it points that the Native Americans are not related to those from Ancient Israel, but in fact are more closely related to what we have thought in the past with them being DISTANTLY connected to those from Asia.  In some ways, the experiments done in this were made with these expectations.  However, science is always changing and what is false today could become true tomorrow and what is true today could become false tomorrow.  It is a relatively new science, and pinpointing exact items is getting better but there is still a LOT we do not know. 

Currently what I believe and what I do professionally DO NOT MESH.  They cannot intermingle as they conflict with each other.  The evidence we possess does not correlate with what my belief is. 

I CANNOT be a bible literalist as a Historian.  Professionally, the evidence does not support such a thing.

However, outside of my professional life, I feel that the Bible is literal and that what it tells us occurred in Genesis actually DID happen.

Edited by JohnsonJones
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/7/2019 at 7:26 PM, Rob Osborn said:

I think the saddest stories I hear from LDS is when they start talking Adam and Eve as allegorical fictional characters. What a travesty!

Why? 

Some additional question - which do you believe to be the most accurate revelation of the Adam and Eve Epoch - Scripture (Genesis, Moses and Abraham) or what is taught in the temple of G-d?

One other question - are you bothered by other allegorical fictional characters in scripture such as the Good Samaritan?  Does allegorical = travesty to you?

 

The Traveler 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

The majority of DNA they are basing their evidence on regarding the Hebrews are the Jews...but the Jews are NOT the ONLY Hebrews.  They are Hebrew, but not all Hebrews are Jews. 

Often I have stated that any scientific evidence used to disprove the Book of Mormon will also disprove the Bible.  Hebrew DNA is an excellent example.  The Bible tells us that Noah, his three sons and their wives are the source of all human DNA living today.  The diversity of Hebrews DNA are less than 10 generations from Noah and his sons.  If science cannot find Hebrew DNA links in the native Americans - then this evidence disproves the Bible just as much as the Book of Mormon - if not more so.  What is interesting to me about all the doubt surrounding the Book of Mormon concerning DNA is that is comes from institutions that claim the Bible is historically correct and the only reliable source of scripture.  There is an old saying - people that live in glass houses should not initiate the throwing of stones. 

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

If Adam turned out to be a figurative being and not real I would burn my scriptures and walk away from the church immediately. Our doctrine is founded upon the belief and doctrine that Adam and Eve we're real literal people. If they are fake, this religion is fake! But, they are real, and thus, our religion is real and true.

Have you considered that Adam and Eve were real literal people but that elements of what has been passed down over the ages has become allegorical?  Just because someone believes something about a person that may not be accurate does not mean that everything about that person is a fake and a lie.  

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Traveler said:

Why? 

Some additional question - which do you believe to be the most accurate revelation of the Adam and Eve Epoch - Scripture (Genesis, Moses and Abraham) or what is taught in the temple of G-d?

One other question - are you bothered by other allegorical fictional characters in scripture such as the Good Samaritan?  Does allegorical = travesty to you?

 

The Traveler 

They all have truth. As for scriptures, the Moses account is most truthful in my opinion. The temple presents information from a somewhat different angle so in that regards it's not comparable.

The problem with "allegorical" is it's connotation with fictional characters. Adam and Eve aren't fictional characters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

They all have truth. As for scriptures, the Moses account is most truthful in my opinion. The temple presents information from a somewhat different angle so in that regards it's not comparable.

The problem with "allegorical" is it's connotation with fictional characters. Adam and Eve aren't fictional characters.

Do you think that the temple - in providing somewhat of a different angle makes it less correct or is a travesty?  or less reliable than scripture and should not be believed?

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Traveler said:

Do you think that the temple - in providing somewhat of a different angle makes it less correct or is a travesty?  or less reliable than scripture and should not be believed?

 

The Traveler

The feeling I get from the temple is it explains more of the covenants and symbolism. That doesn't take away but builds upon Adam and Eve as literal people who really existed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/8/2019 at 4:49 PM, MarginOfError said:

Erly prophets were also convinced that the Lamanites were the principal ancestors of Native Americans. But now we claim they are only "among" the principal ancestors.

Here is a perfect example of something that was in reality true, but because of the changes in society, they are considered false. Then they become false by perception alone.  Therefore, they need "correcting".  But not really.

The Lehites were the principal ancestors of the American Indians just as Abrahan, Isaac, and Jacob are our principal fathers.  They are those to whom we Trace our spiritual line.  But if you were to take a DNA test, we'd hardly see any Semitic genes at all.  But unlike Elizabeth Warren, our claim is not about DNA.  It is about a divine blessing promised to our Fathers which we have inherited.  And that covenant is upheld by the Lord even without 1/1024th of the DNA required to satisfy the philosophies of men.

Similarly, the American Indians have inherited promises made to the Nephites and to Lehi, and to Abraham, Isaac, and, Jacob.

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/9/2019 at 10:58 AM, Rob Osborn said:

They all have truth. As for scriptures, the Moses account is most truthful in my opinion. The temple presents information from a somewhat different angle so in that regards it's not comparable.

Interesting. The Book of Moses was revealed to Joseph Smith about the time of D&C 76 (relatively speaking) compared to when the temple endowment was revealed. Yet you consider the endowment ceremony as the clearest and most truthful depiction of the kingdoms of glory but not when it comes to Adam and Eve. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, mordorbund said:

Interesting. The Book of Moses was revealed to Joseph Smith about the time of D&C 76 (relatively speaking) compared to when the temple endowment was revealed. Yet you consider the endowment ceremony as the clearest and most truthful depiction of the kingdoms of glory but not when it comes to Adam and Eve. 

I didn't say that. I said the info in the temple is from a different angle and in that regards isn't as comparable as Genesis, Moses and Abraham. The temple adds lots of dialogue and instruction regarding their dealings with God in the garden. In this regards the temple fills in some of the details otherwise not mentioned. Those details deal with more spiritual matters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎1‎/‎7‎/‎2019 at 7:54 PM, Just_A_Guy said:

It’s unfortunate that I can’t cite directly to sacred things in order to make textualist/pedantic counter-arguments.  So, suffice it to say (in my most erudite, hifalutin’ tone of voice):

NUH-UHHHHHH!!!!

I think Joseph Smith’s revelations make clear that there was a historical Adam and Eve around 6-7000 years ago who were cognitively/spiritually distinct from any precursor life forms and who may properly be regarded as the grand patriarch and matriarch of humanity—or in other words, whose can be found in the ancestry of every human now living.  That parts of the temple ceremony may be allegorical—and even just plain don’t work, if we take it as a historical recitation of interactions between the mortal Adam and certain other historical figures—I don’t dispute; but to say that the temple ceremony portrays Adam and Eve as fictional characters strikes me as a massive overstatement. 

Of course, I never attended the ceremonies being referenced, but one of the big differences I have encountered in interpreting biblical stories (between church members and traditional Christians) is that of Adam & Eve's fall. Without divulging the sacred, can someone confirm if the key difference is whether or not Adam & Eve truly fell--truly and intentionally rebelled against God's command by eating the fruit? I've been told by a few at this site that Adam & Eve valiantly made their decisions so that we could all experience free agency (or as I understand it, free will). In contrast, most of us traditionalists believe that Adam & Eve committed grave sin, because the serpent promised them they could be like God, and lied, saying God would not kill them for disobeying. To my thinking, whether Adam & Eve are historical or allegorical, the main issue is whether "they" achieved free agency for us or set us up for rebellion and the need for redemption.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, prisonchaplain said:

Of course, I never attended the ceremonies being referenced, but one of the big differences I have encountered in interpreting biblical stories (between church members and traditional Christians) is that of Adam & Eve's fall. Without divulging the sacred, can someone confirm if the key difference is whether or not Adam & Eve truly fell--truly and intentionally rebelled against God's command by eating the fruit? I've been told by a few at this site that Adam & Eve valiantly made their decisions so that we could all experience free agency (or as I understand it, free will). In contrast, most of us traditionalists believe that Adam & Eve committed grave sin, because the serpent promised them they could be like God, and lied, saying God would not kill them for disobeying. To my thinking, whether Adam & Eve are historical or allegorical, the main issue is whether "they" achieved free agency for us or set us up for rebellion and the need for redemption.

(This question and answer actually are totally LDS beliefs 101, so no need to worry about going-into-too-sacred-to-talk-about-whimiscally territory)

I completely agree that the view of the Fall is one of the beliefs that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints differs over other Christian Churches.   In short, the LDS view of the Fall is much more optimistic and purposeful than other Christian views.    In the LDS view, there was never a moment where God said "oops, I didn't plan on them eating the fruit, now my entire Garden idea is in the trash and I need to come up with a Plan B on how to save them".  Which isn't to say that other Christian views think of God going "ooops", but I do see a bemoaning of how horrible the fallen world is, and this almost wishful thinking of how much better things if Adam and Eve could have followed on simple rule.  Such thought process doesn't really exist in the LDS mind-- the Fall was always God's plan, and yes this world can suck, but it has always been God's plan and will work for our good.  It's a very forward thinking mindset: we aim to be exalted, rather than looking back and wanting to be infants in the Garden.  

Addressing you specific questions--

7 minutes ago, prisonchaplain said:

can someone confirm if the key difference is whether or not Adam & Eve truly fell--truly and intentionally rebelled against God's command by eating the fruit? 

LDS view: the partaking of the fruit was an intentional thought out action.  It wasn't really Satan fooling anyone.  It was intentional, thought out, and there is actually admiration for the bravery there.  Now, did Adam and Eve really 100% fully understand what they were doing and the consequences of it?  No-- of course they didn't get it 100%-- we still don't fully get that today.  But there was thought put into it.

7 minutes ago, prisonchaplain said:

I've been told by a few at this site that Adam & Eve valiantly made their decisions so that we could all experience free agency (or as I understand it, free will).

The big discussion about us having free will actually comes before the Garden and Earth's creation.  The discussion on free will was actually the core of Lucifer's rebellion and the war in Heaven.   God's ways have always been free will, but Lucifer wanted to remove free will to have forced obedience & salvation for all.

7 minutes ago, prisonchaplain said:

In contrast, most of us traditionalists believe that Adam & Eve committed grave sin, because the serpent promised them they could be like God, and lied, saying God would not kill them for disobeying. 

The best lies are 99% truth.  The snake told Eve:

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

The bolded part is a complete lie, cause we'll all die physically and spiritually.  But the rest was/is truthful: we learn good from evil, and hence can become like God (through His Son, of course).

7 minutes ago, prisonchaplain said:

To my thinking, whether Adam & Eve are historical or allegorical, the main issue is whether "they" achieved free agency for us or set us up for rebellion and the need for redemption.

The Fall was always God's Plan A.  Never was there an "ooops, got to think of Plan B" moment.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, prisonchaplain said:

Of course, I never attended the ceremonies being referenced, but one of the big differences I have encountered in interpreting biblical stories (between church members and traditional Christians) is that of Adam & Eve's fall. Without divulging the sacred, can someone confirm if the key difference is whether or not Adam & Eve truly fell--truly and intentionally rebelled against God's command by eating the fruit? I've been told by a few at this site that Adam & Eve valiantly made their decisions so that we could all experience free agency (or as I understand it, free will). In contrast, most of us traditionalists believe that Adam & Eve committed grave sin, because the serpent promised them they could be like God, and lied, saying God would not kill them for disobeying. To my thinking, whether Adam & Eve are historical or allegorical, the main issue is whether "they" achieved free agency for us or set us up for rebellion and the need for redemption.

Satan, as is his wont did not directly outright lie to Adam and Eve.  He knew they wouldn't physically die immediately, he knew that in the garden, they could never become like gods, knowing good and evil.  Of course these were half truths.

Also he had no access to them in a spiritual sense because he was unable to corrupt their descendants.  There could be no descendants.

So Eve "eats" the apple.  Somehow this transgression transformed her understanding about life and also changed her physically.  She communicated this to Adam.  The Lord, blocked their access to the tree of life, because had they eaten of that, they likely would have become immortal at that point without chance of repentance.

LDS do not refer to Eve's eating the apple as a sin.

Satan did not inform them that they would be subject to the second death, which is exclusion from the Lord's presence.  But God had a plan to bring them back.  They could repent, they could indeed become like the gods, knowing good and evil.  And yes, eventually enter into the presence of God again.  Even better from God's POV their posterity (which they couldn't have in the garden), would have the same chance Adam and Eve had.

So yes, they did deliberately set us up with free agency and the need for redemption.  God needed them to enter into a corrupt state so that His children could follow in Adam's footsteps.  None of the Saving that goes on could have happened without the Fall of Adam.

The LDS don't regard Adam and Eve as sinners.  But they did have to transgress God's commands to lead us to our present condition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To supplement, and perhaps slightly diverge from, @Jane_Doe‘s and @mrmarklin‘s excellent answers:  

In LDS thought, the partaking of the fruit absolutely needed to happen—eventually.  In Mormon scripture, Adam and Eve recognize that after-the-fact (Moses 4:10-11).

But many Church members look at that scripture and, in my view, commit the post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy; assuming that Adam and Eve were fully (or at least sufficiently) informed at the time of their decision and that there was nothing at all problematic about what they did.  

Personally, I think there is strong basis to question whether their partaking of the fruit needed to happen in that particular time, place, and manner.  Eve says, in two books of LDS scripture, that she was “beguiled”.  The temple liturgy does make some subtle distinctions between why Eve partook of the fruit versus why Adam partook, that basically buttress Paul’s statement to Timothy suggesting that Eve was deceived but that Adam wasn’t.  That explanation, until very recently, justified some differences between  the ways men and women experience multiple temple ordinances.

I don’t think taking the fruit was an act of deliberate rebellion on either Adam’s or Eve’s part—at least, not as we commonly use that term.  But my personal theory is that the ultimate themes of the Fall narrative are largely 1) Satan trying to set himself up as humanity's god, attempting to win Adam’s and Eve’s allegiance by presenting himself as freely imparting knowledge that God the Father was supposedly deliberately concealing; and 2) Adam’s and Eve’s ultimately recognizing and rejecting that attempt (in spite of some early missteps), cementing their loyalty to the true God who created them and trusting in the promise of a future Savior.  

In that context I see Eve’s partaking of the fruit, in light of the information available to her at the time, as probably being the result of some deception and misplaced priorities that nevertheless miraculously ended up redounding to mankind’s ultimate benefit. 

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me see if I am "hearing" correctly. Adam & Eve agreed to eat the forbidden fruit in pre-mortality, knowing that their action would result in great physical and emotional distress. They did it valiantly, so that all humanity could experience free will. On the other hand, as @Just_A_Guy pointed out, once they were in the Garden, their actions certainly had a measure of disobedience to it, since they were no longer fully aware of their pre-mortal decision. Eve, in particular, probably committed some kind of deficient act. Nevertheless, what they did was planned for by Heavenly Father, and kept his plan for our ultimate benefit right on track. Does that some it up well?

Of course, the traditional view is that Adam & Eve came into existence in the Garden, and that God punished them for choosing to eat the fruit He told them not to eat. What follows, we agree was the plan of salvation. Indeed, if that was a "plan B," it was one He always knew would come into play. We all love Gen 3:15 as the first messianic promise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, prisonchaplain said:

Of course, I never attended the ceremonies being referenced, but one of the big differences I have encountered in interpreting biblical stories (between church members and traditional Christians) is that of Adam & Eve's fall. Without divulging the sacred, can someone confirm if the key difference is whether or not Adam & Eve truly fell--truly and intentionally rebelled against God's command by eating the fruit? I've been told by a few at this site that Adam & Eve valiantly made their decisions so that we could all experience free agency (or as I understand it, free will). In contrast, most of us traditionalists believe that Adam & Eve committed grave sin, because the serpent promised them they could be like God, and lied, saying God would not kill them for disobeying. To my thinking, whether Adam & Eve are historical or allegorical, the main issue is whether "they" achieved free agency for us or set us up for rebellion and the need for redemption.

The short answer is: Yes, Adam and Eve really and truly fell. The longer answer is: If you do not understand and believe LDS doctrine, you have a false concept of what the Fall is.

Non-Latter-day Saint Christians think that the difference is that Latter-day Saints believe that Adam and Eve acted heroically in disobeying God and hearkening to the voice of Satan. And indeed, some Latter-day Saints (including some LDS leaders) do indeed appear to believe exactly this. But that is not the actual root of the disagreement.

Rather, the root of the disagreement is this: Latter-day Saints believe that the Fall of Adam was a necessary and indispensable part of the plan of salvation of our Father in heaven. In contrast, non-LDS Christians in the main believe that the Fall of Adam was some sort of tragic mistake, a horrifying gaffe in the perfection of God's works.

This disagreement in turn gives rise to a complete contrast in how various people view Adam and Eve. Traditional Christianity views Adam and Eve, our first parents, as evil people who disobeyed God and brought his wrath upon themselves and all their descendants, opening the way for eternal misery for all who do not follow (what they believe to be) Christian precepts. Adam seems to be viewed as not just a wicked man, but a soft-headed fool who apparently thought with his gonads instead of his brain. Eve is treated even worse in larger Christian thought, the vile temptress who so easily was seduced by Satan's lies and who then dragged her husband down with her into condemnation.

image.jpeg.79c0bbb1cb7f32fad28dc954819474e6.jpeg

In stark contrast, Latter-day Saints view Adam and Eve as noble, righteous people, our first parents to whom we owe a great debt of gratitude. Many consider Eve's disobedience to have been a noble choice for which we should be grateful. (Our current Church president and prophet appears to subscribe more or less to this view.) Those of us who do not go that far nevertheless view Eve as a great, intelligent, wonderful woman who, despite being deceived by the wicked one, gracefully fulfilled her part in the plan of salvation. Adam is one of the greatest prophets of all time, the very Ancient of Days to whom we look back on and forward to (and the same personage as Michael, called the "archangel" and apparently one of the greatest and noblest of God's premortal sons, perhaps second only to the premortal Jehovah in righteouness and valiance.)

Hope that helps, @prisonchaplain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Vort said:

 In contrast, non-LDS Christians in the main believe that the Fall of Adam was some sort of tragic mistake, a horrifying gaffe in the perfection of God's works.

 

I only quoted this because the rest of it was helpful and seemed spot on, to me. Even this quote is mostly right. I'd only clarify that the gaffe was on Adam & Eve's part. Yes, God knows what we will do, both right and wrong, and none of it thwarts his perfect will and plans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, prisonchaplain said:

I only quoted this because the rest of it was helpful and seemed spot on, to me. Even this quote is mostly right. I'd only clarify that the gaffe was on Adam & Eve's part. Yes, God knows what we will do, both right and wrong, and none of it thwarts his perfect will and plans.

I get that.  It just seems very very strange to LDS ears to hear mainstream folks bemoaning the Fall.  Just as I'm sure the reverse is true.

50 minutes ago, prisonchaplain said:

Let me see if I am "hearing" correctly. Adam & Eve agreed to eat the forbidden fruit in pre-mortality, knowing that their action would result in great physical and emotional distress. They did it valiantly, so that all humanity could experience free will. On the other hand, as @Just_A_Guy pointed out, once they were in the Garden, their actions certainly had a measure of disobedience to it, since they were no longer fully aware of their pre-mortal decision. Eve, in particular, probably committed some kind of deficient act. Nevertheless, what they did was planned for by Heavenly Father, and kept his plan for our ultimate benefit right on track. Does that some it up well?

You're mostly there, but some of your phrasing is weird.  ("Weird" is totally not the best word here, but it's the best I can think of).

Again, the big battle over Lucifer rejecting the idea of Free Will was well before the Earth's creation or the Garden.   So to say "A&E Fell so that all humanity could experience free will..." it sounds kind of weird.  Yes, it was all part of God's Plan, a Plan which is built on free will and love.   So your statement is technically true, but that's not really the focus here.  

The "agreed to eat the fruit"... again, it's kind of weird phrasing.  

"Nevertheless, what they did was planned for by Heavenly Father, and kept his plan for our ultimate benefit right on track."   -- that's 100% spot-on.  

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, prisonchaplain said:

Of course, I never attended the ceremonies being referenced, but one of the big differences I have encountered in interpreting biblical stories (between church members and traditional Christians) is that of Adam & Eve's fall. Without divulging the sacred, can someone confirm if the key difference is whether or not Adam & Eve truly fell--truly and intentionally rebelled against God's command by eating the fruit? I've been told by a few at this site that Adam & Eve valiantly made their decisions so that we could all experience free agency (or as I understand it, free will). In contrast, most of us traditionalists believe that Adam & Eve committed grave sin, because the serpent promised them they could be like God, and lied, saying God would not kill them for disobeying. To my thinking, whether Adam & Eve are historical or allegorical, the main issue is whether "they" achieved free agency for us or set us up for rebellion and the need for redemption.

Short answers-

Did Adam and Eve sin by partaking the fruit? Yes

Because they fell we are. We all need saving. We all fall,  when we choose to follow Satan just like our first parents fell spiritually by giving in to his temptations. Satan tries to destroy our agency (prevent free will) by tempting us so that we get chained down to his will and not our own.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Jane_Doe said:

Again, the big battle over Lucifer rejecting the idea of Free Will was well before the Earth's creation or the Garden.   So to say "A&E Fell so that all humanity could experience free will..." it sounds kind of weird.  Yes, it was all part of God's Plan, a Plan which is built on free will and love.   So your statement is technically true, but that's not really the focus here.  

 

My part in this string is not focused on the core truth--the messianic promise of Genesis 3:15, and it's fulfillment in Jesus are the overarching blessing. Instead, I focused on where our stories diverge--and it does seem to be around A&E's eating of the fruit. Without the latter-day revelations about pre-mortal existence, and the decisions about carrying out God's plan that took place, we traditional folk are left with A&E choosing to disobey God's command and to disbelieve his warnings. We're only "majoring on the minors" in this discussion because we more or less already agree about the major. :clap:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, prisonchaplain said:

I only quoted this because the rest of it was helpful and seemed spot on, to me. Even this quote is mostly right. I'd only clarify that the gaffe was on Adam & Eve's part. Yes, God knows what we will do, both right and wrong, and none of it thwarts his perfect will and plans.

I'm not certain I understand this statement.

Was the fall "supposed" to happen?  What was God's will in all this?  And was the Atonement  "plan B" or was it the plan all along? (for non-LDS).

I honestly can't remember which sect a particular man subscribed to.  It was a less popular sect.  But he said,"The fall was never supposed to happen."  I wonder what he thinks of God to be foiled in his plans.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Carborendum said:

I'm not certain I understand this statement.

Was the fall "supposed" to happen?  What was God's will in all this?  And was the Atonement  "plan B" or was it the plan all along? (for non-LDS).

I honestly can't remember which sect a particular man subscribed to.  It was a less popular sect.  But he said,"The fall was never supposed to happen."  I wonder what he thinks of God to be foiled in his plans.

 

There are two main responses to your question. Those of us who believe in free will would say that God has foreknowledge of all that will happen, of every choice every being will make. Thus, while we may not choose God's perfect will (God never willed for anyone to be raped, for example), He knew those rebellious choices would be made. His ultimate will is never foiled. Calvinists (Predestination) would say that God did indeed will for all that has happened--including the Fall. He is sovereign, and it is not our place to question His will. Ours is to be thankful for his mercies, such as the atonement.

I have never heard any suggest that God's will can be thwarted, but it may be the one you refer to was speaking of God's perfect will. Since He would not want us to sin, and all have sinned, it could be argued that His perfect will is rejected quite regularly.

Edited by prisonchaplain
Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, prisonchaplain said:

There are two main responses to your question. Those of us who believe in free will would say that God has foreknowledge of all that will happen, of every choice every being will make. Thus, while we may not choose God's perfect will (God never willed for anyone to be raped, for example), He knew those rebellious choices would be made. His ultimate will is never foiled. Calvinists (Predestination) would say that God did indeed will for all that has happened--including the Fall. He is sovereign, and it is not our place to question His will. Ours is to be thankful for his mercies, such as the atonement.

I have never heard any suggest that God's will can be thwarted, but it may be the one you refer to was speaking of God's perfect will. Since He would not want us to sin, and all have sinned, it could be argued that His perfect will is rejected quite regularly.

Thanks for your response.

I'll try to rephrase my question.

First, I'm perfectly willing to admit that the guy I spoke with probably had a non-mainstream doctrine.  The way he described it, God was actually thwarted in His plans.  And He was left doing damage control to try to fix it.  Like I said, I don't know what kind of God doesn't have foreknowledge sufficient to have the plan set all along.

Second, so, do you believe it was a bad thing for the fall to have occurred?  Was it an integral part of the plan that he orchestrated?  Or was it something God saw as a blip (due to free will allowing A&E to sin in a manner contrary to His will) and He took care of it (ahead of time)?

I guess that's really it.  Was it contrary to His will?  And what would have happened had they stayed in the Garden without ever taking of the fruit?

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share