Redemption of Zion and the Fall of Adam


LoveIsTruth
 Share

Recommended Posts

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

Quote

22 And now, behold, if Adam had not transgressed he would not have fallen, but he would have remained in the garden of Eden. And all things which were created must have remained in the same state in which they were after they were created; and they must have remained forever, and had no end.

23 And they would have had no children; wherefore they would have remained in a state of innocence, having no joy, for they knew no misery; doing no good, for they knew no sin.

24 But behold, all things have been done in the wisdom of him who knoweth all things.

25 Adam fell that men might be; and men are, that they might have joy.

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:

Quote

1 Nephi 3:7

… 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.

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:

Quote

Moses 5:11

... Were it not for our transgression we never should have had seed, and never should have known good and evil, and the joy of our redemption, and the eternal life which God giveth unto all the obedient.

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:

Quote

“We were so foolish and disobedient, that were it not for our transgression, (which forced us to learn obedience through a punishment of a curse), we should never have had seed, and never should have known good and evil, and the joy of our redemption, and the eternal life which God giveth unto all the obedient. For there verily was a better way for us in the Garden, were we willing to listen to the Father more than to the devil.”

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:

Quote

Isaiah. 7:14

14 … Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

15 Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good.

16 For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings.

Jesus got His eyes opened to know good from evil by resisting all temptations:

Quote

D&C 20:22

22 He suffered temptations but gave no heed unto them.

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:

Quote

Luke 17:1

Then said he unto the disciples, It is impossible but that offences will come: but woe unto him, through whom they come!

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.

Quote

22 And now, behold, if [Lucifer] had not transgressed he would not have fallen, but he would have remained in [heaven]. And all things which were created must have remained in the same state in which they were after they were created; and they must have remained forever, and had no end.

23 And they [Adam and Eve] would have had no children; wherefore they would have remained in a state of innocence, having no joy, for they knew no misery; doing no good, for they knew no sin.

24 But behold, all things have been done in the wisdom of him who knoweth all things.

25 [Lucifer] fell that men might be; and men are, that they might have joy.

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:

Quote

Moses 3:17

17 ... thou mayest choose for thyself, for it is given unto thee; but, remember that I forbid it, for in the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

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:

Quote

2 Nephi 10:23

23 ... remember that ye are free to act for yourselves—to choose the way of everlasting death or the way of eternal life.

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?

Quote

D&C 45:58

And the earth shall be given unto them for an inheritance; and they shall multiply and wax strong, and their children shall grow up without sin unto salvation.

D&C 101:

28 And in that day Satan shall not have power to tempt any man.

29 And there shall be no sorrow because there is no death.

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:

Quote

Romans 3:4

God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar;

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:

Quote

D&C 88:110

... the seventh angel shall sound his trump; and he shall stand forth upon the land and upon the sea, and swear in the name of him who sitteth upon the throne, that there shall be time no longer; and Satan shall be bound, that old serpent, who is called the devil, and shall not be loosed for the space of a thousand years.

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.

 

 

 

 

Edited by LoveIsTruth
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I actually agree with much of what you have written. Parts of it (e.g. "Plan A") are pure speculation, wtih all the pitfalls and dangers of such speculation, and you should take those ideas with a grain of salt. But this:

On 2/2/2020 at 8:14 PM, LoveIsTruth said:

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).

Brother, you are way, way off the reservation on this. You're spiritually derailed. This is disloyalty at minimum. It's what many ostensibly faithful Saints said about Joseph Smith before he was lynched. We live in a top-down Church, not a bottom-up Church. It's not called the democracy of God. It's a kingdom.

This is pure ark-steadying. You are blinded by your own perceived cleverness. Please do not pursue this path. It does not lead where you think it leads.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also tend to think of it as a sin... rather then the soft-selling the actions in the garden.  I totally agree with the idea that the plan of God can handle sin... does not mean that it requires sin to function.

On the subject of the redemption of Zion being delayed.  I doubt it is a matter of false ideas.  A member who can't be bothered to do their ministering (and formerly Home and Visiting Teaching) is simply not Zion material until and unless they repent.  Once we collectively as members start obeying the commandments given then Zion will form.  Until then all we as individuals can do is work on ourselves so that we will be ready for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just a note, there are parts in this OP that probably should be removed, as they aren't in scripture but are actual temple wording. Wording that shouldn't be used in an open forum due to the sacred nature of our temples and the endowment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/2/2020 at 11:14 PM, LoveIsTruth said:

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 multiply and 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 open 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.

 

 

 

 

This is so interesting post. Since I am not LDS, forgive me for replying if it's not relevant to your point!  Adam will die soon, and all prophets (when properly translated!) say so. Much of prophets is about now, not some dusty history in 500ad though that level exists, but is not the core meaning) ... I remember reading once, that Elder Young understood Adam/Michael , in an interesting way...but his revelation was not adopted... that is too bad. Though I felt it was a bit obscure, which is probably why it was not adopted, I would say Adam is key and sympathize with Young's impression. In the other world, Adam is still working for the satanic club...and that will end soon, at least that is what prophets tell, in conjunction with reading all the other ancient texts (enemy texts but still revealing much about Adam, such as rg veda, akkadian, hieroglyphs etc.) I would  distinguish Adam and Michael, but not intrinsically, just in some details that are off topic here. What Rome did is that they confused the real themes with their trinity of three males who are all one. My 'trinity' is He, His Feminine spirit (a female, his wife), and His souls, those of Eden who fell, 144k attributes to be restored soon. That's so true God is waiting...for all His 144k (being couples not just males by themselves) to come to Him. When adam dies, soon, he will be met at the gate by the 144k and they will soon after go before God. Adam will be restore to his true body, and deity, In his image (the word elohim = deity).  This is a family. He, Miss (I call her Miss but this is his feminine counterpart, the Spirit.) The romans took Her and turned her into a neutral or male spirit, even though many church fathers understood the truth. They never understood that Christ came here in our place, and that we are Adam (the 144k souls belonging to Michael and represented by Michael, who fell.) Each 144k is a male and female, just as adam and eve, since that is how Genesis says we were created, male and female "in our image."  If this was not a good post, because It's off topic, I'm new and learning what goes where here :). I'm not LDS so I wouldn't know how what I have posted here makes sense in LDS context.

The situation of Adam still working for them is a bit complicated...but that ends soon anyway... and we be with God, Home.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam–God_doctrine

My only interest in the link is that I do believe Young had some revelation, though perhaps unclear, but perhaps some satanic source interfered, as it does with all humanity, to keep souls from understanding things, even Young himself. The accounts in the hieroglyphs and rg veda and in akkadian texts all Agree about the fall, and how the other realm conquered eden, at the fall. The texts gloat about the victory and describe it all in uncanny detail.

Edited by e v e
typos
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/2/2020 at 11:14 PM, LoveIsTruth said:

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.

Because of the principle explained in Abraham 3:16-19 and then 21-28, Adam, Even and their offspring, our spiritual eyes in this veil-encased flesh would not have been opened to the need of a Savior, nor to our potential to become as He, without the inevitable transgression -- in whatever form -- that would facilitate that realization in accordance with the principle requiring opposition in all things. Any intelligence less than the magnitude of Jesus' glory will eventually need to have his eyes opened to his spiritual inferiority, which is ultimately expressed as willful rebellion against God if he refuses to progress, and to his redemption if he follows Christ unto exaltation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The musings of the OP remind me a little of a previous poster who would present his interpretation of scripture as "sound" and the prophets/apostles interpretation as "opinion" and "weakness" of men.

Here are items of speculation (not overtly true) provided by the OP:

1) 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.

> The point of the verse is simply stating Eve had already partaken of the fruit, as such would be cast out (otherwise God would be a liar), and in order to keep the first commandment with Eve Adam had to make a decision. Thus, we have verse 25, "Adam fell that man might be, and men are that they might have joy." So, at this point, after Eve's decision there was no other way for him to keep the first commandment with Eve.

> Was there an alternative way. Sure. When Adam and Eve were tempted, and Eve recognized the fruit would allow her to become wise they both could have waited for the Father and Son for more knowledge and instruction when he returned to the garden of Eden. Again, this is speculation (theory).

> Eve was wise. She was the first to recognize (at least according to what is in scripture at the moment) that partaking of the fruit of good and evil would make her wise (or as God particularly said, "Behold, the man is become as one of us to know good and evil;.") It is also the OP's opinion (not an overt truth) that they weren't wise and heroic, although I can't find anything online specifying Adam as heroic and Eve as wise from words of the prophets and apostles. The more I read the prophets and apostles it sounds more like they are grateful and praise Adam and Eve's willingness to be our first parents.

I tend to accept this interpretation, not the OP's pertaining to Adam and Eve, "If we correctly understand the role of Adam and Eve, we will realize that those who have labeled them sinners responsible for the universal depravity of the human family are misguided." (emphasis mine)

2) Can't find this quote anywhere, "We were so foolish and disobedient, that were it not for our transgression, (which forced us to learn obedience through a punishment of a curse), we should never have had seed, and never should have known good and evil, and the joy of our redemption, and the eternal life which God giveth unto all the obedient. For there verily was a better way for us in the Garden, were we willing to listen to the Father more than to the devil,” that is proclaimed to be the words of God.

3) "One is a lie, and there other is not, because they indeed COULD have had, had they listened to the Father."

> We don't know if they could or would have had children if they remained. The point of the verse is that through their transgression their eyes were opened. More speculation. To act as if Eve is lying is pretty poor. Eve is speaking from the knowledge she now has at that moment, which she didn't have prior to that. Much like us in our day when we come across something, even if through making a wrong choice, we now say, "If I had not known this, I would not have done this or could not do this." It doesn't mean there was no other way, just simply due to knowledge we now have we speak according to that knowledge.

4) Plan A -- Pure speculation

> In this light actually, I also have a similar theory that Adam and Eve could have brought mortality into existence another way. If Adam and Eve though did not "Fall" or receive some type of transition from immortality to mortality then our Savior would have never been able to offer himself up as a Sacrifice. There would have been no gethsemane and no cross. Some sort of Fall needed to occur, as that is one pillar of truth.

> This is entering now into a Protestant teaching rather than a restored gospel teachings, "Adam and Eve were foolish and unwise, we all could have remained in the state of immortality."

> I am not sure our state/bodies will be the same type of body Adam and Eve had in the garden. Adam and Eve could not die. We do not know if this means there could have been some form of "translation" in the the twinkling of an eye (a form of death) from mortality to immortality as it will be during the millennium.

> As with Eve's statement, I am more inclined to believe Adam than the OP, "Blessed be the name of God, for because of my transgression my eyes are opened, and in this life I shall have joy, and again in the flesh I shall see God." Adam refers to his transgression as a blessing, and blesses God for the opportunity to have joy and see God once again in the flesh.

5) Zion CANNOT be redeemed and restored to a Terrestrial state while believing the very lie that caused the fall in the first place!

> Clear speculation. The Church isn't bound by the OPs interpretation of the Fall, nor God. Zion will be redeemed as we live the principles of a Zion society. There will be truths unknown, or people aren't believing correctly, when Zion is established once again.

6) This is how Jesus got His eyes opened to know good and evil, by resisting temptations, instead of yielding to them.

> Item missed by the OP. Jesus was already part of a "Fallen" world which allowed for good and evil -- in all accounts -- for him to resist.

> True though, our eyes can be opened by resisting temptation. That is why the scriptures use the word "entice."

7) 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!

> Adam and Eve made a choice God already saw they would make -- thus a Savior was provided. The "Fall" was necessary. That is clear in scripture. How the "Fall" occurred could be easily argued, but a "Fall" was necessary.

> God is God. There could have been a better way, but that isn't the point of scripture. If there were a better way (which we could say there is), the better way did not happen, and do dwell on it places a person in missing the mark. Thus we have scripture, "As in Adam all die, even so in Christ, shall all be made alive."

8. It is ALWAYS wrong to transgress the commandments of God. There are no exceptions to this rule.

> Well, that is correct, this is why they were cast out of the garden, because transgressing the law broke the law and they were cast out. God doesn't excuse them, but provided a Savior (which required a sacrifice > death).

9) Secondly, if Adam resisted the temptation sufficiently, his eyes would have been open without transgression, and he would have had posterity without a fall, precisely as the Father commanded him.

> This is speculation. Could they have, sure, but we don't know except for what scriptures specifies. We are welcome to speculate and make it clear our speculation, but your words are stating you aren't speculating and go against scripture and words given by the Lord's servants his prophets.

> When a person denies the importance of the/a "Fall" -- a pillar of truth -- they are already on the wrong track. I choose to accept the following that has been repeated over and over, "The plan required the Creation, and that in turn required both the Fall and the Atonement. These are the three fundamental components of the plan. The creation of a paradisiacal planet came from God. Mortality and death came into the world through the Fall of Adam. Immortality and the possibility of eternal life were provided by the Atonement of Jesus Christ. The Creation, the Fall, and the Atonement were planned long before the actual work of the Creation began" (in Conference Report, Apr. 2000, 105; or Ensign, May 2000, 84).

10) 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.

> Speculation. We don't know if this was the first or one of many. We don't know the "real" reason why the Savior was born here and not some other earth created by God. We don't know if this was the most wicked world of "all," but surely has had some wicked people born here.

11) Last one I will mention, " 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.

> Another point of speculation. You and I have no clue how Enoch or Melchizedek would have responded if they were in the garden of Eden with their wife. You don't know how Enoch and Melchizedek were and how many mistakes they made before bringing them to the knowledge and understanding they had. You don't know if they were less volatile than Adam or more steadfast. Adam was chosen as the first male, and yet indirectly you mock God for choosing Adam. If the fall was not required, as you have shared, and Enoch and Melchizedek could have not fallen, why did an omniscient God then choose someone he knew would "Fall" --- transgress? If the fall was not required, wouldn't it have been a more perfect and wise decision to choose Enoch/Melchizedek according to his foreknowledge? Isn't God perfect?

I think its wonderful to theorize and to try to more completely understand the gospel and its truths. Its not good to provide speculation on things you don't know and teach them as truth -- which some are in direct discord against revealed words.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Jane_Doe said:

Thing's happen in the Lord's time.

Each of us individuals can only strive to come closer to Him ourselves.  We can't control anyone else.

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:

Quote

 Galatians 2
11 But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.
12 For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.
13 And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation.
14 But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?

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. 

Edited by LoveIsTruth
Link to comment
Share on other sites

op, much of what you say is speculation but i sense that your perspective is inspiration and light for you and your household. Thank you for sharing as I have been dwelling on Adams transgression the past 6 months and how it relates to sin in my life. I was gonna start a topic on it but your post and some of the replys clears things up for me.

My belief is that sin happens to me, by me and around me because just like Adams transgression, it allows other parts of Gods plan to unfold. 

I love your explanation of a plan A, where Adam could have resisted sin and simply grown from the temptation alone (just as Christ did), why? because I know many members of the church who live in "lesser" sins (better at resisting temptation) and I see their spiritual growth the way you explain it as a "plan A"....and that, my friend, is what Christs example is, a plan A.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Vort said:

I actually agree with much of what you have written.

Thank you. Could you please be more specific: which parts exactly do you agree with?

Quote

Parts of it (e.g. "Plan A") are pure speculation, wtih all the pitfalls and dangers of such speculation, and you should take those ideas with a grain of salt. 

I don't think it is speculation. It is an inescapable logical conclusion: If there were no better way, there was no fall. 

Quote

But this: ...

Brother, you are way, way off the reservation on this. You're spiritually derailed. This is disloyalty at minimum.

Disloyalty to what? To error?

Quote

It's what many ostensibly faithful Saints said about Joseph Smith before he was lynched.

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.

Quote

We live in a top-down Church, not a bottom-up Church. It's not called the democracy of God. It's a kingdom.

Indeed. I hope then you can appreciate the value of His words, even when they contradict the opinions of the prophets?

Quote

This is pure ark-steadying.

Not really. I do not advocate disobedience to church leaders. God will steady the ark as I explained in the OP.

Quote

You are blinded by your own perceived cleverness. Please do not pursue this path. It does not lead where you think it leads.

The only path I am interested in is truth.

Edited by LoveIsTruth
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, estradling75 said:

I also tend to think of it as a sin... rather then the soft-selling the actions in the garden.  I totally agree with the idea that the plan of God can handle sin... does not mean that it requires sin to function.

It was certainly a deadly transgression [pun intended]. And your point about the plan is brilliant. Thanks.

Quote

On the subject of the redemption of Zion being delayed.  I doubt it is a matter of false ideas.  A member who can't be bothered to do their ministering (and formerly Home and Visiting Teaching) is simply not Zion material until and unless they repent.  Once we collectively as members start obeying the commandments given then Zion will form.  Until then all we as individuals can do is work on ourselves so that we will be ready for it.

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. 

Edited by LoveIsTruth
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, LoveIsTruth said:

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.

Joseph Smith also said that the spirit of criticism is one of the first steps to apostasy.  God called those men flaws and all.  To criticize them when they are acting in the bounds of there God ordained stewardship also is a criticism of God for calling such flawed people to do his work.  That is the slope you are on that Vort sees. There is a better way..  It is a harder way... Criticism is the path of the lazy.

The better way is straight forward. Joseph Smith taught to understand the scripture (the words of the Prophets) one needs to understand the question being asked.  Or to put it another way to understand the Prophets we need to understand the context of their actions and words.  Prophets are called to correct the path of the faithful of the church when they start to go astray.  This error can be sin, it can be false doctrine it can be anything really that deflect us from the strait and narrow path.  The prophets then are going to push really hard to counter the error.  That is what God called them to do.  However if we take that hard push out of context it can lead to confusion and error.

Take for example the writing of Paul.  Lots of people use his writing to justify doing nothing at all.  "We are saved by Grace not Works"  Anti Christians point to this as one of the many contradiction they see and use to deny the word of God.  Yet when we understand that Paul was addressing the error of the early saints to continue the Law of Moses and the works related to it.  Then we understand the context of Paul's word we see him working diligently and faithfully to do the work of God.  It is not Paul's teaching or the teaching of the other prophets that are wrong.  The error is in our understanding of their words that is the fault... not the words they used.

We see this all the time when the church announces a change... various people jump to the idea that what was done before was some how wrong.. or that the church is some how wrong now.  Rather then that the Church drifted a different way and now needs to be pushed back on the strait and narrow.

As for Adam and Eve what is the context of the modern leaders comments?  What was the context of Lehi's statement about Adam and Eve?  That is something we need to ponder as we study the scriptures.  Ponder until we harmonize the statements with the rest of the gospel. Your quest for truth will fail if you alienate yourself from those God called to speak the truth to us, because you pull their words out of context and apply them in ways the prophets never meant or intended.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/2/2020 at 8:14 PM, LoveIsTruth said:

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.

Sorry. It looks to me like you're offering your opinion as fact. New Jerusalem will not be built, it will come down out of heaven. It's not going to be a slow spreading, it will be witnessed by the whole earth and the wicked will be destroyed. At least, that's the way I understand the scriptures. I agree, the church is stubborn but it has nothing to do with the incorrect opinions of its prophets. The reason is as it has always been, it is because the people will not listen to the prophets.

 

On 2/2/2020 at 8:14 PM, LoveIsTruth said:

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!

LOL 🤣

 

On 2/2/2020 at 8:14 PM, LoveIsTruth said:

22 And now, behold, if Adam had not transgressed he would not have fallen, but he would have remained in the garden of Eden. And all things which were created must have remained in the same state in which they were after they were created; and they must have remained forever, and had no end.

Hopefully, you realize this is a bad thing, but no. You probably don't get that.

 

On 2/2/2020 at 8:14 PM, LoveIsTruth said:

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.

You know, the opposite of good is not always evil. The opposite of Good is Bad. The opposite of right is wrong. All bad is not evil. When I hit my thumb with a hammer, that is not good. It is also not evil. Do you see that? God gave Adam and Eve a choice, not unlike the power he has given us to choose. Sometimes we make mistakes. That doesn't make us evil. Fighting against God does and that's what Lucifer did. He not only disagreed, he also rebelled. He rejected God and his plan and attempted to replace God. Adam and Eve did not.

On 2/2/2020 at 8:14 PM, LoveIsTruth said:

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?

He's trying to prove that his way is better than God's. That war is still going on. He's not surprised. He is threatening God and his children. He's not saying, you didn't curse anyone else why are you cursing me. He's trying to get one-up on God. God won the argument in the end by placing enmity between the seed of the woman and the seed of Lucifer (so to speak).

We can learn one thing from this exchange. It happened before on other worlds. We don't know the circumstances in which they occurred. There is evidence that the serpent is a symbol of Christ and that Lucifer was attempting to imitate Him by appearing to Adam and Eve in the form of a serpent. If that is the case, it's possible that Christ would have offered the fruit to them so that they could become mortal, but we don't know that plan. There might have been another way, but it would still require that Adam and Eve become mortal, have children, live and die and require a Savior to bring us back into the presence of God.

Mortality was always the plan. Opposition was always part of the plan. The only thing that changed was who launched the plan. Either way, it works out, for us, to be exactly the same.

On 2/2/2020 at 8:14 PM, LoveIsTruth said:

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.

1. False. Mortality is still necessary.

2. Perhaps, but the results would have to be just as they are right now. Just as the same spirit will rise with us in the resurrection, filthy will be filthy still, the same is true of birth. The same spirit that existed before birth rose at birth. Our character is not determined by our bodies nor is it determined by ancient parents who ate the fruit. Our character has always been what it is now.

3. They may have had posterity, but Abel would still be killed at the hands of Cain.

4. Your idea of the Millennium is a little skewed. The earth will be restored to its paradisiacal glory, but we will still die and there will be birth. Those things didn't happen in the garden. We will still have choice. It will be the people of that society that will ultimately fall and need to be cleansed by fire. As long as there is choice, there is the possibility of wrong choices.

5. Nope. Christ atones for the mistakes of the individual, not for the mistakes of the parents.

6. Your opinion is noted. What we believe has very little to do with the glory the earth will experience. It's what we do that makes the difference. We can have an incorrect understanding of things, as we most certainly have of most things of God, and still be elevated. In another thread, I mentioned that one can have an incorrect understanding of the nature of God, physical or spiritual, and still can meet him in the Celestial Kingdom. They don't even know to know him. To fix these issues, all that needs to happen is to meet him. Then, the mystery will be solved. The same is true of the garden epic. Regardless of whether it was good or bad, the results with which we have to live today will not change. If we're wrong about that history, it won't take much to correct it.

7. We already have what Adam will say. It's in our scriptures. It now appears that you are cherry-picking which scriptures you will accept.

8. This a valid point, to a point.

9. Well, thank goodness we have you. Who needs a prophet, right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/7/2020 at 9:46 AM, estradling75 said:

I also tend to think of it as a sin... rather then the soft-selling the actions in the garden.  I totally agree with the idea that the plan of God can handle sin... does not mean that it requires sin to function.

It doesn't require sin to function, but it does require opposition. Lucifer is as much a part of the plan as is Christ.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/7/2020 at 11:14 AM, e v e said:

This is so interesting post. Since I am not LDS, forgive me for replying if it's not relevant to your point! 

The OP isn't LDS either. It's clearly anti-LDS.

On 2/7/2020 at 11:14 AM, e v e said:

Adam will die soon, and all prophets (when properly translated!) say so.

You might as well be speaking a foreign language. I see the translation comes a little bit later.

On 2/7/2020 at 11:14 AM, e v e said:

Much of prophets is about now, not some dusty history in 500ad though that level exists, but is not the core meaning) ... I remember reading once, that Elder Young understood Adam/Michael , in an interesting way...but his revelation was not adopted... that is too bad.

Some of it was okay. But there wasn't enough to adopt. As I've said before in other posts. Adam is the Ancient of Days. If we compare Daniel 7 to Brigham Young's statements, we might begin to uncover what he was trying to communicate, but what we have is not complete, IMO.

On 2/7/2020 at 11:14 AM, e v e said:

In the other world, Adam is still working for the satanic club...and that will end soon, at least that is what prophets tell, in conjunction with reading all the other ancient texts (enemy texts but still revealing much about Adam, such as rg veda, akkadian, hieroglyphs etc.)

Aaah. The translation.

I don't see how you can sympathize with Brigham Young's teachings on this and say things like Adam is still working for the satanic club. That opposes his teachings.

BTW, we don't believe Adam was ever working for the Satanic club. Eve ate the fruit and then gave it to Adam, not the other way around. I'm not saying that Eve was working for that club either, but I seriously can't see where anyone would get that idea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

can you explain what you or lds understand by ancient of days? 

7 minutes ago, brotherofJared said:

The OP isn't LDS either. It's clearly anti-LDS.

You might as well be speaking a foreign language. I see the translation comes a little bit later.

Some of it was okay. But there wasn't enough to adopt. As I've said before in other posts. Adam is the Ancient of Days. If we compare Daniel 7 to Brigham Young's statements, we might begin to uncover what he was trying to communicate, but what we have is not complete, IMO.

Aaah. The translation.

I don't see how you can sympathize with Brigham Young's teachings on this and say things like Adam is still working for the satanic club. That opposes his teachings.

BTW, we don't believe Adam was ever working for the Satanic club. Eve ate the fruit and then gave it to Adam, not the other way around. I'm not saying that Eve was working for that club either, but I seriously can't see where anyone would get that idea.

okay.

i didn’t know that’s anti lds what i wrote. Also i think i figured out i should post in the other forum since this is for lds? 

 

Edited by e v e
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/7/2020 at 12:40 PM, CV75 said:

Because of the principle explained in Abraham 3:16-19 and then 21-28, Adam, Even and their offspring, our spiritual eyes in this veil-encased flesh would not have been opened to the need of a Savior, nor to our potential to become as He, without the inevitable transgression -- in whatever form -- that would facilitate that realization in accordance with the principle requiring opposition in all things.

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

Thanks. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, LoveIsTruth said:

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. 

No. Proximity doesn't seem to help anyone learn truth, much less embrace it. Lucifer was very close according to scripture. It didn't help him at all. I know from personal experience that one can learn truth regardless of how close to God they are. IMO, if one uses his personal closeness to God as the basis of his truth, then it's probably not true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, priesthoodpower said:

op, much of what you say is speculation but i sense that your perspective is inspiration and light for you and your household. Thank you for sharing as I have been dwelling on Adams transgression the past 6 months and how it relates to sin in my life. I was gonna start a topic on it but your post and some of the replys clears things up for me.

My belief is that sin happens to me, by me and around me because just like Adams transgression, it allows other parts of Gods plan to unfold. 

I love your explanation of a plan A, where Adam could have resisted sin and simply grown from the temptation alone (just as Christ did), why? because I know many members of the church who live in "lesser" sins (better at resisting temptation) and I see their spiritual growth the way you explain it as a "plan A"....and that, my friend, is what Christs example is, a plan A.

 

 

None of us have lived plan A. And, as I said before, it doesn't matter if there was another plan. We would all still be the people that we are. Cain would have still killed Abel. Eating the fruit did not cause that sin. It created an environment where the sin could be committed, but the sin did not come from eating fruit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, estradling75 said:

Yet when we understand that Paul was addressing the error of the early saints to continue the Law of Moses and the works related to it. 

Just one point of correction. The issue wasn't "continuing the Law of Moses and the works related to it". It was the Jews' rejection of Gentile Christians because the Gentiles didn't observe the Jewish ritual, specifically circumcision.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, e v e said:

can you explain what you or lds understand by ancient of days? 

okay.

i didn’t know that’s anti lds what i wrote. Also i think i figured out i should post in the other forum since this is for lds? 

 

Not what you wrote. That isn't anti-LDS. What the OP wrote. Both you and the OPer are entitled to your views and are welcome to express them, but the person who posted the OP is masquerading as a believing Mormon and he or she clearly isn't. Specifically, because of their claim that the Prophets lied to us (which implies that they knew or believed something other than what they taught which the OP cannot possibly know or certainly hasn't provided any evidence). 

Your opinions are fine, I didn't mean your post was anti. You're welcome to express your thoughts, as far as I know. But it appeared to me that you thought the OP was based on what we believe and those views are not. It is based on what the OPer believes which are exactly the opposite of what we believe.

As for the ancient of days, I stated in my post:  "Adam is the Ancient of Days". That's what we believe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Anddenex said:

The musings of the OP remind me a little of a previous poster who would present his interpretation of scripture as "sound" and the prophets/apostles interpretation as "opinion" and "weakness" of men.

If my interpretation of scripture is not "sound," you need to prove it, my friend. Just saying it does not make it so.

Quote

Here are items of speculation (not overtly true) provided by the OP:

1) 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.

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.

Edited by LoveIsTruth
Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, LoveIsTruth said:

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

Thanks. 

But that's not what the scriptures say. They say there would be no need for a Savior. And, by extension, there would be no exaltation either. Adam and Eve, no matter how well they lived in the garden, it could not have been counted for good or evil there would have been no opportunity for redemption because there was no fall. Thus, they would have eternally been locked in the garden which is an end in itself. I'm not sure if you can grasp the concept that an eternity of tending a garden is NOT heaven. That was never God's intention. It's clearly not the condition we find ourselves in today. While this life is admittedly not much better than hell, one can easily see that what Christ offers us is far better than an eternity in the garden. The garden was a stagnant environment where we could neither fall nor advance, but it was a place they could die. Now, at the very least, because of Christ, we no longer are subject to death. We may die as to this mortal body, but we will be resurrected to an immortal glory that can never be taken away from us ever again. Adam and Eve did not have that. We now have the opportunity to dwell where God dwells. Adam and Eve did not have that.

Whether or not what Adam and Eve did could be considered evil, doesn't really make any difference. The result of their actions has made it possible for a far more glorious reward than being eternally stuck in a garden. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • pam locked this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share