From all which it may be summarized that the purposes of God in the creation of man and angels, according to Catholic theology, is—
First, that God might communicate himself to them; Second, that they might be partakers of his glory.
Third, that he created them for himself, and all things else for them.
While this may be in part the truth, and so far excellent, it has no higher warrant of authority than human deduction, based on conjecture, not scripture; and it certainly falls far short of giving to man—as we shall see—that "pride of place" in existence to which his higher nature and his dignity as a son of God entitles him.
If in these creeds of the greater divisions of Christendom there is found no clear and adequate explanation of the reason of Adam's fall, or the purpose of man's existence, it may be taken for granted that none of the minor divisions of Christendom have succeeded where these have failed, since these larger divisions of Christendom embody in their creeds the hived theological wisdom and the highest scholarship of the Christian ages.
The originality of these two Book of Mormon Doctrines established, let us now consider if they are true and of what value they are, and what effect they will probably have upon the ideas of men. I shall treat them separately first, and in relation afterwards.
"Adam fell that men might be."
I think it cannot be doubted when the whole story of man's fall is taken into account that in some way—however hidden it may be under allegory—his fall was closely associated with the propagation of the race. Before the fall we are told that Adam and Eve were in a state of innocence;[[8]] but after the fall "The eyes of them both were opened and they knew that they were naked, and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves aprons,"[[9]] and also hid from the presence of the Lord.
In an incidental way Paul gives us to understand that Adam in the matter of the first transgression "was not deceived," but that the woman was.[[10]] It therefore follows that Adam must have sinned knowingly, and perhaps deliberately; making choice of obedience between two laws pressing upon him. With his spouse, Eve, he had received a commandment from God to be fruitful, to perpetuate his race in the earth. He had also been told not to partake of a certain fruit of the Garden of Eden; but according to the story of Genesis, as also according to the assertion of Paul, Eve, who with Adam received the commandment to multiply in the earth, was deceived, and by the persuasion of Lucifer induced to partake of the forbidden fruit. She, therefore, was in transgression, and subject to the penalty of that law which from the scriptures we learn included banishment from Eden, banishment from the presence of God, and also the death of the body. This meant, if Eve were permitted to stand alone in her transgression, that she must be alone also in suffering the penalty. In that event she would have been separated from Adam, which necessarily would have prevented obedience to the commandment given to them conjointly to multiply in the earth. In the presence of this situation, therefore, it is to be believed that Adam was not deceived, either by the cunning of Lucifer or the blandishments of the woman, deliberately, and with a full knowledge of his act and its consequences, and in order to carry out the purpose of God in the existence of man in the earth, shared alike the woman's transgression and its effects, and this in order that the first great commandment he had received from God, viz.—"Be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth, and subdue it"—might not fail of fulfillment. Hence "Adam fell that man might be."
The effect of this doctrine upon the ideas of men concerning the great Patriarch of our race will be revolutionary. It seems to be the fashion of those who assume to teach the Christian religion to denounce Adam in unmeasured terms; as if the fall of man had surprised, if, indeed, it did altogether thwart, the original plan of God respecting the existence of man in the earth. The creeds of the churches generally fail to consider the "fall" as part of God's purpose regarding this world, and, in its way, as essential to the accomplishment of that purpose as the "redemption" through Jesus Christ. Certainly there would have been no occasion for the "redemption" had there been no "fall;" and hence no occasion for the display of all that wealth of grace and mercy and justice and love—all that richness of experience involved in the gospel of Jesus Christ, had there been no "fall." It cannot be but that it was part of God's purpose to display these qualities in their true relation, for the benefit and blessing and experience and enlargement and ultimate uplifting of man; and since there would have been no occasion for displaying them but for the "fall," it logically follows that the "fall," no less than the "redemption," must have been part of God's original plan respecting the earth-probation of man. The "fall," undoubtedly was a fact as much present to the fore-knowledge of God as was the "redemption;" and the act which encompassed it must be regarded as more praise-worthy than blame-worthy, since it was essential to the accomplishment of the divine purpose. Yet, as I say, those who assume to teach Christianity roundly denounce Adam for his transgression. An accepted teacher of Catholic doctrine says: