The Fall According to Mormonism

[PaulDupre]

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.

We only K-N-O-W that which we P-E-R-C-E-I-V-E.

 

[Rbt_Southwell]

We only K-N-O-W that which we P-E-R-C-E-I-V-E.

It seems our friend Tracy10 is a L-I-T-E-R-A-L-I-S-T.

For an “agnostic” that is not only P-R-O-B-L-E-M-A-T-I-C but I-R-O-N-I-C, too!

Robert

 

[Steven_John]

We only K-N-O-W that which we P-E-R-C-E-I-V-E.

That is real true but our perception can be different to what we know, for me the word perceive can offer uncertainty but the word know offers certainty.

Different translations can offer slightly different meanings to individual.

I perceive some posts to be not in charity but dont know it only God and the poster do.

We are blessed that God does because He is the judge.
Peace to all

 

[Pug]

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?

The first thing I notice here is that it is fine to be naked in the presence of the Holy Spirit, just not the Father (or the Son), since LDS say the Holy Spirit has no body, but the Father does. I’m assuming LDS think the Father sees you always, but that it is only the close proximity of his body that triggers the need for covering up thoroughly, both men and women, even though he is male. Why? And also, this need is only triggered once we have moral agency, but it is not required that we have sinned to trigger it.

Also, I have figured out more exactly something that bothers me. Why did God command Adam not to eat from that tree? With what I have read and recall discussing, all the requirements for the Plan would have been met without the command. Adam could have had chosen between sweet and bitter options, desired/been drawn toward/tempted to the bitter option, etc.

 

[Tracy10]

Tut tut. Are you Catholic? Feeling a little on the C-R-I-T-I-C-A-L side? You didn’t eat your wheaties today, did you.

It seems our friend Tracy10 is a L-I-T-E-R-A-L-I-S-T.

For an “agnostic” that is not only P-R-O-B-L-E-M-A-T-I-C but I-R-O-N-I-C, too!

Robert

 

[Steven_John]

It seems our friend Tracy10 is a L-I-T-E-R-A-L-I-S-T.

For an “agnostic” that is not only P-R-O-B-L-E-M-A-T-I-C but I-R-O-N-I-C, too!

Tut tut. Are you Catholic? Feeling a little on the C-R-I-T-I-C-A-L side? You didn’t eat your wheaties today, did you.

My God prefers we re frame from such attitude.

May peace and charity / love be between us all

 

[CHRISTINE77]

I found this here:

signaturebookslibrary.org/dialogues/chapter1.htm#joseph

In the Book of Mormon the prophet Lehi teaches that there is and must be an opposition in all things, paradox at the heart of existence as well as in all moral action. Otherwise, according to Lehi, not only would God’s intentions be destroyed but God himself would not exist—nor anything else. Lehi goes on to suggest that for this opposition to operate in bringing about God’s purpose—the exaltation, the “joy” that is also the purpose of man’s existence-it was necessary for Adam (that is, all mortals) to fall (II Nephi 2:11-26). The Book of Moses makes explicit this idea of a “fortunate Fall”—that it was a heroic decision by Adam and Eve, in accordance [p.4] with rather than in opposition to God’s plan, a means to enter into a moral universe of choice, where both mistakes and learning, both sin and redemption, are made possible, where, as Adam says, “because of my transgression my eyes are opened, and in this life I shall have joy, and again in the flesh I shall see God” (Moses 5:10-11). But still the Fall is real, tragic, bringing in its train evil, pain, appalling wickedness and sorrow and unanswered questions.

I thought this whole article was very interesting.

 

[zerinus]

I found this here:

signaturebookslibrary.org/dialogues/chapter1.htm#joseph

In the Book of Mormon the prophet Lehi teaches that there is and must be an opposition in all things, paradox at the heart of existence as well as in all moral action. Otherwise, according to Lehi, not only would God’s intentions be destroyed but God himself would not exist—nor anything else. Lehi goes on to suggest that for this opposition to operate in bringing about God’s purpose—the exaltation, the “joy” that is also the purpose of man’s existence-it was necessary for Adam (that is, all mortals) to fall (II Nephi 2:11-26). The Book of Moses makes explicit this idea of a “fortunate Fall”—that it was a heroic decision by Adam and Eve, in accordance [p.4] with rather than in opposition to God’s plan, a means to enter into a moral universe of choice, where both mistakes and learning, both sin and redemption, are made possible, where, as Adam says, “because of my transgression my eyes are opened, and in this life I shall have joy, and again in the flesh I shall see God” (Moses 5:10-11). But still the Fall is real, tragic, bringing in its train evil, pain, appalling wickedness and sorrow and unanswered questions.

I thought this whole article was very interesting.

We don’t see the Fall as a tragedy.

zerinus

 

[CHRISTINE77]

That excerpt doesn’t say the Fall was a tragedy. It says that without opposition of things like good and evil, there would be no need of God.

However, the rest of that article did say that Joseph Smith was a tragic hero, and in a way he was. Actually, I think it paints a portrait of him as a prophet and a hero and a man of God, not a charlatan and a quack like people are always accusing him of being.

Was that article anti-Mormon? It didn’t seem like it to me.

 

[zerinus]

That excerpt doesn’t say the Fall was a tragedy.

It seems to. This is from the above quote: “But still the Fall is real, tragic, bringing in its train evil, pain, appalling wickedness and sorrow and unanswered questions.”

It says that without opposition of things like good and evil, there would be no need of God.

However, the rest of that article did say that Joseph Smith was a tragic hero, and in a way he was. Actually, I think it paints a portrait of him as a prophet and a hero and a man of God, not a charlatan and a quack like people are always accusing him of being.

Was that article anti-Mormon? It didn’t seem like it to me.

I did not read all the article. It was longer than I had time for. But I don’t trust Signature as a reliable source for LDS doctrine

zerinus

 

[BDawg]

Was that article anti-Mormon? It didn’t seem like it to me.

Hi Christine,

Eugene England was the author, and I consider him a faithful (and very intelligent) Mormon. Maybe not completely mainstream, but not fringe, either. (He’s dead now, though.) Anyway, Signature Books is a mixed bag, but anything by England can probably be considered at least not too far off the track for Mormons.

Personally, I thought your excerpt was a pretty good summary of our view of the Fall.

 

[rmcmullan]

I found this here:

signaturebookslibrary.org/dialogues/chapter1.htm#joseph

In the Book of Mormon the prophet Lehi teaches that there is and must be an opposition in all things, paradox at the heart of existence as well as in all moral action…

I guess that’s one of the problems with CAF, most of the issues we discuss actually take a lot of background to get your thinking around and we can get caught in the details when the overall picture isn’t very well explained. So looking it up on the signaturebooks website is a good idea. Plus, it looks like it pointed you to all the pertinent LDS scriptures.

I was taught the Catholic version of the fall when I was a young 'un but I personally think it pales in comparison to the LDS presentation. Particularly how it ties into the Redemption and the need for a Savior. I know this comment won’t be appreciated by the good RC who post here, but I believe the LDS understanding to be the most Christian. And perhaps that’s just a point of emphasis but I believe the RC interpretation has been influenced by Jewish traditions that downplay the need for a Redeemer to reconcile man’s desire for knowledge with his desire to be with God.

 

[Lilyflower]

I am amazed that anyone in this day and age still believe in Adam and Eve as two individual people.

There are in fact two accounts of creation in Genesis so which one does LDS [and some of my fellow Catholics] believe?

Who came first Adam and Eve or the Dinosaurs?

Blessings and peace

 

[Pug]

I am amazed that anyone in this day and age still believe in Adam and Eve as two individual people.

There is nothing odd about a Catholic (or a LDS, most likely) believing that we are descended from one actual man, Adam. This is the standard Catholic position according to Church documents. As far as I know, we are not really free to think Adam was fictional.

1. When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains either that after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which through generation is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.

quoted from the encyclical Humani Generis, by Pope Pius XII.

 

[Lilyflower]

There is nothing odd about a Catholic (or a LDS, most likely) believing that we are descended from one actual man, Adam. This is the standard Catholic position according to Church documents. As far as I know, we are not really free to think Adam was fictional.

quoted from the encyclical Humani Generis, by Pope Pius XII.

Please show me where the Church teaches that Adam was a singularity?

I do not suggest that Adam was fictional. Christ spoke of Adam so that is enough proof he existed in some form or another.

Blessings and peace

 

[Pug]

Please show me where the Church teaches that Adam was a singularity?

I do not suggest that Adam was fictional. Christ spoke of Adam so that is enough proof he existed in some form or another.

Blessings and peace

I spoke poorly. I meant to refer to his concreteness as one person by that. I think you are saying that “Adam” did not have to be one man, but could have been a designation for a group of several? The quote I gave is meant to address the idea of monogenism and polygenism. We (children of the Church) are not free to believe in polygenism as I think it is often called. Adam cannot be taken to be representative of a number of first parents. Adam was not a group of men considered together as one.

There may be another document out there about it, but Humani Generis is the common one to quote for this.

Or, are you talking about some different type of understanding, and I’m not getting what you mean?

 

[Steven_John]

If it was not for Adam and Eve

we would not need washing machines and clothes lines

 

[Pug]

If it was not for Adam and Eve

we would not need washing machines and clothes lines

No wonder Eve was the first to eat the apple…it led to lots and lots of shopping for clothes. Adam only had to foot the bill when it was all over.

(I’m joking!)

 

[justinthemartyr]

I thought that the greatest apostacy to hit the church was the
16th century deformation.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

BDawg and rmcmullan,

Thanks for your feedback. I have been reading more of Eugene England’s writings and he seems very intelligent and sensitive.

I don’t want to immerse myself in anti-Mormon propaganda, but sometimes it’s hard to know what is and isn’t anti-Mormon (although I think I am getting more discerning). Anyway, it’s great to find authors like this, and it’s also great to get intelligent feedback from Mormons like you.

I think dialogue between Mormons and Catholics is important, not just to point out our differences, but also our commonality as Christians.