The True Lessons From the Fall of Adam and Eve

[LoveIsTruth]

Your main mistakes are as follows (I left them from your quote):

23 And they would have had no children; they cannot procreate because it the drive to do so was not in them. Nor were they mortal so she could never conceive children.
doing no good, their minds were as little children nearly void of any reasoning. The fall provided what they needed to multiply and replenish the earth as commanded.

Adam and Eve could not produce seed, ever, until their fall. This next verse explains what took place:

Moses 5:25
Adam fell that men might be; This is a true statement that children could not be conceived until after the fall.

And I addressed each one in the OP.

So if you wish for me to respond:

• first find my explanation of that point in the OP, then
  give me your rebuttal to my explanation.

Then I will respond to that. But if you ignore my points to begin with, we have nothing to discuss.

Thanks my friend.

[Hidingbehindmyhandle]

A few more salient facts, which I shall not attempt at this moment to elaborate upon: Adam and Eve transgressed a law and were responsible for a change that came to all their posterity, that of mortality. Could it have been the different food which made the change? Somehow blood, the life-giving element in our bodies, replaced the finer substance which coursed through their bodies before. They and we became mortal, subject to illness, pains, and even the physical dissolution called death. But the spirit, which is supreme in the dual man, transcends the body. It does not decompose but proceeds to the spirit world for further experience, with the assurance that after sufficient preparation there, a reunion will take place where the spirit will be housed eternally in a remodeled body of flesh and bones. This time the union will never be dissolved, since there will be no blood to disintegrate and cause trouble. A finer substance will give life to the body and will render it immortal.
Ensign Sept. 1978 First Presidency Message Absolute Truth By President Spencer W. Kimball

Have they to go to that earth? Yes, an Adam will have to go there, and he cannot do without Eve; he must have Eve to commence the work of generation, and they will go into the garden, and continue to eat and drink of the fruits of the corporeal world, until this grosser matter is diffused sufficiently through their celestial bodies to enable them, according to the established laws, to produce mortal tabernacles for their spiritual children. This is a key for you. The faithful will become Gods, even the sons of God; but this does not overthrow the idea that we have a father. Adam is my Father; (this I will explain to you at some future time;) but it does not prove that he is not my father, if I become a God: it does not prove that I have not a father.” (JD 6:274-275)

“One thing has remained a mystery in this kingdom up to this day. It is in regard to the character of the well-beloved Son of God… [and] Our God and Father in heaven… When our father Adam came into the garden of Eden, he came into it with a celestial body, and brought Eve, one of his wives, with him. He helped to make and organize this world. He is MICHAEL, the Archangel, the ANCIENT OF DAYS! About whom holy men have written and spoken – He is our FATHER and our GOD, and the only God with whom WE have to do… I could tell you much more about this; but were I to tell you the whole truth, blasphemy would be nothing to it, in the estimation of the superstitious and over-righteous of mankind. However, I have told you the truth as far as I have gone… Jesus, our elder brother, was begotten in the flesh by the same character that was in the Garden of Eden, and who is our Father in Heaven. Now, let all who may hear these doctrines, pause before they make light of them, or treat them with indifference, for they will prove their salvation or damnation. I have given you a few leading items upon this subject, but a great deal more remains to be told… Treasure up these things in your hearts.” (JD 1: 50-51, CAPITALS in the original.)

“I tell you, when you see your Father in the Heavens, you will see Adam; when you see your Mother that bore your spirit, you will see Mother Eve.” (Brigham Young Oct.8, 1854 General Conference Report, Church Archives. Also see, The Essential Brigham Young, pg. 99)

Adam and Eve, as Celestial beings, without blood but a finer substance, the offspring produced are made of that finer substance, spirit bodies for their spirit children. But in coming to the earth and eating of the fruits of a fallen world containing the seeds of death, the offspring they produced were made of the material of this earth containing those seeds of death. Thus creating mortal bodies for their spirit children. An interesting note, the materials of the earth already contained the seeds of death before Adam and Eve partook of it.

These are eternal truths taught by Joseph, Brigham, even Pres. Kimball. If you criticize these teachings, you are criticizing the Lords anointed.
And that reflects on your character not theirs. They all died with their testimony of these things intact. And not just them, many many more knew
and taught these things. To kick against these things does them no harm. To kick against these things does no harm to those who taught them.
To kick against these things is to demonstrate enmity towards God and his anointed. To kick against these things is to show contempt for eternal truths.

I will continue to testify of the things taught by Joseph and Brigham and others, true messengers from My Father as those that criticize, insult, mock and belittle bare the messages from their father.

[LoveIsTruth]

Still have not the guts to answer my question again: Did Adam die?

But before you did say that Adam did not die. Well that makes God a liar according to Alma and Joseph who translated Alma's words:

• 
  "And now behold, I say unto you that if it had been possible for Adam to have partaken of the fruit of the tree of life at that time, there would have been no death, and the word would have been void, making God a liar, for he said: If thou eat thou shalt surely die." (Alma 12:23)

Moreover God said:

• "And unto Adam, I, the Lord God, said: Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the fruit of the tree of which I commanded thee, saying—Thou shalt not eat of it, cursed shall be the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life.
  Thorns also, and thistles shall it bring forth to thee, and thou shalt eat the herb of the field.
  By the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, until thou shalt return unto the ground—for thou shalt surely die—for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou wast, and unto dust shalt thou return." ( Moses 4:23-25 )

So if you think Joseph told you this lunacy, that Adam did not die, fine: Which Joseph are you going to trust:

• 1) the one who gave you the words of God in canonized modern-day scripture, approved by all the general authorities of the church, and the church as a whole, according to the unfailing pattern that God established,

or

• 2) Joseph's personal opinion, that contradicts the scriptures and the word of God established in point (1), the personal opinion that Joseph himself told you could be wrong, and that supposed opinion that was officially condemned as false doctrine by Spencer W. Kimball in 1976?

Which Joseph are you going to trust?

The one that God told you (and the whole Church) to trust (1), or the one that God officially (by the moth of Joseph himself, and Spence W. Kimball) told you NOT to trust.

You must decide.

But if you have any Spirit left in you, you should choose Joseph (1), and not supposed "Joseph" (2). Because make no mistake (2) is in stark contradiction to (1)! They both cannot be true. So you must choose one.

(1) Says that Adam did die, as God said.
(2) Says that Adam did not die, making God a liar according to scriptures in (1).

So which JOSEPH are you going to trust?

Because both CANNOT be true, because they are in direct opposition.

I chose (1) because God told me, and the whole Church, that it is the correct one.

You can delude yourself all you want, but you will have to make the choice. And you already chose (2) that directly contradicts (1). But in this you have judged yourself.

And you have chosen wrong.

[Hidingbehindmyhandle]

Are you asserting that there are absolutely no errors in any of the cannon of scripture
and therefore any discrepancy are lies, even possible lies from God?

Or is it possible that there are errors in the cannon of scripture
due to miss translation, errors in copying, intentional changes, etc.
Or is it possible that some things in the scriptures are parables or similitudes
designed to withhold as much as to reveal.

Do you reject the JST? But he didn't correct the whole bible.

[Hidingbehindmyhandle]

Here is an error in the New Testament
Since it is pointed out by Joseph Smith, I expect that you will criticize and ridicule it, but he is corrected
And it is supported by others.

I will say something about the spirits in prison. There has been much
said by modern divines about the words of Jesus (when on the cross) to the
thief, saying, "This day shalt thou be with me in paradise." King James'
translators make it out to say paradise. But what is paradise? It is a
modern word it does not answer at all to the original word that Jesus made
use of. Find the original of the word paradise. You may as easily find a
needle in a haymow. Here is a chance for battle, ye learned men. There is
nothing in the original word in Greek froze which this was taken that
signifies paradise; but it was This day thou shalt be with me in the
world of spirits' then I will teach you all about it and answer your
inquiries. And Peter says he went and preached to the world of spirits
(spirits in prison, I Peter, 3rd chap., 19th verse), so that they who
would receive it could have it answered by proxy by those who live on the
earth, etc.
History of the Church, Vol 5, p424
Joseph smith's Teachings p166-167

I will now turn linguist. There are many things in the Bible which do
not, as they now stand, accord with the revelations of the Holy Ghost to
me.
I will criticize a little further. There has been much said about the
word hell, and the sectarian world have preached much about it, describing
it to be a burning lake of fire and brimstone. But what is hell? It is
another modern term, and is taken from hades. I'll hunt after hades as Pat
did for the woodchuck.
Hades, the Greek, or Shaole, the Hebrew' these two significations
mean a world of spirits. Hades, Shaole, paradise, spirits in prison, are
all one: it is a world of spirits.
The righteous and the wicked all go to the same world of spirits
until the resurrection. "I do not think so," says one. If you will go to
my house any time, I will take my lexicon and prove it to you.
History of the Curch Vol 5, p425
Joseph Smith's Teachings p184-186

JD 1:9 Parley P. Pratt, April 7, 1853
Where then does the spirit go, on its departure from its earthly
tabernacle? It passes to the next sphere of human existence, called the
world of spirits, a vail being drawn between us in the flesh, and that
world of spirits. Well, says one, is there no more than one place in
the spirit world? Yes, there are many places and degrees in that
world, as in this. Jesus Christ, when absent from his flesh, did not
ascend to the Father, to be crowned, and enthroned in power. Why?
Because he had not yet a resurrected body, and had therefore a
mission to perform in another sphere. Where then did he go? To
the world of spirits, to wicked, sinful spirits, who died in their sins,
being swept off by the flood of Noah. The thief on the cross, who died
at the same time, also went to the same world, and to the same
particular place in the same world, for he was a sinner, and would of
course go to the prison of the condemned, there to await the ministry
of that Gospel which had failed to reach his case while on the earth.

JD 1:9 Parley P. Pratt, April 7, 1853
How many other places Jesus might have visited while in the spirit
world is not for me to say, but there was a moment in which the
poor, uncultivated, ignorant thief was with him in that world. And
as he commenced, though late, to repent while on the earth, we have
reason to hope that that moment was improved by our Saviour, in
ministering to him that Gospel which he had no opportunity to teach
to him, while expiring on the cross. "This day shalt thou be with me in
Paradise," said Jesus, or, in other words, this day shalt thou be with
me in the next sphere of existence - the world of spirits.

JD 17:136 George Q. Cannon, July 19, 1874
"O how great the goodness of our God, who prepareth a way for our
escape from the grasp of this awful monster; yea; that monster, death
and hell, which I call the death of the body, and also the death of the
spirit. And because of the way of the deliverance of our God, the Holy
One of Israel, this death of which I have spoken, which is the temporal
shall deliver up its dead; which death is the grave. And this death of
which I have spoken, which is the spiritual death, shall deliver up its
dead; which spiritual death is hell; wherefore, death and hell must
deliver up their dead, and hell must deliver up its captive spirits, and
the grave must deliver up its captive bodies, and the bodies and
spirits of men will be restored one to the other; and it is by the power
of the Holy One of Israel.

JD 21:223 Charles W. Penrose, August 8th, 1880
"And this death of which I have spoken, which is the spiritual death,
shall deliver up its dead; which spiritual death is hell; wherefore
death and hell must deliver up its captive spirits and the grave must
deliver up its captive bodies, and the bodies and the spirits of men
will be restored one to the other; and it is by the power of the
resurrection of the Holy One of Israel.

[Thinker]

I interpret that Adam & Eve story as a parable to be likened to us, not literally.

The fruit represents
1. free agency - essential to God's plan - and also
2. a degree of spiritual birth (eyes being opened to discern) - also essential to God's plan.

There was no other way, in that sense.

Still, as symbolic parables, you could look at it from many different angles & liken it to us individually and in relationships.

[LoveIsTruth]

Are you asserting that there are absolutely no errors in any of the cannon of scripture
and therefore any discrepancy are lies, even possible lies from God?

Or is it possible that there are errors in the cannon of scripture
due to miss translation, errors in copying, intentional changes, etc.
Or is it possible that some things in the scriptures are parables or similitudes
designed to withhold as much as to reveal.

Do you reject the JST? But he didn't correct the whole bible.

Joseph said that there is no error in the published revelations that he taught, i.e. canonized modern day scriptures approved by the church.

So my reasoning still applies. That's Joseph (1) and it contradicts what you claim is Joseph(2) (i.e. officially condemned interpretations of personal opinions of prophets, that even Joseph himself admitted are liable to be wrong).

Will you follow the prophets? Because right now, you don't. You do not believe even Joseph himself, and hold to the insanity of regarding each word he was reported to say as the words of God. He told you NO. But you don't believe him! Wow, man!

So what I said still stands: Which "Joseph" are you going to follow, because you cannot follow both. They contradict each-other.

The only sane, non-self-contradictory answer is (1).

[Hidingbehindmyhandle]

D&C 129:1 There are two kinds of beings in heaven, namely: Angels, who are resurrected personages, having bodies of flesh and bones—

a combining form meaning “chief, leader, ruler,” used in the formation of compound words: monarch; matriarch; heresiarch. Origin of -arch. Greek.

It comes from the GREEK archos. From this basic meaning it is associated with chief or head or king or origin in one way or another. You can make many words with ARCH, from ARCHbishop to ARCHfoe, from ARCHfriend to ARCHilar.

Do you deny that Adam is Michael?
Do you deny that Michael is the archangle?
Do you deny that Michael is the King angel?
Do you deny that Michael has a body of flesh and bones?
Do you deny that Michael is the King resurrected personage?

Even before the Garden, he was Michael the archangel, the King Resurrected being. Do you Deny it?

Then you deny the cannon of scripture.

[LoveIsTruth]

Do you deny that Adam is Michael?

No.

Do you deny that Michael is the archangle?

No.

Do you deny that Michael is the King angel?

No.

Do you deny that Michael has a body of flesh and bones?

Now he does, after he was resurrected, AFTER Jesus rose from the dead, because Jesus was "first to rise."

Before that Adam was very dead: spirit and body separated as God promised "unto dust shall thou return." Which Adam did.

Do you deny that Michael is the King resurrected personage?

Now he is. But he is a Prince under Jesus: "Who hath appointed Michael your prince" (D&C 78:16 )

Even before the Garden, he was Michael the archangel, the King Resurrected being. Do you Deny it?

Yes. Because resurrected beings do not die. They CANNOT die. Adam however did die, according to the words of God in all the books of canonized modern day scripture revealed through Prophet Joseph Smith. Book of Mormon says it emphatically. D&C says it. Perle of Great Price says it.

So yes, I deny it, because it contradicts the words of God himself in all these sacred books.

Then you deny the cannon of scripture.

No, you do.

[Hidingbehindmyhandle]

Do you deny that Adam is Michael?

No.

Do you deny that Michael is the archangle?

No.

Do you deny that Michael is the King angel?

No.

Do you deny that Michael has a body of flesh and bones?

Now he does, after he was resurrected, AFTER Jesus rose from the dead, because Jesus was "first to rise."

Before that Adam was very dead: spirit and body separated as God promised "unto dust shall thou return." Which Adam did.

Do you deny that Michael is the King resurrected personage?

Now he is. But he is a Prince under Jesus: "Who hath appointed Michael your prince" (D&C 78:16 )

Even before the Garden, he was Michael the archangel, the King Resurrected being. Do you Deny it?

Yes. Because resurrected beings do not die. They CANNOT die. Adam however did die, according to the words of God in all the books of canonized modern day scripture revealed through Prophet Joseph Smith.

So yes, I deny it, because it contradicts the words of God himself.

Then you deny the cannon of scripture.

No, you do.

He was the archangel even before the garden, He went into the Garden as a resurrected being.
The scriptures confirm that.

[LoveIsTruth]

He was the archangel even before the garden, He went into the Garden as a resurrected being.
The scriptures confirm that.

Then how do you account for the fact that he died, according to the Book of Mormon, D&C, and Perle of Great Price? Do resurrected beings die? I hope you agree that the answer is NO! Yet Adam very died.

[Hidingbehindmyhandle]

He was the archangel even before the garden, He went into the Garden as a resurrected being.
The scriptures confirm that.

Then how do you account for the fact that he died, according to the Book of Mormon, D&C, and Perle of Great Price? Do resurrected beings die?

In order for a resurrected being to be resurrected, they have to die. Yes Adam died before he was resurrected. And he came to the Garden as a resurrected being.

[LoveIsTruth]

In order for a resurrected being to be resurrected, they have to die. Yes Adam died before he was resurrected. And he came to the Garden as a resurrected being.

That's not what the scripture says. It says he died AFTER partaking of the forbidden fruit, and returned unto dust from which he was formed.


"By the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, until thou shalt return unto the ground—for thou shalt surely die—for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou wast, and unto dust shalt thou return." ( Moses 4:25 )

That doesn't sound like a resurrected being to me. Resurrected beings CANNOT die. Adam however did.

[Hidingbehindmyhandle]

In order for a resurrected being to be resurrected, they have to die. Yes Adam died before he was resurrected. And he came to the Garden as a resurrected being.

That's not what the scripture says. It says he died AFTER partaking of the forbidden fruit, and returned unto dust from which he was formed.

That is just not true.
He was not formed of the dusts of this earth.
He did not die on this earth.
He was not subject to death because he did not sin on this earth.
He was told, If you want to remain on this earth in your immortal state do not eat of the fruits of this earth that contain the seed of death.
He transgressed the law of immortality and ate of the seeds of death thus the bodies of his offspring contain the seeds of death making them mortal,
And when Adam and Eve had finished what they had come to do, they returned to their celestial home and ate of the fruits of that world and purged their bodies of blood, replacing it with a finer material.

That is what happened.
And the stories in the scriptures are what Brigham calls "a hollow toadstool stories", meant to withhold from the non believers that which they, like you, just can not accept.

Brigham has said there is unbelief on this doctrine, and you are proof of that.
But it can not be denied that the doctrine was taught.
No criticism or ridicule of the doctrine will change the doctrine, it is eternal.
It is the way of all worlds that ever were and ever will be.
and to deny it is to deny the Lord's anointed.

Kicking at it only harms you, nothing or no one else.

[LoveIsTruth]

In order for a resurrected being to be resurrected, they have to die. Yes Adam died before he was resurrected. And he came to the Garden as a resurrected being.

That's not what the scripture says. It says he died AFTER partaking of the forbidden fruit, and returned unto dust from which he was formed.

That is just not true.
He was not formed of the dusts of this earth.
He did not die on this earth.
He was not subject to death

That is in direct contradiction to modern day canonized scripture received through Joseph Smith:

"thou shalt return unto the ground—for thou shalt surely die—for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou wast, and unto dust shalt thou return." ( Moses 4:25 )

Which Joseph are you going to believe?

And the stories in the scriptures are what Brigham calls "a hollow toadstool stories", meant to withhold from the non believers that which they, like you, just can not accept.

You are forgetting that these are modern day scriptures received through a true Prophet. Then admit that you do not believe the prophet.

Brigham has said there is unbelief on this doctrine, and you are proof of that.

You bet. I CANNOT believe that 2+2=5. I cannot believe that the Sun does not shine when I look at it at noon day. You bet I cannot believe such GARBAGE! And those who believe such garbage are IDIOTS!

So you are right on that.

But it can not be denied that the doctrine was taught.

It certainly looks like it, though there is still room for interpreting it. But even if this doctrine was taught it does not make it true. In fact Spencer W. Kimball declared it false doctrine. And the scriptures, and reason, and the word of God himself, declare it false.

No criticism or ridicule of the doctrine will change the doctrine, it is eternal.

It is false. And it is utter, self-contradictory, word-of-God-denying garbage!

and to deny it is to deny the Lord's anointed.

Hmm... By your own logic: If you deny the words of God in canonized scriptures given directly through the Lord's anointed, YOU deny the Lord's anointed.

And you do deny their words recorded in the scriptures!

This is a very sound logic.

Kicking at it only harms you, nothing or no one else.

Indeed! So stop kinking against the Lord's anointed and the scriptures that God gave through them! It will not end well for you, if you keep fighting their words in the canonized Scriptures of this church!

The whole essence of your argument is that you chose not to believe modern day scriptures. That is a bad logic indeed!

[Hidingbehindmyhandle]

Moses is not modern scripture, it is modern translation of ancient scripture.
The Israelites rejected knowledge of God, They wanted Moses to deal with God, not them.
So in having the Law of Moses replace the Law of the Gospel, the true nature and identity of God
was removed from the scriptures and replaced with "hollow toadstool stories".

And thus the need for the restoration of the Gospel. Jesus restored some of that knowledge
but it was lost again. when Christ called himself the Son of Man, the Jews knew that he claimed to be the son of God
but son of man was really son of Adam and the Jews did not know whether to be more angry that Christ is the Son of God
or that Adam is god. They were furious over both.

Again, I will say, if you don't believe, I'm OK, I have no ill will to anyone that does not believe.
The only things we are required to believe are covered in the questions in a temple recommend interview.
But don't begrudge others for believing.
Joseph and Brigham et al, were very well aware of the discrepancies between what they taught and what the ancient
scriptures say. But they taught it anyway, the eternal truths taken from the ancient scriptures. They also explained the
discrepancies as well. I have posted one of those explanations about Paradise vs Prison.

Unbelief is one issue, but to kick against the Lord's anointed is something altogether different, something I strongly advise against.
When I was first introduced to Adam is God doctrine, I did not accept it and for many of the issues you and others have brought up.
But I am thankful that I never spoke against it for now I would be eating my words.

[LoveIsTruth]

Moses is not modern scripture, it is modern translation of ancient scripture.

Would there be a reason to give those words anew through a modern prophet, if they were not true?

And thus the need for the restoration of the Gospel.

Yes, restoring those ancient scriptues in their pure form was a part of restoration of the Gospel. Otherwise if they were "hollow toadstool stories" there was no reason to restore them!

Joseph and Brigham et al, were very well aware of the discrepancies between what they taught and what the ancient
scriptures say. But they taught it anyway, the eternal truths taken from the ancient scriptures. They also explained the
discrepancies as well. I have posted one of those explanations about Paradise vs Prison.

New Testament is not modern day scripture. The discrepancy was between new translation and ancient one. With the Book of Moses it is all a modern day translation. So there are no discrepancies there. It was given correctly through a pure channel, which you deny.

Unbelief is one issue, but to kick against the Lord's anointed is something altogether different, something I strongly advise against.

Yes. So stop kinking against them and their words in modern day scriptures!

The whole essence of your argument is that you do not believe modern day scriptures! Think about it! It is dumb!

When I was first introduced to Adam is God doctrine, I did not accept it and for many of the issues you and others have brought up.
But I am thankful that I never spoke against it for now I would be eating my words.

You have no reason backing you up. ZERO. Except to say Joseph or Brigham taught it. But they were personal opinions, at best misinterpreted, in contradiction to the scriptures and to the revealed word of God (opinions or interpretations of opinions condemned by Spencer W. Kimball and other modern prophets as false)!

How dumb do you need to be to take that over the modern day Scriptures received through God's anointed, with the Spirit of God bearing record that they are true! Dumb indeed!

[Hidingbehindmyhandle]

Moses is not modern scripture, it is modern translation of ancient scripture.

Would there be a reason to give those words anew through a modern prophet, if they were not true?

And thus the need for the restoration of the Gospel.

Yes, restoring those ancient scriptues in their pure form was a part of restoration of the Gospel. Otherwise if they were "hollow toadstool stories" there was no reason to restore them!

Joseph and Brigham et al, were very well aware of the discrepancies between what they taught and what the ancient
scriptures say. But they taught it anyway, the eternal truths taken from the ancient scriptures. They also explained the
discrepancies as well. I have posted one of those explanations about Paradise vs Prison.

New Testament is not modern day scripture. The discrepancy was between new translation and ancient one. With Book of Moses it a modern day translation. So there are no discrepancies there. It was given correctly through a pure channel, which you deny.

Unbelief is one issue, but to kick against the Lord's anointed is something altogether different, something I strongly advise against.

Yes. So stop kinking against them and their words in modern day scriptures!

The whole essence of your argument is that you do not believe modern day scriptures! Think about it! It is dumb!

When I was first introduced to Adam is God doctrine, I did not accept it and for many of the issues you and others have brought up.
But I am thankful that I never spoke against it for now I would be eating my words.

You have no reason backing you up. ZERO. Except to say Joseph or Brigham taught it. But they were personal opinions, at best misinterpreted, in contradiction to the scriptures and to the revealed word of God (opinions or interpretations of opinions condemned my Spencer W. Kimball and other modern prophets as false)!

How dumb do you need to be to take that over the modern day Scriptures received through God's anointed, with the Spirit of God bearing record that they are true! Dumb indeed!

I have all the writings of the Lord's anointed.

[LoveIsTruth]

I have all the writings of the Lord's anointed.

The problem is that they are self-contradictory. And you chose to believe the bad part, and to deny the good, the one that the Lord approved.

[Hidingbehindmyhandle]

I have all the writings of the Lord's anointed.

The problem is that they are self-contradictory. And you chose to believe the bad part, and to deny the good, the one that the Lord approved.

that is your opinion
there is nothing wrong with what I believe
it is one line of "line upon line"
and without it, the next line is difficult if not impossible.
there is beautiful doctrine beyond Adam is God, but not for you, you are damned at Adam is God. You chose to go no further.

[freedomforall]

Your main mistakes are as follows (I left them from your quote):

23 And they would have had no children; they cannot procreate because it the drive to do so was not in them. Nor were they mortal so she could never conceive children.
doing no good, their minds were as little children nearly void of any reasoning. The fall provided what they needed to multiply and replenish the earth as commanded.

Adam and Eve could not produce seed, ever, until their fall. This next verse explains what took place:

Moses 5:25
Adam fell that men might be; This is a true statement that children could not be conceived until after the fall.

And I addressed each one in the OP.

So if you wish for me to respond:

• first find my explanation of that point in the OP, then
  give me your rebuttal to my explanation.

Then I will respond to that. But if you ignore my points to begin with, we have nothing to discuss. Good to know this, because already you just lost credibility. At this point, I see you as somewhat conceited. Whether you respond or not makes no difference to me because, afterall, you just could be wrong. And I will post my understanding anyway, for any topic, for whoever is willing to at minimum consider my knowledge to be of worth to them. To some it will not, like some on this very forum who think they're a gift to mankind and whatever they say goes. I get a hint of this in your statement. Please tell me I'm incorrect. I could be misconstruing your comment.
Just to let you know, I wasn't addressing you in the first place. I find things in your explanations compared to Hiding's.....and find them both problematic. So there we have it, three people in the same church teaching three different gospels. No wonder there is so much bickering and contention. Absolutely amazing. Not cool, but amazing.
Thanks my friend.

The OP is way too long. But what I posted, irrespective of what others may think of it, is the truth. The scriptures are very clear to the understanding on this issue. I even posted verses as a resource for review. We need not justify one another with to and fro, "I explained this" and "I said that", as if what we say is something to take to the bank.

I will reiterate what scripture tells us. Adam and Eve could not, were unable to, in no way, shape or form have had children prior to their fall. We cannot or mustn't contradict the written word with sayings of other people, unless, unless what they say corroborates scripture because they are our source for pure knowledge...as I see it. This is why the Adam-God stuff stinks. Anyone can twist them around to say whatever they want and feel justified in doing so for their own cause and gratification. I personally like to allow the words in scripture to flow into my mind and take them literal so as to not wrest them, to the best of my ability, with God's help of course.

[freedomforall]

I will continue to testify of the things taught by Joseph and Brigham and others, true messengers from My Father as those that criticize, insult, mock and belittle bare the messages from their father.

Alma 41:14 (14–15)

14 Therefore, my son, see that you are merciful unto your brethren;
deal justly,
judge righteously,
and do good continually;
and if ye do all these things then shall ye receive your reward;
yea, ye shall have mercy restored unto you again;
ye shall have justice restored unto you again;
ye shall have a righteous judgment restored unto you again;
and ye shall have good rewarded unto you again.
15 For that which ye do send out shall return unto you again,
and be restored;
therefore, the word restoration more fully condemneth the sinner, and justifieth him not at all.


Do you understand this, HBMH? By you even implying that some here are under Satan's grip, says a lot about where you get all your harsh judgements from. Dig, it? Read the above and take notes.

[Hidingbehindmyhandle]

You are wrong, I've made no mistakes.
Your mistake is to take it upon your self the job of taking the mote out of others eyes while the beam remains in yours.
I have spoken the truth. I have received it from the writings of the Lord's anointed, from the testimonies of true messengers from the Father.
It is your opinion that I error. It is your opinion that I'm mistaken. It is just opinion.
Joseph knew the scriptures better than anyone on the earth at that time, he knew what is correct and what is in error in the scriptures.
And he taught what he taught knowing that the errors in scripture were not in harmony with what he taught.
He was set apart before the foundations of this word were laid to be the prophet of the dispensation of the fullness of times, to restore the plain and precious truths lost through disbelief and disobedience. He, along with his dear brother, sealed his testimony of all he taught with his blood.
And the Savior did not withdraw from him. And as he is still the key holder of this dispensation, meaning he still presides, his testimony still stands.
He taught the truth And no man has the authority or stewardship to say otherwise.

[freedomforall]

I will say something about the spirits in prison. There has been much said by modern divines about the words of Jesus (when on the cross) to the thief, saying, "This day shalt thou be with me in paradise. "King James" translators make it out to say paradise. But what is paradise? It is a modern word it does not answer at all to the original word that Jesus made use of. Find the original of the word paradise. You may as easily find a needle in a haymow. Here is a chance for battle, ye learned men. There is nothing in the original word in Greek froze which this was taken that signifies paradise; but it was This day thou shalt be with me in the world of spirits' then I will teach you all about it and answer your inquiries. And Peter says he went and preached to the world of spirits (spirits in prison, I Peter, 3rd chap., 19th verse), so that they who would receive it could have it answered by proxy by those who live on the earth, etc.
History of the Church, Vol 5, p424
Joseph smith's Teachings p166-167

Alma 40:12,14
12 And then shall it come to pass, that the spirits of those who are righteous are received into a state of happiness, which is called paradise, a state of rest, a state of peace, where they shall rest from all their troubles and from all care, and sorrow.
14 ...this estate, as well as the righteous in paradise, until the time of their resurrection.

So we see that there really is a realm called paradise. Let this sink in.

[freedomforall]

I interpret that Adam & Eve story as a parable to be likened to us, not literally.

The fruit represents
1. free agency - essential to God's plan - and also
2. a degree of spiritual birth (eyes being opened to discern) - also essential to God's plan.

There was no other way, in that sense.

Still, as symbolic parables, you could look at it from many different angles & liken it to us individually and in relationships.

Try reading the Book of Mormon. Great reading and enlightening as well. Without the Adam and Eve story really occurring, we would not be here talking about it. It's in the book!