The Fall According to Mormonism

[Pug]

Second, the Fall made men subject to temptation, which means that they could be presented with the choice, without which there could have been no agency either.

I just re-read this part where you talk about temptation and went and looked the temptation entry up on the lds site. It almost sounds akin to the Catholic idea of fighting or struggling with concupiscence (what you guys seem to call an inclination to follow earthly desires) and growing in holiness and stuff. Except that we think there was holiness without the fall. That part is different.

Why is it said that Satan tempted Eve if there was no temptation before the fall? Is that because you mean by “temptation” that we struggle now with an inclination to earthly desires, and Eve didn’t have any of those?

Sorry, this is too long, but I think your view of the fall and the surrounding topics is one of the hardest things about Mormonism for someone from my background to wrap my mind around.

 

[Pug]

The entire Mormon idea of the pre-existence has more to do with eternal progression (becoming gods ourselves), and does not concern itself with much detail regarding your question.

The answer did not involve forgetting stuff or starting over, and I was surprised. Once you said that, it sounded likely.

The Fall appears to have been a very important part of the Plan of Salvation (the eternal progression?) for LDS, though. The whole plan would grind to a halt without it. The Fall seems to be required to become mortal, and without becoming mortal, no one appears to be able to move forward with progressing to be like God? This is not like Catholic thinking. We could have had a share in God’s own blessed life and communion with God and being in the image of God without there having been a fall.

LDS thinking is like Catholic thinking, though, in that free will is important. REally important. For us, without free will, we can’t love God. Our free will is part of our being in the image of God and part of us voluntarily conforming ourselves to Christ. I know they at least agree with the imitating Christ usefulness of free will. I don’t actually know if they agree about the “image of God” part or sharing in his divine life part.

 

[zerinus]

Is there some kind of official resource that talks about what that knowledge in the tree of good and evil consisted of (or maybe it wasn’t in the tree, but in the act of eating from the tree in disobedience)?

The Bible says it was the knowledge of good and evil. You can read into that what you like. For example, it says that Adam and Eve were naked in the Garden, and were not ashamed. They did not see anything wrong in that. It is only after they had eaten of the fruit that their eyes were opened, and they became conscious of their nakedness, and saw a problem with that.

The reason I ask is because that quote you gave from DC sort of sounds like you have to experience having made the wrong choice, or experience bad stuff in order to know good stuff. Maybe that is the knowledge that was meant, the knowledge that comes from experiencing making an evil choice and having something bad happen and then realizing that is a total bummer.

Yes, you got that almost right. The fall entailed two kinds of “knowing good and evil”. First, the ability to acquire the conceptual knowledge of good and evil—the theoretical knowledge, if you like—like realizing that they had been naked, and that was wrong. Second, it entailed the experience of good and evil, by coming into direct contact with it. That does not mean that we have to do evil in order to know good. It means being tempted with evil. Jesus did no evil; but He certainly came into contact with it by being tempted with evil. We also become practically acquainted with evil being exposed to the evil actions of other. When evil people do evil things, innocent people get hurt, and they come into contact with evil.

Here is a quote to help with why I wonder about that:

It seems to say that knowing misery is a prerequisite to knowing joy. Sort of like knowledge must come from experiencing doing these things, both the good and the bad, and then, once you have the knowledge of what it is like to do the act of choosing evil, choosing good.

Yes. The Book of Mormon teaches that “there must be an opposition in all things”:

2 Nephi 2:

11 For it must needs be, that there is an opposition in all things. If not so, my first-born in the wilderness, righteousness could not be brought to pass, neither wickedness, neither holiness nor misery, neither good nor bad. Wherefore, all things must needs be a compound in one; wherefore, if it should be one body it must needs remain as dead, having no life neither death, nor corruption nor incorruption, happiness nor misery, neither sense nor insensibility.

12 Wherefore, it must needs have been created for a thing of naught; wherefore there would have been no purpose in the end of its creation. Wherefore, this thing must needs destroy the wisdom of God and his eternal purposes, and also the power, and the mercy, and the justice of God.

All things are known by their opposites. It is impossible to know good without at the same being aware of evil. It is impossible to know happiness without at the same time being conscious of unhappiness.

Moses 6 seems to have something about it, too: . . .

It sounds like children when they come to an old enough age start to do sin in their heart, and so taste the bitter, and after that, then they can know to prize what is good. But if they didn’t first taste bitter, I assume this means they couldn’t prize the good? Is there some teaching source that explains if this is what they mean?

There are various interpretations of that. I believe that it means that when children are raised in a sinful environment as a result of wrong decisions of their parents, they acquire a sinful disposition which causes them sorrow as they grow older, learn to contrast the two. Sin may also be genetically transmitted, so that they acquire a sinful disposition by that means.

zerinus

Continued . . . /

 

[zerinus]

/. . . Continued

I know this is a digression but it came up as I was reading stuff on the lds site: If eating from that tree would bring knowledge and agency, and Satan got in so much trouble for trying to set up a Plan where man would have no agency, why would Satan try to tempt Adam and Eve into eating from that tree? If he hadn’t tempted them, then no one could ever progress and go on with the correct Plan of salvation. Then he would have gotten what he wanted in the council in heaven, sort of. I may be simplifying what Satan wanted, though, but I thought it was like to destroy agency.

This is what LDS scripture teaches about that:

Moses 4:

6 And Satan put it into the heart of the serpent, (for he had drawn away many after him,) and he sought also to beguile Eve, for he knew not the mind of God, wherefore he sought to destroy the world.

Satan thought he was being clever; but he didn’t know what God knew. Also, Satan does not come out a complete looser in this scenario. Not everyone will be faithful to God. There are some who will follow Satan, and end up becoming his servants.

Are we sure that Adam didn’t have agency before he ate from that tree? Is there a direct quote from a teaching source for that? I didn’t find an entry over at lds.org in that gospel section with an index. There was no article for “tree”, “knowledge”, or “evil”. The “agency” article doesn’t mention that Adam didn’t have it.

Adam was initially given some agency in the Garden when he was presented with the choice of eating or not eating of the fruit—and the consequences was explained to him. But that was a limited agency, because Adam had not yet acquired the knowledge of good and evil, and full exposure to all the temptations of Satan that that entailed.

You quoted: . . .

So from the surrounding context this appears to be about the children of Adam have this knowledge given to them, and so they can be agents. By what means is it given to them? Is it given by them by doing their first sin, sort of like Adam? Or, is it sort of placed there so they just know it before ever doing anything?

Ask yourself! How do you know good and evil? Where did you get it from?

I just re-read this part where you talk about temptation and went and looked the temptation entry up on the lds site. It almost sounds akin to the Catholic idea of fighting or struggling with concupiscence (what you guys seem to call an inclination to follow earthly desires) and growing in holiness and stuff. Except that we think there was holiness without the fall. That part is different.

Why is it said that Satan tempted Eve if there was no temptation before the fall? Is that because you mean by “temptation” that we struggle now with an inclination to earthly desires, and Eve didn’t have any of those?

Sorry, this is too long, but I think your view of the fall and the surrounding topics is one of the hardest things about Mormonism for someone from my background to wrap my mind around.

As I said above, in the Garden they were given a very limited agency, when they were presented with the option of eating or not eating of the fruit, and Satan was allowed to tempt them to do what God had told them not to. But that was not equal to the agency the acquired when they had eaten of the fruit.

zerinus

 

[AMDGtoo]

/. . . As I said above, in the Garden they were given a very limited agency, when they were presented with the option of eating or not eating of the fruit, and Satan was allowed to tempt them to do what God had told them not to. But that was not equal to the agency the acquired when they had eaten of the fruit.

How so? Don’t believe “informed consent” is always offered even today. There is just the choice of doing God’s will or not doing God’s will. Consequences reveal themselves after that choice is made.

 

[Chris-WA]

Why did god create lucifer?

For the same reason He created everything else. God doesn’t create anything evil. Everything God created was good, even Lucifer. Lucifer chose to reject God and thus became evil of his own free will.

 

[zerinus]

How so? Don’t believe “informed consent” is always offered even today. There is just the choice of doing God’s will or not doing God’s will. Consequences reveal themselves after that choice is made.

Adam and Eve did not know good and evil until they had partaken of the fruit. That is what the Bible says. That is the difference.

zerinus

 

[Chris-WA]

Adam and Eve did not know good and evil until they had partaken of the fruit. That is what the Bible says. That is the difference.

zerinus

There is no way this is correct. What you interpret as “the knowledge of good and evil” is not what the bible implies. You take it to mean that Adam had no way of differentiating good from bad before the fall. That is not what the bible implies. As I pointed out several times before in this topic, Adam had to know that choosing to eat the forbidden fruit would be very bad. Remember that God threatened Adam with death were he to eat the forbidden fruit. If Adam had no knowledge of what “bad” was, then this threat would have been totally meaningless. Adam and Eve were given free agency from the very beginning. They knew what they were doing was wrong and did it anyway. Any other interpretation takes away the sinfulness of their disobience, and we have already established in this thread that what Adam did was a sin, unless you want to argue it with St. Paul.

 

[AMDGtoo]

Adam and Eve did not know good and evil until they had partaken of the fruit. That is what the Bible says. That is the difference.

Guess I didn’t make myself clear. Why is this called “limited”? They knew that God told them that they shouldn’t eat of the fruit of that particular tree, and yet they chose to disobey God–they were tempted, realized they were being tempted, and chose to do the action anyway. Why is choosing to disobey God called “limited” (a pretty darn important action if you ask me), since it seems obvious that “free agency” already existed before the Fall? And since it is obvious that free agency (free will) already existed before the Fall, where did the idea of them having only a “limited” one come from? Oh, and this pre-Fall free agency is “limited” in what way?

 

[zerinus]

There is no way this is correct. What you interpret as “the knowledge of good and evil” is not what the bible implies. You take it to mean that Adam had no way of differentiating good from bad before the fall. That is not what the bible implies. As I pointed out several times before in this topic, Adam had to know that choosing to eat the forbidden fruit would be very bad. Remember that God threatened Adam with death were he to eat the forbidden fruit. If Adam had no knowledge of what “bad” was, then this threat would have been totally meaningless. Adam and Eve were given free agency from the very beginning. They knew what they were doing was wrong and did it anyway. Any other interpretation takes away the sinfulness of their disobience, and we have already established in this thread that what Adam did was a sin, unless you want to argue it with St. Paul.

Maybe your definition of “of good and evil” is different from mine. I go by the biblical definition (Genesis 2:9,17; 3:5–6, 22).

zerinus

 

[zerinus]

Guess I didn’t make myself clear. Why is this called “limited”? They knew that God told them that they shouldn’t eat of the fruit of that particular tree, and yet they chose to disobey God–they were tempted, realized they were being tempted, and chose to do the action anyway. Why is choosing to disobey God called “limited” (a pretty darn important action if you ask me), since it seems obvious that “free agency” already existed before the Fall? And since it is obvious that free agency (free will) already existed before the Fall, where did the idea of them having only a “limited” one come from? Oh, and this pre-Fall free agency is “limited” in what way?

Because the Bible clearly tells us that they didn’t know the difference between good and evil until they had partaken of the fruit. That is what the Bible says, unless you want to argue with the Bible. There was a qualitative difference between their perception of good and evil before and after the Fall. That is what makes the difference between the two situations. Their agency was relative to their ability to comprehend good and evil in either case.

zerinus

 

[Tracy10]

I’m quoting strictly as a really green rookie here. I have been both Catholic and Mormon though not an expert in either.

The way I see it, people too often misinterpret what “eating of the forbidden fruit” meant. So many people interpret the fruit to be “sex.”

Remember, this fruit was the fruit of the TREE OF KNOWLEDGE. It wasn’t an APPLE and it wasn’t the TREE OF PROCREATION or SEX.

God often said that in order to enter the kingdom of God, you had to be innocent, like children.

Also, I noticed in my Catholic and Mormon bibles, the wording differs about what happened after Adam and Eve ate the fruit. In one case they “were” naked, and in the other they “saw themselves as naked but were not actually naked.” (My Catholic bible which is very old, says the latter.)

It seems that the more people learn about evil as well as good, the more arrogant they become and independent they are. The more arrogant and independent they become, the less they feel they need God.

Now that they ate of the “tree of knowledge” their eyes may have been opened to the fact that they were so ignorant before, so now, instead of feeling educated by the fruit of the tree of knowledge, the opposite was true. They felt dumber, or naked. Now the only way they could ever feel clothed again was to feel pressured to learn more and more for the rest of their lives, and this would expose them to many bouts of both good and evil.

Knowledge is a powerful thing. It’s like money. The more you get, the more you want because you understand the extreme powers behind it.

In this strong quest for knowledge and improvement of a person’s “SELF” could they ever be as close to God as they had been before they were overpowered by this desire of expanding their minds?

It was impossible now to turn back and undo it. Their children and future generations would now be affected as well, because parents teach their children what they learn and this would continue.

Now that they had been removed from the garden of bliss (or Eden) that would be the ONLY way their children would ever progress. This knowledge of both good and evil would lead to incredible hell and strife in the world from that day on, which is why it is often said that we “inherited their original sin”.

No, no one has taught me this of course. It’s simply an uneducated “greenie’s” version of what the “Adam and Eve” story really meant.
.____________________________

Recently on another thread, a Mormon claimed that Adam and Eve were given two contradictory commandments by God, which forced them to choose to disobey one in order to obey the other, thus causing the Fall. He claimed the two conflicting commandments were (1) be fruitfull and multiply, and (2) do not eat the fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. The Mormon’s position was that Adam and Eve could not multiply (have children) unless they first ate the forbidden fruit, because in their pre-Fall innocent state they didn’t know anything about sex. So they disobeyed God by eating the forbidden fruit, and thus gained the knowledge of good and evil in order to obey God’s other commandment to be fruitfull and multiply.

I believe this claim to be entirely preposterous. God would not set up his children in such a sadistic manner. God is not a god of disorder, but of order. He doesn’t play games with us. He doesn’t give out contradictory commandments and force us to disobey one by obeying another. I asked for more explanation from the LDS on the thread, but none have yet come forth.

I would like to hear from LDS as to whether this is really the teaching of the Mormon Church and if so, how can you possibly justify this position?

 

[PaulDupre]

The way I see it, people too often misinterpret what “eating of the forbidden fruit” meant. So many people interpret the fruit to be “sex.”

Neither Mormons nor Catholics interpret it that way. Some fringe Protestant groups perhaps…

Also, I noticed in my Catholic and Mormon bibles, the wording differs about what happened after Adam and Eve ate the fruit. In one case they “were” naked, and in the other they “saw themselves as naked but were not actually naked.” (My Catholic bible which is very old, says the latter.)

Which “Catholic bible” says that? Surely not the Douay-Rheims, which says:

7 And the eyes of them both were opened: and when they perceived themselves to be naked, they sewed together fig leaves, and made themselves aprons.

Paul

 

[Pug]

First, the ability to acquire the conceptual knowledge of good and evil—the theoretical knowledge, if you like—like realizing that they had been naked, and that was wrong.

I disagree that being naked had been wrong. Why would God have left them in the garden that way if it was wrong? God created and said it was all good.

The Bible says it was the knowledge of good and evil. You can read into that what you like. For example, it says that Adam and Eve were naked in the Garden, and were not ashamed. They did not see anything wrong in that. It is only after they had eaten of the fruit that their eyes were opened, and they became conscious of their nakedness, and saw a problem with that.

I agree that the tree was called the tree of knowledge of good and evil, but God didn’t say that this meant that if they ate it they would become like god(s), knowing good and evil. God only said that they would die. Rather, it was Satan, the father of lies, who said that their eyes would be opened and they would become like god, etc. So, they ate, and then they did perceive something. But the bible does not say that they they became like god, or that they knew good and evil like gods. Rather, I think they saw the result that God had talked about, and not that Satan had talked about. Instead of finding that their knowledge of good and evil beat out God’s and that they were right to eat the tree, all they learned was that they had disobeyed, that they were stripped of righteousness, they were ashamed and needed concealment for their moral ugliness, and that discord had been introduced into their relationship with each other, with God, and with creation, as described in that section about the fate of the serpent, the woman, and the man. Hence, even though they had clothed themselves, they hid from God in the garden. They were hiding their evil, and hiding from God whom they had chosen to consider as untrustworthy. That had been Satan’s hook, that God was keeping something from them with that command not to eat of that tree.

All things are known by their opposites. It is impossible to know good without at the same being aware of evil. It is impossible to know happiness without at the same time being conscious of unhappiness.

Eh, I’m not sure, but I do agree that if you know what a square is, you also know what one isn’t. So maybe we agree.

Second, it entailed the experience of good and evil, by coming into direct contact with it. That does not mean that we have to do evil in order to know good. It means being tempted with evil. Jesus did no evil; but He certainly came into contact with it by being tempted with evil.

Okay, maybe you mean that we have to be able to conceive of something desirable or tempting in the wrong choice to ever consider doing the wrong choice. That is what happened to Eve, after all, she conceived of that fruit as desirable for food and for wisdom.

Your other answers not quoted here were also helpful, thank you.

 

[Pug]

But the bible does not say that they they became like god, or that they knew good and evil like gods.

ARGH! I can’t edit to fix this. Right when their eyes were opened, it isn’t saying this, and that is what I was thinking of at the time.

But it does say something like this later, when God wants to block them from the tree of life. I’ve puzzled at what is being gotten at in that later episode several times before, and not really been satisfied. I think they did become like gods in a way, in the sense that they stepped over their role as created beings, determining for themselves what they wished to call good and bad, instead of accepting from our Creator his determination of what is good and bad. But it is a chimera, and not real. Instead, we die if we transgress against what God says is good and bad.

Also, I do think they experienced evil as a result of the whole thing.

 

[zerinus]

I disagree that being naked had been wrong. Why would God have left them in the garden that way if it was wrong? God created and said it was all good.

That depends on how you want to look at it. Little children walk about naked and they don’t see a problem with that; and we might not care either. But as they get older, they begin to see a problem, and so do we. Adam and Eve before they eat of the fruit were like little children. After they eat of the fruit, they became like adults. Before it was OK; but afterwards it wasn’t. Otherwise, why did God make them coats of skin to cover them?

I agree that the tree was called the tree of knowledge of good and evil, but God didn’t say that this meant that if they ate it they would become like god(s), knowing good and evil. God only said that they would die. Rather, it was Satan, the father of lies, who said that their eyes would be opened and they would become like god, etc. So, they ate, and then they did perceive something. But the bible does not say that they they became like god, or that they knew good and evil like gods. Rather, I think they saw the result that God had talked about, and not that Satan had talked about. Instead of finding that their knowledge of good and evil beat out God’s and that they were right to eat the tree, all they learned was that they had disobeyed, that they were stripped of righteousness, they were ashamed and needed concealment for their moral ugliness, and that discord had been introduced into their relationship with each other, with God, and with creation, as described in that section about the fate of the serpent, the woman, and the man. Hence, even though they had clothed themselves, they hid from God in the garden. They were hiding their evil, and hiding from God whom they had chosen to consider as untrustworthy. That had been Satan’s hook, that God was keeping something from them with that command not to eat of that tree.

Your post here becomes terribly confused. You seem to be stretching it quite a bit. I will only make one comment: The Bible does say that they became like God, by knowing good and evil (Genesis 3:22). I thought you were a serious debater; that is why I have readily replied to your posts. I wouldn’t waste my time otherwise.

Your other answers not quoted here were also helpful, thank you.

You are very welcome.

zerinus

 

[Tracy10]

Perceived/“saw themselves as”… whatever… same difference.

Neither Mormons nor Catholics interpret it that way. Some fringe Protestant groups perhaps…

Which “Catholic bible” says that? Surely not the Douay-Rheims, which says:

Paul

 

[Tracy10]

“Perceived”/“saw themselves as,” same difference.

Neither Mormons nor Catholics interpret it that way. Some fringe Protestant groups perhaps…

Which “Catholic bible” says that? Surely not the Douay-Rheims, which says:

Paul

7 And the eyes of them both were opened: and when they perceived themselves to be naked, they sewed together fig leaves, and made themselves aprons.

 

[rmcmullan]

Wow, this is one of the best threads I’ve seen at CAF. I am enjoying it!

I think the original point is still unresolved though because there’s no satisfory explanation of why the tree of knowledge was made readily available to A&E. The objection to the LDS POV was that God wouldn’t set A&E up for failure. I really don’t see how you can resolve it without resorting the the LDS POV. And I know you can’t accept that because it brings in overtones of eternal progression and the pre-existence which would cause much weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth.

 

[why_me]

Short essay quiz.

1. Define evil.
2. Define holiness.
3. Define allowing satan to control one’s life.
4. Define deception, particularly in the context of the NT definition of the devil.

Evil: That which leads a person away from the will and love of god.

Holiness: That which brings an individiual closer to god

Satan and control: Allowing satan to influence one’s life to do evil and by doing so, do his will.

Deception: the promise of happiness through evil works.