Rhoades

The scriptures do suggest that Eve knew about the commandment from God and thought it applied to her as well. Genesis 3:2-3 says "And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden: But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die." Moses 4:8-9 says a similar thing. Another source to learn about the creation and fall is the temple endowment. After studying the fall in Genesis and Moses due to this thread, the next time I went to the temple (last week) I noticed some slight differences in ordering compared to the scriptures. Maybe it was done that way just for convenience in telling the story, but I believe there's further evidence that the commandment also applied to Eve. Also, the variations between Moses and the temple suggest to me that the ordering isn't extremely important for us to be able to learn what's most important. Other verses I happened upon last week include: Moses 6:53 which says "And the Lord said unto Adam: Behold I have forgiven thee thy transgression in the Garden of Eden." Adam needed to be "forgiven" . However, given what Moses 6:54 says it may be different than your typical evil sin needing forgiveness. Little children being redeemed as taught in Moroni 8:8 comes to mind. Moses 6:48 through the rest of the chapter has some good teachings about the fall. Mosiah 16:3 which says "... that old serpent that did beguile our first parents, which was the cause of their fall; which was the cause of all mankind becoming carnal, sensual, devilish, knowing evil from good, subjecting themselves to the devil." One thing that stood out to me was "beguile our first parents." One could use this to reason that Adam was also beguiled. But you could also interpret it as they collectively as a couple were beguiled due to Eve and Adam followed Eve for other reasons. This verse also teaches about "knowing evil from good". I've noticed scriptures about knowing good and evil a lot this past week. Alma 12 starting at verse 21 through the rest of the chapter, and even the first part of Alma 13 provide more light on the subject. This and other scriptures make me really appreciate that there is great commentary on the fall in the Book of Mormon. EDIT ==================== I'm now in Alma 42 and 1-11 has more great material about the fall. It's so relevant to some of the posts in this thread I had to add it.

@Traveler. Shortly after I posted my last comment I thought of another scripture about knowing good and evil. Moroni 7:12-17 teaches that the light of Christ is given to every man that they may know good and evil. 12 Wherefore, all things which are good cometh of God; and that which is evil cometh of the devil; for the devil is an enemy unto God, and fighteth against him continually, and inviteth and enticeth to sin, and to do that which is evil continually. 13 But behold, that which is of God inviteth and enticeth to do good continually; wherefore, every thing which inviteth and enticeth to do good, and to love God, and to serve him, is inspired of God. 14 Wherefore, take heed, my beloved brethren, that ye do not judge that which is evil to be of God, or that which is good and of God to be of the devil. 15 For behold, my brethren, it is given unto you to judge, that ye may know good from evil; and the way to judge is as plain, that ye may know with a perfect knowledge, as the daylight is from the dark night. 16 For behold, the Spirit of Christ is given to every man, that he may know good from evil; wherefore, I show unto you the way to judge; for every thing which inviteth to do good, and to persuade to believe in Christ, is sent forth by the power and gift of Christ; wherefore ye may know with a perfect knowledge it is of God. 17 But whatsoever thing persuadeth men to do evil, and believe not in Christ, and deny him, and serve not God, then ye may know with a perfect knowledge it is of the devil; for after this manner doth the devil work, for he persuadeth no man to do good, no, not one; neither do his angels; neither do they who subject themselves unto him.

@Traveler , Alma 32 teaches you can have knowledge in this life even when your knowledge isn't perfect (e.g. Alma 32:33-36). There's also: “If a person gains more knowledge and intelligence in this life through his diligence and obedience than another, he will have so much the advantage in the world to come” (D&C 130:19) Also, "“By the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things” (Moroni 10:5). Don't you believe we can have some knowledge, even if not a full knowledge? Do you believe we can experience any of the consequences of evil besides death (e.g. sorrow, guilt, remorse, pain) like Alma in Alma 36:12-13? What about experiencing some level of redemption in this life (e.g. heart changing, feelings love, humility, patience, desire to do good, etc.)? What do you think of Alma 36:20,25-26 which says, "And oh, what joy, and what marvelous light I did behold; yea, my soul was filled with joy as exceeding as was my pain! ... behold, many have been born of God, and have tasted as I have tasted, and have seen eye to eye as I have seen; therefore they do know of these things of which I have spoken, as I do know; and the knowledge which I have is of God"? Alma 5:26 also teaches that we can know somewhat of redemption, "if ye have experienced a change of heart, and if ye have felt to sing the song of redeeming love, I would ask, can ye feel so now?" I sincerely hope that you have experienced and felt the redemptive power of Christ in your life. What do these scriptures mean with your Eden theory? "for he showed unto all men that they were lost, because of the transgression of their parents. (2 Nephi 2:21) How are all men lost due to Adam and Eve? "those who have fallen by the transgression of Adam" (Mosiah 3:11) and "Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam’s transgression" (Romans 5:14) How are some that didn't do what Adam did fallen? "Now, we see that the man had become as God, knowing good and evil; and lest he should put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life..." (Alma 42:3) Is this talking about after Adam dies and is redeemed? In your theory, isn't he already living forever at this point? What's the other fruit and what's the point in guarding it after Adam knows good and evil? It seems you feel as though we all brought about mortality (or none of us did), rather than mortality coming due to Adam & Eve. What of the several places in Romans 5 as well as 1 Corinthians 15:21-22 making a big deal about death coming about by one man (Adam) and death being conquered by one man (Jesus)? What does Eden represent? Was there a physical place, Eden, that God created on earth where Adam and Eve once lived? Did God create the world in a fallen mortal state, or in another state and something else caused its fall? If something else, what?

I'm trying to understand your thinking. Does that mean you think we don't know good and evil in this life? We'll only know evil after we die and good after we're resurrected and given glory ??

Sorry to high jack your questions to the chaplain. I hope he shares his own thoughts. But, what do you mean by "I believe we all made the choice to partake of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil and we are experiencing the unavoidable consequences."?

I love that scripture! Lest anyone think I am ignoring the rest of God's word (Rev 22:19), I am well aware that faith and works go together (John 14:12, Hebrews 11:6, and of course James 2, and even the last verse in Romans 3, etc.). I also know that justification is not just from my faith; the most important part is Jesus -- we are "justified by his blood" (Romans 5:9). Some other scriptures I love about the goodness of Jesus and my dependence on Him: "I glory in plainness; I glory in truth; I glory in my Jesus, for he hath redeemed my soul from hell." (2 Nephi 33:6) "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them." (Ephesians 2:8-10) "Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature:old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new." (2 Corinthians 5;17) "But Ammon said unto him: I do not boast in my own strength, nor in my own wisdom; but behold, my joy is full, yea, my heart is brim with joy, and I will rejoice in my God. Yea, I know that I am nothing; as to my strength I am weak; therefore I will not boast of myself, but I will boast of my God, for in his strength I can do all things; yea, behold, many mighty miracles we have wrought in this land, for which we will praise his name forever. . . . Therefore, let us glory, yea, we will glory in the Lord; yea, we will rejoice, for our joy is full; yea, we will praise our God forever. Behold, who can glory too much in the Lord? Yea, who can say too much of his great power, and of his mercy, and of his long-suffering towards the children of men? Behold, I say unto you, I cannot say the smallest part which I feel." (Alma 26 11-12, 16) "And when I desire to rejoice, my heart groaneth because of my sins; nevertheless, I know in whom I have trusted. My God hath been my support; he hath led me through mine afflictions...; and he hath preserved me... He hath filled me with his love" ( 2 Nephi 4:19-21) "Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life. I am that bread of life. Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead. This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die." (John 6:47-50) "And moreover, I say unto you, that there shall be no other name given nor any other way nor means whereby salvation can come unto the children of men, only in and through the name of Christ, the Lord Omnipotent" (Mosiah 3:17) I could go on and on with scriptures that remind me of how great God is.

I don't mean to imply that Adam and Eve didn't sufficiently know the fruit was forbidden, nor that God's command with its consequences was unjust. I think whatever God told them was appropriate for their level of understanding. I just don't know what that level was. You can tell a 6 year old or even an 11 year old something and have reasonable expectations that they will comply even if their understanding isn't the same as an adult. I do NOT think this was like telling a 1 year old not to eat a piece of fruit. Also, the change in their capability to understand was more significant than realization of the gravity of sin. Before the fruit they didn't know they were naked. Afterward, they did. God tied their change in knowledge to the fruit (Gen 3:11). God later said that "man is become as one of us, to know good and evil" (Gen 3:22). In addition to the physical and spiritual changes from the fall, there was something else changed with their ability to know and understand things.

Something else of note is that we know their level of understanding was different before the fall. In Gen 3:5 Satan says "in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil." Then after they took the fruit in Gen 3:7 it says "the eyes of them both were opened". It's difficult to say they "understood" because there are various levels of understanding. Anyone with children knows this. We know Eve understood at least some before the fall. But, the Bible teaches they were capable of a greater understanding after taking the fruit.

I've heard the two separate command argument before and don't really see it that way either. I think it's a part of the same set of instructions. Eve's statement shows that she understood at least to a degree. However, it's difficult to know how much she understood. Eve says she was "beguiled", but I don't know why. I don't know what was going through her head. Did she think God was against it, but wanted to do it anyway in a rebellious sort of way? Did Satan trick her in to convincing herself that God would be OK with it? We do this sometimes. And what about Adam? They are two different people and could have had two different sets of reasons for their behavior. I don't see anything to indicate he believed the serpent. I don't know whether he was "beguiled". He "hearkened" to the voice of his wife, but I don't know why. Perhaps he took the fruit so he could be with Eve as I stated in another post. That seems to be the case for Eve, but I don't think the Bible is clear on why Adam took the fruit.

The precise wording includes high priest groups too. See the "Melchizedek Priesthood Callings" part of the "Chart of Callings" at the end of chapter 19. Chapter 19 is here: https://www.lds.org/handbook/handbook-2-administering-the-church/callings-in-the-church/19 I think the Bishop has to approve of it because the candidates are his ward members and it effects callings throughout the ward. I'm not sure if there are other reasons. I do think the fact that the recommendation is "in consultation with the Bishop" is significant. Many of the "recommended by" guidelines for aux callings and Aaronic priesthood callings do not have this. For example, a ward librarian is recommended by "Sunday School president'. No mention of consultation with Bishop. Counselors in teachers and deacons quorum presidencies and secretaries are recommended by "Quorum presidents". No mention of consultation with Bishop.

I think it would be better to say "what Adam & Eve did was disobedience". Romans 5:19 supports this. I have a hard time calling it "simple" as evidenced by this thread. How much did they know? What was going through their minds? Is it better to call it a "transgression"? And so on. I suppose it's a good reminder why we aren't to judge others. There's a good lesson for spouses in the story of the fall. After they ate the forbidden fruit when the Lord called them on it, Adam said "The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat." (Gen 3:11) This was worded through Joseph Smith as "The woman thou gavest me, and commandest that she should remain with me,..." (Moses 4:18) Adam was supposed to be with Eve ("It is not good that the man should be alone" -- Gen. 2:18) After Eve partook (and would therefore be cast out), he seemed to have a dilemma. Should he let her go and disobey commandments to cleave (Gen 2:24), remain (Moses 4:18), be one (Gen 2:24), multiply (Gen 1:28), etc.? Or should he disobey the commandment about not eating the fruit? Maybe he should have asked God the next time he came around ... I don't know. But, there's a lesson about marriage in there. If a spouse is faced with difficulty and trial (whether brought on by their own choices or not), we could wish them well and abandon them or we could try to stick with them and work through it together. Another lesson is that sometimes our spouse may make what we think is a terrible choice, yet things turn out for the better in the long run.

This needs some correction. An elders quorum president does extend some callings. See church handbook 2, chapter 19 in the "Chart of Callings". It teaches that elders quorum secretaries and instructors are called and set apart by the quorum president or an assigned counselor. They are: * Recommended by the the quorum president in consultation with the bishop and the quorum counselors * Approved by the bishop * Sustained by quorum members * Called and set apart by the quorum president or an assigned counselor After you have approval from the Bishop, you or a counselor should be the one that extends this calling.

While studying the New Testament this morning I came across Luke 24:6-7 which reminded me of this thread: "... remember how he spake unto you when he was yet in Galilee, Saying, The Son of man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again." That got me thinking more about how much Satan knew. And I found these scriptures... D&C 10:43 -- "I will not suffer that they shall destroy my work; yea, I will show unto them that my wisdom is greater than the cunning of the devil." Moses 4:6 -- "And Satan put it into the heart of the serpent, (for he had drawn away many after him,) and he sought also to beguile Eve, for he knew not the mind of God, wherefore he sought to destroy the world." Satan apparently doesn't know everything that God knows and he does get outwitted. He surely knows he's not as wise as God and he knows he's already lost, and that fuels his pride and anger. Like a prideful tantrum-throwing angered maniac he's trying to destroy anybody he can. He's already lost the war, but he's still battling for individual souls. He's proud of his battle victories at the time of Christ's rejection and crucifixion, which included an apostle and many others.

If he didn't learn it in the premortal world, he could have learned it later as it was taught on earth before it happened. For example, 1 Nephi 11:33. Like @MormonGator said, it's pride.

1) So you can hear other people. 2) So you are pleasant to be around and not disruptive. 3) It would become too exhausting if you continually produced sound.

On a related note in "Teaching, No Greater Call" lesson 23 on Reverence (https://www.lds.org/manual/teaching-no-greater-call-a-resource-guide-for-gospel-teaching/lesson-23-reverence?lang=eng ) it teaches this:

If it was only one treat and happened only once a week I could live with that. That would be nice. When it's something in class, then something in sharing time, and then something from the Bishop that starts to add up. And if some of those givers don't limit it to a sole cookie but give out several then that adds up even more and at some point it becomes too much. My wife stated her preference once asking that they consider the volume of treats being dispensed, and we haven't said anything since so I guess we're OK living with more than one a week. We are by no means health nuts -- the entire lunch was ice cream at our house the other day. After thinking about it more, the treat volume is actually pretty reasonable now that certain people have changed callings or moved. In fact, I don't remember any treats being eaten after church yesterday, or hard feelings about who got what, or children not eating dinner. And, thankfully there aren't daily treats in the schools where we now live. Thankfully we're in a ward in the Eastern US that is quite the opposite of gloom and inactivity. Very, very friendly and welcoming people. Sacrament meeting attendance is around 70%, we have over 60 young men and women with about 95% of those being active, and a large primary that's almost 100% active. This is the ward that used to have a no treat primary president just a few years ago. Judging by how they're turning out, it didn't damage our youth too much.

Good point that the word of wisdom is technically doctrine. Also, I think it is valuable to know at least at a high level the difference between policy and the eternal principles they are based on so one is not too surprised when policies change.

I mean the one before he was president of the church. He was an apostle and prophet when he gave that talk.

Although others have provided earlier references I think it's worth reminding everyone that the teachings of modern prophets are also authoritative. You can find the teaching at mormon.org, "True to the Faith", "For the Strength of Youth", "Gospel Principles", etc. You can also find references in general conference talks. As President of the Church, Ezra Taft Benson taught it in April 1983: Perhaps you wonder if it's like the priesthood policy and is a mistake. If so, you'd be fooling yourself if you think you can make that decision. Follow the prophet and you'll be blessed. It is a matter of both policy and doctrine. The policy part pertains to which substances we currently abstain from. Obviously, the Lord's law of health has changed throughout the history of mankind. He has his reasons. The doctrine part was stated in a famous talk by Ezra Taft Benson in 1981: That is doctrine. Our observance of the word of wisdom and the manner in which we observe it is based on that doctrine. Another doctrine of interest as stated by President Benson: And another: Our observance of the word of wisdom is a matter of both policy and doctrine.

I'd prefer that my primary children never get candy or food at church. I'd also like my 12-18 aged youth to not get food. One of our past primary presidents had a no food policy and it worked great. If implemented ward-wide children can feel a teacher's love and learn to behave without food. I'm supportive of the nursery exception though. At that age, it's not so much a treat/reward as filling a need. Sunbeams could be another exception if church is held during their usual lunch time. I don't like my children eating a lot of junk food. It's not a "treat" anymore if it occurs too frequently. It seems like in practice if it's not banned outright then there's not moderation. Nor do I want them eating food just before a family meal. Also, some children want the treats so much that it overshadows the value and meaning of the lesson. I also don't like disparity problems when some kids get candy and others don't. Another problem I once saw as a leader was when most of the youth in a Sunday school class (not primary) went to the wrong class week after week because of treats and other prizes, making their own teacher feel bad. One place we lived had treats in primary, extra activities, and even in school so out of control that we felt like we couldn't reward our own kids with treats as frequently as we would've liked. Too much from outside sources lessened the meaning and it was too unhealthy. I want the right to give my own children some ice cream and see the smiles on their faces. Some teachers don't know how to manage a class any other way, but they can be taught. And in the end they will become more effective teachers. I think to get all of the benefits of a "no food" policy to work, it really needs to be consistent across the whole ward. Otherwise there are still problems. (Or maybe the ward picks one Sunday a month where food is allowed.) And yes, I've taught primary for multiple years and multiple age groups. I love teaching primary! If they're not used to getting candy at church, other classroom management techniques work fine. If they're used to receiving candy it's much more difficult at first, but they can learn. My wife who is an amazing and very experienced teacher feels the same way. When our ward was reorganized a year ago she asked the ward council to consider reigning in the distribution of junk food, but they didn't see a problem. At that time when our children's new teachers were asking about allergies we let them know we aren't a fan of treats. But, we allow them to receive them because I think having all of their classmates get treats while they do not would be worse.

Your memory is correct, but when Handbook 2 was updated in 2012 they took out the statement. I think the old book said: @zil provided what's in the handbook now. In addition to that, on lds.org under primary leader resources FAQ ( https://www.lds.org/callings/primary/leader-resources/frequently-asked-questions?lang=eng&_r=1#food-in ) it says: Also, from the "Primary 2: Choose the Right A" book (for CTR 4-7 classes) in the Helps For Teachers section at the beginning found at https://www.lds.org/manual/primary-2/helps-for-the-teacher?lang=eng

D&C 110:3 does describe his hair color as a resurrected being. This was quoted by the first presidency and quorum of the twelve in The Living Christ at the turn of the century. What it says is a lot like Revelation 1:14. I think the description of his eyes might be more about the light emanating from them rather than eye color, but I don't know. And some of the other descriptions in Revelation I take as figurative. However, if we saw him I think we'd see white hair. (Based on other descriptions such as that from Lorenzo Snow via his grandaughter we'd expect not only his hair but also his hands, feet, face, etc. to be a bright illuminating white.) When he was in mortality he might be like many orthodox Jews with a beard and sidelocks in keeping with Leviticus 19:27. But that's only a guess. Considering Luke 2:52 ... Even if it wasn't considered law, we could infer that he went along with social customs as he was growing up and before his ministry. He probably wasn't trying to set trends or make statements with his hair.

Trying to go to the safest geographical place might end up being like Jonah taking a ship to Tarshish to hide from the Lord. Calamities can find us anywhere. I think a good way to prepare is to study what prophets are focusing on today while asking God to let us know through his Spirit what we should concentrate on in our lives. Personally, I hear a lot more spiritual preparation focus than physical preparation from prophets. I think that tells me where the balance of my focus should be. As far as how to do physical preparation, I think following the counsel of prophets is wise there too. The most recent thing I could find that mentioned food storage from President Monson was from a first presidency message in September 2014. The focus is more toward provident living and financial preparation than just food storage. (https://www.lds.org/ensign/2014/09/are-we-prepared?lang=eng) As a disclaimer, that was a result from a real quick search. Maybe there's something in this month's Ensign that I already forgot about. Also, the Church doesn't call for a "12 month supply" or a "year supply" anymore. In 2009 the counsel became to gradually build up a 3 months supply of some foods that are in your regular diet, water, and a financial reserve. Then after that's in place you build a long-term supply of food staples like wheat, rice, beans, etc. These long-term items are the types of things that last at least 30 years. No set time period is specified for your long-term supply. I think the Church's current counsel is easier to implement and more practical and useful. Also, if you tell someone to "get a year supply of food" they would probably do it differently and have different items than what the church recommends. A year supply of freeze dried strawberries sounds nice and go for it if you want, but it's outside of what the current counsel suggests. The current guideline is found here: https://www.lds.org/topics/food-storage?lang=eng I find it interesting that money is one of the 3 main components of "food storage". An article introducing it is here: https://www.lds.org/ensign/2009/03/family-home-storage-a-new-message?lang=eng Although this came out in the previous decade some areas of the Church have local leaders that aren't really aware of this. I think that's because food storage in general has not been a focus from the prophets. Another thought is that we have to be careful to not look beyond the mark. If we put aside the plain and simple counsel in favor of wanting something more complex we may become blind and stumble as did the Jews. This is from Jacob 4:14:

Amen! 1 Corinthians 13:13 Moroni 7:46-47 After reading the response by @Traveler I think a sentence I wrote in an earlier response could be improved to: "On a related note, keep in mind that while on earth everyone rejects and accepts him to some degree."