The Fall According to Mormonism

[Chris-WA]

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?

 

[zerinus]

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?

This is not the teaching of the LDS Church.

zerinus

 

[majick275]

and here we go with “i don’t know that we teach that”…

 

[Stephen168]

So the commandment to not partake of the tree of knowledge of good and evil and to go forth and multiply were contradicting commandments. They had to choose.

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 fruitful 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 fruitful and multiply.

This is not the teaching of the LDS Church.

Then what does this mean?

When Adam and Eve were placed in the Garden of Eden, they were not yet mortal. They were not able to have children. There was no death. They had physical life because their spirits were housed in physical bodies made from the dust of the earth (see Abraham 5:7). They had spiritual life because they were in the presence of God (see Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, p. 268). They had not yet made a choice between good and evil.
God commanded them to have children and to learn to control the earth. **He said, “Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it, and have dominion over … every living thing that moveth upon the earth” (Moses 2:28). God told them they could freely eat of every tree in the garden except one, the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Of that tree God said, “In the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die” (Moses 3:17). **
Satan, not knowing the mind of God but seeking to destroy God’s plan, came to Eve in the Garden of Eden. He tempted her to eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. He assured her that she and Adam would not die, but that they would “be as gods, knowing good and evil” (Moses 4:11). Eve yielded to the temptation and ate the fruit. When Adam learned what had happened, he chose to partake also. The changes that came upon Adam and Eve because they ate the fruit are called the Fall.

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

This is not the teaching of the LDS Church.

zerinus

So what does the LDS teach about the Fall?

 

[ricko]

Looks pretty much like standard Genesis to me.

 

[Paul_G]

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?

To begin with could you please give us a link to the post you draw your comment from.
Paul

 

[majick275]

mormon “apologist” jeff lindsay states it here:
jefflindsay.com/adam.shtml

the gospel principles lesson manual onlie at lds.org states it here:

lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=32c41b08f338c010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=077a7befabc20110VgnVCM100000176f620a____

LDS scriptures claim it here:

scriptures.lds.org/moses/5/11#11

and here:

scriptures.lds.org/2_ne/2/22-25#22

so can we please dispense with the subterfuge?

the LDS position is that adam and eve couldn’t have children without eating the fruit and thus would have been disobeying the “higher law” to be fruitful and multiply. LDS doctrine is that the fall of adam was a great achievement that resulted in many blessings that were necessary for all of us.

 

[Paul_G]

mormon “apologist” jeff lindsay states it here:
jefflindsay.com/adam.shtml

the gospel principles lesson manual onlie at lds.org states it here:

lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=32c41b08f338c010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=077a7befabc20110VgnVCM100000176f620a____

LDS scriptures claim it here:

scriptures.lds.org/moses/5/11#11

and here:

scriptures.lds.org/2_ne/2/22-25#22

so can we please dispense with the subterfuge?

the LDS position is that adam and eve couldn’t have children without eating the fruit and thus would have been disobeying the “higher law” to be fruitful and multiply. LDS doctrine is that the fall of adam was a great achievement that resulted in many blessings that were necessary for all of us.

It is quite clear that LDS believe Adam and Eve could only have become our parents after becoming aware of their capability to procreate due their gaining that knowledge after their disobedience. I said it before, it well may have been possible for them to have been physically able while in the garden to have children, but the facts surrounding this matter do not support the notion that they knew the full capabilities of their bodies while in the garden. Hence, I do believe the facts support that this indeed is the intended outcome of God. Although interesting, I don’t believe I have come across the “obeying the higher law” thought that Lindsay talks about, do you have a similar quote from an authority of the Church. I would be interested in reading that as well.

As far as the blessing to be fruitful, it is not at all clear as to the time frame of this blessing or commandment when it was to be realized or obeyed, as this blessing/commandment was bestowed on Adam only, and not for Eve according to Jewish teaching on the matter. I don’t have the reference at hand, but as I recall Clement had something to say about Adam using his procreating abilities prematurely.

Paul

 

[Chris-WA]

It is quite clear that LDS believe Adam and Eve could only have become our parents after becoming aware of their capability to procreate due their gaining that knowledge after their disobedience.

I understand that LDS believe this. The question at hand is why? Who says they only had that knowledge after their disobedience? 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. Nothing whatsoever mentioned about a newly acquired knowledge of marital sexual union after the Fall, though. Marital sexual union is sacred, which I know LDS accept as well, so there is no reason to assume that a sin was required for this to be known. Now after the Fall I could certainly see how the sacred sexual union became perverted into something more based on lustful desire. That would certainly be the result of sin and disobedience, but since God created sex to be a sacred marital act, I don’t see how anyone could argue that this would only be known because of a sin committed by the parents of the human race.

I said it before, it well may have been possible for them to have been physically able while in the garden to have children, but the facts surrounding this matter do not support the notion that they knew the full capabilities of their bodies while in the garden. Hence, I do believe the facts support that this indeed is the intended outcome of God. Although interesting, I don’t believe I have come across the “obeying the higher law” thought that Lindsay talks about, do you have a similar quote from an authority of the Church. I would be interested in reading that as well.

As far as the blessing to be fruitful, it is not at all clear as to the time frame of this blessing or commandment when it was to be realized or obeyed, as this blessing/commandment was bestowed on Adam only, and not for Eve according to Jewish teaching on the matter. I don’t have the reference at hand, but as I recall Clement had something to say about Adam using his procreating abilities prematurely.

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

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.

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. 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.

 

[zerinus]

So what does the LDS teach about the Fall?

The LDS doctrine of the Fall is the biblical one. 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. 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.

LDS doctrine does teach that Adam and Eve could not have had children before the Fall; but it does not explain why that was the case; nor whether it was a temporary or permanent state. I do not believe that God would have given them two contradictory commandments; therefore there is a missing piece of information here that we do not yet have. What we do know is that Adam did not partake of the fruit in order to keep one of two “contradictory commandments”. He partook of the fruit so that he could remain with Eve, after she had become fallen, in order to fulfill God’s commandment.

zerinus

 

[Stephen168]

The LDS doctrine of the Fall is the biblical one. …… Satan at first tried to tempt Adam to eat of the forbidden fruit, but Adam would not yield to his temptation. 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.

Where is this story in the Bible?

LDS doctrine does teach that Adam and Eve could not have had children before the Fall; but it does not explain why that was the case; nor whether it was a temporary or permanent state.

The Mormon Church does explain it: Their inability to have children was permanent because they were not mortal.
" LDS Gospel Principles Ch. 6:

Because Adam and Eve had eaten the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, the Lord sent them out of the Garden of Eden into the world as we now know it. Their physical condition changed as a result of their eating the forbidden fruit. As God had promised, they became mortal. They were able to have children. They and their children would experience sickness, pain, and physical death.

I do not believe that God would have given them two contradictory commandments; therefore there is a missing piece of information here that we do not yet have.

Lots of missing pieces

 

[majick275]

the “missing pieces” are to be found in the mormon temple ceremony. this is why zerinus isn’t familiar with them yet. you can look it up yourself but in the end you’ll find jeff lindsay’s position is pretty much the “official” LDS doctrine in this case.

 

[zerinus]

Where is this story in the Bible?

The story is not; but the doctrine is implied in 1 Timothy 2:14.

The Mormon Church does explain it: Their inability to have children was permanent because they were not mortal.

The scriptures are silent as to the real explanation.

Lots of missing pieces

No doubt. God could not have told us the entire story of creation in a couple of pages without leaving a lot of information out. What we know is a drop in the ocean compared to what we don’t.

zerinus

 

[Jerusha]

the “missing pieces” are to be found in the mormon temple ceremony. this is why zerinus isn’t familiar with them yet. you can look it up yourself but in the end you’ll find jeff lindsay’s position is pretty much the “official” LDS doctrine in this case.

Very interesting, majik.

It is available if zerinus wants to google it.

 

[Valke2]

We learn that Eve is flesh of his flesh and that a man clings to a woman and they become one before Adam and Eve eat from the tree. So it seems that they would know what it means to procreate before eating from the tree. You would aslo have to believe God gave them a commandment which they could not understand. Not only to be fertile, but to rule over all the animals.

If we are to believe that God gave them a commandment they couldn’t understand, then we have to assume that they couldn’t reason that eating from the forbidden tree would help them understand. The story makes no sense unless you read it with the understanding that they understood God’s words.

 

[rmcmullan]

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.

Sorry, I was the one who started that discussion but sort of let it drop. Personal life and all sometimes prevents me pursuing discussions on these forums!

First off, Majick has been very good on this subject. Although he might not agree with the LDS doctrine, there’s no question he knows it. So far as I know, no Catholic is required to believe any of this but I think the difficulty you are having accepting this has to do with the Catholic concept that the fall was a bad thing. In that previous thread, there was scriptures quoted where Eve rejoiced in their decision. And it wasn’t really a “Sin” to eat of the fruit. In LDS theology it was a choice they made which proved to be wise even though it came at great cost.

Majick gave some good references but the one I use is Doctrines of Salvation Vol.1 by the Joseph Fielding Smith. He was the Mormon prophet from 1951 to 1970.

 

[rmcmullan]

the “missing pieces” are to be found in the mormon temple ceremony. this is why zerinus isn’t familiar with them yet. you can look it up yourself but in the end you’ll find jeff lindsay’s position is pretty much the “official” LDS doctrine in this case.

There are four distinct (LDS) accounts of the creation. The first is the Biblical one which everyone is familiar with.

The second is from the Book of Moses in the Pearl of Great Price. It starts in Chapter 4 and goes until the flood.

The third account is given by Abraham but does not include the fall.

The most detailed account is available only in the temple.

 

[majick275]

There are four distinct (LDS) accounts of the creation. The first is the Biblical one which everyone is familiar with.

The second is from the Book of Moses in the Pearl of Great Price. It starts in Chapter 4 and goes until the flood.

The third account is given by Abraham but does not include the fall.

The most detailed account is available only in the temple.

agreed. i find it interesting that you cite doctrines of salvation. most LDS nowadays shy away from deep doctrine like that and call it “speculation” even though that’s what was taught for years and has never been “corrected” just “not talked about”. i may disagree with you on doctrine but at least i can respect you for being honest about what that doctrine is.

 

[rmcmullan]

agreed. i find it interesting that you cite doctrines of salvation. most LDS nowadays shy away from deep doctrine like that and call it “speculation” even though that’s what was taught for years and has never been “corrected” just “not talked about”. i may disagree with you on doctrine but at least i can respect you for being honest about what that doctrine is.

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.