The Fall According to Mormonism

[majick275]

Again, you’re right (man, I hate saying that!) This is not taught in the LDS church any more and I am not surprised that Zerinus did not know. Most of the members I talk to on Sunday are not familiar with that doctrine. But JSF was not that long ago! The fall and the redemption are essential to all Christianity though and the LDS perspective, whether you believe it or not, is certainly an interesting take. I’d even call it unique although a lot of the themes it focuses on are often brought up, just not emphasized, in other perspectives on the fall.

i had to chuckle at this. know first that i truly bear no malice towards the LDS. I just believe that the Catholic church was founded by Christ and has been guided by the holy spirit all along. now having said that I think that Joseph smith was a bad man who deceived a lot of people. i don’t need to bear false witness to show that. I am constantly surprised at the “modern” LDS who distance from the seer, JoD, JFS and Mconkie all the while reading from lesson manuals that quote all of those repeatedly. I can understand someone like yourself who makes an informed decision to accept the theology of eternal progression but I am astounded by the uniformed zerinuses of the world who think the only mormon doctrine is the mild “milk” of the GBH era. back to your post…yes the fall of Adam is essential to the doctrines of all churches that choose to identify with judaism, christianity or even islam. i will agree the LDS perspective is unique but i certainly find it find not only incorrect but problematic to support from the bible.

 

[zerinus]

This is not taught in the LDS church any more and I am not surprised that Zerinus did not know. Most of the members I talk to on Sunday are not familiar with that doctrine.

Can you elaborate on that a little bit more—what it was that is not taught in the Church any more, or which I didn’t know? I am always willing to learn something new of course. Reading your posts in this thread did not seem to answer that question—unless you are referring to other posts you have made in other threads which I am not aware of.

zerinus

 

[Chris-WA]

The Bible tells us that “Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression” (1 Timothy 2:14). Satan at first tried to tempt Adam to eat of the forbidden fruit, but Adam would not yield to his temptation.

I do not agree that 1 Timothy 2:14 implies that Satan first tried to tempt Adam and then moved on to Eve. The biblical record does not indicate this. In place of this Mormon interpretation I would offer some excellent Catholic exegesis on the subject. In Scott Hahn’s book, *A Father Who Keeps His Promises, *Dr. Hahn suggests that Adam was right there standing alongside Eve when the whole encounter took place, and that his real failure was standing by in silence as he watched his bride under assault from Satan. Instead of jumping to her rescue, he lets it all happen. Why? Perhaps for fear of his own physical safety.The Hebrew word for serpent, nahash, … most commonly denotes snakes (see Nm 21:6-9), it is also used with reference to evil dragons like Leviathan (see Is 27:1) and the legendary sea monsters, (see Jb 26:13). Across this wide spectrum of usage, the word generally refers to something that bites (see Prv 23:32), often with venom (see Ps 58:4). In any event, at minimum, the serpent here is a life-threatening symbol. And it represents mortal danger. (Hahn, pg 66)

So here we have this life-threatening symbol of mortal danger bypassing Adam and going right for his bride. And insteading of engaging the enemy to save his wife, Adam stands by in complete silence, unwilling to lay down his own life in defense of her. Christ will later have to undo Adam’s sin by doing the exact opposite. He will later willingly suffer and die for *His *bride, the Church.Once the nature of Adam’s sin is understood to be his refusal to suffer out of love for his Father and bride, three conclusions logically follow. First, the divine curse of suffering imposed on Adam and Eve was perfectly reasonable. Second, their humble acceptance of that punitive suffering would be remedial. Third, Christ’s bearing of this curse, in his own sacrificial suffering on the cross, would prove to be redemptive. (Hahn, pg 73)

Then Satan tempted Eve, and this time he was successful. Then Adam had to make a choice: he could either refrain from eating the fruit, and thus remain immortal in the Garden, while Eve would be cast out and become subject to death, and eventually die; or else he could eat of the fruit so that he could remain with Eve, and thus fulfill the commandment of God to “multiply and replenish the earth”. He chose the latter option; and LDS doctrine teaches that he chose the correct option.

I think a better take can be formed by understanding what St. Paul says about Christ undoing Adam’s disobedience. Christ obediently suffered and died for his bride, thereby undoing Adam’s disobedience in refusing to do the same. I think there is definitely more to it than just eating a piece of forbidden fruit.

 

[zerinus]

I do not agree that 1 Timothy 2:14 implies that Satan first tried to tempt Adam and then moved on to Eve. The biblical record does not indicate this.

Whether it does or not is not of great importance here. The Genesis tells us that Eve was tempted first, and afterwards she offered it to Adam. Paul further tells us that Adam was not deceived. That means that his action was calculated and intentional, rather than through mere deception (as was in the case of Eve). If you put those two together, you come to a doctrine that is close to what LDS teaches.

In place of this Mormon interpretation I would offer some excellent Catholic exegesis on the subject. . . .

That is a matter of academic interest at best—and not even that as far as I am concerned. If that commentary appeals to you, you are welcome to it. But as far as I am concerned, modern LDS scripture carries infinitely greater weight than any commentary by a Catholic theologian—however well-intentioned.

I think a better take can be formed by understanding what St. Paul says about Christ undoing Adam’s disobedience. Christ obediently suffered and died for his bride, thereby undoing Adam’s disobedience in refusing to do the same. I think there is definitely more to it than just eating a piece of forbidden fruit.

I have no problem with Christ undoing the effects of the transgression of Adam. That is in perfect agreement with what the Bible as well as the Book of Mormon teaches:

Mosiah 3:

19 For the natural man is an enemy to God, and has been from the fall of Adam, and will be, forever and ever, unless he yields to the enticings of the Holy Spirit, and putteth off the natural man and becometh a saint through the atonement of Christ the Lord, and becometh as a child, submissive, meek, humble, patient, full of love, willing to submit to all things which the Lord seeth fit to inflict upon him, even as a child doth submit to his father.

Mormon 9:

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

zerinus

 

[rmcmullan]

…I am constantly surprised at the “modern” LDS who distance from the seer, JoD, JFS and Mconkie all the while reading from lesson manuals that quote all of those repeatedly.

I’ve noticed that too, there’s been a distinct “watering down” of the uniquely Mormon tenents over the years. I’m sorry to see it as it makes some of the Sunday School and priesthood lessons dull. You go looking for meat but mostly get milk. To some degree anyway. I would like to see them more developed but with the exception of temple worship, a lot of what makes us unique is highly criticised and I can understand why they’re being left undeveloped for the time being. Give us another couple thousand years.

 

[rmcmullan]

Chris-WA, you still are using the Catholic concept that the fall of man was a bad thing. That Adam should have “saved” Eve from her decision to disobey. Let me prattle on about that a bit…

Adam and Eve were innocents in the garden. They obeyed God in everything as did all of God’s creations. So they were unable to act for themselves. If they had, they might have done something different than what God would have done. No free will. I think the question is should Adam and Eve given up their innocence for wisdom? For the knowledge of good and evil? Is it a bad thing when children grow up and loose their innocence? They were told that they were free to choose but that in the day they ate from the tree (of the knowledge of good and evil), they would surely die. Both a spiritual death (cut off from God’s presence) and a physical death.

I sometimes think to myself that the purpose of our earthly life is to loose our innocence and in latter years, get it back, this time with wisdom. Of course, reasonable people can disagree.

 

[rmcmullan]

Can you elaborate on that a little bit more—what it was that is not taught in the Church any more, or which I didn’t know? I am always willing to learn something new of course.

I have never heard about how A&E were unable to have children in the garden before, even though Eve clearly states it in the Book of Moses. It always made me wonder. But JFS clears it up very well. I would recommend his books Doctrines of Salvation, he has a lot of interesting comments in them,

In volume 1, chapter 7 he discusses the Fall of Man and he explains why Eve did not bear children in the garden. But I was particularly intrigued with the discussion of evolution in chapter 9. In it he talks about de-evolution, where primitive cultures arise from the collpase of advanced ones. I just like that entire concept.

 

[zerinus]

In volume 1, chapter 7 he discusses the Fall of Man and he explains why Eve did not bear children in the garden. But I was particularly intrigued with the discussion of evolution in chapter 9. In it he talks about de-evolution, where primitive cultures arise from the collpase of advanced ones. I just like that entire concept.

Unfortunately I do not have a copy of that book handy, so I cannot look it up. I was hoping that perhaps you would provide us with a summary—or at least, show where it disagrees with what I had said. In defining LDS doctrine I go strictly by what is taught in the standard works. That is what the General Authorities, including Joseph Fielding Smith, have counseled Church members to do. Here is a quote from Joseph Fielding Smith, out of the very book that you are recommending:

It makes no difference what is written or what anyone has said, if what has been said is in conflict with what the Lord has revealed, we can set it aside. My words, and the teachings of any other member of the Church, high or low, if they do not square with the revelations, we need not accept them. Let us have this matter clear. We have accepted the four standard works as the measuring yardsticks, or balances, by which we measure every man’s doctrine. You cannot accept the books written by the authorities of the Church as standards in doctrine, only in so far as they accord with the revealed word in the standard works. (Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation 3 vols. (SLC: Bookcraft, 1955))

If what I have taught regarding the Fall disagrees with the standard works, then I hope you will point that out to me so that I can correct it. If it disagrees with what Joseph Fielding Smith has said, then I would first like to know what that is; and then decide which one comes closest to the standard works. Whichever comes closer, that I will accept, even if it means rejecting what was taught by Joseph Fielding Smith. After all, that is what he has counseled us to do.

I’ve noticed that too, there’s been a distinct “watering down” of the uniquely Mormon tenents over the years. I’m sorry to see it as it makes some of the Sunday School and priesthood lessons dull. You go looking for meat but mostly get milk. To some degree anyway. I would like to see them more developed but with the exception of temple worship, a lot of what makes us unique is highly criticised and I can understand why they’re being left undeveloped for the time being. Give us another couple thousand years.

I am going to have to disagree with you on that. I think the “meat” is contained in the scriptures—the standard works—and that is what the gospel lessons are designed to focus on. I think that that “meat” is of far greater value than the speculative teachings of former years among the Latter-day Saints.

zerinus

 

[Paul_G]

I understand that LDS believe this. The question at hand is why? Who says they only had that knowledge after their disobedience?
Why? None of us knows for sure, we both have our opinions and we both can give our thoughts to support them.

The only example of what knowledge they had after that I can think of is that they were ashamed of their nakedness, which makes perfect sense. Shame is a result of sin.

I don’t see any mention of this type of relationship being evil, only that their eyes were opened, and that they know they were naked. I guess we have different view here, I don’t believe that any sin was committed. Disobedience, yes, transgression, yes – but not sin Please explain why you think they sinned.

Paul, I appreciate you at least attempting to take on the question I posed in the original post on this thread, but I think you are being somewhat evasive and beating around the bush. The direct question I asked has to do with the supposed contradictory nature of God’s two commandments given to Adam and Eve. How can God give two commandments back to back that would be contradictory? It is my position that God does not set up his children with impossible situations like this. Commandments are commandments, not suggestions, and therefore He would never set two commandments in conflict with one another.

I have no reason not to share my thoughts and beliefs, your initial post describes to me some thoughts that I am not familiar with. Therefore I wanted to read the post which formed the basis of your comment and read the comment for myself.

Like I said I have not come across the idea that Adam and Eve disobeyed on commandment to fulfill another. In my thoughts, I have not considered that they had this motivation. It is clear that scripture says that Eva was enticed by the idea that she could become like God in knowledge which doesn’t fit with the above notion. I’m not persuaded that it was a deliberate choice to disobey the commandment so they could be fruitful and multiply.

This may have nothing to do with it, but as interesting aside In my study of the Bible I have read that according to Jewish thought on their scriptures the blessing to be fruitful was directed to Adam only and not Eve. So, and I’m not sure, I’m wondering if Eva did not transgress the prohibition to eat of the tree at all, it is interesting thought.

The facts of the narrative do not support a conclusion that Adam and Eve could not have procreated prior to the Fall.

My thoughts, and I believe LDS thought, is that they could physically have children, but did not know they could. As far as the blessing to be fruitful goes there is no time line indicated for this blessing to be realized. The details of the narrative show that, no matter what one may believe as to when she could bare children, Eve didn’t until out of the garden. So it really is a moot point.

There is absolutely no reason from the narrative to conclude that Adam and Eve thought they would have to break one commandment to uphold another.

I agree.

Did God know in advance what would happen? Yes, of course, because He is not bound by time and is omniscient. Does that mean He would force Adam and Eve to sin in order to bring about a good end? Of course not. They did it of their own free will, and certainly not because they wanted to procreate. That has nothing to do with why they sinned.

I don’t think God forces anyone to act in one way or another, however I believe situations were placed before Adam and Eve the required them to make a decision. In this case, I believe, Eve wanted to be like the parent, and with misleading outside information made a choice to be like the parent.

Could Adam and Eve have had children before the Fall? Certainly. There is no reason at all to suspect otherwise. God created them in a perfect state of grace. They were married while in this state. The marriage union includes the sexual union, as created by God for the procreation of children. Had the Fall not occured, they would have had children who were also in a perfect state of grace. But the Fall did occur, and they lost their state of grace, and as a result their children never had it to begin with.

Could they have children before leaving the garden? I’m sure that they could have, as you say there is no reason to suggest in scripture why they couldn’t. Though In my mind this is a moot point, the fact of the matter is that they didn’t. What we have left is to speculate as to the reasons why they didn’t have children in the garden.

Perhaps for the LDS this is all really about the denial of original sin. To admit that Adam and Eve were capable of having children prior to the Fall (in a perfect state of grace) would imply that the Fall caused children to not be born in that state of grace (and that’s called original sin). It’s almost as if LDS teaching is trying to minimize the seriousness of the sin which caused the Fall, perphaps in an attempt to deny the very concept of original sin.

I don’t know much about the Catholic doctrine on original sin, but as you have defined it above, I certainly would disagree with it. Even though they disobeyed God’s command, I do not believe Eve or Adam committed sin as scripture defines it.
Paul

 

[rmcmullan]

Zerinus, perhaps I misread or did not understand post #2. When you say this isn’t a teaching, it’s uncertain which part of posting #1 you are referring to. I got the impression it was the main point regarding having babies but if that is not so, I stand corrected.

 

[rmcmullan]

I am going to have to disagree with you on that. I think the “meat” is contained in the scriptures—the standard works—and that is what the gospel lessons are designed to focus on. I think that that “meat” is of far greater value than the speculative teachings of former years among the Latter-day Saints.

I can hardly disagree with that but I also think that Majick has a point that a lot of the more controversial theology has been toned down recently and not discussed as much as in the former years. In the end, we’ll be judged by our works and not our understanding of theology or lack thereof so yeah, what does it matter any way? But I find the ideas intriguing and the originality a sign of the true church. An indication of the hand of God and not of man.

 

[zerinus]

Zerinus, perhaps I misread or did not understand post #2. When you say this isn’t a teaching, it’s uncertain which part of posting #1 you are referring to.

I was referring to the main thesis of his post, that God gave Adam two contradictory commandments, and the Fall consisted of Adam deciding between the two. That is not LDS doctrine—even though some LDS may have erroneously portrayed it as such.

I can hardly disagree with that but I also think that Majick has a point that . . .

Oh, I am afraid Majick does not have a “point” at all, about anything! Sorry to have to blow his bubble.

. . . a lot of the more controversial theology has been toned down recently and not discussed as much as in the former years.

I call them speculative thinking that came from a small group of LDS Church leaders of a bygone age that had a fertile imagination, and liked their own speculations better than identifying concrete gospel truth. Their views often could not be substantiated by scripture, and hence they were at best speculative, and at worst in error. Orson Pratt, Orson Hyde, B. H. Roberts, Bruce R. McConkie, some of the teachings of Joseph Fielding Smith and others fall into this category; and they are a very small minority of past Chruch leaders.

In the end, we’ll be judged by our works and not our understanding of theology or lack thereof so yeah, what does it matter any way?

Well, it is important not to err in doctrine too.

But I find the ideas intriguing and the originality a sign of the true church. An indication of the hand of God and not of man.

Yes, a lot of people find those speculative thinking of a bygone age attractive; but that is a false attraction. Joseph Smith has given us a bit of advice about that, which is worth remembering:

A fanciful and flowery and heated imagination beware of; because the things of God are of deep import; and time, and experience, and careful and ponderous and solemn thoughts can only find them out. (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 137.)

zerinus

 

[Techno2000]

"]A fanciful and flowery and heated imagination beware of; because the things of God are of deep import; and time, and experience, and careful and ponderous and solemn thoughts can only find them out. (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 137

Like" Secret knowledge" Gnostic :hypno: :hypno: :hypno:

 

[Paul_G]

"]A fanciful and flowery and heated imagination beware of; because the things of God are of deep import; and time, and experience, and careful and ponderous and solemn thoughts can only find them out. (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 137

Like" Secret knowledge" Gnostic :hypno: :hypno: :hypno:

What is it that you disagree with in this quote

Paul

Paul

 

[Techno2000]

Some have 1000 experiences, others have 1 experience 1000 times

How about this one : The Devil will tell you a 1000 Truths, just to slip in One Lie.

 

[zaffiroborant]

I don’t know much about the Catholic doctrine on original sin, but as you have defined it above, I certainly would disagree with it. Even though they disobeyed God’s command, I do not believe Eve or Adam committed sin as scripture defines it.
Paul

Wow disobeying God isn’t sinful hmmm that changes everything

 

[Stephen168]

I call them speculative thinking that came from a small group of LDS Church leaders of a bygone age that had a fertile imagination, and liked their own speculations better than identifying concrete gospel truth. Their views often could not be substantiated by scripture, and hence they were at best speculative, and at worst in error. Orson Pratt, Orson Hyde, B. H. Roberts, Bruce R. McConkie, some of the teachings of Joseph Fielding Smith and others fall into this category; and they are a very small minority of past Church leaders.

The scriptures are silent as to the real explanation.

Does the Mormon Church have a teaching on ‘The Fall’ or is each Mormon allowed their own ‘sola scripture’ approach?

 

[majick275]

I was referring to the main thesis of his post, that God gave Adam two contradictory commandments, and the Fall consisted of Adam deciding between the two. That is not LDS doctrine—even though some LDS may have erroneously portrayed it as such.

Oh, I am afraid Majick does not have a “point” at all, about anything! Sorry to have to blow his bubble.

I call them speculative thinking that came from a small group of LDS Church leaders of a bygone age that had a fertile imagination, and liked their own speculations better than identifying concrete gospel truth. Their views often could not be substantiated by scripture, and hence they were at best speculative, and at worst in error. Orson Pratt, Orson Hyde, B. H. Roberts, Bruce R. McConkie, some of the teachings of Joseph Fielding Smith and others fall into this category; and they are a very small minority of past Chruch leaders.

Well, it is important not to err in doctrine too.

Yes, a lot of people find those speculative thinking of a bygone age attractive; but that is a false attraction. Joseph Smith has given us a bit of advice about that, which is worth remembering:

A fanciful and flowery and heated imagination beware of; because the things of God are of deep import; and time, and experience, and careful and ponderous and solemn thoughts can only find them out. (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 137.)

zerinus

nice try kid but years of teachings by “prophets” , reinforced by the temple ceremony trumps your modern seminary teacher’s opinion. but go ahead and denounce those earlier LDs apostles and prophets. makes it so much easier to point out the flaws in the “continuing revelation” heresy.

 

[zerinus]

Does the Mormon Church have a teaching on ‘The Fall’ or is each Mormon allowed their own ‘sola scripture’ approach?

The Church has a teaching on the Fall, and it is the one that is contained in the scriptures.

zerinus

 

[Paul_G]

Wow disobeying God isn’t sinful hmmm that changes everything

For us of course is. For Adam and Eve is not so clear as, I see it, they did not fit the criterion for the scriptural definition for sinning. I you can show me otherwise I would be interested in learning that

Paul