Vort

Not off the top of my head, but it's a common and obvious interpretation, predating Christianity itself by a long way. The idea seemed to get fixed into the Christian mind by Augustine, the greatest and most influential of the old Catholic scholars. If the Church's leadership had not explicitly taught that the forbidden fruit wasn't sex, I would certainly assume that that's exactly what it was. It's overwhelmingly obvious in all the symbolism used. I think it's almost unmistakable. For example: It's the forbidden FRUIT—the REPRODUCTIVE part of the plant. (As is the tree of life, because it allowed eternal life, as if one's own life reproduces itself.) It's the tree of KNOWLEDGE of good and evil, and as we realize, "know" is a common Hebrew metaphor for sex, as in "Adam knew his wife". Adam and Eve were naked but not ashamed—why? Because being innocent, they didn't realize the sexual significance of being naked in each other's presence. Why else would "shame" enter into the question at all? When they partook of the fruit, their curse was that they would die—which of course is the natural end of life. When Adam and Eve disobeyed the Lord and partook of the forbidden fruit, their response was to shamefully cover up—THEIR REPRODUCTIVE PARTS. What sense does that make, unless the forbidden fruit were somehow connected with their private parts? God's so-called curse on Eve was—that she would BEAR CHILDREN in sorrow. What was God's response to the transgression? "And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil". (Genesis 3:22) And what is God's distinguishing feature above all other things? That he creates. That he is fruitful. The very first verse in all of scripture refers to God's creative powers. What the heck does that, any of it, have to do with a natural consequence of partaking of the forbidden fruit? Nothing, as far as I can see, unless we equate the forbidden fruit with sex. The conditions and consequences of sex are intimately (npi) and inextricably would up with the consumption of the forbidden fruit. I accept prophetic teaching that the forbidden fruit was not sex, at least not per se. But the connection between the forbidden fruit, the fall of man, the state of holy matrimony between man and woman, and the absolute centrality of sex in those topics cannot be ignored or glossed over. IMO.

The short answer: We don't know. The slightly longer answer: Our prophets and apostles have taught us that Adam and Eve were unable to conceive and produce children while in the garden of Eden, though we do not know the reason why this was so. There has long been a belief in Christianity that "the forbidden fruit" was a euphemism for sex. Our leaders have explicitly taught us that this is not the case; whatever the forbidden fruit was, it wasn't sexual experience. Adam and Eve were married by God, so sex could not have been forbidden.

Indeed. Moses 6:53-63 is an excellent, if brief, description of the purposes of God and the duties of man in the plan of salvation. Note that the passage begins with God announcing (or proclaiming, or perhaps simply stating as a foundational fact) that God had forgiven Adam (and, we may safely presume, Eve) for their actions. That is, Adam was indeed clean before God. Note that this is before (albeit immediately before) Adam's baptism.

I used to think that, too. Why Gale and Jim want to participate here, and why they're allowed to remain, both escape me.

Um...no.

Here I am, a hundred and seventeen years later, still clicking that link. I'm thinking that's gotta be the all-time most clicked-on link in Youtube history.

I realize some on this forum will agree with James. So be it. https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/14/us/lebron-james-nba-china-intl-hnk-scli/index.html

The story goes that Thomas Moore, the famous 19th-century Irish poet and composer, married a beautiful woman named Elizabeth who contracted smallpox. She survived the dread disease, but as was common with smallpox survivors, was left badly scarred. She subsequently locked herself in her room, refusing to come out for shame of her face being so disfigured. Thomas then wrote this poem to reassure her. I hope the story is true; it's a nice story, in any case. This is one of a few poems I have actually bothered to commit to memory. Believe me, if all those endearing young charms Which I gaze on so fondly today Were to change by tomorrow and fleet in mine arms, Like fairy gifts fading away, Thou wouldst still be ador'd as this moment thou art, Let thy loveliness fade as it will; And around the dear ruin, each wish of my heart Would entwine itself verdantly still. It is not while beauty and youth are thine own And thy cheeks unprofan'd by a tear That the fervor and faith of a soul can be known To which time will but make thee more dear. No, the heart that has truly lov'd never forgets, But as truly loves on to the close As the sunflower turns on her god, when he sets, The same look which she turned when he rose. (For those my age or older, this might seem familiar if you hear the tune the song has traditionally been set to. Think Saturday morning cartoons.)

For me, that happened with President Hinckley, the last surviving apostle ordained before my birth. President Monson was ordained for the October General Conference after I was born. BUT—there's a huge gap between President Monson, ordained an apostle in 1963, and Elder Nelson, ordained in 1985(!). More than a two-decade jump there. The moment is not far distant when there will be no more living apostles ordained in the 20th century. Ponder a bit on that reality. Tempus fugit.

As I said before, I understand the frustration individuals feel when confronted with unaddressed crimes that get swept away by executive privilege of some sort, such as diplomatic immunity. This particular case seems to rankle exactly because it's an American involved, and Americans are perceived as being overly privileged. A woman accidentally drives on the wrong side of the road, and as a result accidentally kills a young man. Sure, I get the anger. If it were my son who was killed, I would be howling for heads to roll (assuming I could do anything other than curl up and weep). But from an international relations standpoint, I don't get it. If the woman were drunk, I would get it. If she were driving recklessly, I would get it. But she kept to the right, as she has been taught her whole life to do, in a country where people keep to the left. This is a tragedy, for sure. it may be criminal, in a definitional sense. But this is not a bad actor looking to get away with murder. This is a woman who drove on the right instead of on the left, and as a result accidentally killed a young man. I'm not justifying Sacoolas' actions or exculpating her from any responsibility. I'm wondering why this particular tragedy deserves such focus. Forcible rape? Armed robbery? Extortion? Killing someone by driving drunk? In all such cases, I could see petitioning for withdrawal of executive privilege such as diplomatic immunity. But why would people want to expend their ammo on this case? A woman accidentally drove on the wrong side of the road and, with no malice or evil intent, killed someone by her accidental but technically illegal action. Is this a hill worth dying on? I'm genuinely baffled by the intensity of emotion here.

https://www.foxnews.com/media/full-text-nbc-news-president-noah-oppenheims-email-memo-to-staff-regarding-ronan-farrows-catch-and-kill And for the record, I was joking about "lovely Schadenfreude", which I actually think is one of the baser and more disgusting of unChristlike human proclivities. But to see the monster that the media has created turn on its own creators—suffice it to say that Mary Shelley would be proud.

https://www.foxnews.com/world/american-israeli-woman-sentenced-russia-prison-cannabis She "accidentally" smuggled pot into Russia, and now she'll spend the next 7+ years in jail. All for an honest mistake. Coulda happened to anyone. The poor dear. Forgive me if the waterworks just aren't flowing today.

I guess I missed it. GaleG continues to be a member of this forum—why?

I would be very careful about doing this. Which is to say, bluntly, I would not do this. If I felt the need to say such things to my wife, I would be very strictly honest about my shortcomings. I would not exaggerate them in any way to try to "prove" my sincerity—nor would I seek to minimize my wrongs. I certainly would not say "I have been an awful husband" or "I'm not meeting any of your needs". Such grandiose, hyper-self-critical statements don't work anywhere but Hollywood. I have no real input for the OP. Just be honest and try much harder. Just my 2¢, probably worth no more than that.

Ah...wouldn't that be wonderful?