Redemption of Zion and the Fall of Adam

The upper-crust forum for scholarly, polite, and respectful discussions only. Heavily moderated. Rated G.
Post Reply
LoveIsTruth
Nursery
Posts: 8
Joined: Mon Feb 03, 2020 8:28 pm

Redemption of Zion and the Fall of Adam

Post by LoveIsTruth »

Redemption of Zion and the Fall of Adam

Apology first:

I have been a member of the Church for almost 30 years. I love the Church. I know it is the only true and living church of God in this world.

Despite of all the errors and shortcomings of its members and leaders, it is the only church in possession of the keys of the priesthood of God in this world.

And God will hold men responsible to the respect and deference they show to the keys He has entrusted in this church.

And if we are merciful to our priesthood leaders, God will be merciful to us, and God knows, I need all the mercy I can get!

I know that the prophets and apostles called to lead this church are good men who are doing their best at the time. And if they error, these are honest mistakes, and God will be merciful to all those who seek to do His will with all their hearts.

Now having said this, let’s come back to the reason I am writing this post, because I love the Church and want Zion “in her beauty rise.”

Here we go:

The Point:

Zion has not been redeemed yet. It’s been almost 200 years since the founding of the Church. Redemption of Zion was spoken of multiple times by the Lord, yet for almost two centuries it eluded the Church.


What is redemption of Zion?

It is building of the New Jerusalem. In that city Christ will reign personally and the curse of Adam will be lifted. So in a very real way, Millennium starts in that city with Terrestrial state restored in that city, while the rest of the world is still in a Telestial, fallen state.

Then the City begins to grow until it fills North and South America, at which time the Second Coming happens, and then the Terrestrial/Millennial state covers the whole earth.

So Zion has not been redeemed yet. There is no New Jerusalem yet, even though the Lord offered it to the church almost 200 years ago, but the church failed to receive the blessing.

Why?

Because the Church is stubborn, closed minded, and is willing to believe incorrect opinions of its prophets more than words of God and Reason.

Are you pitting the church against its prophets? Are you insane?

No, I am pitting the words of God, correctly delivered through the prophets, against the incorrect opinions of the prophets (which opinions the prophets themselves readily admit could be wrong).

Give me an example of such incorrect opinion.

Ok.

The fall of Adam.

What about it?

Well, we are taught in the church that a heroic Adam and wise Eve did exactly what they were supposed to do in the garden of Eden, and there was no better way for them but to transgress.

This is a doctrine of the devil, because the devil was literally the first one who taught it in the garden, and our church leaders unwittingly repeat this lie to this day!

Zion CANNOT be redeemed and restored to a Terrestrial state while believing the very lie that caused the fall in the first place!

Why do you say it’s a lie? Do not scriptures teach the same?

They do not.

Let’s look at 2 Nephi 2
22 And now, behold, if Adam had not transgressed he would not have fallen, but he would have remained in the garden of Eden. And all things which were created must have remained in the same state in which they were after they were created; and they must have remained forever, and had no end.
23 And they would have had no children; wherefore they would have remained in a state of innocence, having no joy, for they knew no misery; doing no good, for they knew no sin.
24 But behold, all things have been done in the wisdom of him who knoweth all things.
25 Adam fell that men might be; and men are, that they might have joy.
Does this not say that there was no way for Adam to keep the first commandment to multiply without transgressing the second commandment not to partake?

No it does not.

First of all, I bring your attention to the fact that it says “they WOULD have had no children.” It does not say “they COULD have had no children.”

What’s the difference?

Because they COULD have, but WOULD not.

And why wouldn’t they?

Because they were disobedient and foolish.

So, far from Adam being heroic in the garden, and Eve being wise, they were both foolish and disobedient (not in general, but in that thing). I am sure they became heroic and wise afterwards, but not in the transgression. There is nothing heroic, ever, in transgressing the commandments of God!

But the prophets in the church say they were wise and heroic. Do you go against the prophets?

The scriptures and God never said Adam was heroic and Eve was wise in the garden. It is an opinion of the prophets, probably as far back as Joseph Smith. But it is an incorrect opinion, because it directly contradicts the words of God Himself, and makes Him a self-contradictory God that gives self-contradictory commandments that His children supposedly cannot do, even though the word of God says:
1 Nephi 3:7
… the Lord giveth no commandments unto the children of men, save he shall prepare a way for them that they may accomplish the thing which he commandeth them.
Transgressing commandments is NOT accomplishing them.

Therefore it necessarily means that there WAS a better way for Adam and Eve in the garden to multiply and replenish the earth, that did not require any transgression at all.

What way would that be? Did not Eve say:

Moses 5:11
... Were it not for our transgression we never should have had seed, and never should have known good and evil, and the joy of our redemption, and the eternal life which God giveth unto all the obedient.
Yes she did. But in the light of the words of God it does not mean what you think it means.

Taken in context with the other words of God spoken elsewhere it means:
“We were so foolish and disobedient, that were it not for our transgression, (which forced us to learn obedience through a punishment of a curse), we should never have had seed, and never should have known good and evil, and the joy of our redemption, and the eternal life which God giveth unto all the obedient. For there verily was a better way for us in the Garden, were we willing to listen to the Father more than to the devil.”
Notice again, she says “never SHOULD have had seed,” not “never COULD have had seed.”

What’s the difference?

One is a lie, and there other is not, because they indeed COULD have had, had they listened to the Father.

One means physical impossibility, the other means choice.

Adam and Eve made the WRONG choice in the garden, or God is a liar and a self-contradictory God, which is no God at all!

Either there was a better way for Adam and Eve to keep all the commandments of God in the garden, or there was no fall.

Otherwise, what is it that they fell from, if there was no better way?


But the devil said “There is no other way.”

Yes he did. Does it not give you a pause? When the father of all lies speaks, you should not take it to be a gospel truth! It is a lie.

Well, says you, the devil sprinkles a little bit of truth here and there to sell you the lie.

“Is there no other way?” was not a little question. It was THE main question of the whole Eden experience. If the devil answered truthfully to this, the most important question, he would not be the devil.

Therefore he lied.

There was another way.


Ok, so you say there was a better way. What was it?

Why, to keep the commandments of the Father of course, and to resist the temptation of the devil!

But their eyes were not opened then. They didn’t even know they were naked, for crying out-loud, how can you expect them to multiply and replenish the earth in such a state? They were like little children and forever would remain such unless they were exposed to opposition/temptation.

That is true. And opposition/temptation was presented to them, as God said. But what most in the church miss, is that:

Even though it was necessary for Adam to be tempted to open his eyes to know good and evil, it was NOT necessary for him to yield to the temptation.

Resisting temptations opens eyes better than yielding to them.

This is why it was called "the tree of knowledge of good and evil," because whether they yielded to the temptation to partake of it, or resisted it, their eyes would have been opened; because it is the exposure to temptation/opposition that opens eyes, and not fruits and trees. Their duty was to resist the temptation sufficiently, which would have opened their eyes without transgression.

This is how Jesus got His eyes opened to know good and evil, by resisting temptations, instead of yielding to them.


But the devil said: “This is how the Father gained his knowledge.”

That is a lie.

Here is proof: Here is how God gained His knowledge: Jesus was born with the same veil over His mind that Adam and Eve had. He did not know good from evil when he was born:
Isaiah. 7:14
14 … Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
15 Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good.
16 For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings.
Jesus got His eyes opened to know good from evil by resisting all temptations:
D&C 20:22
22 He suffered temptations but gave no heed unto them.
Therefore He knew good and evil better than anyone who ever lived on this earth, without committing any transgression!


The better way: Plan A.

If Adam and Eve resisted the temptation of the devil to partake of the forbidden fruit, their eyes would have began to be opened sufficiently to multiply and to have children, which obedience to the first commandment, would have opened their eyes completely.

Thus if Adam and Eve resisted the temptation in the garden, they COULD have had their eyes opened without any transgression, and could have had children without any fall, precisely as the Father commanded them, in which case the world would have continued in a Terrestrial/paradisaical glory, the same state that will prevail on the earth, but now only in the Millennium.

Thus the plan of God was much more magnificent and generous than what we are taught in the church.

There was a MUCH better way!

And if there was no Plan A, no better way, then there was no fall, or what is it that they fell from?

Wait a minute! But the scriptures say if there were no fall there would be no Savior, and without a Savior all of the creation would have been lost. Therefore Adam had to fall, or all of creation would have been lost!

Not really.

Yes you have to have the Savior. Anyone in ANY world, celestial, terrestrial, or telestial, who makes even one mistake cannot be saved on his own merit, and therefore needs a Savior. That is true.

But it is never man’s duty to transgress God’s commandments. In fact it is his solemn duty not to.

Jesus said it best:
Luke 17:1
Then said he unto the disciples, It is impossible but that offences will come: but woe unto him, through whom they come!
Did you get this? It is impossible, but some world somewhere will fall, but WOE to that world that falls.

It is not honorable or heroic or wise. It is WOE.

It was not heroic, honorable nor wise that Adam and Eve fell. It was wrong, because there was a much better way to open their eyes.

Just to drive this point home a little bit further, let’s take Lehi’s words and apply them to Lucifer.
22 And now, behold, if [Lucifer] had not transgressed he would not have fallen, but he would have remained in [heaven]. And all things which were created must have remained in the same state in which they were after they were created; and they must have remained forever, and had no end.
23 And they [Adam and Eve] would have had no children; wherefore they would have remained in a state of innocence, having no joy, for they knew no misery; doing no good, for they knew no sin.
24 But behold, all things have been done in the wisdom of him who knoweth all things.
25 [Lucifer] fell that men might be; and men are, that they might have joy.
According to Lehi’s logic, this statement is obviously true: If Lucifer did not rebel, he would not have fallen, and would not have become the devil, and without the opposition, Adam’s eyes would never have been opened, and therefore he would never have children.

It is all true.

But it does NOT mean that there was no better way for Lucifer but to rebel. No one in their right mind will argue that Lucifer did the right thing. If he did, why was he cursed for it? If he did the right thing, he should have been blessed instead of cursed!

This is how proponents of “there was no better way” lie go off the rails.

The fundamental truth in any analysis is this:

    That which is according to the commandments of God is good, and
    That which is contrary to the commandments of God is evil.

Adam and Eve went contrary to the commandments of God, therefore it was not good, nor honorable, nor brave, nor wise. It was disobedient and foolish.

If Lucifer did not fall, someone else would have, and would have been cursed for it.

If Adam did not fall, someone else would have fallen on some other world, and would have been cursed for it, and the Savior would have been born there.

It is ALWAYS wrong to transgress the commandments of God. There are no exceptions to this rule.

None.

But the scripture says:
Moses 3:17
17 ... thou mayest choose for thyself, for it is given unto thee; but, remember that I forbid it, for in the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
Does it not then mean, that Adam’s case was special, and that God wanted him to fall?

No it does not. What God said to Adam in the garden was no different than what He says to us today:
2 Nephi 10:23
23 ... remember that ye are free to act for yourselves—to choose the way of everlasting death or the way of eternal life.
How much more free can you possibly get?

This is exactly the same choice that was given to Adam in the garden, and he chose wrong. Why? Because there was a better way, that God commanded.


But the fall was necessary, some will say!

No it wasn’t.

If the fall was necessary, then the atonement was unnecessary.

Think about it: If the fall was necessary, then Adam had done what he was supposed to do, and therefore he fulfilled his duty, and therefore he had done nothing wrong, and therefore there is no need for an atonement!

Those who say that the fall was necessary, unwittingly make the atonement of Christ unnecessary.

This is the true definition of necessary:

Necessary means:
    a) God commanded it, and
    b) It is your duty to do it, and
    c) You will be cursed if you do not do it, and
    d) You will be blessed if you do it.

That’s what “necessary” means to God, and only a devil would disagree with that.

By this definition, the fall of Adam was UNNECESSARY. Just like every sin and transgression is unnecessary by definition, or they are not sins and transgressions.


But was it not a part of God’s plan that Adam should fall?

And does it not then make it necessary?

Ah! This is the subtlety that Satan exploits. The definition of “necessary.” We spoke of it before.

Necessary, to God, means duty. It was necessary that Adam should be cast out of the garden, BECAUSE he transgressed. But it was unnecessary FOR Adam to transgress.

So the key here: who you apply the word “necessary” to?

The correct application is that of “duty.” If you cannot say it was someone's duty to do something, then you cannot justly say it was necessary FOR THEM.

The outcome of the punishment was necessary, but the transgression that caused the punishment was unnecessary.

Furthermore, if something is a part of the plan, it does not mean it is your duty to transgress.

Hell is also a part of God’s plan, but it is not recommended. In fact, it is forbidden. People get there AGAINST God’s advice and instructions.

So also the fall was accounted for in God’s plan, but just like hell, it was forbidden. Adam and Eve got there against the Father’s advice and instructions, and were cursed for it.

So the punishment was NECESSARY, but the transgression that brought the punishment was UNNECESSARY by definition, or it was not a transgression.


But don’t all sin?

Not all.

Well, all make mistakes?

Not all.

And even though most make mistakes, it does not mean there is no better way. Otherwise they are not mistakes, and God is a liar because He expressly forbade people to transgress and to sin.

And why did He forbid them transgressions and sins?

Because there is a better way, or God is not God.


So what would conditions on the earth be like if Adam did not fall?

First of all, if he did not fall but Eve did, Adam would not have been left alone in the garden, as Satan lied through Eve, but Adam would have been given another wife, who would have listened to the Father more than the devil in the garden. (Thus it was not Adam’s duty to follow his fallen wife and the devil. It was Adam’s duty to resist the temptation, even though it was greater because he had to choose between his wife and God. Unfortunately he chose wrong. Another example of what not to do.)

Secondly, if Adam resisted the temptation sufficiently, his eyes would have been opened without transgression, and he would have had posterity without a fall, precisely as the Father commanded him.

Therefore, the world would have began in a Terrestrial/paradisaical state, which is the same state that will exist on the earth, but now only in the Millennium, when billions of children will be born and live out their lives without ever knowing a fallen, telestial, lone and dreary world.


But how then will they get the opposition and the experience necessary to be exalted?

Do you doubt that they in the Millennium will be exalted?
D&C 45:58
And the earth shall be given unto them for an inheritance; and they shall multiply and wax strong, and their children shall grow up without sin unto salvation.

D&C 101:
28 And in that day Satan shall not have power to tempt any man.
29 And there shall be no sorrow because there is no death.
To be sure, Satan will still try to tempt them, but he will not be successful.

Opposition exists in any kingdom, celestial, terrestrial, or telestial. The only difference is how people deal with it.

No one suffered more than Heavenly Father and His Son. No one suffered more intensely than they. Yet they did not fall to get that suffering.

The righteous suffer because of the transgressions of others, and the wicked suffer because of their own transgressions.

But all must suffer, or they cannot know the fullness of joy, which is the purpose of life.


Ok, but by saying all these things about Adam, do you not sow discontent, and humiliate a great man?

No. Either make God true, or Adam in the garden, but not both.

They are mutually exclusive. In the words of Paul:
Romans 3:4
God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar;
Besides, Adam’s is the great redemption story. Though he caused the fall, he will be the man to announce earth's return to paradisaical glory:
D&C 88:110
... the seventh angel shall sound his trump; and he shall stand forth upon the land and upon the sea, and swear in the name of him who sitteth upon the throne, that there shall be time no longer; and Satan shall be bound, that old serpent, who is called the devil, and shall not be loosed for the space of a thousand years.
Adam is Michael, the seventh angel. He will appear in Adam-ondi-Ahman long before the events described in verse 110, and declare to stubborn Zion, that he, Adam, made a mistake in the garden of Eden, and that there indeed was a better way for him and his posterity, had he listened to the Father more than to the devil. Then the New Jerusalem will shortly begin to be built, for then the church will be disabused from the very lie that caused the fall of the world in the first place!

He who has ears to hear, let him hear.


But didn’t the devil say that this has been done in other worlds? Does it not mean that all worlds follow the same fallen course?

No!

Think about it:

The devil while speaking to God says: “If thou cursest me for doing the same thing that has been done in other worlds...”

Wait a minute! If the devil was cursed in millions of other worlds (and we are taught that there were millions of worlds before this one), for doing the same thing, then why is he surprised that he is cursed now?

Was he not cursed millions of times before under the same circumstances?

No, he wasn’t!

The other world’s did not fall. He tempted them, their Adams and Eves, but those other worlds rejected his temptation.

That’s why though he tempted them just as he has done here, he was not cursed before, because his temptation did not produce a fall, until this earth.

Otherwise he should have fully expected to be cursed if he was cursed for doing the same thing millions of times before!

This means that this earth was the first one that fell.

Millions of other worlds created by God before did not fall!

This is why the Savior was born here, because this was the most wicked world of all.


But is it fair, that we should be born in such a world?

Fear not, God compensates everything. The trial in this world is intense but short. In other less wicked worlds it takes much longer to be exalted, because there is less intense opposition.

Besides, even in this fallen world, many overcame it and gained a terrestrial state: Enoch and his city, Melchizedek and his city, John the Beloved, the three Nephites, and many, many others.

By the way, if Enoch or Melchizedek were in the garden of Eden instead of Adam, they would not have fallen. Does it mean they are greater than Adam? No. It means they were less volatile, or more steadfast in that point.

So everyone gets all the blessings they are willing to enjoy, as soon as they are ready to receive them.

Therefore, we are never waiting for God. He is always waiting for us.

Because He is ready, and we are not.

Besides, because of Christ, the curse of Adam is removed from little children. Therefore, everyone will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression.

Thus, all is fair in the end.


So the summary is:

    1) There was a better way for Adam and Eve in the garden, had they listened to the Father, or there was no fall, and God is not God.

    2) That better way was to listen to the Father and to resist the temptation.

    3) Which if they had done, their eyes would have been opened without transgression, and they would have had posterity without a fall, precisely as the Father commanded them.

    4) Which would have produced conditions on the earth similar to those which will prevail, but now only in the Millennium.

    5) All is just in the end. Christ compensates for the mistakes and transgressions of parents, if the children embrace the truth, instead of justifying and glorifying the transgressions of their parents.

    6) Zion cannot be redeemed, ie restored to a Terrestrial glory, while believing the very lies that caused the fall from that glory in the first place.

    7) Adam/Michael himself will tell the stubborn church (those who are left alive), that he did wrong in the garden of Eden, and that there indeed was a better way for him and his posterity, had he listened to the Father more than the devil.

    8) Then, shortly after, Zion will be redeemed, and the New Jerusalem built.

    9) The church is true, and God will not suffer Satan’s lies regarding the fall to continue in His church much longer.

He who has ears to hear, let him hear.
Last edited by LoveIsTruth on Fri Feb 07, 2020 10:11 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
huckelberry
God
Posts: 4434
Joined: Tue Dec 26, 2006 8:29 pm

Re: Redemption of Zion and the Fall of Adam

Post by huckelberry »

love is truth, I find your approach to the fall reasonable, more reasonable than the usual LDS statements. I am however exLDS and a believer in traditional Christianity. I find myself wondering how big a difference in peoples actions would be made with this. I have wondered if the necessary fall idea encourages accepting evil choices due to some shorter term practical desire. I think humans are quite resourceful in finding ways to do that no matter how they read the fall story.

LoveIsTruth
Nursery
Posts: 8
Joined: Mon Feb 03, 2020 8:28 pm

Re: Redemption of Zion and the Fall of Adam

Post by LoveIsTruth »

huckelberry wrote:love is truth, I find your approach to the fall reasonable, more reasonable than the usual LDS statements.
Thank you!
huckelberry wrote:I am however exLDS
Sorry to hear that, friend.
huckelberry wrote:and a believer in traditional Christianity.
Define traditional, please? Like what Jesus practiced?
huckelberry wrote:I find myself wondering how big a difference in peoples actions would be made with this.
I think the difference is pretty important: A God that gives self-contradictory commandments is not God at all.
huckelberry wrote:I have wondered if the necessary fall idea encourages accepting evil choices due to some shorter term practical desire.
I think you are right. It certainly, (though unwittingly in most cases), does.
huckelberry wrote:I think humans are quite resourceful in finding ways to do that no matter how they read the fall story.
That is also true.

User avatar
huckelberry
God
Posts: 4434
Joined: Tue Dec 26, 2006 8:29 pm

Re: Redemption of Zion and the Fall of Adam

Post by huckelberry »

LoveIsTruth wrote:Define traditional, please? Like what Jesus practiced?

I understand traditional as an ongoing thing which starts with Jesus teachings and actions and continues to this day among those who aim to fallow him. It has variety not all of which has been good. There are certainly things in tradition which have been or need to be trimmed away. There is not one single best understanding of all doctrinal questions or moral questions yet established. People are still learning . I hope Christianities strongest most inspiring days are ahead of us.

LoveIsTruth
Nursery
Posts: 8
Joined: Mon Feb 03, 2020 8:28 pm

Re: Redemption of Zion and the Fall of Adam

Post by LoveIsTruth »

huckelberry wrote:
LoveIsTruth wrote:Define traditional, please? Like what Jesus practiced?

I understand traditional as an ongoing thing which starts with Jesus teachings and actions and continues to this day among those who aim to fallow him. It has variety not all of which has been good. There are certainly things in tradition which have been or need to be trimmed away. There is not one single best understanding of all doctrinal questions or moral questions yet established. People are still learning . I hope Christianities strongest most inspiring days are ahead of us.
I agree, the best is yet to come.

What about Jesus? Do you think His understanding of doctrine is the single definitively correct one?

What I am basically saying, what about revelation? Can God speak for Himself?

What do you think?

Thanks.

User avatar
huckelberry
God
Posts: 4434
Joined: Tue Dec 26, 2006 8:29 pm

Re: Redemption of Zion and the Fall of Adam

Post by huckelberry »

LoveIsTruth wrote:I agree, the best is yet to come.

What about Jesus? Do you think His understanding of doctrine is the single definitively correct one?

What I am basically saying, what about revelation? Can God speak for Himself?

What do you think?

Thanks.

loveisTruth,
I do believe God reveals himself and what he asks of us. I believe Jesus revealed the center of what God wants us to know about God. God is concerned with the details of all of us. He loves us large and small, sinners and those trying to live well. He wants us to love each other and treat large and small in that way.

One thing I find striking about Jesus teaching is that he does not offer a lot of dogmatics he instead asks us to recognize Gods love for us and take seriously the demands to love one another and what it might mean to sacrifice for others.Jesus reveals God on the cross.

In Christian history there have been a variety of dogmatic problems. I do not think God has gone to a lot of trouble to reveal the best answers to these. I suspect from Gods view they may look to be distractions and human ego serving distractions at that.

I think the most important revelation from God is God calls us.

LoveIsTruth
Nursery
Posts: 8
Joined: Mon Feb 03, 2020 8:28 pm

Re: Redemption of Zion and the Fall of Adam

Post by LoveIsTruth »

huckelberry wrote:
LoveIsTruth wrote:I agree, the best is yet to come.

What about Jesus? Do you think His understanding of doctrine is the single definitively correct one?

What I am basically saying, what about revelation? Can God speak for Himself?

What do you think?

Thanks.

loveisTruth,
I do believe God reveals himself and what he asks of us. I believe Jesus revealed the center of what God wants us to know about God. God is concerned with the details of all of us. He loves us large and small, sinners and those trying to live well. He wants us to love each other and treat large and small in that way.

One thing I find striking about Jesus teaching is that he does not offer a lot of dogmatics he instead asks us to recognize Gods love for us and take seriously the demands to love one another and what it might mean to sacrifice for others.Jesus reveals God on the cross.

In Christian history there have been a variety of dogmatic problems. I do not think God has gone to a lot of trouble to reveal the best answers to these. I suspect from Gods view they may look to be distractions and human ego serving distractions at that.

I think the most important revelation from God is God calls us.

I like that!

LoveIsTruth
Nursery
Posts: 8
Joined: Mon Feb 03, 2020 8:28 pm

Re: Redemption of Zion and the Fall of Adam

Post by LoveIsTruth »

Added a new paragraph to the OP:

    This is why it was called "the tree of knowledge of good and evil," because whether they yielded to the temptation to partake of it, or resisted it, their eyes would have been opened; because it is the exposure to temptation/opposition that opens eyes, and not fruits and trees. Their duty was to resist the temptation sufficiently, which would have opened their eyes without transgression.

User avatar
huckelberry
God
Posts: 4434
Joined: Tue Dec 26, 2006 8:29 pm

Re: Redemption of Zion and the Fall of Adam

Post by huckelberry »

LoveIsTruth wrote:Added a new paragraph to the OP:

    This is why it was called "the tree of knowledge of good and evil," because whether they yielded to the temptation to partake of it, or resisted it, their eyes would have been opened; because it is the exposure to temptation/opposition that opens eyes, and not fruits and trees. Their duty was to resist the temptation sufficiently, which would have opened their eyes without transgression.

I think that is an interesting and clear way of stating the situation. I find I agree.

LoveIsTruth
Nursery
Posts: 8
Joined: Mon Feb 03, 2020 8:28 pm

Re: Redemption of Zion and the Fall of Adam

Post by LoveIsTruth »

huckelberry wrote:I think that is an interesting and clear way of stating the situation. I find I agree.
Thanks!

Post Reply