Seminarysnoozer

If we crucify Christ by our sins and takes them upon Him then by what sin do we die? He can't take them on and leave some of it for us at the same time. And, please answer specifically what sin did the baby that dies at one day old commit that deserves death? Why are you so immovable from the idea that in order for death to come it has to be done individually. Why can't death come to all from one man's act and life come to all through one man's act? Why is that an impossibility for you? By taking on carnality we "sin". In other words, by taking on death, a carnal corupted body we fall. We move downward and forward. Downward body, forward spiritually. Mortality is a step forward not backward. It is downward in that we are in a lower state, behind the veil, behind the carnal body but it is forward in our spiritual progression. Sin is a step backward spiritually. To say that all step backward spiritually by entering mortality is not correct. (at least in my opinion)

So, what sin did the infant who dies at one day old commit? And what sin did Christ commit?

When I read Romans 5 I hear over and over again, "by one man". By one man death came to everyone, by one man life came to everyone. What is so hard about that concept that you can't wrap your head around that? Adam opened the door for everyone to pass via his transgression, a transgression that we are not responsible for as in Article of Faith #2 "We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression." And we believe that Christ freely overcame that "sin" or that transgression that allowed death for all, one man overcame the issue that caused death for all just like one man caused the death to occur in the first place. That is not such a hard concept to understand any more than it is to understand that Christ can overcome death for everyone. Romans 5; "18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. 19 For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous." Reading that carefully, the offense that comes to all men is the same one that Christ freely reverses for all men. That offense is the physical death, not the spiritual death. I think you are here combining the two. Reread verses 18 and 19 with the idea that the "all" refers to physical death and the "many" refers to spiritual death. As fits with our gospel, we "all" overcome the physical death but only some will overcome the spiritual death. It is unfortunate choice of words that it says that sin has come to all men because really what that means is that everyone gets a carnal body, a sinful body. But we know that that particular death is overcome freely by Christ for all. So, whatever kind of thing that made all man "sinners" you think happened by the Fall, that very thing is freely overcome by Christ, that, then, can only be talking about the physical death, the physical death comes to all men. This is as opposed to the spiritual death which is by an individuals choice; see 2 Nephi below. When you click on the footnote for "sinners" it is refering to the natural man, to being carnal. Adam and Eve are the only ones who received a paradisiacal body first, unless you have some other insight or knowledge or reference, then it would be speculation that we all received a paradisiacal body before this fallen one. To Fall, Adam and Eve required a paradisiacal body. This is something I think you are leaving out of the picture. Just like Christ needed to be the Only Begotten in order to be our Savior (He had a different body from all of us). Unless we all had a paradisiacal body first we could not have fallen like Adam and Eve did - a paradisiacal body to a carnal body. The opportunity to have a carnal body intruduces all to sin (but that doesn't mean we automatically sin, just that it comes over us, we get a carnal body in other words, we can be in the world without being of the world). Because without a carnal body as opposed to a paradisiacal body we would exist in a paradisiacal state and never die. With the carnal body that everyone gets freely from the act of one man, sin passes over all of us, in this sense he is refering the the body we received a carnal sinful one which dies. 2 Nephi; "25 Adam fell that men might be; and men are, that they might have joy. 26 And the Messiah cometh in the fulness of time, that he may redeem the children of men from the fall. And because that they are redeemed from the fall they have become free forever, knowing good from evil; to act for themselves and not to be acted upon, save it be by the punishment of the law at the great and last day, according to the commandments which God hath given. 27 Wherefore, men are free according to the flesh; and all things are given them which are expedient unto man. And they are free to choose liberty and eternal life, through the great Mediator of all men, or to choose captivity and death, according to the captivity and power of the devil; for he seeketh that all men might be miserable like unto himself." We don't have to worry about the carnal death we all suffer because it is freely overcome by Christ and therefore is not a punishment but an opportunity. Therefore there is no transgression or sin that we have to commit to make that happen. The door was opened by Adam for all of us to move forward with the plan of becoming "sinners" - taking on a carnal body. You are going to have to face two huge hurdles in your line of speculation, that being we all were in the same situation as Adam and Eve. 1. We all were first created with a paradisiacal body. 2. We were all (everyone on Earth) in an Eternal marriage before coming here. I don't see how everyone on Earth could have been in the same situation as Adam and Eve, their situation was unique and thus it is by one man that we became carnal. This is why the Creation is also a "pillar" to the plan, the Creation of Adam and Eve in a paradisiacal state, they couldn't have fallen without that happening first and they couldn't have fallen without them being a couple who could have potentially been commanded to multiply.

I responded to your question which was "Does the Father possess the knowledge of good and evil?" Which is different than the start of such possession, eating of the fruit. Adam and Eve did not possess the knowledge of good and evil at the moment they ate the fruit, they were just oppened to that opportunity to have the knowledge. Yes, the Father when He first partook of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, I presume, did not get to stay in paradise but now that He has received redemption and been made whole, He can partake of that fruit (symbolically) or He can have had previously partaken of the fruit (because I don't think it has to be a continuous thing as it is more of a doorway or a fork in the road) and stay. To me "partaking of the fruit" symbolizes taking into one self, to make part of one self, similar to partaking of the bread and water in Sacrament. The fruit of Life is the symbolic force taken into the paradisical body that keeps it alive. The partaking of the tree of death makes it so that that paradisical body unique to the garden of Eden that only Adam and Eve were given has to die. And before you say death requires justification, consider that before Adam and Eve came to paradise they had no physical body, it was given to them so they might die. In other words, God gave them the paradisical body temporarily, so to give it up in death by eating of the tree of death is no loss, they were given the body in the first place and will receive a permanent body in the end.

How did Christ experience death then?

As we have already discussed, eating of the tree of knowledge of good and evil is not the same thing as possesing the knowledge of good and evil, it is simply the doorway to one day have that knowledge. It was a lie of Satan to suggest that as soon as they ate the fruit that they would be like God. They obviously were not like God once they ate the fruit but just starting the journey at the bottom of the ladder. There are several more steps to be able to possess the knowledge and live in paradise at the same time. He is forbiding them to remain in a state of immortality after they decide they do not want to remain in a stagnant immortality existence.

Why does the Fall have to be "just" in the sense that I think you are suggesting that it would be unjust to put someone in a lower position if they did not deserve it. If I go to my aerobics class as I should, I sign up for it and the instructor says 'do this, do that' and puts me through all sorts of grueling activity for which I suffer for a short period of time, would that be considered "unjust"? How is it unjust if I signed up for it and if I, in the end, benefit from it. In a similar light, I am not putting together what you are suggesting that the only way God could put us in this world which is for our benefit and growth in the end is if we did something wrong. That is the only way it could be just? I really don't understand that concept and that premise you are suggesting. Why would it be unjust for God to say, "if you choose to become mortal for a period of time, I will subject you to certain hardships but in the end it will be for your good and is the only pathway to have eternal joy, it is up to you to choose." Then when we are subjected to these hardships in all their forms it is just because we agreed to do it. Why does it have to be because of a transgression? To me, that is not very clear. Becoming mortal is either a good thing or a bad thing as far as our eternal progression goes. If we say it is a good thing and a necessary thing then it wouldn't be discouraged or unjust or looked at as any kind of punishment for some wrong doing. If it is a bad thing, then we could say that the only way it is just is if it is a punishment for some wrong doing. I don't look at this life as a punishment but as an opportunity to grow and I think Adam and Eve looked at it the same way. I think we have to keep in mind that it is God who provided the Savior too. If it was a one ended deal of just sending us here and then He walks away from it, then I could see this life as a punishment. But that is not the case, it was a package deal. He sent us here with a Savior. It is not a punishment any more than going to the gym is a punishment.

Isn't that what Joseph Fielding Smith is saying here; "Now this is the way I interpret that: The Lord said to Adam, here is the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. If you want to stay here, then you cannot eat of that fruit. If you want to stay here, then I forbid you to eat it. But you may act for yourself, and you may eat of it if you want to. And if you eat it, you will die."?

Putting those statements together in that way, do you believe that Adam eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil was a sin? If it is not a sin, is it a contradiction? Can it only be a contradiction if it is a sin? I think the idea that knowledge of itself is what we are after is a misconception of the true root of intelligence which is agency. The lessons learned here are directly tied into agency. The agency we have here is created by there being opposition, good and evil. The choice of "trees" in the garden represent that fork in the road between agency and no agency, not just "knowledge". I think the focus is not on abhoring sin but the point at which a loving parent decides it is time to cut the ties with His children and turn over the responsibility (at least in part) to His children so they might grow from their own agency. He would forbid agency when His children are not ready for it and yet hopes they would be ready for it at some time, the right time being the point at which the child says they are ready by eating of that tree. I "forbid" my little ones to swim without their floaties until the time they are ready to take the risk of trying to swim without their floaties. And at the same time I forbid them to swim without their floaties I want them to learn how to swim (when they are willing to take that step). When they take that step then we throw the floaties away (like not allowing Adam and Eve to eat of the tree of life), cause they can't have both, wear the floaties and really learn how to swim.

So, does Joseph Fielding Smith's summary fit with your current understanding? "Now this is the way I interpret that: The Lord said to Adam, here is the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. If you want to stay here, then you cannot eat of that fruit. If you want to stay here, then I forbid you to eat it. But you may act for yourself, and you may eat of it if you want to. And if you eat it, you will die." In other words, there are the laws of God for Paradise and then there are the laws "according to the flesh". As for the laws of Paradise, the tree of knowledge is forbidden but if the choice is made to live under the laws in which the three pillars come into play - "according to the flesh" laws, then eat of the fruit and you will die which is part of the three pillars of the 'fleshy' law and gospel. The laws according to the flesh (the ones that pertain to the three pillars) would be a transgression of the laws of God for Paradise as they are outside the boundries of those laws of Paradise. In that way, Christ is allowed to take responsibility for man as they now fall under those laws, and Christ' atonement satisfies the laws of God for Paradise. In that way, there is no spiritual fall unless there is a breaking of the laws according to the flesh now, the gospel, which we would call sin and would have to repent calling upon Christ atonement as it is under His laws (the three pillars), according to the flesh, that we would sin. The symbolism of the Fall is the symbolic handing over of the responsibility for justice from God's law to Christ' law. God's law (or debt as it is sometimes symbolized) is satisfied by Christ' atonement but now we must satisfy any broken gospel law (according to the flesh) through Christ atonement when suffering a second spiritual death. The first spiritual death is covered from the foundations of the Earth, in other words before it even had any effect, by the second pillar. One cannot be without the other and never was a single pillar. The first spiritual death never stood alone, even according to your reasoning, it was always supported by the other pillars. Mosiah 15; " 9 Having ascended into heaven, having the bowels of mercy; being filled with compassion towards the children of men; standing betwixt them and justice; having broken the bands of death, taken upon himself their iniquity and their transgressions, having redeemed them, and satisfied the demands of justice." That merciful gift to all is ours to lose, it is given to all in the beginning so that we don't have to suffer the effects of the spiritual fall in the beginning only to be lost if we sin; Alma 11; " 41 Therefore the wicked remain as though there had been no redemption made, except it be the loosing of the bands of death; for behold, the day cometh that all shall rise from the dead and stand before God, and be judged according to their works." Which implies that for those that are not wicked there is a redemption made - i.e. - those that die before the age of 8, or could not be accountable for other reasons and those that sin but repent. Bruce R. McConkie "Thus the atonement of Christ is designed to ransom men from the effects of the fall of Adam in that both spiritual and temporal death are conquered; their lasting effect is nullified. The spiritual death of the fall is replaced by the spiritual life of the atonement, in that all who believe and obey the gospel law gain spiritual or eternal life—life in the presence of God where those who enjoy it are alive to things of righteousness or things of the Spirit."

He was able to talk and meet with God while in the Garden. The only knowledge he didn't have was that pertaining to the power of pain and sorrow and the things that are learned in mortality. He would have had access to all the things we had before this life including an understanding of the plan for happiness and what would have to happen to all for that plan. I understand he is in a different state of mind than would be with premortal life but it would have to be a higher state than we currently find ourselves in that he had a paradisical body (brain) and was conversing with God. In other words, he knew more than we know now but without the experiential knowledge. Smith, "He [Adam] had knowledge, of course. He could speak. He could converse. There were many things he could be taught and was taught; but under the conditions in which he was living at that time it was impossible for him to visualize or understand the power of good and evil. He did not know what pain was. He did not know what sorrow was; and a thousand other things that have come to us in this life that Adam did not know in the Garden of Eden and could not understand and would not have known had he remained there."

Then why was it forbidden to eat of the tree of knowledge and not just presented as an option?

Great points! thanks. I agree with everything you have stated, I think. Could I say then, that you think the choice to eat of the tree of Knowledge was less of a disobedient act than it was a choice? Going back to the original question of the thread, why did God have to forbid the act of eating from the tree as opposed to saying, eat of that tree and you will suffer these known consequences. Why "command" or "forbid" the act? Despite you not liking "rules" in the house, the only reason I bring that up as an example is to propose the idea that what God is commanding is that they could not stay in the Garden and eat of the tree of knowledge at the same time. So, to stay in the Garden one is forbidden to eat of that tree. I think that is what you are saying too, is it not? (I was not trying to support any particular parenting method by the example or suggest it was the right thing to do or what I have done, just using it as a commonly known scenario.) One last thing, what did you mean by "The attitude of God ... have no bearing on wants or desires." What has no bearing on wants or desires? And also, didn't we all "choose to partake of the tree of knowledge" by way of passing the first estate test? There may be a difference between choosing to do it and actually doing it. The willingness to do it may be enough for some. Are there some souls then, if put in the same situation as Adam and Eve that would have not chosen the tree of knowledge that are now here on Earth. I think I remember reading somewhere that Adam and Eve were chosen (that we all can agree with) but were especially chosen because it was certain that they would choose the tree of knowledge. But, then that would imply that there are some possibly that wouldn't have carried it out. You are suggesting that all of us had to do it to even come here. So, that would take away the idea that Adam and Eve were specifically chosen to do it as Brigham Young says; "Adam and Eve were chosen to come here as the primal parents of humanity." He also said; "Did they [Adam and Eve] come out in direct opposition to God and to his government? No. But they transgressed a command of the Lord, and through that transgression sin came into the world. The Lord knew they would do this, and he had designed that they should." As you seem to suggest we all symbolically partook of the fruit of the tree of knowledge by our own choice, then what exactly did Adam and Eve do for us in that regard that, as Marion G. Romney puts it, "For his service we owe Adam an immeasurable debt of gratitude." What was the service provided from Adam to each one of us such that it could be called an "immeasurable debt" of gratitude?

Joseph Fielding Smith; "“Adam and Eve were chosen to come here as the primal parents of humanity. And they were placed in the Garden of Eden where there was no death and we read in the scriptures that they could have lived in that Garden forever, but not under the most favorable circumstances. For there, although they were in the presence of God, they were deprived of certain knowledge and understanding in a condition where they could not understand clearly things that were necessary for them to know. Therefore, it became essential to their salvation and to ours that their nature should be changed. The only way it could be changed was by the violation of the law under which they were at that time. Mortality could not come without violation of that law and mortality was essential, a step towards our exaltation. Therefore, Adam partook of the forbidden fruit, forbidden in a rather peculiar manner for it is the only place in all the history where we read that the Lord forbade something and yet said, ‘Nevertheless thou mayest choose for thyself.’ He never said that of any sin. I do not look upon Adam’s fall as a sin, although it was a transgression of the law. It had to be. And Adam came under a different law. The temporal law. And he became subject to death." What law did they violate? The Garden of Eden law. Which is why I am saying it seems that the eating of the tree of knowledge was the way out of the Garden of Eden. God recommended that they not stay in the Garden of Eden forever. They could choose when they were ready to leave by violating the law of Paradise. Just like if I were to say that in my house my young adult children are under my rules. If you cant follow my rules then leave the house and be on your own. They wouldn't have to break the rules to leave, they could simply say, 'I can't expect to become a responsible person if I don't get out on my own and therefore I am not willing to live under your wing forever'. They knew that they were going to be the "primal parents" and they knew that it was essential that their nature should change. I can't imagine they would have just gotten those two statements alone without any further details as to what does "primal parent" mean and 'what does it mean to have our nature change'. Change from what and how? would have certainly been part of the discussion and presented as part of the plan. I am sure we all asked those questions without having the certain knowledge as President Smith says, this is knowledge of pain and sorrow; "He [Adam] had knowledge, of course. He could speak. He could converse. There were many things he could be taught and was taught; but under the conditions in which he was living at that time it was impossible for him to visualize or understand the power of good and evil. He did not know what pain was. He did not know what sorrow was; and a thousand other things that have come to us in this life that Adam did not know in the Garden of Eden and could not understand and would not have known had he remained there." And Marion G. Romney; "Adam voluntarily, and with full knowledge of the consequences, partook of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, that men might be. … For his service we owe Adam an immeasurable debt of gratitude" Where did Adam obtain that knowledge ahead of time for which we have an "immeasurable debt of gratitude"? If it was anything less than following God's recommendation than I don't think we would be grateful for it. I don't think we would have a debt of gratitude for him going against God's plan.

Who is talking in D&C 58? It is Christ. Christ is saying to us that we should not be commanded in every thing by Him. Christ is the word. Did Christ ever do anything He didn't want to do? No.

Well now we have come full circle because you keep refering to what Lucifer did as evil. How can you on one hand say that evil existed in the premortal world and then say that it could not be in the presence of God? I believe that as well, that opposition could not exist in His presence. So is rebellion opposition? As soon as one is given the opportunity to rebel and they choose rebellion over obedience then they are out of His presence like what happened to the third of the host of heaven. Did we rebel? No. I agree that we come here to know good and evil to some degree but as was the lie told to Eve, it does not all come in this life and it doesn't have to be achieved in total in this life. This life is just the doorway for the rest of our growth to become like our Heavenly Father. The major purpose of this life is not knowledge, I think that is a big misconception about the purpose of our life here. That is important and I am not trying to downplay it but that is simply not true. According to Doctrines of the Gospel Chapter 10; "The purpose of Earth Life" the reasons to come into mortality are to A. have joy B. Obtain a physical body C. Be tested in that body D. To learn faith in God through our trials (this is where the tasting of the bitter comes into play - but it is to learn faith, for those that had enough faith before, like those who die before the age of 8 it isn't necessary) E. To develop the attributes of Godliness We are not here to experiment in evil. We are to live in the world but not be of the world and remain clean from the world. I am not here to "taste" evil. I may be faced with it and know about it, but I don't want to "taste" evil in any form. My goal is to make sure evil does not become any part of my soul and when I leave my corrupted body behind I hope it hasn't made it into my soul in any form and if it has then I hope my repentence will wash it out 100%, completely out of my memory. Within the last purpose E, it is described further as line upon line learning and overcoming the world, it says nothing about tasting the bitter. President Kimball said about purpose E; “Christ became perfect through overcoming. Only as we overcome shall we become perfect and move toward godhood. … The time to do this is now, in mortality. “… Men do not suddenly become righteous any more than a tiny acorn suddenly becomes an oak. Advancement to perfection can nevertheless be rapid if one resolutely strides toward the goal” So the only "purpose" of this life as it relates to tasting the bitter is in its relationship to developing faith. Like the example I gave earlier, the shepherd breaking the lamb's leg to learn dependence on its master. There are already some that exhibited that kind of faith, they are those that don't need this test, those that die before the age of 8 or those that cannot have accountability in this life for other reasons. So, it is not a necessary step to taste the bitter.

For the sake of all those reading this, I think it is important to understand that there are two spiritual deaths and sometimes they get wrapped up into one. The first spiritual death, everyone has to experience but also everyone is redeemed from it through Christ' atonement and children under the age of 8 are protected from the effects of it as well. Helaman 14; "16 Yea, behold, this death bringeth to pass the resurrection, and redeemeth all mankind from the first death—that spiritual death; for all mankind, by the fall of Adam being cut off from the presence of the Lord, are considered as dead, both as to things temporal and to things spiritual. 17 But behold, the resurrection of Christ redeemeth mankind, yea, even all mankind, and bringeth them back into the presence of the Lord. 18 Yea, and it bringeth to pass the condition of repentance, that whosoever repenteth the same is not hewn down and cast into the fire; but whosoever repenteth not is hewn down and cast into the fire; and there cometh upon them again a spiritual death, yea, a second death, for they are cut off again as to things pertaining to righteousness." I think it is important to understand that it is not necessary for the plan of salvation to experience a second spiritual death. Ponder the idea that in order to suffer a spiritual death "again", a "second" death then that means that all had to be made alive again from the first death, otherwise it wouldn't be called the "second death" but simply remaining dead from the first time. But we understand that we are made alive in Christ from the effects of the Fall as is the case with children under the age of 8.

What about D&C 58; "26 For behold, it is not meet that I should command in all things; for he that is compelled in all things, the same is a slothful and not a wise servant; wherefore he receiveth no reward. 27 Verily I say, men should be anxiously engaged in a good cause, and do many things of their own free will, and bring to pass much righteousness;" Could it be that this was more of a choice with consequences so that we could receive the reward as stated in D&C 58?

I reread this point. The revealed gospel doesn't go into any great detail of why we needed a trial body other than the more obvious reason of being in a state that was temporary from which we could leave behind this mortal body. But even before that, the reasons for us needing a mortal body experience are not well understood. Why couldn't we be just under some temporary spiritual veil and receive the same test as mortality? In other words, I agree that we have to partake of the physical but I don't think we really have explained to us very well what that means. Why do we have to control passions and desires that come from the body? Is that because the resurrected body will still have those passions that we have to still control or is it just part of the temporary test and it won't be part of the resurrected body? And in the direction I think you are heading, we have to have some "physical" understanding of the principles as it says in the scriptures "according to the flesh". Why does the test have to be "according to the flesh"? I believe this ties into the opening post question of why this was a commandment and not just a choice in that if it was a choice it coudn't be "according to the flesh" it would have to only be "according to the laws of God". As the laws of God are higher than "according to the flesh" laws, that awakening process from the low state to the higher state is part of His purpose, it is somehow part of the immortality and Eternal Life process. It kind of reminds me of the shepherds in Jesus time would break the leg of the young lamb so it would learn dependency from its shepherd and not want to stray later. We agreed to have our leg broken, basically.

This may be semantics but did Lucifer sin or rebel against God? D&C " 3 Wherefore, because that Satan rebelled against me, and sought to destroy the agency of man, which I, the Lord God, had given him, and also, that I should give unto him mine own power; by the power of mine Only Begotten, I caused that he should be cast down;" He basically said; "I don't want to do it anymore, I'm done". Is that a sin or lack of capacity to go on further in the plan? Its kind of like when my kids moan and groan about having to do Family Home Evening and especially when they are asked to give the lesson or participate in some other way (that is rare that they do that - by the way), 'do we have to?' I look at Lucifer's act the same way; 'Do we have to? Who all here would rather just get your due inheritance without having to go through mortality? We might sin, we might get hurt. Do we really have to do it??' To me he sounds more like a whinning, spoiled, complaining, rebellious brat that didn't honor his parents. It was more of a sin of ommision, lack of willingness to keep going. Then he was cast out and became really nasty and miserable wanting to make everyone around him miserable. One thing we really don't understand is how our spirits were formed and organized as spirit children of our Father in Heaven. I believe we have talked about it on this forum before but God likely did not have within his capacity the ability to form our spirits all alike, all like Christ. There must be some process which is out of His control that allows for spirits of varied character, some more valiant than others. In other words, Satan is Satan because of his spiritual make up, not that he had to be exposed to some evil force to draw him into rebelliousness. All the spirits that make it to Earth were valiant and faithful spirits, some more valiant than others. All the ones that didn't have the capacity for this phase of our preparation were weeded out by the first estate test.

I disagree with him not recommending it. He did recommend it when He presented the plan to us in the war in Heaven. He told us that we should come to this world, be separated from Him, receive a body and be tested here. To say that He couldn't recommend it is, I think, incorrect. We all chose His plan which included that step. This might be semantics, but I think He had to allow man to act on his own to bring this about. I liken it to when a young adult is ready to leave the house of her parents. The parents, being good parents, are not going to push the kid out of the house but at the same time might say 'if you are going to stay here then I forbid you to be out past 11 pm'. There are certain rules the parents can state if the young adult is to stay with the parents. Now, if she wants to leave and be on her own, fine, then she will have to really be on her own and be cut off from everything she enjoyed while with her parents. By doing it this way, the forward moving step of maturing is done by the person and therefore the reward for such a choice is truly theirs. This is also why this act is not really a choice with punishment but a choice with restrictions and conditions. We all agreed to live in a restricted and specific conditions related to mortality which are forbidden in a Celestial environment and this was all in accordance to God's recommended plan.

Doctrines of the Gospel Manual from LDS.org under "Chapter 8: The Fall" says; " Adam and Eve brought about the Fall by their own choice. Adam and Eve were commanded not to partake of the tree of knowledge of good and evil (see Genesis 2:15–17; Moses 3:15–17; Abraham 5:11–13)." I only see three ways to understand this but maybe there are others; either 1. They were commanded to never partake of the tree of knowledge of good and evil under any circumstance. or 2. they were commanded to not partake of the tree of knowledge of good and evil if they intended to continue to partake of every other tree in the garden including the tree of life. or 3. they were given a choice to either partake of the tree of life with its consequences or partake of the tree of knowledge with its consequences making it a full knowledge choice. I think number 2 is correct. That is my current understanding but I am not 100% sure. The reason I think it is correct is because there are many places in the scriptures and writings of the church that call it a commandment (as opposed to choice A vs choice B, like option 3 above) and call Adams and Eve's act as disobedience. Joseph Fielding Smith says this is a peculier situation, it is the only time God has said "I forbid" something but then follows with thou mayest choose. Smith also says; “We came into this world to die. That was understood before we came here. It is part of the plan, all discussed and arranged long before men were placed upon the earth. When Adam was sent into this world, it was with the understanding that he would violate a law, transgress a law, in order to bring to pass this mortal condition which we find ourselves in today” (Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, 1:66). I think it had to be that way for a few reasons, one of which is so that God did not "create" this fallen world. He created paradise and all in its perfect state but the Fall of Adam is what created this mortal state. In this way the atonement corrects all the things the Fall did including all the changes to our body and the world around us are redeemed by the atonement. If it was purely a choice then we would have to say that God created corruption and then gave Adam the choice to pursue corruption. Adam would be no better than Lucifer if he actually chose corruption over paradise.

I think that is the very issue I am wanting to understand better. The war in Heaven was about the plan of happiness. We all chose to follow God's plan with all of its consequences. The plan included coming into mortality and being separated from God for a short period of time. We all understood that the reason to come here was to receive a body and to be tested so that we could move forward in the plan of happiness. Those all sounded positive to us, they weren't considered negative consequences. Are they now negative consequences whereas before they were positive? I think for God's plan, it was a positive step that resulted from Adam and Eve partaking of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Isn't that how we are to understand it now?

So, if there are these two ways of looking at it, why do you think it had to be a commandment with which there could be disobedience as opposed to simply a choice with attached consequences? As much as God has to be just to be God, He also can't work for two different outcomes. He can't prepare the great and noble ones for certain acts and at the same time command them not to do it. I think He can still be just by saying, if you choose this, these are the circumstances; you will be out of my presence and you will have agency and accountability etc. If that is known ahead of time, then it is just after the choice is made. Not sure why it has to be forbidden. Unless what is forbidden is to eat of the tree of death when one wants to stay in the Garden. Like Satan wanting his inheritance before going through the steps. God is saying, you can't have knowledge of good and evil and freely eat from the Garden at the same time, that He forbids and commands against. But, they were given the option to live one way or the other when ready.

Is mortality really a punishment though? Where do we get the idea that mortality is a punishment? We get things we didn't have before, how is that a punishment? We get a body and we get the experience and opportunity to move forward in the plan of happiness and be more like God. Especially calling the tree a tree of knowledge of good and evil makes it sound like an acceptable choice as opposed to calling it the tree of death. If they were even choices I would think calling the one tree, the tree of life and the other the tree of death would be a more clear either-or choice. We believe that Adam and Eve knew the plan well enough to choose the right direction and the one that would lead to greatest happiness. I guess I am trying to understand the need to call it a commandment and a punishment. Why not just call it a choice and a consequence? Because in reality the choice is 1. tree of Life - stay in garden in paradisacal state and not move forward with plan of happiness vs 2. Tree of death - open the door for mortality, opens ability for everyone to get a body, allows the need for a savior, ends with resurrection and a state of glory. In other words, maybe we are reading the words wrong. Maybe "you will surely die" is a good thing ... along the lines of 'if you go to college you are certainly going to have to take a final exam'. Well yeah, I want to take a final exam so I can get the degree I want. Just like, yeah, I want to die so I can get the degree I want. I have a son that loves to go camping, he is in a place with less "things" less conveniences, away from mom and dad and he likes it because he can do things there that he cant at home. Is it a state of having less? yes but it is not permanent. Same with mortality. I think all those that didnt like the idea of coming to mortality left with Satan and are now trying to convince us that it is a punishment like they did in the war in Heaven.