In the beginning...

[zil2]

I think it was @Traveler who once asked here the question, "beginning of what?" and suggested it was the beginning of a covenant.  I like that answer.  I've pondered this phrase when I read it.  I think there are multiple correct interpretations and one of those is about the beginning of this earth (or the process that led inevitably to it).  In Moses 1:33-35 we learn that God has created worlds without number, by the Son, and that some had passed away and others still stood (as of the time Moses was learning these things).  Therefore, "in the beginning" doesn't appear to be the beginning of everything - that is, the creation of this earth wasn't first.

At some point, I discovered that one of the creation stories tells something different at the start, about the beginning.  Today, while looking up references, I re-discovered this.  I thought I would share and see if others have additional thoughts.

NOTE: All three accounts go to the same place in verse 2, so it's only verse 1 I'm comparing.

Quote

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

Quote

Abraham 4:1 And then the Lord said: Let us go down. And they went down at the beginning, and they, that is the Gods, organized and formed the heavens and the earth.

Abraham sure makes it sound like "the beginning of this earth".  Regardless, neither expounds on "the beginning".  Now look at Moses 2...

Quote

Moses 2:1 And it came to pass that the Lord spake unto Moses, saying: Behold, I reveal unto you concerning this heaven, and this earth; write the words which I speak. I am the Beginning and the End, the Almighty God; by mine Only Begotten I created these things; yea, in the beginning I created the heaven, and the earth upon which thou standest.

OK, one is capitalized and one isn't, but I don't think the dual use of "beginning" is only a fluke here.  I think we could say that all things were first created in the mind of God - in him - indeed, how could it be otherwise?  Perhaps then they were created in the mind of Christ (and the Holy Ghost?).  And this then leads me to ponder these (and similar) verses:

Quote

John 17:21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.

22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:

23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.

...and...

Quote

D&C 88:6 He that ascended up on high, as also he descended below all things, in that he comprehended all things, that he might be in all and through all things, the light of truth;

7 Which truth shineth. This is the light of Christ. As also he is in the sun, and the light of the sun, and the power thereof by which it was made.

8 As also he is in the moon, and is the light of the moon, and the power thereof by which it was made;

9 As also the light of the stars, and the power thereof by which they were made;

10 And the earth also, and the power thereof, even the earth upon which you stand.

11 And the light which shineth, which giveth you light, is through him who enlighteneth your eyes, which is the same light that quickeneth your understandings;

12 Which light proceedeth forth from the presence of God to fill the immensity of space—

13 The light which is in all things, which giveth life to all things, which is the law by which all things are governed, even the power of God who sitteth upon his throne, who is in the bosom of eternity, who is in the midst of all things.

I don't want to suggest some weird mysticism, and I can't put into words the notions these things create in my head, but there's a clear degree of unity or oneness here beyond what normal words suggest.  I mean, that D&C passage is both simple and incomprehensible at the same time.

Whatever the case, I'm thinking the first Beginning is God's mind, then a covenant, then a spiritual creation, then a physical creation - at least four beginnings.

If you were expecting me to expound and draw a nice conclusion, sorry to disappoint you.  All I have at this point are ponderings.  I welcome any additional ideas to ponder.

[mikbone]

D&C 35: 1 Listen to the voice of the Lord your God, even Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, whose course is one eternal round, the same today as yesterday, and forever.

2 I am Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who was crucified for the sins of the world, even as many as will believe on my name, that they may become the sons of God, even one in me as I am one in the Father, as the Father is one in me, that we may be one.

From what I can gather, our point of reference begins and ends with Jesus Christ.

Elohim likely covenanted with Jehovah to allow him to run this iteration.

[Carborendum]

Quote

The Wheel of Time turns, and Ages come and pass, leaving memories that become legend. Legend fades to myth, and even myth is long forgotten when the Age that gave it birth comes again. In one Age, called the Third Age by some, an Age yet to come, an Age long past, a wind rose in the Mountains of Mist. The wind was not the beginning. There are neither beginnings nor endings to the turning of the Wheel of Time. But it was a beginning.

 -- The Wheel of Time, Robert Jordan

Quote

In the beginning was the Word.  And the Word was with God.  And the Word was God.  The same was in the beginning with God.

 -- John 1:1-2

"The Word" is translated from the Greek "ho Logos."  While "The Word" is a valid translation, there is something about the term being coupled with "in the beginning" that emotes a different meaning.  The Greeks believed that before Chaos and Eros created Gaia, there was an underlying principle/framework of logic (derived from "logos") that governed all of creation. 

This principle of logic was what ensured that there were laws and rules by which all of existence was predicated.  Without those rules, there would be no predictable future. No other principles would even exist.  Therefore, there would be no right or wrong, no good or evil, no happiness or misery...

Jesus is "The Logos" because His Atonement is what guarantees the rules of the universe continue to be obeyed.

The beginning that is being discussed in Genesis is the same beginning as in John.  It is a beginning.  It is the beginning of the mortal existence of the universe with which we've become familiar,

[zil2]

33 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

The beginning that is being discussed in Genesis is the same beginning as in John.  It is a beginning.

Agreed.

33 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

It is the beginning of the mortal existence of the universe with which we've become familiar,

Moses 1:33-35 seems to contradict this - unless one wants to suggest that God was only referring to worlds outside this universe.

[Carborendum]

1 hour ago, zil2 said:

Moses 1:33-35 seems to contradict this - unless one wants to suggest that God was only referring to worlds outside this universe.

I don't see a contradiction.  I had taken this to mean that there are other inhabited planets -- either within this universe or other dimensions/universes that are all part of this mortal reality which we find ourselves in.

It can also mean that there are other cycles of the Eternal Round within universes detached from ours.  But it doesn't really matter (v35)

Edited July 26, 2023 by Carborendum

[zil2]

15 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

I don't see a contradiction.  I had taken this to mean that there are other inhabited planets -- either within this universe or other dimensions/universes that are all part of this mortal reality which we find ourselves in.

It can also mean that there are other cycles of the Eternal Round within universes detached from ours.  But it doesn't really matter (v35)

Chapter 1 says worlds have come and gone, and other still stand.  (My assumption is that the worlds being referred to are part of this universe.)  Then verse 40:

Quote

40 And now, Moses, my son, I will speak unto thee concerning this earth upon which thou standest; and thou shalt write the things which I shall speak.

And chapter 2, verse 1 ends with this phrase:

Quote

...in the beginning I created the heaven, and the earth upon which thou standest.

Thus, IMO, this "beginning" is the beginning of this earth - whether one wants to say it began with the thoughts in God's mind, with a covenant before the creation started, with a spiritual creation, or with a physical creation, it's still explicitly about this planet, not all mortal existences on all the planets God ever has or will create.

Certainly, there are other beginnings, but it appears that the "in the beginning" in our scriptures is in reference to this earth.

[Carborendum]

28 minutes ago, zil2 said:

Chapter 1 says worlds have come and gone, and other still stand.  (My assumption is that the worlds being referred to are part of this universe.)  Then verse 40:

And chapter 2, verse 1 ends with this phrase:

Thus, IMO, this "beginning" is the beginning of this earth - whether one wants to say it began with the thoughts in God's mind, with a covenant before the creation started, with a spiritual creation, or with a physical creation, it's still explicitly about this planet, not all mortal existences on all the planets God ever has or will create.

Certainly, there are other beginnings, but it appears that the "in the beginning" in our scriptures is in reference to this earth.

I believe we're using very different definitions of the words cited here. I'll attempt to reword things with modern, more scientific language to give you the idea of what I'm talking about.  Then you try the same, and we'll analyze how close or far apart we are.  For simplicity, I'll make narrative with the assumption that there is only one universe.

*

At the time of the big bang (i.e. In the beginning) I created and scattered matter all throughout the universe all according to the laws which I established to allow for matter, energy, and spirit to interact according to my will and according to the great Plan of Salvation.  Some of that matter formed stars, other matter formed planets, still other matter formed innumerable objects that are now in the universe.  Many of them have not been discovered by man on Earth.  Many have been discovered but have not yet been given names according to man.  But all things are numbered and named by Me.

Many planets within that universe have had, do now have, and will yet have many of my children upon them to live out their mortal lives and participate in the plan.  Many have passed away.  Many do now exist.  Many have yet to become inhabited.  But throughout the great plan all the spirits who were designated to experience their mortal existence will experience it according to my will and plan.

But of all the worlds now gone, worlds which do now exist, and worlds which have not yet come into existence within this universe, I will only give an account of this one upon which you now stand.  While other worlds will share some of the qualities of this earth and the type of existence which Terrans will exhibit, the things which I convey to you are specific to this earth and may or may not apply to any other world.

*

So, is this similar to what you are saying?  Or do we conflict somewhere?

"In the beginning" could not be the beginning of this earth since the first thing created was "LIGHT".  It was the light that was part of something greater which the earth was a part of.

Edited July 26, 2023 by Carborendum

[zil2]

19 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

So, is this similar to what you are saying?  Or do we conflict somewhere?

The scriptures don't say:

"In the beginning I created lots of stuff and now I'm going to tell you about this earth on which you stand."

They do say:

"I created lots of stuff.  I'm only going to tell you about this planet on which you now stand:  In the beginning, I created the heavens and the earth on which you now stand." ("In the beginning..." contextually has clear reference to this earth.)

...so, If you want to interpret "heavens" as "lots of stuff", then, OK, it's the beginning of all God's creations.  I interpret "heavens" as "earth's atmosphere" and perhaps "solar system", maybe even "galaxy", but not "all God's creations".

22 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

"In the beginning" could not be the beginning of this earth since the first thing created was "LIGHT".  It was the light that was part of something greater which the earth was a part of.

I don't interpret that as the first light ever anywhere.  I interpret that as "light in this area here where we're going to create the earth and its immediate environs".  I mean, there are lots of things one could speculate, but I personally can't go with the idea that God created light - after all, if He was once mortal, then He presumably had light during that mortality.  Presumably light has existed for eternity - or all eternities.

It seems to me that you're interpreting the scriptural account as the creation of all things God created ever, with details only about this earth.  I'm interpreting it as the creation of this earth with passing mention that it's not the only creation.  Regardless, I don't think it's that important - we're interpreting and speculating.  To me the important part was the association between God (or Christ) as the Beginning and linking this fact to the beginning of this earth and to the concept of being "in" Christ and God - unity, oneness, whatever you want to call it.

[mikbone]

Not sure either way.  But Im currently leaning toward Christ creating the Universe as we know it.

The temple narrative and slide show led me to this conclusion.

Our sun is metal rich thus at least a 2nd generation, possibly 3rd generation star.  It takes alot of organization to create a planet with materials like Gold and Uranium.

 

Edited July 26, 2023 by mikbone

[Carborendum]

2 minutes ago, zil2 said:

The scriptures don't say:

"In the beginning I created lots of stuff and now I'm going to tell you about this earth on which you stand."

Explain the difference (other than formality and wording) between:

"In the beginning I created lots of stuff." (your interpretation of my statement)

and 

"I the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." (Gen 1:1)

2 minutes ago, zil2 said:

I interpret "heavens" as "earth's atmosphere" and perhaps "solar system", maybe even "galaxy", but not "all God's creations".

Remember that I was referring to all "stuff" within this universe.  Not "all God's creations in every reality and every universe from all eternity-to-all eternity."

Anciently, the "heaven" was a completely different concept than what we think of today.

"Heaven" was used in Ancient Hebrew to denote anything higher than what we can reach physically.  This would include the upper atmosphere, the "firmament" (which most people don't understand correctly), the waters above the firmament (which most people don't understand at all) outer space, and the realm of God.  Context is referenced to determine what part or parts are actually being spoken about.

2 minutes ago, zil2 said:

I don't interpret that as the first light ever anywhere.  I interpret that as "light in this area here where we're going to create the earth and its immediate environs". 

I think you're making a big deal out of "in the universe" vs. "in the solar system" or "in the visible range of the earth."  It doesn't matter. 

2 minutes ago, zil2 said:

It seems to me that you're interpreting the scriptural account as the creation of all things God created ever, with details only about this earth. 

I believe you read a lot into my words which I never said.

2 minutes ago, zil2 said:

I'm interpreting it as the creation of this earth with passing mention that it's not the only creation. 

Based on this statement alone, I'm going to make an interpretation. 

• You're talking about the earth as being the primary topic of what was created "in the beginning" but that there were other things which were necessarily created along with it.
• I'm saying that prior to actually creating this ball of matter which we call earth, there were some preparatory steps before that ball existed as a planet.

It seems that we're saying the same thing with an emphasis on different steps.

2 minutes ago, zil2 said:

Regardless, I don't think it's that important - we're interpreting and speculating.  To me the important part was the association between God (or Christ) as the Beginning and linking this fact to the beginning of this earth and to the concept of being "in" Christ and God - unity, oneness, whatever you want to call it.

I wasn't even addressing that at all -- except for my commentary on John 1:1 -- which you appeared to agree with.

[Traveler]

18 hours ago, zil2 said:

I think it was @Traveler who once asked here the question, "beginning of what?" and suggested it was the beginning of a covenant.  ,,,,,

To be clear this idea was not of my own making but was given to me by a Rabbi (expert in Hebrew).  He said that a clear translation would be, “When G-d first established his covenant with man.”

As I have pondered the creation story, I speculate that the term heaven is actually plural, and that the singular heaven spoken of in the creation epoch is our solar system.  Our current science gives witness to us that our sun is one of countless stars burning brightly in our galaxy let alone the entire universe – but is the only sun spoken of in the creation epoch.  And what is the moon? And where did it originate?  Our science thinks it has a pretty good idea.

Where did life begin?  This is a big problem for our science.  Currently the most accepted theories is that life was initiated somewhere else and was somehow brought to our solar system? and then finely to earth? 

Life as we understand it is heavily dependent on complex carbon molecules – which, as far as we know, can only come from a star gone supernova.  And as far as we know (in science) there is no where in this entire universe that is not hostile to life – even here on earth, over 99% of all known species here on earth are now extinct.  However, things are rationalized, the second law of thermodynamics prohibits the natural progression from the less complex to the more complex which is what we modern humans think is how evolution works.  Obviously, intelligence has no accounting in science.

Whenever we envision a beginning, the next logical question is what happened before that?  What caused the beginning?  If this post was not already long I would take us through the ancient Egyptian creation story – which for those that are familiar with our LDS scholar Hugh Nibley sheds a lot of light on what little we know of our Hebrew creation epoch and “In the Beginning”.

 

The Traveler

[zil2]

26 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Explain the difference (other than formality and wording) between:

"In the beginning I created lots of stuff." (your interpretation of my statement)

and 

"I the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." (Gen 1:1)

The difference is in the context wherein the phrase under discussion is placed.  Scripture places the phrase in the context of this earth.  You are placing the phrase in the context of the entire universe.  While I agree there are many events which can be a beginning, I believe that the scriptural beginning is directly tied to this earth.  (Or you can flip that and say that the scriptural account begins with an account of this earth.)

29 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

"Heaven" was used in Ancient Hebrew to denote anything higher than what we can reach physically.  This would include the upper atmosphere, the "firmament" (which most people don't understand correctly), the waters above the firmament (which most people don't understand at all) outer space, and the realm of God.  Context is referenced to determine what part or parts are actually being spoken about.

OK.

31 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Based on this statement alone, I'm going to make an interpretation. 

• You're talking about the earth as being the primary topic of what was created "in the beginning" but that there were other things which were necessarily created along with it.
• I'm saying that prior to actually creating this ball of matter which we call earth, there were some preparatory steps before that ball existed as a planet.

It seems that we're saying the same thing with an emphasis on different steps.

Yes, this seems accurate.

32 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

I wasn't even addressing that at all

And it was my primary interest.

[zil2]

33 minutes ago, Traveler said:

Whenever we envision a beginning, the next logical question is what happened before that?  What caused the beginning?  If this post was not already long I would take us through the ancient Egyptian creation story – which for those that are familiar with our LDS scholar Hugh Nibley sheds a lot of light on what little we know of our Hebrew creation epoch and “In the Beginning”.

Feel free to go there.

33 minutes ago, Traveler said:

To be clear this idea was not of my own making but was given to me by a Rabbi (expert in Hebrew).  He said that a clear translation would be, “When G-d first established his covenant with man.”

One of the things that sparked my re-interest was a video with a very interesting interpretation of "bereshit" (the Hebrew word translated "in the beginning").  In essence, the video was able to break down the Hebrew characters such that this one word foretold the Son of God and his crucifixion to atone for the sins of the world.  There was more to it, but I can't find the video, let alone confirm whether any of it is remotely accurate.  It reminded me of a similar video that breaks down various Chinese pictograms to demonstrate that the components of various words tell the creation story as found in the Bible.  Again, I don't know Chinese, so I can't say whether it's remotely credible, but it was sure interesting.

And all that reminds me of the talk “True Doctrine, Understood, Changes Attitudes and Behavior” by Todd B. Parker, particularly part 4 where he powerfully demonstrates that all things testify of Christ.

[Ironhold]

20 hours ago, mikbone said:

D&C 35: 1 Listen to the voice of the Lord your God, even Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, whose course is one eternal round, the same today as yesterday, and forever.

2 I am Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who was crucified for the sins of the world, even as many as will believe on my name, that they may become the sons of God, even one in me as I am one in the Father, as the Father is one in me, that we may be one.

From what I can gather, our point of reference begins and ends with Jesus Christ.

Elohim likely covenanted with Jehovah to allow him to run this iteration.

Perhaps I can add a bit of perspective. 

In addition to my newspaper writing, I also try my hand at fiction. 

Due to what is basically autism-fueled OCD, I'm currently in the process of world-building a project to the point of spending months coming up with individual brand names and companies on the off-chance they might be needed in any of the stories I should happen to set in there. Essentially, I've built this world to enough of an extent that if something should happen to where I get transported from this plane of existence to the world I'm creating, I could get by. 

Think about that. 

I have, in essence, created not just a world, but functionally created a universe. I haven't filled in every single crack, dotted every I, or crossed every T, but it's a world. It's livable. 

I am functionally the deity in charge of this little bit of imagination. 

It "began" when I first pulled up a new Excel spreadsheet, and I am continuing to shape things from there. 

From the perspective of my characters, the universe exists because I willed it to exist, and I'm the guy in charge, so...

[Carborendum]

5 hours ago, zil2 said:

The difference is in the context wherein the phrase under discussion is placed.  Scripture places the phrase in the context of this earth.  You are placing the phrase in the context of the entire universe.  While I agree there are many events which can be a beginning, I believe that the scriptural beginning is directly tied to this earth.  (Or you can flip that and say that the scriptural account begins with an account of this earth.)

• In the beginning, the universe was created, of which the Earth is a part.
• In the beginning, the Earth was created, which is part of the universe.

Either statement is correct.  If you choose to focus on one vs the other, I'm not sure why that is important.  I doubt that the sequence of construction between the earth vs the universe matters as far as the narrative provided.  It is an overall concept, not a history book.

In the beginning God created something from nothing (so goes Ex Nihilo creation). The idea being that whatever happened at "the creation".  Sure stuff happened before that.  But that's not important right now.

 

Edited July 26, 2023 by Carborendum

[Anddenex]

I like the notion of the four "beginnings" you provided: God's mind, covenant, spiritual creation, and mortal (physical) creation. I think "in the beginning" is multifaceted. When it comes to "God" -- who are "one" -- I think the term even increases its depth of meaning.

We know there are many beginnings even in our own lives. In the beginning of my life (birth). In the beginning of my learning and understanding (could mean pre-mortal or mortal schooling). At the beginnings sheds a different point of view, for at is within "in" the beginning (at is specifying a singular point in time). In the beginning of my first schooling, and also at the beginning of high school. In this case I have multiple beginnings also.

In the beginning of my adult life (18, 19, marriage?).

The arching "in the beginning" for me is our spiritual creation. There are many theories surrounding this, and at this point I am more inclined to follow how I interpreted Joseph Fielding Smith's idea of spiritual creation within the Doctrine's of Salvation. At that point, any other beginning would be an "at" but can also be represented through "in" as given above in the examples shared.

I haven't had any specific spiritual experience, but I find the main beginning is our spiritual creation and learning. Once we reached a specific point where we could only progress further via mortal experience, I believe that is the next beginning referred which you highlight (from what I can see) as the covenant. Where the sons of God gathered in a solemn assembly and Satan and Jesus were there and Jesus was chosen and Satan rebelled.

I also think in the beginning is harder also, because we are trying to understand time with regards to a God where time seems to be according to events. Much like what I would hear from older generations -- we'll see you in the Spring. Whether that meant at the beginning or the end, the family would wait patiently for the family to see them in the Spring, but there was no "exact" time -- it was when it occurred no later and no sooner. Much like how Joseph Smith described or stated regarding the Savior's second coming, He will come no later or sooner than he comes (paraphrased mightily).

[askandanswer]

My scripture reading this morning included Mormon 9: 11 – 12

11 But behold, I will show unto you a God of miracles, even the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob; and it is that same God who created the heavens and the earth, and all things that in them are.

12 Behold, he created Adam, and by Adam came the fall of man. And because of the fall of man came Jesus Christ, even the Father and the Son; and because of Jesus Christ came the credemption of man

My understanding is that God the Father created the heavens, and conceived of the Earth, and that God the Son, with some assistance from others, perhaps including ourselves, and working under the direction of God the Father, created the Earth, and God the Father and God the Son, working together, created man.

I think that any one of these events – the conceiving of the idea, the first step in carrying it out, ie, the creations of the heavens, the creation of the earth, and the creation of man, could all be considered as a beginning.

It’s possible, and I can’t estimate how likely, that the writers of the scriptures Zil has referred to intended something like “In the beginning of this story……”, rather than meaning something like in the beginning of everything.

I’m inclined to think that the way we use and understand the phrase “in the beginning” today includes the meaning “before anything else.”

And as an unrelated question, referring back to verse 12, does anyone know why the fall of man is attributed to Adam rather than Eve?

Edited July 27, 2023 by askandanswer

[zil2]

53 minutes ago, askandanswer said:

And as an unrelated question, referring back to verse 12, does anyone know why the fall of man is attributed to Adam rather than Eve?

My only ideas are:

1. Adam was the man, thus Adam had to fall for man to fall.  Eve's fall was the fall of woman...

2. Generic use / typical usage where only the man is referenced.

3. Women never fell.  (Oops!  That was supposed to be a secret.  Crud.  The committee are going to be all over me now.)

4. Eve's fall took only herself out of Eden.  Adam's choice to fall and go with Eve resulted in the fall of their descendants - all mankind.

[mikbone]

57 minutes ago, askandanswer said:

My understanding is that God the Father created the heavens, and conceived of the Earth, and that God the Son, with some assistance from others, perhaps including ourselves, and working under the direction of God the Father, created the Earth, and God the Father and God the Son, working together, created man.

Elohim is the Architect and Jehovah is a carpenter.

My current appreciation is that Elohim Provided Jehovah with the blueprints for this Universe.

But in a prior iteration Elohim was a carpenter.

In a future iteration Jehovah will be the Architect.

 

[Traveler]

1 hour ago, askandanswer said:

......

And as an unrelated question, referring back to verse 12, does anyone know why the fall of man is attributed to Adam rather than Eve?

I will speak to my studies, mediations and understanding as I have received.

The epoch of Adam and Eve – I am impressed is highly symbolic and that each of us ought to think on this Eden epoch revelation as though we are Adam (if we are male) and Eve (if we are female).  It is logical, sensible, and just that if indeed the fall was a choice of anyone, that only those that were complicit in the choice would suffer the consequences.

I have attempted to justify anything else and have been unable come to the conclusion that a just G-d would bring about judgements on anyone that is not directly and specifically guilty.  I believe that in the pre-existence all the children of the Father that did not follow Lucifer chose to accept G-d the Father’s plan of salvation and that plan required both a fall and a redemption (a redeemer).

In short – I do not believe that any human that has come or will come to earth under the Father’s Plan of Salvation did not understand the fall and its effects in the pre-existence and made the exact same choice as we are told that Adam and Eve chose in the garden epoch - to taste of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.  If there is any other possibility, please explain how such a possibility is just.

The reason that the fall of man is attributed to Adam is that the term Adam in ancient Hebrew refers to mankind.  However, I believe it is possible that Adam and Eve represented us all by proxy (a legal proxy to which we all agreed).

 

The Traveler

[askandanswer]

15 hours ago, zil2 said:

3. Women never fell.  (Oops!  That was supposed to be a secret.  Crud.  The committee are going to be all over me now.)

Actually, now that I think about it, I think that Adam fell in order to join Eve. Adam took the fall for Eve's fall. 

[Vort]

21 hours ago, zil2 said:

My only ideas are:

1. Adam was the man, thus Adam had to fall for man to fall.  Eve's fall was the fall of woman...

2. Generic use / typical usage where only the man is referenced.

3. Women never fell.  (Oops!  That was supposed to be a secret.  Crud.  The committee are going to be all over me now.)

4. Eve's fall took only herself out of Eden.  Adam's choice to fall and go with Eve resulted in the fall of their descendants - all mankind.

5. In some contexts, "Adam" refers to the primal couple as a unit.

[Vort]

5 hours ago, askandanswer said:

Actually, now that I think about it, I think that Adam fell in order to join Eve. Adam took the fall for Eve's fall. 

I believe this idea is explicit in the endowment presentation.

[Anddenex]

On 7/27/2023 at 2:27 PM, askandanswer said:

And as an unrelated question, referring back to verse 12, does anyone know why the fall of man is attributed to Adam rather than Eve?

Eve's decision without Adam's would have simply resulted in Eve's death -- there would have been no offspring -- and she would not have received the title "Mother of All Living".

Adam's decision is why the verse of scripture specifies "Adam fell that men might be." Thus the fall is attributed to Adam which resulted in -- us -- offspring. Adam also "chose" to fall -- symbolic of Christ who chose death that we all might live. Or better said here, "But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the first fruits of them that slept. For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive."

Mortality -- Adam chose death so that we might be -- live.

Spiritually -- Christ chose death so that we might be (exalted) -- eternal life.

In the same sense though, Eve's decision was also death (like Adam), but it was made by herself, and would have resulted solely in her death -- no offspring -- without Adam. Thus Adam is attributed with the Fall because his decision was that man might be.