The True Lessons From the Fall of Adam and Eve

[LoveIsTruth]

The "natures" of Adam and Eve - who were born in a "Terrestrial State" were very different from the Savior's - who was born in a "Telestial," fallen world state. To compare "apples" with "oranges" is disingenuous.

The principles of agency, good and evil are still unchanged. Both the Savior and Adam did not know good from evil. So the comparison is perfectly valid.

Some things need to be taken into account, here. 1.) Spiritual Gifts and 2.) Weaknesses given to mankind. It is apparent that God "foreknew" the events that would transpire. Too, it is apparent that Christ did not have weaknesses that He could not "overcome" in mortality. Again, a comparison between "apples" and "oranges." So, a question is proposed, Are there some who are foreordained to condemnation? If so, why?

The truth is that Adam and every one else are perfectly capable keeping all and every commandment given them by God. If it were not so, God would be a liar and contradicting himself, which I assure you He does not.

This isn't contradictory because Adam was placed in a "quandry" having to decide how to proceed.

Indeed. The "quandary" is called temptation. And there is always only one correct way to proceed: to keep the commandments of God.

Which "condition" God foreknew he would be in. This "speculation" is just as valid as your own because the explanation is just as hypothetical as your response is.

There was nothing "hypothetical" about "I forbid it." It is not "speculation." It is a scriptural fact.

What should have happened in your view did not happen in reality and God knew that it wouldn't.

It does not make what happened "the right thing to do." And that is the whole point.

The reason that there is no merit to this whole presentation is that you nor I were there as witnesses to hear or listen to all of the interactions between God and Adam.

I beg to disagree. We have multiple collaborating accounts by multiple prophets, plus very detailed account in the endowment, which we are shown over and over again. It is obvious that God wants us to study and understand it.
So your point is wrong.

I can hypothetically speculate that God told Adam to take care and stick by Eve no matter what . . . and that would carry as much validity as your own "opinion."

Yes you can, but that directly contradicts multiple scriptures and basic logic. If Adam did what he was told to do by God, there was no transgression, and therefore no fall. Both are untrue, therefore obviously Adam went against what God told him, which was the transgression and the reason for fall, curse, and death.

Further, you have neglected to include Lillith.

I have also neglected to include Minnie the Mouse, Goofy and Casper. But it does not mean I am not right.

Again, there are things that neither you nor I know, that disqualify us from speculating about "what could have been" or "should have been."

If that were true, no lesson can ever be learned from any scripture, which is false logic.

The facts are what they are . . . the narrative is what it is and there is no point expounding upon the "True" lessons of the "Fall" extant of God's revelations from those who are more qualified to know than ourselves.

We have revelations. They are recorded in canonized scripture and in the endowment. I use both extensively.

Moreover if were not supposed to analyse, ponder and learn from scripture, there would be zero point in having them, or repeating temple ceremonies over and over again.

Your points are demonstrably false.

"Greater love for His Father" may have been the impetus of him making the choices that he did based upon the "prime directive" of multiplying and replenishing the earth-

Multiplying and replenishing was perfectly possible a) without the fall, and b) without Eve in case she is cast out. Moreover, as I already stated, Adam could not be held responsible for multiplying if Eve decided to kick herself out of the Garden. Adam should have obeyed the Father more than her and the devil.

From my vantage point, if there be one, it is you that have things "skewed" and "reversed." I am only your friend insomuch as you do the will of The Father in all things. I already have much evidence that "perversion," "disinformation" and "subversion" have been in your employ through the presentation of your stance.

Subversion of falsehood. Yes. "Disinformation?" Hardly. Unless you call scripture "disinformation." "Perversion?" Are you assigning me your own problems?

What are your motives?

The Truth.

[BruceRGilbert]

It is a regret that, like two kids, the discussion has resolved to a kind of "bang, bang, you're dead." Countered by "No, I'm Not." Lamentable. Do you really suppose that you have established the "Truth" about the Fall? Please review and realize the items that you have not addressed that were brought up. It is apparent that you have ignored many of them. Let the discussion stand as a testament to those who do have their eyes opened. I submit to you that the Lord did provide a way for His commandments to be obeyed . . . and that things proceeded the way He knew that they would . . . and that a Savior was prepared from before the foundations of this world. That is very clear.

[LoveIsTruth]

Do you really suppose that you have established the "Truth" about the Fall?

To a large degree. Yes.

Please review and realize the items that you have not addressed that were brought up. It is apparent that you have ignored many of them.

Please specify them, and I'll be happy to address them for you.

Let the discussion stand as a testament to those who do have their eyes opened.

Indeed.

I submit to you that the Lord did provide a way for His commandments to be obeyed . . . and that things proceeded the way He knew that they would . . . and that a Savior was prepared from before the foundations of this world. That is very clear.

Agreed.

It' doesn't however mean that there was no plan A. For if there was no plan A, there was no fall.
There was a plan A, and Adam fell from it into plan B.

He who has ears to hear, let him hear.

[BruceRGilbert]

The "natures" of Adam and Eve - who were born in a "Terrestrial State" were very different from the Savior's - who was born in a "Telestial," fallen world state. To compare "apples" with "oranges" is disingenuous.

The principles of agency, good and evil are still unchanged. Both the Savior and Adam did not know good from evil. So the comparison is perfectly valid.

So Christ was born with the same "light of Christ" that Adam and Eve were? Interesting.

Some things need to be taken into account, here. 1.) Spiritual Gifts and 2.) Weaknesses given to mankind. It is apparent that God "foreknew" the events that would transpire. Too, it is apparent that Christ did not have weaknesses that He could not "overcome" in mortality. Again, a comparison between "apples" and "oranges." So, a question is proposed, Are there some who are foreordained to condemnation? If so, why?

The truth is that Adam and every one else are perfectly capable keeping all and every commandment given them by God. If it were not so, God would be a liar and contradicting himself, which I assure you He does not.

So everyone is capable of multiplying and replenishing the earth? Interesting.

This isn't contradictory because Adam was placed in a "quandry" having to decide how to proceed.

Indeed. The "quandary" is called temptation. And there is always only one correct way to proceed: to keep the commandments of God.

The "quandary" occurred at the realization that Eve had partaken of the fruit, at which time deliberation went into effect as to how to proceed." It was similar to the "conflicting" commandments decision that Abraham had received which was discussed earlier in this thread without reviewing what the conflicting commandments really were: "Thou Shalt Not Kill" and "Sacrifice your son for me." It is a "paradoxical" test and the most difficult kind because it is generally between two "right" choices.

Which "condition" God foreknew he would be in. This "speculation" is just as valid as your own because the explanation is just as hypothetical as your response is.

There was nothing "hypothetical" about "I forbid it." It is not "speculation." It is a scriptural fact.

Your "hypothetical construct" was not in reference to the thing being forbidden, but that the receiving of temptation was just as eye opening as falling into temptation because of enticement.

What should have happened in your view did not happen in reality and God knew that it wouldn't.

It does not make what happened "the right thing to do." And that is the whole point.

There is a tremendous difference between being perfect and being innocent. This statement is a non-sequitur because the whole basis for God's plan was that of "Probation" or "Trial."

The reason that there is no merit to this whole presentation is that you nor I were there as witnesses to hear or listen to all of the interactions between God and Adam.

I beg to disagree. We have multiple collaborating accounts by multiple prophets, plus very detailed account in the endowment, which we are shown over and over again. It is obvious that God wants us to study and understand it.
So your point is wrong.

Recall that my point was that we are not qualified because we aren't Prophets and Apostles and that we weren't there. You stated:

There is a common misconception among the church members (sadly including some of our well-meaning apostles) about Adam and Eve’s fall, how it was wise of them to partake of the forbidden fruit, which always bothered me.

and so you wish to "selectively" utilize those whom you qualify and not others of Latter-Days. Interesting. Mis-direction, indeed.

I can hypothetically speculate that God told Adam to take care and stick by Eve no matter what . . . and that would carry as much validity as your own "opinion."

Yes you can, but that directly contradicts multiple scriptures and basic logic. If Adam did what he was told to do by God, there was no transgression, and therefore no fall. Both are untrue, therefore obviously Adam went against what God told him, which was the transgression and the reason for fall, curse, and death.

Oh, does it, now?

Genesis 2:23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.
24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

Humm, I wondered how this played out in Adam's quandary with respect to bone of his bone and flesh of his flesh, she with whom he was to be "one?" Does it really contradict multiple scriptures and basic logic? Only to you. They had an "eternal marriage" covenant performed by God, Himself.

Further, you have neglected to include Lillith.

I have also neglected to include Minnie the Mouse, Goofy and Casper. But it does not mean I am not right.

Evidently you haven't done your homework and haven't a clue about Apocryphal writings concerning Adam's purported, first wife. Interesting. It just means that you were tested. Perhaps Minnie, Goofy and Casper have more bearing upon your "construct" rather than mine.

Again, there are things that neither you nor I know, that disqualify us from speculating about "what could have been" or "should have been."

If that were true, no lesson can ever be learned from any scripture, which is false logic.
Non-sequitur conclusion that doesn't even follow from what I stated. Truth is truth . . .

Doctrine and Covenants 93:24 And truth is knowledge of things as they are, and as they were, and as they are to come;
25 And whatsoever is more or less than this is the spirit of that wicked one who was a liar from the beginning.

I believe that speculation falls into the category of being "more" than and even possibly "less" than what actually transpired. "No lesson can ever be learned from any scripture" infers that you wouldn't and don't "get it."

The facts are what they are . . . the narrative is what it is and there is no point expounding upon the "True" lessons of the "Fall" extant of God's revelations from those who are more qualified to know than ourselves.

We have revelations. They are recorded in canonized scripture and in the endowment. I use both extensively.

Really? See remarks above with respect to "picking and choosing." Consider, too, "speculation."

Moreover if were not supposed to analyse, ponder and learn from scripture, there would be zero point in having them, or repeating temple ceremonies over and over again.

At least we agree on this principle. We are to increase in learning and knowledge of "TRUTH," not what "could have been" or "should have been.'

Your points are demonstrably false.

Bang! Bang! . . . at some point in time I pray that you may come to the realization that you and I are both fallible; just because we believe something doesn't necessarily mean that it is true. I'm not dead and I'm not gullible.

"Greater love for His Father" may have been the impetus of him making the choices that he did based upon the "prime directive" of multiplying and replenishing the earth-

Multiplying and replenishing was perfectly possible a) without the fall, and b) without Eve in case she is cast out. Moreover, as I already stated, Adam could not be held responsible for multiplying if Eve decided to kick herself out of the Garden. Adam should have obeyed the Father more than her and the devil.

My imagination is just as valid as yours. My speculation is just as valid as yours. Truth dictates that your narrative isn't what happened so it really isn't pertinent as "Truth" about the fall.

From my vantage point, if there be one, it is you that have things "skewed" and "reversed." I am only your friend insomuch as you do the will of The Father in all things. I already have much evidence that "perversion," "disinformation" and "subversion" have been in your employ through the presentation of your stance.

Subversion of falsehood. Yes. "Disinformation?" Hardly. Unless you call scripture "disinformation." "Perversion?" Are you assigning me your own problems?

I believe that judgment is meant for identification and not condemnation. I recognize my own "fallibility" and I recognize "yours." It is said that the greatest of all sins is to be conscious of none. I seek not to offend you, but to defend those who are naive and void of "critical thinking" skills. I also recognize "posturing" and I think you have something more on your mind in terms of motivation.

What are your motives?

The Truth.

I'm glad, because it will make you free if you consider that you may be incorrect about some things . . . because the possibility exists of the same within myself.

[LoveIsTruth]

The "quandary" occurred at the realization that Eve had partaken of the fruit, at which time deliberation went into effect as to how to proceed." It was similar to the "conflicting" commandments decision that Abraham had received which was discussed earlier in this thread without reviewing what the conflicting commandments really were: "Thou Shalt Not Kill" and "Sacrifice your son for me." It is a "paradoxical" test and the most difficult kind because it is generally between two "right" choices.

There is nothing conflicting here. The commandment to sacrifice Isaac superseded the commandment "Thou shalt not kill", and then it itself was superseded by commandment not to sacrifice Isaac.

These were sequential commandments with latest one overriding a previous one. You cannot transgress a commandment that is not in force.

There are never two "right" choices.

If they are not identical, then one is always right and the other is always wrong. It is always wrong to choose that which not God's preference.

Your "hypothetical construct" was not in reference to the thing being forbidden, but that the receiving of temptation was just as eye opening as falling into temptation because of enticement.

It is not hypothetical either. In the words of Lehi:
"Wherefore, man could not act for himself save it should be that he was enticed by the one or the other." (2 Nephi 2:16)

And as for eyes being opened to know good and evil WITHOUT yielding to temptation, Jesus is the prime example:
"He suffered temptations but gave no heed unto them." (D&C 20:22 )

And though he was born without the knowledge of good and evil (Isaiah 7: 14, 15 ) the Savior came to know good and evil better than anyone else by resisting temptations, and not yielding to them at all.

Which proves my point, that there indeed was another way for Adam and Eve, and that the devil lied to them that "there is no other way." Duh! What a shocker! The devil lied! Can you believe it?!

So as I said, it is the exposure to opposition/temptation that opens eyes to know good and evil. And you do not have to yield to the temptation for your eyes to be opened. In fact, they will be opened even better if you resist the temptation, and you will not have the negative consequences/cursings attached to a transgression.

There is a tremendous difference between being perfect and being innocent. This statement is a non-sequitur because the whole basis for God's plan was that of "Probation" or "Trial."

Your statement is non-sequitur, because I did not use the word perfect.

Besides probation was possible in the terrestrial state without the fall, just like it will be possible in the terrestrial state during the Millennium when billions of children will "grow up without sin unto salvation." (D&C 45:58 )

and so you wish to "selectively" utilize those whom you qualify and not others of Latter-Days. Interesting. Mis-direction, indeed.

No misdirection at all. I simply pointed out glaring logical flaws of accepted dogma that is in stark contradiction to canonized scripture and reason.

Humm, I wondered how this played out in Adam's quandary with respect to bone of his bone and flesh of his flesh, she with whom he was to be "one?" Does it really contradict multiple scriptures and basic logic? Only to you. They had an "eternal marriage" covenant performed by God, Himself.

Yes they were married by God. But it gave no licence to Adam to transgress God's commandments, nor to obey his wife and the devil more than God.

I believe that speculation falls into the category of being "more" than and even possibly "less" than what actually transpired. "No lesson can ever be learned from any scripture" infers that you wouldn't and don't "get it."

We are commanded to ponder, search, and analyze scriptures, using reason and personal revelation/inspiration of the spirit of God.

I am doing precisely that, showing you irrefutable scriptural proof of the point I make.

At least we agree on this principle. We are to increase in learning and knowledge of "TRUTH," not what "could have been" or "should have been.'

"Could have been" and "should have been" is extensively used by God himself to teach important lessons:

"What could have been done more to my vineyard, that I have not done in it?" (Isa. 5:4)
"for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law." (Gal 3:21)

"And if there is no God we are not, neither the earth; for there could have been no creation of things, neither to act nor to be acted upon; wherefore, all things must have vanished away." (2 Nephi 2:13)

"For if there be no Christ there be no God; and if there be no God we are not, for there could have been no creation. But there is a God, and he is Christ, and he cometh in the fulness of his own time." (2 Ne. 11:7 )

"And now if Christ had not come into the world, speaking of things to come as though they had already come, there could have been no redemption.
And if Christ had not risen from the dead, or have broken the bands of death that the grave should have no victory, and that death should have no sting, there could have been no resurrection." ( Mosiah 16:6,7 )

"25 Now, if it had not been for the plan of redemption, which was laid from the foundation of the world, there could have been no resurrection of the dead; but there was a plan of redemption laid, which shall bring to pass the resurrection of the dead, of which has been spoken.
26 And now behold, if it were possible that our first parents could have gone forth and partaken of the tree of life they would have been forever miserable, having no preparatory state; and thus the plan of redemption would have been frustrated, and the word of God would have been void, taking none effect." ( Alma 12:25,26 )

I could go on, but this is sufficient to prove that God and the prophets disagree with you dramatically on the usefulness of "could have been" as a teaching tool for understanding the truth.

My imagination is just as valid as yours. My speculation is just as valid as yours. Truth dictates that your narrative isn't what happened so it really isn't pertinent as "Truth" about the fall.

False. Even though it is not what happened, it is what God commanded. I point out this fact. And this fact is not up for debate. (At least not one you can win). God made it simple for you: "I forbid it."

Now go ahead and prove that "forbid" is not forbid.

Good luck.

[LoveIsTruth]

Added this (in bold) to the OP

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 is no fall. (Otherwise what is it that he fell from?)

[BruceRGilbert]

The "quandary" occurred at the realization that Eve had partaken of the fruit, at which time deliberation went into effect as to how to proceed." It was similar to the "conflicting" commandments decision that Abraham had received which was discussed earlier in this thread without reviewing what the conflicting commandments really were: "Thou Shalt Not Kill" and "Sacrifice your son for me." It is a "paradoxical" test and the most difficult kind because it is generally between two "right" choices.

There is nothing conflicting here. The commandment to sacrifice Isaac superseded the commandment "Thou shalt not kill", and then it itself was superseded by commandment not to sacrifice Isaac.

These were sequential commandments with latest one overriding a previous one. You cannot transgress a commandment that is not in force.

There are never two "right" choices.

If they are not identical, then one is always right and the other is always wrong. It is always wrong to choose that which not God's preference.

Your "hypothetical construct" was not in reference to the thing being forbidden, but that the receiving of temptation was just as eye opening as falling into temptation because of enticement.

It is not hypothetical either. In the words of Lehi:
"Wherefore, man could not act for himself save it should be that he was enticed by the one or the other." (2 Nephi 2:16)

And as for eyes being opened to know good and evil WITHOUT yielding to temptation, Jesus is the prime example:
"He suffered temptations but gave no heed unto them." (D&C 20:22 )

And though he was born without the knowledge of good and evil (Isaiah 7: 14, 15 ) the Savior came to know good and evil better than anyone else by resisting temptations, and not yielding to them at all.

Which proves my point, that there indeed was another way for Adam and Eve, and that the devil lied to them that "there is no other way." Duh! What a shocker! The devil lied! Can you believe it?!

So as I said, it is the exposure to opposition/temptation that opens eyes to know good and evil. And you do not have to yield to the temptation for your eyes to be opened. In fact, they will be opened even better if you resist the temptation, and you will not have the negative consequences/cursings attached to a transgression.

There is a tremendous difference between being perfect and being innocent. This statement is a non-sequitur because the whole basis for God's plan was that of "Probation" or "Trial."

Your statement is non-sequitur, because I did not use the word perfect.

Besides probation was possible in the terrestrial state without the fall, just like it will be possible in the terrestrial state during the Millennium when billions of children will "grow up without sin unto salvation." (D&C 45:58 )

and so you wish to "selectively" utilize those whom you qualify and not others of Latter-Days. Interesting. Mis-direction, indeed.

No misdirection at all. I simply pointed out glaring logical flaws of accepted dogma that is in stark contradiction to canonized scripture and reason.

Humm, I wondered how this played out in Adam's quandary with respect to bone of his bone and flesh of his flesh, she with whom he was to be "one?" Does it really contradict multiple scriptures and basic logic? Only to you. They had an "eternal marriage" covenant performed by God, Himself.

Yes they were married by God. But it gave no licence to Adam to transgress God's commandments, nor to obey his wife and the devil more than God.

I believe that speculation falls into the category of being "more" than and even possibly "less" than what actually transpired. "No lesson can ever be learned from any scripture" infers that you wouldn't and don't "get it."

We are commanded to ponder, search, and analyze scriptures, using reason and personal revelation/inspiration of the spirit of God.

I am doing precisely that, showing you irrefutable scriptural proof of the point I make.

At least we agree on this principle. We are to increase in learning and knowledge of "TRUTH," not what "could have been" or "should have been.'

"Could have been" and "should have been" is extensively used by God himself to teach important lessons:

"What could have been done more to my vineyard, that I have not done in it?" (Isa. 5:4)
"for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law." (Gal 3:21)

"And if there is no God we are not, neither the earth; for there could have been no creation of things, neither to act nor to be acted upon; wherefore, all things must have vanished away." (2 Nephi 2:13)

"For if there be no Christ there be no God; and if there be no God we are not, for there could have been no creation. But there is a God, and he is Christ, and he cometh in the fulness of his own time." (2 Ne. 11:7 )

"And now if Christ had not come into the world, speaking of things to come as though they had already come, there could have been no redemption.
And if Christ had not risen from the dead, or have broken the bands of death that the grave should have no victory, and that death should have no sting, there could have been no resurrection." ( Mosiah 16:6,7 )

"25 Now, if it had not been for the plan of redemption, which was laid from the foundation of the world, there could have been no resurrection of the dead; but there was a plan of redemption laid, which shall bring to pass the resurrection of the dead, of which has been spoken.
26 And now behold, if it were possible that our first parents could have gone forth and partaken of the tree of life they would have been forever miserable, having no preparatory state; and thus the plan of redemption would have been frustrated, and the word of God would have been void, taking none effect." ( Alma 12:25,26 )

I could go on, but this is sufficient to prove that God and the prophets disagree with you dramatically on the usefulness of "could have been" as a teaching tool for understanding the truth.

My imagination is just as valid as yours. My speculation is just as valid as yours. Truth dictates that your narrative isn't what happened so it really isn't pertinent as "Truth" about the fall.

False. Even though it is not what happened, it is what God commanded. I point out this fact. And this fact is not up for debate. (At least not one you can win). God made it simple for you: "I forbid it."

Now go ahead and prove that "forbid" is not forbid.

Good luck.

Your rebuttal is ample evidence that you are entrenched in your mindset so deeply that you have "comprehension bias," so much so that you aren't even addressing key components of the negation of your premises . . . just repeating yourself, ignoring evidence that contradicts your own, and creating "off point, strawman" specters of non-issues. You haven't even considered that you may be incorrect. Your quest for "light" and especially "truth" as knowledge of what DID happen is void. The tragedy of it is that you have an audience that may not know any better. There is no longer any purpose to engage in an interchange with someone who insists that they are right about "speculations" that didn't happen and consume it upon their lusts by adding things to "lists" to further buoy and validate themselves. For what it is worth, be king of your own mountain.

An "All Knowing"God doesn't need contingency plans.

[Sarah]

Just skimming the last few posts here.

Loveistruth, I think I have to disagree with you with your following logic:

It is not hypothetical either. In the words of Lehi:
"Wherefore, man could not act for himself save it should be that he was enticed by the one or the other." (2 Nephi 2:16)

And as for eyes being opened to know good and evil WITHOUT yielding to temptation, Jesus is the prime example:
"He suffered temptations but gave no heed unto them." (D&C 20:22 )

And though he was born without the knowledge of good and evil (Isaiah 7: 14, 15 ) the Savior came to know good and evil better than anyone else by resisting temptations, and not yielding to them at all.

Which proves my point, that there indeed was another way for Adam and Eve, and that the devil lied to them that "there is no other way." Duh! What a shocker! The devil lied! Can you believe it?!

We know that the gift of agency is the most important gift God gives us. All other laws pertaining to our salvation only work if we have agency. McConkie says that four principles must BE IN FORCE if there is to be agency. (And I'm summarizing) 1. Laws must exist, laws ordained by God which can be obeyed or disobeyed. 2. Opposites must exist - good and evil, virtue and vice - two forces pulling one way and another. 3. A knowledge of good and evil must be had by those are are to enjoy agency, that is, they must know the difference between the opposites. 4. An unfettered power of choice must prevail.

So, the question is, did Adam and Eve have agency in the Garden of Eden? I would argue that they did not, because one vital condition was missing, and that was knowledge. They had everything else provided, but they were in a state of innocence and could never progress without gaining that knowledge. They didn't realize they were naked. And this is important. (Please don't tell my you're one of these guys who argues that there is nothing wrong with being naked, that Satan was the one who made them feel ashamed and we all shouldn't feel ashamed walking around naked in public.)

Do you think Adam and Eve would have realized they were naked simply by resisting the temptation to break God's laws? No. I don't think resisting temptation, or obeying, automatically allows a 3 year old to understand opposites. Whatever effect the fruit had on Adam and Eve, to distinguish good and evil, is activated in a child as he or she matures, and we know that happens around age 8. That child is able to recognize opposites and have a knowledge of good and evil as he or she matures, all because we inherited bodies from Adam and Eve who partook of the fruit. Adam and Eve were as children and had no understanding of opposites.

The fruit activated that knowledge and their agency, and that is why it is called the tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. Otherwise they could not have had agency and they could never be fully accountable for obeying God's laws, nor learn from obeying those laws. Just as we teach our own children to obey and be accountable, we realize that they must be at some point of maturity to learn from their own experiences the good from the evil. They don't immediately reach that maturity. Adam and Eve would have never reach that point of maturity.

But the problem for Adam and Eve, besides being in innocence, is that here they now had a physical body, but they did not live in a world of opposites that would teach them the proper use of that body so as to learn to become like God. So there had to be a way to bring about the ultimate learning devices for us to learn the proper use of our bodies, death and sorrow and pain to the physical body. And thank goodness Eve chose in her innocence to bring about this, otherwise none of us would have been born and experienced a complete depth of opposites. To the extent that we all descend, the further (and faster) we can ascend.

This leads us to conclude that we cannot compare the Savior's innocence to that of Adam and Eve's, because the Lord had that knowledge of good and evil as soon as he matured like everyone else. He had his agency when he reached the age of accountability and the effects of the fall were activated within him, whereas Adam and Eve did not until they ate the fruit that produced this physical, mental, and spiritual change. They truly would have never had children because they did not have knowledge that they were even different from each other.

[LoveIsTruth]

Your rebuttal is ample evidence that you are entrenched in your mindset so deeply that you have "comprehension bias," so much so that you aren't even addressing key components of the negation of your premises . . . just repeating yourself, ignoring evidence that contradicts your own,

I was under the impression that I carefully addressed your every point. Would you be so kind to point out which point I have not addressed?

As for "comprehension bias", Yeah, I have a strong comprehension bias that 2+2=4. I am sorry you think 2+2=5, but truth is biased to fact and reason. Deal with it.

and creating "off point, strawman" specters of non-issues. You haven't even considered that you may be incorrect. Your quest for "light" and especially "truth" as knowledge of what DID happen is void.

Yes I do address what DID happen: Adam made a serious mistake. That's what did happen. God said it. And I believe him.

The tragedy of it is that you have an audience that may not know any better. There is no longer any purpose to engage in an interchange with someone who insists that they are right about "speculations" that didn't happen and consume it upon their lusts by adding things to "lists" to further buoy and validate themselves. For what it is worth, be king of your own mountain.

An "All Knowing"God doesn't need contingency plans.

That's not what he said in the endowment: "If they yield to temptation, we will provide a Savior for them." If that is not a contingency plan, I don't know what is.

The facts are not on your side, friend.

[LoveIsTruth]

So, the question is, did Adam and Eve have agency in the Garden of Eden? I would argue that they did not,

The Lord said: "in the Garden of Eden, gave I unto man his agency." ( Moses 7:33 )

If they did not have agency in the Garden of Eden, then all "choices" they made there are meaningless, because agency is the ability to choose. And if they had no agency in the Garden, then they made no choice in the Garden. And if they made no choice in the Garden, there could not have been a transgression, because transgression is a choice contrary to the commandments of God. And if there was no transgression, there was no fall.

Do you see the problem with you asserting that Adam and Eve had no agency in the Garden?

It negates the entirety of the scriptural account, and renders God a liar who said "thou mayest choose for thyself, for it is given unto thee" (Moses 3:17). Ability to choose IS agency. That is the definition of the word. And this scripture proves that Adam and Eve did indeed have their agency to make the choice to obey or not to obey God, BEFORE they partook of the fruit.

Moreover the scripture says:
"this fallen state, which man had brought upon himself because of his own disobedience;" ( Alma 42:12 )

How could man be "disobedient" unless he had agency to make the choice to obey or disobey?

So they had enough knowledge to make that choice, or it was no choice at all, and God has lied that they may "choose."

"Thou mayest choose for thyself" is agency, by definition. At least enough of it to make the choice. Otherwise there was no choice, and God has lied.

They didn't realize they were naked. And this is important. (Please don't tell my you're one of these guys who argues that there is nothing wrong with being naked, that Satan was the one who made them feel ashamed and we all shouldn't feel ashamed walking around naked in public.)

Satan did make them feel ashamed. But clothing serves an important purpose in an imperfect society. This is why God, Jesus and the angels appear dressed when they visit. So, no, I am not "one of those guys."

Do you think Adam and Eve would have realized they were naked simply by resisting the temptation to break God's laws?

If they resisted the temptation enough times, their eyes would have began to be opened enough to have children, as God commanded them, which act would have opened them completely. For action was required either one way or the other in relation to the commandments of God to open their eyes.

Simple inaction is not enough.

No. I don't think resisting temptation, or obeying, automatically allows a 3 year old to understand opposites. Whatever effect the fruit had on Adam and Eve, to distinguish good and evil, is activated in a child as he or she matures, and we know that happens around age 8. That child is able to recognize opposites and have a knowledge of good and evil as he or she matures, all because we inherited bodies from Adam and Eve who partook of the fruit. Adam and Eve were as children and had no understanding of opposites.

They did not have to partake of the fruit to understand the opposites. They would have understood the opposites even better if they did as the Father commanded them, and resisted the temptation, for it is exposure to opposites that opens eyes to know good and evil, and not fruits and trees.

It is the exposure to opposites that opens eyes, yielding to temptation is not necessary, and indeed forbidden.
If it were not so, no one, including Jesus, could have learned good from evil without committing every kind of sin, which we are commanded NOT to do, and Jesus and the Father certainly did not.

I say it again, they would have understood the opposites even better if they did as the Father commanded them, and resisted the temptation, which would have opened their eyes without any transgression and they would have had no negative consequences following them and their children.

That was Plan A, and they fell from it into plan B.

Think of it, if there was no Plan A, there was no fall. For what is it that they fell from? Plan A.

The fruit activated that knowledge and their agency, and that is why it is called the tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.

" This is why it was called the tree of "knowledge of good and evil," because whether they resisted or yielded to the temptation to partake of it, their eyes would have been opened, for it was the exposure to the temptation, and not the tree, that opened their eyes, and they chose the lesser part."

More importantly:
If knowledge of good and evil was impossible without transgression, God would be a liar, for he would have given contradictory commandments that were in force simultaneously, which would have caused him to cease to be God, for "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." ( 1 Nephi 3:7 )

Transgressing commandments is NOT accomplishing them.

Which means there HAD TO BE a way to open their eyes without partaking of the fruit. What was that way? Resisting the temptation, of course! That's how you open your eyes without a transgression. Jesus demonstrated it, and the Father commanded it.

These are irrefutable facts of the scriptures.

Adam and Eve would have never reach that point of maturity.

As I said, they had enough knowledge to make the choice, and their knowledge and maturity would have been growing ever since, without any transgression or fall, had they obeyed the Father, which was Plan A, from which they fell.

And as for Plan A, Alma speaks of it thus: "Wherefore, he gave commandments unto men, they having first transgressed the first commandments" (Alma 12:31).

So
Plan A = "first commandments."

And Plan B is:
"And now, my brethren, seeing we know these things, and they are true, let us repent, and harden not our hearts, that we provoke not the Lord our God to pull down his wrath upon us in these his second commandments which he has given unto us; but let us enter into the rest of God, which is prepared according to his word." ( Alma 12:37 )

So
Plan B = "second commandments"

It's all here.

But the problem for Adam and Eve, besides being in innocence, is that here they now had a physical body, but they did not live in a world of opposites that would teach them the proper use of that body so as to learn to become like God.

That is not true.

"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 he allowed Lucifer, his enemy to tempt them and to try them.

So Adam and Eve did live in a "world of opposites."

The problem was, they made the wrong choice, which was the reason for their fall, curse, and death.

So there had to be a way to bring about the ultimate learning devices for us to learn the proper use of our bodies, death and sorrow and pain to the physical body. And thank goodness Eve chose in her innocence to bring about this, otherwise none of us would have been born and experienced a complete depth of opposites. To the extent that we all descend, the further (and faster) we can ascend.

Opposition, pain and sorrow were amply available to Adam and Eve without the fall. See ""No Pain No Game" misunderstanding" in the OP.

This leads us to conclude that we cannot compare the Savior's innocence to that of Adam and Eve's, because the Lord had that knowledge of good and evil as soon as he matured like everyone else. He had his agency when he reached the age of accountability and the effects of the fall were activated within him, whereas Adam and Eve did not until they ate the fruit that produced this physical, mental, and spiritual change. They truly would have never had children because they did not have knowledge that they were even different from each other.

That is false on many different levels, as I already explained in detail in this very post.

Thanks.

[Sarah]

So, the question is, did Adam and Eve have agency in the Garden of Eden? I would argue that they did not,

The Lord said: "in the Garden of Eden, gave I unto man his agency." ( Moses 7:33 )

If they did not have agency in the Garden of Eden, then all "choices" they made there are meaningless, because agency is the ability to choose. And if they had no agency in the Garden, then they made no choice in the Garden. And if they made no choice in the Garden, there could not have been a transgression, because transgression is a choice contrary to the commandments of God. And if there was no transgression, there was no fall.

Do you see the problem with you asserting that Adam and Eve had no agency in the Garden?

It negates the entirety of the scriptural account, and renders God a liar who said "thou mayest choose for thyself, for it is given unto thee" (Moses 3:17). Ability to choose IS agency. That is the definition of the word. And this scripture proves that Adam and Eve did indeed have their agency to make the choice to obey or not to obey God, BEFORE they partook of the fruit.

Moreover the scripture says:
"this fallen state, which man had brought upon himself because of his own disobedience;" ( Alma 42:12 )

How could man be "disobedient" unless he had agency to make the choice to obey or disobey?

So they had enough knowledge to make that choice, or it was no choice at all, and God has lied that they may "choose."

"Thou mayest choose for thyself" is agency, by definition. At least enough of it to make the choice. Otherwise there was no choice, and God has lied.

They didn't realize they were naked. And this is important. (Please don't tell my you're one of these guys who argues that there is nothing wrong with being naked, that Satan was the one who made them feel ashamed and we all shouldn't feel ashamed walking around naked in public.)

Satan did make them feel ashamed. But clothing serves an important purpose in an imperfect society. This is why God, Jesus and the angels appear dressed when they visit. So, no, I am not "one of those guys."

Do you think Adam and Eve would have realized they were naked simply by resisting the temptation to break God's laws?

If they resisted the temptation enough times, their eyes would have began to be opened enough to have children, as God commanded them, which act would have opened them completely. For action was required either one way or the other in relation to the commandments of God to open their eyes.

Simple inaction is not enough.

No. I don't think resisting temptation, or obeying, automatically allows a 3 year old to understand opposites. Whatever effect the fruit had on Adam and Eve, to distinguish good and evil, is activated in a child as he or she matures, and we know that happens around age 8. That child is able to recognize opposites and have a knowledge of good and evil as he or she matures, all because we inherited bodies from Adam and Eve who partook of the fruit. Adam and Eve were as children and had no understanding of opposites.

They did not have to partake of the fruit to understand the opposites. They would have understood the opposites even better if they did as the Father commanded them, and resisted the temptation, for it is exposure to opposites that opens eyes to know good and evil, and not fruits and trees.

It is the exposure to opposites that opens eyes, yielding to temptation is not necessary, and indeed forbidden.
If it were not so, no one, including Jesus, could have learned good from evil without committing every kind of sin, which we are commanded NOT to do, and Jesus and the Father certainly did not.

I say it again, they would have understood the opposites even better if they did as the Father commanded them, and resisted the temptation, which would have opened their eyes without any transgression and they would have had no negative consequences following them and their children.

That was Plan A, and they fell from it into plan B.

Think of it, if there was no Plan A, there was no fall. For what is it that they fell from? Plan A.

The fruit activated that knowledge and their agency, and that is why it is called the tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.

" This is why it was called the tree of "knowledge of good and evil," because whether they resisted or yielded to the temptation to partake of it, their eyes would have been opened, for it was the exposure to the temptation, and not the tree, that opened their eyes, and they chose the lesser part."

More importantly:
If knowledge of good and evil was impossible without transgression, God would be a liar, for he would have given contradictory commandments that were in force simultaneously, which would have caused him to cease to be God, for "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." ( 1 Nephi 3:7 )

Transgressing commandments is NOT accomplishing them.

Which means there HAD TO BE a way to open their eyes without partaking of the fruit. What was that way? Resisting the temptation, of course! That's how you open your eyes without a transgression. Jesus demonstrated it, and the Father commanded it.

These are irrefutable facts of the scriptures.

Adam and Eve would have never reach that point of maturity.

As I said, they had enough knowledge to make the choice, and their knowledge and maturity would have been growing ever since, without any transgression or fall, had they obeyed the Father, which was Plan A, from which they fell.

And as for Plan A, Alma speaks of it thus: "Wherefore, he gave commandments unto men, they having first transgressed the first commandments" (Alma 12:31).

So
Plan A = "first commandments."

And Plan B is:
"And now, my brethren, seeing we know these things, and they are true, let us repent, and harden not our hearts, that we provoke not the Lord our God to pull down his wrath upon us in these his second commandments which he has given unto us; but let us enter into the rest of God, which is prepared according to his word." ( Alma 12:37 )

So
Plan B = "second commandments"

It's all here.

But the problem for Adam and Eve, besides being in innocence, is that here they now had a physical body, but they did not live in a world of opposites that would teach them the proper use of that body so as to learn to become like God.

That is not true.

"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 he allowed Lucifer, his enemy to tempt them and to try them.

So Adam and Eve did live in a "world of opposites."

The problem was, they made the wrong choice, which was the reason for their fall, curse, and death.

So there had to be a way to bring about the ultimate learning devices for us to learn the proper use of our bodies, death and sorrow and pain to the physical body. And thank goodness Eve chose in her innocence to bring about this, otherwise none of us would have been born and experienced a complete depth of opposites. To the extent that we all descend, the further (and faster) we can ascend.

Opposition, pain and sorrow were amply available to Adam and Eve without the fall. See ""No Pain No Game" misunderstanding" in the OP.

This leads us to conclude that we cannot compare the Savior's innocence to that of Adam and Eve's, because the Lord had that knowledge of good and evil as soon as he matured like everyone else. He had his agency when he reached the age of accountability and the effects of the fall were activated within him, whereas Adam and Eve did not until they ate the fruit that produced this physical, mental, and spiritual change. They truly would have never had children because they did not have knowledge that they were even different from each other.

That is false on many different levels, as I already explained in detail in this very post.

Thanks.

If we're going to simply define agency as the ability to choose, then yes, I agree with you that they had their agency. They had freedom to choose, they had opposites to some degree, and they had a law given. The main contention is whether or not they had knowledge sufficient to exercise their agency enough to progress and to have children, obeing the other commandment. I agree with Lehi.

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.

One reason your argument falls through for me is that they were resisting temptation in the Garden up to the point they partook of the fruit, and they obviously didn't figure out how to multiply. They could have been there a long time for all we know, and their resisting temptation didn't get them anywhere. I guess you could argue that Satan tempting them was the first time they were tempted, but I would think curiosity would have tempted them as well.

Lehi says they would have remained in a state of innocence without falling. So you disagree with Lehi?

[LoveIsTruth]

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.

I already covered it in detail in the OP. The scripture says they "would" not have children without a transgression, not that they could not. Key difference.

"Could" means physical ability. "Would" means choice. Lehi never said they "could not have children" for that would make God a liar. He said they would not. Key difference that many miss. But it is key.

One reason your argument falls through for me is that they were resisting temptation in the Garden up to the point they partook of the fruit,

Where is the evidence for that? We know Adam rejected Satan, but then when presented with a choice between his wife and God, he chose his wife, which was the reason for his fall.

I say it again, if they resisted the temptation enough, their eyes would have began to be opened sufficiently to multiply, which would have opened them completely without any transgression. That was Gods Plan A for Adam and Eve and their posterity, but they dropped the ball and fell into plan B.

and they obviously didn't figure out how to multiply. They could have been there a long time for all we know, and their resisting temptation didn't get them anywhere. I guess you could argue that Satan tempting them was the first time they were tempted, but I would think curiosity would have tempted them as well.

Whatever it was, they did not resist enough. That's why they fell.

Lehi says they would have remained in a state of innocence without falling. So you disagree with Lehi?

Lehi said two things, and both are true: a) if they were not tempted, they would never known good and evil, nor had posterity. Absolutely true. But they did not have to yield to the temptation, but should have kept the commandment of the Father, which resistence would have opened their eyes without transgression, and gave them posterity without the fall, which, unfortunately they did not choose. Therefore Lehi said b) that they WOULD NOT have children, nor know good from evil without a fall. Why? Because they were deceived and CHOSE wrong.

I again point out, that Lehi did not say they COULD NOT multiply nor know good from evil without transgression, for that would make God a self-contradictory God and a liar. But Lehi said instead that they WOULD NOT.

Key difference. And correct.

[Sarah]

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.

I already covered it in detail in the OP. The scripture says they "would" not have children without a transgression, not that they could not. Key difference.

"Could" means physical ability. "Would" means choice. Lehi never said they "could not have children" for that would make God a liar. He said they would not. Key difference that many miss. But it is key.

One reason your argument falls through for me is that they were resisting temptation in the Garden up to the point they partook of the fruit,

Where is the evidence for that? We know Adam rejected Satan, but then when presented with a choice between his wife and God, he chose his wife, which was the reason for his fall.

I say it again, if they resisted the temptation enough, their eyes would have began to be opened sufficiently to multiply, which would have opened them completely without any transgression. That was Gods Plan A for Adam and Eve and their posterity, but they dropped the ball and fell into plan B.

and they obviously didn't figure out how to multiply. They could have been there a long time for all we know, and their resisting temptation didn't get them anywhere. I guess you could argue that Satan tempting them was the first time they were tempted, but I would think curiosity would have tempted them as well.

Whatever it was, they did not resist enough. That's why they fell.

Lehi says they would have remained in a state of innocence without falling. So you disagree with Lehi?

Lehi said two things, and both are true: a) if they were not tempted, they would never known good and evil, nor had posterity. Absolutely true. But they did not have to yield to the temptation, but should have kept the commandment of the Father, which resistence would have opened their eyes without transgression, and gave them posterity without the fall, which, unfortunately they did not choose. Therefore Lehi said b) that they WOULD NOT have children, nor know good from evil without a fall. Why? Because they were deceived and CHOSE wrong.

I again point out, that Lehi did not say they COULD NOT multiply nor know good from evil without transgression, for that would make God a self-contradictory God and a liar. But Lehi said instead that they WOULD NOT.

Key difference. And correct.

No one is arguing that they could not have children. That point doesn't matter. Would not or could not, neither condition gets the job done or the ball rolling.

Lehi said b) that they WOULD NOT have children, nor know good from evil without a fall. Why? Because they were deceived and CHOSE wrong.

This quote of yours does not make sense to me. You're saying that Lehi is right, that they would not have children without a fall, and that the reason they would not have children without a fall is because they were deceived and chose wrong. You'll have to explain what you mean by this. It sounds like you think their transgression is the only reason they would not have children, (in other words, they WOULD have had children in the Garden before their transgression) and that means that that is a very short window of time Lehi is describing between the time they ate the fruit and then were cast out.

[LoveIsTruth]

Added a new section to the OP (thanks to you guys!):

Is there evidence in the scriptures that there was Plan A and Plan B for Adam?

Yes!

To begin with, the very term "fall" necessitates for something to fall from. And what they fell from was Plan A. And they fell into Plan B.

Plan B is well known: In the temple we learn that God said: "If they yield to the temptation, we will provide a Savior for them." That was Plan B.

And as for Plan A, Alma speaks of it thus: "Wherefore, he gave commandments unto men, they having first transgressed the first commandments" (Alma 12:31).

So
Plan A = "first commandments."

What first commandments? To multiply and replenish the earth, and NOT to partake of the forbidden fruit, of course. It is all on record.

As I pointed out, following these two commandments (which, of course, meant resisting the temptation of the devil) would have opened Adam's eyes without transgression, and gave him posterity without the fall. In which case the conditions on the earth would have been very similar, right off the bat, to those which will prevail in the Millennium for untold billions of children who will be born then, who will never know a telestial, fallen, lone and dreary world!

God truly created a beautiful plan!

And Plan B, according to Alma, is:
"And now, my brethren, seeing we know these things, and they are true, let us repent, and harden not our hearts, that we provoke not the Lord our God to pull down his wrath upon us in these his second commandments which he has given unto us; but let us enter into the rest of God, which is prepared according to his word." ( Alma 12:37 )

So
Plan B = "second commandments"

It's all here.

[LoveIsTruth]

No one is arguing that they could not have children. That point doesn't matter. Would not or could not, neither condition gets the job done or the ball rolling.

First of all I appreciate your honest search for the truth. It is very refreshing. Thank you!

Secondly, I pointed out that Lehi did not say that they COULD NOT 1) know good from evil without transgression, for that would be a lie, nor did he say 2) that they COULD NOT have children without a transgression, for that also would be a lie.

He said for both (1) and (2) that they WOULD NOT. And it is an important distinction, because "could not" makes God a liar, and "would not" simply points out that Adam was deceived.

It is an important distinction indeed, because God does not contradict himself, and created a perfect plan/world for Adam and Eve that did not require any transgression or fall from them to multiply or to have joy.

Indeed, far from being required, both the transgression and the fall were strictly and expressly forbidden by God. They went there against his counsel, which was their serious error (though not a sin, for they were incapable of sinning until after the transgression).

Lehi said b) that they WOULD NOT have children, nor know good from evil without a fall. Why? Because they were deceived and CHOSE wrong.

This quote of yours does not make sense to me. You're saying that Lehi is right, that they would not have children without a fall, and that the reason they would not have children without a fall is because they were deceived and chose wrong.

That is exactly right!

You'll have to explain what you mean by this. It sounds like you think their transgression is the only reason they would not have children, (in other words, they WOULD have had children in the Garden before their transgression) and that means that that is a very short window of time Lehi is describing between the time they ate the fruit and then were cast out.

That's not what I meant. What I meant is simple:
Lehi pointed out that Adam WOULD NOT (meaning choice) know good and evil, nor have posterity without the fall. Why? Because he was deceived, and yielded to the temptation. Had he chosen to obey the Father and resisted the temptation, he could have had both the opening of eyes and posterity without the fall.

[Sarah]

No one is arguing that they could not have children. That point doesn't matter. Would not or could not, neither condition gets the job done or the ball rolling.

First of all I appreciate your honest search for the truth. It is very refreshing. Thank you!

Secondly, I pointed out that Lehi did not say that they COULD NOT 1) know good from evil without transgression, for that would be a lie, nor did he say 2) that they COULD NOT have children without a transgression, for that also would be a lie.

He said for both (1) and (2) that they WOULD NOT. And it is an important distinction, because "could not" makes God a liar, and "would not" simply points out that Adam was deceived.

It is an important distinction indeed, because God does not contradict himself, and created a perfect plan/world for Adam and Eve that did not require any transgression or fall from them to multiply or to have joy.

Indeed, far from being required, both the transgression and the fall were strictly and expressly forbidden by God. They went there against his counsel, which was their serious error (though not a sin, for they were incapable of sinning until after the transgression).

Lehi said b) that they WOULD NOT have children, nor know good from evil without a fall. Why? Because they were deceived and CHOSE wrong.

This quote of yours does not make sense to me. You're saying that Lehi is right, that they would not have children without a fall, and that the reason they would not have children without a fall is because they were deceived and chose wrong.

That is exactly right!

You'll have to explain what you mean by this. It sounds like you think their transgression is the only reason they would not have children, (in other words, they WOULD have had children in the Garden before their transgression) and that means that that is a very short window of time Lehi is describing between the time they ate the fruit and then were cast out.

That's not what I meant. What I meant is simple:
Lehi pointed out that Adam WOULD NOT (meaning choice) know good and evil, nor have posterity without the fall. Why? Because he was deceived, and yielded to the temptation. Had he chosen to obey the Father and resisted the temptation, he could have had both the opening of eyes and posterity without the fall.

Maybe I'm just dense but I still don't understand what you are saying here. Now it sounds like you are saying that Adam would not choose good and evil or choose to have posterity unless he fell or ate of the fruit.

One other thought. Didn't Adam and Eve already transgress up until this point by choosing not to multiply and replenish the earth? The commandment to not partake had a consequence outlined for them if they did, but the commandment to multiply did not. And I would argue that the commandment to multiply would be a higher law than avoiding eating the fruit of a certain tree. One is simply a thou shalt, and the other is a thou shalt not. So, they were already under transgression, and by your logic, should have learned good from evil from that transgression and had some children.

[LoveIsTruth]

Maybe I'm just dense but I still don't understand what you are saying here. Now it sounds like you are saying that Adam would not choose good and evil or choose to have posterity unless he fell or ate of the fruit.

Pretty much. But more accurately: Adam yielded to temptation, which meant that he, in point of fact, chose to open his eyes and to have his posterity only through transgression and fall, because he was deceived.

It is simply a commentary on Adam's choices. That's all.

The important point though, is that he did NOT have to choose to transgress.

He could have resisted the temptation, trusting God more than Eve and the devil, and would have gotten Plan A, as a reward, without any fall.

Then he and his posterity would continue living in paradise, similar to that which will exist during the Millennium. No telestial state. No lone and dreary world. No death. Just like the Lord said would be in the Millennium for untold billions of children: "And in that day Satan shall not have power to tempt any man. And there shall be no sorrow because there is no death." ( D&C 101:28, 29 )
"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 )

That's what Adam could have had right off the bat, if he listened to the Father.

I am certain, there have been many worlds where Satan's offer was rejected, and they never had a Telestial state. They simply continued their Terrestrial/paradisaical state, similar to that which will prevail on this earth during the Millennium.

One other thought. Didn't Adam and Eve already transgress up until this point by choosing not to multiply and replenish the earth? The commandment to not partake had a consequence outlined for them if they did, but the commandment to multiply did not. And I would argue that the commandment to multiply would be a higher law than avoiding eating the fruit of a certain tree. One is simply a thou shalt, and the other is a thou shalt not. So, they were already under transgression, and by your logic, should have learned good from evil from that transgression and had some children.

Good observation. The answer is simple. Inaction is not sufficient to open one's eyes.

Not doing, is not enough. You have to act in relation to a commandment, either one way or the other. That open's eyes.

So omission wouldn't do it. Only a commission would.

Rejecting a temptation, required some action. That's why I said, if they rejected it enough times, their eyes would have began to be opened enough to multiply, which action would have opened them completely, without any transgression or fall.

That was Plan A commanded them by the Father, had they chosen it.
Alas, they chose plan B, against the Father's counsel, which was the reason for their fall.

Thanks for your question! (Happy New Year!)

[BruceRGilbert]

https://rsc.byu.edu/archived/selected-a ... and-agency

[LoveIsTruth]

https://rsc.byu.edu/archived/selected-a ... and-agency

Nice article. It failed to mention though, that they could have had children without the fall. Otherwise, nice.

[LoveIsTruth]

Added references to Plan A and Plan B to the summary section in the OP:

a) God originally created a perfect world, free of death, and full of infinite possibilities for progress without any transgression required, and gave it to Adam and Eve and their posterity.

b) Contrary to what the devil told them, there was another way to open Adam's and Eve's eyes in the garden of Eden without any transgression, and therefore to have children without the fall, which way was to simply resist the temptation, because as demonstrated by Jesus, resisting temptation opens eyes to know good and evil just as well as yielding to it, except resisting it has no negative consequences, and is accompanied with blessings instead of cursings. This was God's Plan A for Adam and Eve and their posterity, which would have resulted in a world in a Paradisaical Terrestrial state, right off the bat, similar to that which will prevail on this earth during the Millennium.

And this is why it was called the tree of "knowledge of good and evil," because whether they resisted or yielded to the temptation to partake of it, their eyes would have been opened, for it was the exposure to the temptation, and not the tree, that opened their eyes, and they chose the lesser part (Plan B).

c) Adam and Eve were deceived by Satan in the garden, and though they were yet incapable of committing sin, made a real and serious mistake by yielding to the temptation of the devil and disobeying God, which resulted in a curse, the fall of the world, and death. This was their fall from Plan A into Plan B. (For if there were no Plan A, there was no fall, either. For what is it that they fell from ? Plan A, of course! Without Plan A, the term "fall" is meaningless!)

Happy New Year, everyone!

[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.