The True Lessons From the Fall of Adam and Eve

[LoveIsTruth]

Added this passage to the OP:

God did not mince words about the situation:

• "And we will allow Lucifer, our common enemy to tempt them and to try them, that they may learn from their own experience to discern good from evil. If they yield to the temptation, we will provide a savior for them..." (Endowment)
  
  Also:
  "Wherefore, it came to pass that the devil tempted Adam, and he partook of the forbidden fruit and transgressed the commandment, wherein he became subject to the will of the devil, because he yielded unto temptation." ( D&C 29:40 )

Notice God calls it for what it is: temptation. And the idea that "yielding to a temptation is the right thing to do," is the doctrine of the devil.

And it sadly persists in this church with regards to Adam and Eve.

Yielding to temptation is never "the right thing to do" nor ever the "good choice," Adam and Eve included. It is shocking that such error should be defended by many teachers in the church. This error comes of not understanding that there was a better way: Plan A (resisting temptation and having eyes opened by such resistance without any transgression required), and that Plan B was a bad choice expressly forbidden by the Father.

[LoveIsTruth]

Added scripture references to my statement about Jesus:

Jesus was born with the same veil over his mind that Adam and Eve had in the garden. (Isaiah 7:14,15) But Jesus got his eyes opened to know good from evil by resisting temptations, instead of yielding to them. (D&C 20:22; Hebrews 4:15)

[LoveIsTruth]

Updated the OP:

Short article:

Jesus was born with the same veil over his mind that Adam and Eve had in the garden. (Isaiah 7:14,15) But Jesus got his eyes opened to know good from evil by resisting temptations, instead of yielding to them. (D&C 20:22; Hebrews 4:15)

This shows that when the devil said “there was no other way,” in the garden, he lied.

Adam and Eve could have had their eyes opened to know good and evil in the garden of Eden without the fall, had they chosen to believe and obey the Father rather than the devil, and resisted the temptation.

For it is the exposure to temptation, and not fruits and trees, that open eyes to know good and evil.

And Adam chose the lesser part, by disobeying the Father and yielding to the temptation of Lucifer.

Again, if Adam had done as the Father had commanded him, and resisted the temptation, he could have had his eyes opened in the garden without transgression, and could have had posterity without the fall, precisely as the Father commanded him from the beginning, in which case the conditions on the earth would have been very similar to those which will prevail in the Millennium. Which in essence constitutes Plan A, from which Adam fell into Plan B.

For if there were no Plan A, there was no fall. (Otherwise what is it that they fell from?)

Without Plan A, the term "fall" is meaningless!

The very use of the term “fall” means there was a Plan A — a better plan, — from which Adam fell.

For if there was no better plan, there was no fall! (Making scriptures null and void).

But there was Plan A,— a better plan indeed, — to which we still can return by following Christ and the Father.

And that’s what Millennium is: a restoration of the earth back to the pre-fall “paradisiacal glory" (Articles of Faith 1:10), something that Adam and Eve could have had from the beginning, had they listened to the Father rather than the devil.

[LoveIsTruth]

Updated this section in the OP:

"No Pain No Game" misunderstanding

Some say: "Adam and Eve had to fall or they would never had experienced pain and opposition, and thus could never be exalted."

You do not have to transgress God's commandments to experience pain and opposition. Christ being the perfect example of that.

So lets take them in order:
First there was perfect opposition present in the garden:

"And to bring about his eternal purposes in the end of man, after he had created our first parents, and the beasts of the field and the fowls of the air, and in fine, all things which are created, it must needs be that there was an opposition; even the forbidden fruit in opposition to the tree of life; the one being sweet and the other bitter." ( 2 Nephi 2:15 )

And to add to this opposition God allowed Lucifer, his enemy to tempt them and to try them.

So Adam and Eve were exposed to full opposites in the garden.

The problem was not the absence of opposites, but that they made the wrong choice, which was the reason for their fall, curse, and death.

Now about pain and suffering:
There were infinite opportunities for pain without the fall.

You do not have to have your own transgressions to obtain pain, you get your pain because of the transgressions of others. That was the better path God offered Adam and Eve, and that is precisely what Jesus did.

In the words of Jesus: "It is impossible but that offences will come: but woe unto him, through whom they come!"(Luke 17:1)

Moreover, in the Millennium the Lord says: "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 45:58) Which means that they, in the Millennium, will experience their full share of pain, but not because of their own sins, and yes, they will be exalted.

Consider this: in the Millennium, in a Terrestrial state of the world, there will be a war of the intensity and malice not known before. There will be billions of the sons of perdition joining Satan after having a perfect knowledge of Christ and the Father who will have taught the people for almost a thousand years! The war will be so intense that it will end with the earth passing away by fire:

7 And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison,
8 And shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together to battle: the number of whom is as the sand of the sea.
9 And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city: and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them. ...
11 And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them.
( Rev. 20:7 )

77 And when the time cometh that evil fruit shall again come into my vineyard, then will I cause the good and the bad to be gathered; and the good will I preserve unto myself, and the bad will I cast away into its own place. And then cometh the season and the end; and my vineyard will I cause to be burned with fire.
( Jacob 5:77 )

All this in a Terrestrial state! Which proves that Terrestrial (paradisaical) state has plenty of room for opposition from Satan, rebellion, war, sons of perdition, pain, fire and the end of the earth itself!

So the righteous in the Millennium will have their full measure of opposition and pain, yet "their children shall grow up without sin unto salvation." (D&C 45:58)

Also God the Father himself, though perfect in every way and sinless, no one has, or ever will have suffered more intensely than Him, and this is not because of any transgression of his own. And though His pain and suffering was the most intense of all, he was never miserable, because pain comes to all and is the necessary part of joy, but misery, that is pain un-offset by inner joy, comes only to the wicked.

Therefore the wicked are miserable even in a palace, and the righteous can find peace even on a cross.

Thus it is never necessary to fall to experience pain, in fact they were commanded not to fall, in which case they would have had a much better world, better health, immortality, and the eternal peace and blessings promised to the righteous.

This is what God had in mind for Adam and Eve, if they had taken it, however they dropped the ball. An honest mistake, to be sure, but a mistake nevertheless.

And unless a mistake is admitted, it can never be corrected or learned from.

[LoveIsTruth]

Updated this passage in the OP:

Enoch, Melchizedek and many others had gotten back to Plan A. They have overcome the Telestial world and gained a Terrestrial state where there is "no sorrow because there is no death." (D&C 101:29)

In fact, in the Millennium billions of children will share in a similar blessing, because they will be born and live out their lives in a Terrestrial state, which was God's Plan A for Adam and Eve from the beginning.
...
No telestial state for those billions. No lone and dreary world. This and more is what God had in mind for Adam and Eve and their posterity if they chose to listen to him from the beginning.

[LoveIsTruth]

Garden of Eden was a Terrestrial State, the same state that will prevail in the Millennium, when the "earth will be renewed and [restored to] its paradisiacal glory" (Articles of Faith 1:10).

In the Terrestrial state billions upon billions of children will be born, grow, live out their lives, experience opposition, -- all without ever knowing a fallen, Tellestial, lone and dreary world, and be changed in a twinkling of an eye to a resurrected, Celestial state.

So much so, that the Lord said of a Terrestrial state: there will be "no sorrow because there is no death." (D&C 101:29)

This means that before the fall, in a Terrestrial state, Adam and Eve could have shared in a similar blessing:

• They could have live out their lives in a Terrestrial state,
• had their eyes opened without any fall,
• had children in the Garden of Eden, as the Father commanded them (remember He commanded them to do it "therein," as "in the Garden"), and
• received all the Millennial blessings,

had they resisted the temptation and obeyed the Father, rather than the devil. Because it is the exposure to temptation/opposition that opened their eyes, and not yielding to it, per say.

They could have resisted the temptation, and had their eyes opened just as well, minus the negative consequences of curse, fall, Telestial world, and death!

That was the plan A (from which they fell), the same plan A that will be restored in the Millennium.

The very term "fall" necessitates something BETTER to fall from.

If there was no better way, there was no fall, which would make God a liar!

But there was a better way: Plan A, which consisted of obeying the Father rather than the devil.
In which case the world would have started in the Millennial state, right off the bat, just as the Father had commanded Adam and Eve from the beginning.

All they had to do was listen to Him, and believe Him more than the devil.

That's all.

[LoveIsTruth]

Furthermore, consider these scriptures:

52 And he also said unto him: If thou wilt turn unto me, and hearken unto my voice, and believe, and repent of all thy transgressions, and be baptized, even in water, in the name of mine Only Begotten Son, who is full of grace and truth, which is Jesus Christ, the only name which shall be given under heaven, whereby salvation shall come unto the children of men, ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost, asking all things in his name, and whatsoever ye shall ask, it shall be given you.
53 And our father Adam spake unto the Lord, and said: Why is it that men must repent and be baptized in water? And the Lord said unto Adam: Behold I have forgiven thee thy transgression in the Garden of Eden.
Moses 6:52, 53

How could Adam "repent" of a transgression, unless it was a mistake?

And why would the Lord "forgive" Adam's transgression in the Garden of Eden, if Adam did everything right?

If Adam did the right thing, there is nothing to forgive! Yet the Lord clearly disagrees with such a view, therefore He says: "I have forgiven thee," which clearly means Adam made a mistake and was in need of forgiveness!

Unless you throw away the entirety of the scriptures and make God a liar, you cannot rightly assert that Adam did not make a mistake, a serious and deadly mistake at that, a mistake serious enough to require the life of the Son of God!

Adam and Eve made a serious mistake in the Garden by disobeying the Father, or there was no fall!

And yes, there was a better way: Adam should have resisted the temptation, which would have opened his eyes without any transgression (Just like Jesus got His eyes opened), and would have given him posterity without a fall.

God was right. Adam and Eve were wrong.

The plan God offered Adam and Eve was much more magnificent than we are currently taught!

Why?

Because there was a better way! They did not have to fall. It was their serious error. They could have had a Millennium right from the start!

He who has ears to hear, let him hear!

[LoveIsTruth]

Moses 5
11 And Eve, his wife, heard all these things and was glad, saying: 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.

Notice: if in this verse every "should" was changed to "could", it would be a lie. Why? Because "never could" means physical impossibility, and "never should" means choice. Adam and Eve made the wrong choice in the garden, and are trying to hide the fact. Because they indeed could have had posterity, and could have known good and evil without any fall. All they had to do was resist the temptation, and trust God more than the devil. Then this resistance would have opened their eyes without any transgression, and given them posterity without the fall, precisely as the Father commanded them. For it is the exposure to opposites that opens eyes to know good and evil, and not fruits and trees. And yielding to temptation was never necessary to open their eyes. Resisting the temptation would have done the same thing, minus the curse, fall, and death. If it were not so, God would be a liar, because He would have given self-contradictory commandments, which would have caused Him to cease to be God.
Those who say Adam did the right thing in the garden, unwittingly make God a liar. Which is very bad logic indeed.

[RTaylor]

Next you're going to tell us how the atonement was unnecessary?

There was no other way. We ALL had to experience sin, infirmity, pain, suffering, and redemption.

Out of curiosity why do so many non LDS or anti LDS feel the need to post on these forums?

[LoveIsTruth]

Next you're going to tell us how the atonement was unnecessary?

Those who say that the fall was necessary, unwittingly assert that the atonement was unnecessary.

For if the fall was necessary, then it was Adam's duty to fall.
And if he just did his duty, he did everything right.
And if he did everything right, there is no need to redeem him.

There was no other way.

That's what the devil said.

It does not mean it is true.

If there was no other way, then God is a liar, and there was no fall, for there was no better way, and thus nothing to fall from.

We ALL had to experience sin, infirmity, pain, suffering, and redemption.

Sin is unnecessary by definition, or it is no sin.

Out of curiosity why do so many non LDS or anti LDS feel the need to post on these forums?

I don't know. But many LDS have been taught lies that their well-meaning leaders have been deceived by, just like Adam himself was deceived by a lie.

What lie?

That "there was no other way," which is the doctrine of the devil, for he was the one who taught it to Adam and Eve.

If you don't believe me, watch the endowment movie. It shows clearly who it was that said "there was no other way."

It was the devil.

The Father, however, commanded them the EXACT opposite. And I believe the Father over the devil.

And so should you.

This is your test, and many are failing it.

[RTaylor]

Moses 5:11
"And Eve, his wife, heard all these things and was glad, saying: 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."

Clear as mud? "Never should have had seed."

The idea that God is somehow at fault for giving us commands knowing we will break them is just flat wrong.

"But many LDS have been taught lies that their well-meaning leaders have been deceived by," Either this is a lie or the church is not true. Hence why are you here?

We already know that your theory is false so why peddle to those who won't listen?

Talking about failing tests...I follow true prophets, do you?

[abijah]

i find it funny that people think this is really about fruit and trees. the western world sure has a hard time interpreting eastern symbols. we assume because we are a very literal people, with an incredibly straightforward culture, so is everyone else, even the ancient hebrews (LOL).

but in reference to the original post, thank you loveistruth very much for this doubtless-exhaustive rendering of your thoughts on what happened in eden. i personally have been edified and your inspired observations have served as a springboard for me in receiving my own insights, and answers to questions i myself have had with this topic. thanks again.

[LoveIsTruth]

The idea that God is somehow at fault for giving us commands knowing we will break them is just flat wrong.

I agree.

"But many LDS have been taught lies that their well-meaning leaders have been deceived by," Either this is a lie or the church is not true. Hence why are you here?

I am here because the church is true. And even though some errors exist in it, the most important things: the keys and the authority of God are here.

We already know that your theory is false so why peddle to those who won't listen?

"We already know that 2+2=3, so why peddle to those who won't listen?" Because truth has its own convincing power, and some do listen, because 2+2=4.

Talking about failing tests...I follow true prophets, do you?

Good for you. Keep following. I do. And I am willing to overlook their honest mistakes, knowing that they are true prophets of God. I advise all to do the same. God will straighten it out in his own time and way, but the truth will prevail to the uttermost.

[LoveIsTruth]

i find it funny that people think this is really about fruit and trees. the western world sure has a hard time interpreting eastern symbols. we assume because we are a very literal people, with an incredibly straightforward culture, so is everyone else, even the ancient hebrews (LOL).

but in reference to the original post, thank you loveistruth very much for this doubtless-exhaustive rendering of your thoughts on what happened in eden. i personally have been edified and your inspired observations have served as a springboard for me in receiving my own insights, and answers to questions i myself have had with this topic. thanks again.

You are very welcome! And Thank you!

[abijah]

Adam and Eve are the left and right brain. The left brain is learning to create by making words and defining what is, and what is is projected by the right brain. It is OK for the right brain to sin because it is imagination, but left brain is action. The female brain is the knowledge of evil that left brain protects the person or kingdom from. Eve was supposed to eat the fruit not Adam. Now we are each both Adam and Eve, meaning, all of us on this earth decided with our left brain to physically eat that fruit which created a veil between the hemispheres of the brain. The only way to re connect is through the Holy Spirit, the temple endowment which teaches how to enter through this veil between the right and left brain, and through overcoming sin. Jesus was the example we are to follow. Eve did not sin. Mary had blood and had a perfect son through God. The patriarchal order states Eve should only disobey Adam if he gives her a commandment against God's law. When Adam tells Eve do not eat the fruit, it is against God's law for her to not eat the fruit because God commanded her to have children. So she was right to eat the fruit. Adam should have obeyed God and not eaten the fruit. Adam could stay in the garden because he didn't eat the fruit, and Eve would have a body of blood in order to have children. So through Eve, Adam would be able to obey both commandments, and Eve would have obeyed the patriarchal order. Because Adam fell, Jesus had to be the one to not partake of sin, keeping his DNA perfect, and he brings us back to the garden.

i appreciated reading this. i myself have received strong revelations, which have taught me deep spiritual truths by means of human anatomy. after all,:

26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness:

the brain, and the dna are some of the most potent spiritual symbols revealed to man by God concerning His own very nature. there are a great deal more but these are among the greatest of them. the twin serpents of the dna, and twin hemispheres of the brain are in fact, “Adam & Eve”. the brain, nervous system, and reproductive organs are exceedingly abundant with symbols of eternal truth, given one has eyes to see them. your clairvoyance on this impresses me.

[LoveIsTruth]

Updated passage in the OP:

Eve: “Do you not remember, the Father has commanded us to multiply and replenish the earth? I have partaken of this fruit, and by so doing shall be cast out. And you will be left alone man in the garden of Eden!”

Adam: “Not so sister. God will give me another wife, besides thee, who will obey his commandments in this. And I must obey the Father more than thee, or the devil (serpent). You are wrong Eve! (Dead wrong!) I will follow the Father.”

That was what Adam should have said. And because he listened to his wife and the devil more than to the Father, he fell, and the whole earth and the future human race with him.

The lesson here again is: If you listen to your spouse more than to God, you will fall, and your children with you, and you will bring a curse upon yourself and your posterity.

That was the true lesson of Eden.

[LoveIsTruth]

Hey guys, I have a gift for you. It is quite awesome...

Building a Mind of Steel audio download (2 parts). It is totally free.

3kegift.com/Ann

Copy and paste this link to your browser. Enter your email address, and then follow the instructions in the subsequent 2 emails you get to download 2 audio tracks called "Building a Mind of Steel."

If you have trouble navigating and downloading it, let me know. I will walk you through it. You got to get this. It is amazing!

Cheers!

[Jesef]

LiT, what is “building a mind of steel” about & what did you get out of it, if you don’t mind sharing? Thanks.

[LoveIsTruth]

LiT, what is “building a mind of steel” about & what did you get out of it, if you don’t mind sharing? Thanks.

It is a phenomenal insight into why people fail despite of their best intentions, (quite profound and simple actually) and a phenomenal set of very practical and powerful tools to combat core reasons of failure. It will blow your mind. It is quite life changing. It addresses fundamental and vital realities of our existence which most people ignore.

(I get no money from this, I'm just stoked about it). Enjoy.

[Serragon]

I also appreciate the thoughts of LoveIsTruth in this thread.

The push in our lesson materials on focusing on a heroic Eve and the statements by some leaders that there is a difference between sin and transgression are troubling to me from a doctrinal standpoint. I was the substitute teacher in Gospel Doctrine this year when we went over this lesson. I was amazed and concerned that those 2 points were emphasized. We are treating disobedience to God as something virtuous.

The idea some saints have that God's purposes for us would be frustrated unless Eve chose to disobey is also troubling. Is it not possible that the Plan of Happiness included a Savior only "if" we fell? Perhaps this part of the plan would never have needed implementation if Adam and Eve had stayed true to God.

[LoveIsTruth]

I also appreciate the thoughts of LoveIsTruth in this thread.

The push in our lesson materials on focusing on a heroic Eve and the statements by some leaders that there is a difference between sin and transgression are troubling to me from a doctrinal standpoint.

Excellent point. Eve was foolish, not heroic in her transgression.

And you are right, transgressions can kill you just like sins can. It killed Adam and Eve for sure.

This said, yes: there is a difference between sin and transgression. Every sin is a transgression, but not every transgression a sin.

To commit sin 3 things must be present:

1) Transgression of divine law.
2) Sufficient knowledge of good and evil.
3) Intentional rebellion against light and truth one possesses.

For Adam and Eve (2) was missing. So it was not a sin. But it was a deadly mistake/transgression for sure.

I was the substitute teacher in Gospel Doctrine this year when we went over this lesson. I was amazed and concerned that those 2 points were emphasized. We are treating disobedience to God as something virtuous.

The same here. I can't stand this nonsense! It is a blatant self-contradiction, and thus an error by definition. Worse yet, it makes God a liar! And that is very bad logic indeed!

The idea some saints have that God's purposes for us would be frustrated unless Eve chose to disobey is also troubling.

Well said.

Is it not possible that the Plan of Happiness included a Savior only "if" we fell? Perhaps this part of the plan would never have needed implementation if Adam and Eve had stayed true to God.

Those who are born in a Terrestrial, Millennial state also need a Savior, because they are still imperfect and make mistakes. So how would they get a Savior?

Jesus answered this question. He said:
"It is impossible but that offences will come: but woe unto him, through whom they come!"(Luke 17:1)

So, to rephrase it in terms of worlds: "It is impossible but that some worlds will fall (because they are free): but woe to that world that falls!"

So if Adam and Eve did not fall, they would have had a Millennium conditions right off the bat, and Jesus would have been born in a different fallen world. That was part of His descending below all things whereby He saves/resurrects all the creations of God.

The bottom line, it was never Adam and Eve's duty to fall. In fact it was their duty not to fall. The Savior would have been born anyways.

Good comments! Thank you.

[Crackers]

I am late to this thread, and haven’t read large portions of it, so if something I say has already been addressed, my apologies. Some of my questions and concerns with the premise of the OP I suspect have been addressed, but perhaps unsatisfactorily.

- The “fall” refers to leaving the presence of God; it in no way proves that there were two plans.

- The use of “would” vs. “could” is a nothingburger, in my opinion. The English language is old and malleable, and meanings and inferences can vary according to the reader and the writer. LoveIsTruth, you yourself changed the words in 2 Nep 2:25 to fit your own narrative. You can change words and interpret words to your liking, dictating to others what certain words “prove,” but no one else can do the same?

- An interesting translation issue is pointed out in Eve and the Choice Made in Eden*: The word “command” used in Genesis in the creation series is of a different origin from the word “commandment” as in the commandments given to the children of Israel, the former referring more closely to a strong and possibly temporary warning.

- Bruce R. McConkie stated that “Adam and Eve simply complied with the law which enabled them to become mortal beings, and this course of conduct is termed eating the forbidden fruit.” Elder Widstoe taught that they did so “with open eyes and minds as to consequences.” Brigham Young, JF Smith, BH Roberts and many others confirm the necessity of the fall.

I think Juliet’s post about the different roles given to Adam and Eve is extremely key. The scriptures DO NOT show that Eve was commanded by God, only Adam; therefore, her transgression was perfectly appropriate, as was his response.

* I would stronly encourage you to read this book due to your interest in the topic. You will find many insights that contradict your own ideas, but that is usually helpful in expanding one's knowledge of things.

[LoveIsTruth]

- The “fall” refers to leaving the presence of God; it in no way proves that there were two plans.

If it was merely "leaving the presence of God" why not call it "leaving" and why the need for the atonement? If it was merely leaving the presence of God why the need to redeem them? Redeem them from what? Sin and death of course! So it was not merely "leaving" it was casting out, key difference! It is the difference between leaving voluntarily and being kicked out by threat of lethal force.

• "24 So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life." (Gen 3)

And yes the word fall proves there was a better way, or the word is meaningless. Fall is synonymous with being expelled because of an error. And thus by definition means there had to be a better way, or there was no fall.

And yes there is a huge difference between "leaving" and being kicked out.

- The use of “would” vs. “could” is a nothingburger, in my opinion. The English language is old and malleable, and meanings and inferences can vary according to the reader and the writer.

In this case, why do you bother to write this post if your words can mean anything at all? In this case your writing is meaningless because according to you, words can mean anything at all and thus mean nothing! A self-contradiction on your part. Ay?

LoveIsTruth, you yourself changed the words in 2 Nep 2:25 to fit your own narrative. You can change words and interpret words to your liking, dictating to others what certain words “prove,” but no one else can do the same?

Words have specific meaning, or there is no point in writing anything, neither scriptures, nor your post.

If you change all the "would not's" and "should not's" in these scriptures into "could not's" the scripture becomes a lie. If that means nothing to you, it doesn't mean it is not important to those who can think and understand the words as they are written in a scripture of truth.

- An interesting translation issue is pointed out in Eve and the Choice Made in Eden*: The word “command” used in Genesis in the creation series is of a different origin from the word “commandment” as in the commandments given to the children of Israel, the former referring more closely to a strong and possibly temporary warning.

"40 Wherefore, it came to pass that the devil tempted Adam, and he partook of the forbidden fruit and transgressed the commandment, wherein he became subject to the will of the devil, because he yielded unto temptation." (D&C 29)

You were saying? As you can see Adam transgressed a commandment. Any questions?

- Bruce R. McConkie stated that “Adam and Eve simply complied with the law which enabled them to become mortal beings,and this course of conduct is termed eating the forbidden fruit.”

In this case, king David simply complied with the law which enabled him to go to hell, and this course of conduct is termed murder (of Uriah).

McConkie said many things which were wrong. This is one of them.

Elder Widstoe taught that they did so “with open eyes and minds as to consequences.”

Which makes it worse!

Brigham Young, JF Smith, BH Roberts and many others confirm the necessity of the fall.

If the fall was "necessary," then the atonement was unnecessary!
Really, think about it:
If the fall was necessary, then Adam and Eve did their duty.
And if they did their duty that God required of them, then they did everything right.
And if they did everything right, what need is there to redeem them?
Redeem them from what?
From doing everything right?
Doing that which is right does not require redemption, but that which is wrong requires redemption.

Thus, the assertion that the fall was "necessary" is riddled with self-contradiction, denying the need for the atonement of the Savior, and thus is false by definition.

All the apostles who supposed that the fall was "necessary" fell for the same lie for which Adam himself has fallen.

I take the words of God over opinions of the prophets any day, especially if those opinions are in direct contradiction to the revealed word of God.
Joseph Smith himself taught that prophets, including himself are capable of error in their personal opinions. And I believe Joseph.

I think Juliet’s post about the different roles given to Adam and Eve is extremely key. The scriptures DO NOT show that Eve was commanded by God, only Adam; therefore, her transgression was perfectly appropriate, as was his response.

In the temple endowment it is perfectly clear that both Adam and Eve are commanded not to partake of the forbidden fruit. Moreover your statement contradicts this scripture:
8 And the woman said unto the serpent: We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden;
9 But of the fruit of the tree which thou beholdest in the midst of the garden, God hath said -- Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.
Moses 4

Moreover your words "her transgression was perfectly appropriate" is a self-contradiction, because if it was "perfectly appropriate" it was NOT a transgression, which makes God a liar who said it was a transgression.

Self-contradiction is the definition of error, and your words are riddled with self-contradictions and thus are false by definition.

[Crackers]

- The “fall” refers to leaving the presence of God; it in no way proves that there were two plans.

If it was merely "leaving the presence of God" why not call it "leaving" and why the need for the atonement? If it was merely leaving the presence of God why the need to redeem them? Redeem them from what? Sin and death of course! So it was not merely "leaving" it was casting out, key difference! It is the difference between leaving voluntarily and being kicked out by threat of lethal force.

• "24 So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life." (Gen 3)

And yes the word fall proves there was a better way, or the word is meaningless. Fall is synonymous with being expelled because of an error. And thus by definition means there had to be a better way, or there was no fall.

And yes there is a huge difference between "leaving" and being kicked out.

- The use of “would” vs. “could” is a nothingburger, in my opinion. The English language is old and malleable, and meanings and inferences can vary according to the reader and the writer.

In this case, why do you bother to write this post if your words can mean anything at all? In this case your writing is meaningless because according to you, words can mean anything at all and thus mean nothing! A self-contradiction on your part. Ay?

LoveIsTruth, you yourself changed the words in 2 Nep 2:25 to fit your own narrative. You can change words and interpret words to your liking, dictating to others what certain words “prove,” but no one else can do the same?

Words have specific meaning, or there is no point in writing anything, neither scriptures, nor your post.

If you change all the "would not's" and "should not's" in these scriptures into "could not's" the scripture becomes a lie. If that means nothing to you, it doesn't mean it is not important to those who can think and understand the words as they are written in a scripture of truth.

- An interesting translation issue is pointed out in Eve and the Choice Made in Eden*: The word “command” used in Genesis in the creation series is of a different origin from the word “commandment” as in the commandments given to the children of Israel, the former referring more closely to a strong and possibly temporary warning.

"40 Wherefore, it came to pass that the devil tempted Adam, and he partook of the forbidden fruit and transgressed the commandment, wherein he became subject to the will of the devil, because he yielded unto temptation." (D&C 29)

You were saying? As you can see Adam transgressed a commandment. Any questions?

- Bruce R. McConkie stated that “Adam and Eve simply complied with the law which enabled them to become mortal beings,and this course of conduct is termed eating the forbidden fruit.”

In this case, king David simply complied with the law which enabled him to go to hell, and this course of conduct is termed murder (of Uriah).

McConkie said many things which were wrong. This is one of them.

Elder Widstoe taught that they did so “with open eyes and minds as to consequences.”

Which makes it worse!

Brigham Young, JF Smith, BH Roberts and many others confirm the necessity of the fall.

If the fall was "necessary," then the atonement was unnecessary!
Really, think about it:
If the fall was necessary, then Adam and Eve did their duty.
And if they did their duty that God required of them, then they did everything right.
And if they did everything right, what need is there to redeem them?
Redeem them from what?
From doing everything right?
Doing that which is right does not require redemption, but that which is wrong requires redemption.

Thus, the assertion that the fall was "necessary" is riddled with self-contradiction, denying the need for the atonement of the Savior, and thus is false by definition.

All the apostles who supposed that the fall was "necessary" fell for the same lie for which Adam himself has fallen.

I take the words of God over opinions of the prophets any day, especially if those opinions are in direct contradiction to the revealed word of God.
Joseph Smith himself taught that prophets, including himself are capable of error in their personal opinions. And I believe Joseph.

I think Juliet’s post about the different roles given to Adam and Eve is extremely key. The scriptures DO NOT show that Eve was commanded by God, only Adam; therefore, her transgression was perfectly appropriate, as was his response.

In the temple endowment it is perfectly clear that both Adam and Eve are commanded not to partake of the forbidden fruit. Moreover your statement contradicts this scripture:
8 And the woman said unto the serpent: We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden;
9 But of the fruit of the tree which thou beholdest in the midst of the garden, God hath said -- Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.
Moses 4

Moreover your words "her transgression was perfectly appropriate" is a self-contradiction, because if it was "perfectly appropriate" it was NOT a transgression, which makes God a liar who said it was a transgression.

Self-contradiction is the definition of error, and your words are riddled with self-contradictions and thus are false by definition.

Love your condescending tone. Your enthusiasm for your premise prevents you from serious examination of the issues. You actually didn’t counter any of my assertions with any definitive evidence, which is what I suspected after reading a few pages of seeing you do the same to others. I thought about showing you your specific errors, but I am confident you will continue to respond just as you have here, with condescending arrogance and shocking blindness. Please continue your fun without me, as I see continued discourse as fruitless. I will simply refer you back to Ezra’s post in which he states much that you should ponder, including:

"Some people believe something to be true. They see it as an ultimate truth. In doing so they have stopped their progression of understanding it in more depth."

viewtopic.php?p=734720#p734720

[Arenera]

.