The Fall According to Mormonism

[why_me]

Funny that you capitalize Lucifer, but not God. Any significance to that?

God did not create Lucifer evil. God created Lucifer with free will, and he chose evil. Ever heard of the concept “fallen angel”?

I would agree but then we get into the preexistence and how free will existed in the preexistence. Satan chose to disobey god but we chose to obey god in the preexistence. Hence, satan has no body but we do. Makes sense?

 

[why_me]

and how is that any different from the mormon pre-existence in which the same test was present? to take people who passed such a test and “mindwipe” them for the purpose of administering the same test (albeit under different conditions) seems more “asiatic” than christian. when coupled with eternal progression it makes you seem to have more in common with eastern reincarnation type religions than christianity.

The preexistence does make sense. And if so, we were with lucifer in the preexistence. He chose to disobey to god along with his followers and we chose to follow god’s plan of salvation.

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

The preexistence does make sense. And if so, we were with lucifer in the preexistence. He chose to disobey to god along with his followers and we chose to follow god’s plan of salvation.

Here is were I have a Problem. If as you say we made the choice is preexistence then then need to exist for Adam and Eve ins the garden making the choice does not exist for they had all ready made it. Also there is not need for any evangelizing or teaching of the word for all that are to follow God and all that are to Satan have already chosen to do so prior to being born.

Your scenario does away with the whole plan of salvation. I your line of think here Eve was not temped she was merely carrying out what she had already decided. Judas did not come to betray Christ he had already decided to before he was born.

Talk about your predestination. Now I have to not only work to follow God and Christ commandments, but pray that I choose to do so before I was born. Is there some way I can know what decisions I made prior to birth so I don’t have to worry about it any more?

 

[Tracy10]

It’s my feeling that it was essential for God to teach Adam and Eve what would happen if they decided to let their own decisions overrule his. How could he have taught them better than by permitting them to experience the results of convincing themselves that their decisions were better than his?

The way I see it, there was no possible way mankind could’ve progressed had he not been permitted to learn for himself, the results of arrogance. God was obviously aware that people generally learn best only after getting burnt by their own foolish decisions.

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.

 

[rmcmullan]

I know the story of the creation and fall of man is had by Judaism and Islam. But I just can’t see how you could interpret this story as anything but overwhelmingly Christian.

There were two trees: knowledge and life. When Man chose knowledge over life, the tree of life was guarded with a cherubim and flaming sword. There was no way past that without a Redeemer. I know this is a long quote, but here, from Alma 12, I present the argument:

Alma 12:23 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.
24 And we see that death comes upon mankind, yea, the death which has been spoken of by Amulek, which is the temporal death; nevertheless there was a space granted unto man in which he might repent; therefore this life became a probationary state; a time to prepare to meet God; a time to prepare for that endless state which has been spoken of by us, which is after the resurrection of the dead.
25 Now, if it had not been for the plan of redemption, which was laid from the foundation of the world, there could have been no resurrection of the dead; but there was a plan of redemption laid, which shall bring to pass the resurrection of the dead, of which has been spoken.
26 And now behold, if it were possible that our first parents could have gone forth and partaken of the tree of life they would have been forever miserable, having no preparatory state; and thus the plan of redemption would have been frustrated, and the word of God would have been void, taking none effect.
27 But behold, it was not so; but it was appointed unto men that they must die; and after death, they must come to judgment, even that same judgment of which we have spoken, which is the end.

There’s more: scriptures.lds.org/en/alma/12

 

[majick275]

the mormon POV requires the “test” to be administered twice, once in pre-existence and again on earth. it doesn’t make sense because in pre-existence everyone was on equal footing and got to choose for themselves with full knowledge. here on earth only Adam and eve got to choose, everyone had been brainwiped so no decision was fully informed and everyone is handicapped according to their “performance” in the pre-existence. THAT is unbiblical and doesn’t make sense.

eternal progression is outright blasphemy and a perfect example of satan’s original temptation.

The christian POv is that Satan is a creation who chose to rebel. adam and eve were creations who chose to disobey god. they knew this was wrong. (especially in the LDS story where Adam is absolutely determined to be obedient) God THEN placed them in a different place and provided them children who can now choose whether or not to worship God. if you don’t have the prior misconception that there is a vast multitude of “unfinished” people in heaven who have already fought a war in heaven then everyhting makes perfect sense in the christian doctrine.

 

[rmcmullan]

Majick, I believe you are responding to Why Me but just a point on something that has been brought up before:

When Satan tempted Eve, he said " Ye shall not surely die: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil."

Now there is some question regarding how much of what Satan said was true. I maintain that only the first part was a lie, the part about not surely dying. The rest is true. Take a look:

Genesis 3:22 And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

 

[PaulDupre]

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

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.

You said it says “they saw themselves as naked but they were not really naked”.

It does not say that. I suggest only that your memory was faulty on this point.

Paul

 

[Chris-WA]

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.

Actually no. Your conclusion does not logically follow. There is a big difference between God placing the tree of the knowledge of good and evil in the garden as a test (Catholic POV) versus God setting up Adam and Eve with two contradictory commandments (LDS POV). One is a reasonable test, the other is a trick. The tree as a test of obedience is a perfectly satisfactory explanation. The concept that God gave Adam and Eve two contradictory commandments is preposterous. Can you see the difference?

 

[majick275]

Majick, I believe you are responding to Why Me but just a point on something that has been brought up before:

When Satan tempted Eve, he said " Ye shall not surely die: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil."

Now there is some question regarding how much of what Satan said was true. I maintain that only the first part was a lie, the part about not surely dying. The rest is true. Take a look:

i can see how that would be a poular opinion amongst mormons. the temple ceremony goes into the greatest detail on this subject. I believe that what is presented there would foster this idea. i still disagree with it and think the temple version even greater evidence that the LDS version of the fall is incorrect

 

[Chris-WA]

the mormon POV requires the “test” to be administered twice, once in pre-existence and again on earth. it doesn’t make sense because in pre-existence everyone was on equal footing and got to choose for themselves with full knowledge. here on earth only Adam and eve got to choose, everyone had been brainwiped so no decision was fully informed and everyone is handicapped according to their “performance” in the pre-existence. THAT is unbiblical and doesn’t make sense.

That’s a very good point. In the Mormon paradigm, each of us has had to choose God twice, once in the pre-existence, after which are mind gets wiped, and then all over again here in mortality. Makes no sense whatsoever.

The Christian view makes much more sense. A third of the angels chose to go with Lucifer. The problem is that Mormons don’t know what angels are. They think angels are human spirits. They don’t know that angels are a completely different race of beings altogether. We are not angels, and angels are not us. But in Mormon theology, humans can come back as angels (Moroni for example). That is causing them great confusion.

 

[rmcmullan]

Actually no. Your conclusion does not logically follow. There is a big difference between God placing the tree of the knowledge of good and evil in the garden as a test (Catholic POV) versus God setting up Adam and Eve with two contradictory commandments (LDS POV). One is a reasonable test, the other is a trick. The tree as a test of obedience is a perfectly satisfactory explanation. The concept that God gave Adam and Eve two contradictory commandments is preposterous. Can you see the difference?

No, I sure can’t!

If you read the passage from Alma 12 you’ll see that the LDS POV is not that “it’s a trick!” It’s your personal POV of the LDS POV. At least that’s my POV.

I think the difference is what is being tested. You say it’s their obedience. I say it wasn’t a test–it was a choice and the test comes after they made their choice. There had to be a fall if they were to make that choice with their eyes wide open. In this life we choose who we will follow.

 

[rmcmullan]

i can see how that would be a poular opinion amongst mormons.

Opinion? Opinion?! OPINION???!?!

Look, did I quote Genesis 3:22 right or not?

And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

I am not suggesting that this proves the doctrine of eternal progression. My point was regarding how much of Satan’s temptation of Eve was true.

 

[majick275]

well it depends on how you interpret AS one of us. obviously Adam and eve didn’t become “divine” at that moment. so we have to focus on the knowledge. there was already some knowledge of right vs. wrong or Adam would not have been so resistant to satan. so that brings us to meaning of knowledge in this usage. the LDS view is that it wasn’t a large store of knowledge as evidenced by the need for messengers to come and teach them quite a bit. The “eyes opened” in LDS teaching appears more of “discernment” ability as Eve recognizes Satan for what he is…of course she then goes and manipulates Adam into disobedience by presenting a double bind that is only possible in an LDS setting. what the bible teaches us is that what they did was wrong and they were then punished with exile. the knowledge that the bible teaches they gained falls far short of the knowledge that God possesses so the “as one of us” is obviously a figure of speech to communicate a concept rather than a sterile statement of fact. they could have stayed in the garden and lived a cushy life forever eating from the tree in a state somewhat reminiscent of God in heaven. but because they disobeyed God punished them. he did this to make man into what he desired him to be.

 

[Pug]

I thought you were a serious debater; that is why I have readily replied to your posts. I wouldn’t waste my time otherwise.

zerinus,

I apologize. The fault is mine for rashly posting about the current state of my struggle to understand those two chapters of genesis on the non-Cath board, instead of elsewhere, while at the same time trying to figure out the LDS POV. I do wish to understand the LDS point of view, if I am able. I was not yanking your chain, and I have actively perused your replies. Do be aware, though, that increasing my knowledge (and that of others) is more important to me than formal debating. That is my nature.

When you conceded that Adam had “some agency” in the garden, I presume you must mean he had *no *agency, just only he had one of the two prerequisites of agency, which amounts to nothing, other than the ability to pick between two morally indifferent choices, like warm or cold. Thus, even once he acquired agency and could feel guilt, he could not feel true guilt for any choices concerning the tree and previously.

From whence arose his desire to hide before God, then, if he was already clothed with leafy garments? He was not physically naked in front of God. So what kind of naked was he?

 

[zerinus]

From whence arose his desire to hide before God, then, if he was already clothed with leafy garments? He was not physically naked in front of God. So what kind of naked was he?

They were not fully clothed. The fig leaf was just an “apron” (Genesis 3:7). It only covered their most vital parts. It was not a full covering. They were embarrassed to appear before God without being fully clothed. And by the way, the Genesis account tends to support the LDS view of the corporeality of God. If God was a “pure spirit, without body, parts, or passions,” how could they “hear the voice of God walking in the Garden;” and how could they become embarrassed to appear before Him, so that they preferred to hide themselves among the trees of the Garden?

Genesis 3:

7 And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.

8 And they heard the voice of the Lord God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the Lord God amongst the trees of the garden.

9 And the Lord God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou?

10 And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself.

zerinus

 

[AMDGtoo]

And by the way, the Genesis account tends to support the LDS view of the corporeality of God.

No. IMO, what it does show is that the LDS do not understand theophany and that they try to make more of what is.

 

[mangy_dog]

The Fall according to Mormonism???

It might as well say “Racial equality according to Hitler”

 

[Tracy10]

Here’s a really interesting quote from an OLD Catholic bible I have, published with the approbation of His Eminence Samuel Cardinal Stritch, Archbishop of Chicago, June 4, 1953:

GENESIS 3:7 - And the eyes of both of them were opened: and when they “P-E-R-C-E-I-V-E-D” themselves to be naked, they sewed together fig leaves and made themselves aprons.

Compare the King James Version: And the eyes of them both were opened, and they **K-N-E-W ** that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.

It’s interesting looking at the changes from bible to bible isn’t it. Both have such markedly different meanings.

 

[Pug]

GENESIS 3:7 - And the eyes of both of them were opened: and when they “P-E-R-C-E-I-V-E-D” themselves to be naked, they sewed together fig leaves and made themselves aprons.

Compare the King James Version: And the eyes of them both were opened, and they **K-N-E-W ** that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.

It’s interesting looking at the changes from bible to bible isn’t it. Both have such markedly different meanings.

It might relate to the underlying Hebrew word yada, though maybe it is a Latin thing, I’m not sure. It has a variety of uses. For example, when Adam “knew” he was naked, that is the same root as when Adam “knew” Eve (sexual relations). It is also the same root for when the LORD God applies “knowing” good and evil to Adam and Eve. It is also used about some type of knowledge of God and about being a person who doesn’t do anything good. The two appearances of “know” below are from yada (the other words there are not, afaik):

Jeremiah 4:22 “For My people are foolish, They know Me not; They are stupid children And have no understanding. They are shrewd to do evil, But to do good they do not know.”