Eating the forbidden fruit.

[Dravin]

Okay bear with me here:

Abraham 5:12-13 gives the forbidding of eating of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil as a commandment (Moses 3:17 gives, "I forbid" and Genesis 2:17, "thou shalt not") also Preach My Gospel (Chapter 3 Lesson 2 pg 49) is written that they were commanded.

So they were commanded to not partake of the fruit. They were also commanded to multiply and replenish the earth (The Family: A Proclamation to the World, Genesis 1:28, Moses 2:28). Now it is taught that had they not partaken or transgressed the commandment to not partake they wouldn't have been able to fulfill the commandment to multiple and replenish the earth (PMG pg 49, Nephi 2:22-23, Moses 5:11).

So my understanding is they were given in a sense contradictory commandments, they could not keep one or the other. However in Nephi (1 Nephi 3:7, 1 Nephi 17:3) we are taught that the Lord doesn't give commandments we can't keep, he prepares a way for us to keep them. I also don't take the scripture to mean this applies to only one commandment at a time, if he gives us multiple commandments (as he has) he prepares a way for us to keep all of them, even if we being flawed as we are often fail to do so.

So where I am sitting I see an apparent conflict (most likely brought on by a lack of understanding on my part), we are taught (or at least I have been taught or at least taken such to be what folks were trying to teach me) Adam and Eve had to transgress it was the only way, the only way for them to multiply and replenish the earth was to partake, in other words to keep one commandment required another be broken. Now I've been told that God didn't just say, "Eat the fruit" because it had to be Adam and Eve's choice to experience mortality but commanding them not to creates the conflict I've mentioned I'm seeing above.

The only way I've seen that deals with the supposed conflict is that the characterization of it as a commandment, "thou shalt not" or "I forbid" isn't quite right and it was instead advice, "Don't eat that or you'll die, but make your own choice" or "Don't eat, you'll die and it isn't my will that you do so, but you can do what you want."

I have the sneaking suspicion I'm missing something, and its rather obvious, any (LDS Theology) insights into this?

Edited July 12, 2009 by Dravin

[pam]

The way I understand it..they had two commandments given to them. One of them to multiply and replenish the earth. The other was not to eat the forbidden fruit.

If they had not eaten the fruit..they would have never had children and we wouldn't be here.

I think when they chose to eat the forbidden fruit..it's not that they wanted to disobey God. But they chose to go the route that would allow them to have children, to learn and grow and progress.

They could have stayed in the Garden of Eden and never known joy or misery. Yet they also wouldn't have been able to follow the commandment to multiply.

It was all a matter of choice. They made the choice that has the most meaning to everyone here on the earth.

It does seem a bit contradictory..but in the scheme or plan of Heavenly Father's the choice was the best one they could make.

[pam]

And I'm probably saying exactly what you already said. haha

[pam]

The two different versions, I forbid and thou shalt not; could possibly just be matter of interpretation.

[Seanette]

I've heard the theory (not sure whether I buy it or not) that Adam & Eve would have in time been told it was time to eat the fruit, and that they "jumped the gun" and ate before they would have been told to.

Do we know for certain whether they knew before the Fall that that event would be necessary? I keep thinking that in their innocence in Eden, they might well not have known if they did not remember the pre-mortal life (do we know whether they had those memories at that point or when the veil was drawn over memory of pre-mortality?).

[pam]

Seems like I read something somewhere that they knew they would have to eat it. I will see if I can find what I read. It was very recent so hopefully I can still find it.

[pam]

I don't think they remembered the plan prior to being in the Garden of Eden. However after reading this, I think they were explained the entire plan and the consequences of each commandment in the garden.

“To bring the plan of happiness to fruition [fulfillment], God issued to Adam and Eve the first commandment ever given to mankind. It was a commandment to beget children. A law was explained to them. Should they eat from ‘the tree of the knowledge of good and evil’ (Genesis 2:17), their bodies would change; mortality and eventual death would come upon them. But partaking of that fruit was prerequisite to their parenthood” (in Conference Report, Oct. 1993, 46; or Ensign, Nov. 1993, 34).

Adam and Eve acted with understanding and used freedom of choice. They realized that if they did not eat the fruit, they would not be able to have children and they would not be able to learn to make righteous decisions. They wisely chose to eat the fruit.

[pam]

Seanette your theory sounds plausible. If they had chosen to stay in the Garden and not eaten the fruit..the whole plan of salvation would have been lost.

[EruditioSalvatus]

There's nothing that says Adam and Eve couldn't have kids while in the garden of eden, is there?

If the booting was necessary for Adam and Eve to have kids then from an amusing standpoint the commandment is 'be fruitful and multiply,' so they were 'fruitful' (ate the fruit) and then were able to 'multiply.'

Having the Tree of Knowledge being used as a device for allowing/forcing Adam and Eve to leave eden isn't a new concept, so maybe it's one of the 'great mysteries.'

Also, giving 'slippery commandments' (commandments that overlap to a grey contradiction) is something that's seen in other religions as well, used as a test of loyalty.

[BenRaines]

Anyone care to guess how long they lived in the Garden before partaking of the fruit?

Ben Raines

[Dravin]

Seanette your theory sounds plausible. If they had chosen to stay in the Garden and not eaten the fruit..the whole plan of salvation would have been lost.

Nephi implies as much in 2 Nephi 2:22-23, I would say state but he doesn't come right out and say the plan would have failed, but then I suppose as long as the option for them to partake was there you couldn't technically say the plan was lost, it would just be on hiatus. Actually none of us really know just how long Adam and Even spent in the garden before they partook of the fruit.

I suppose its possibly that 'ideally' they would have remained in the Garden until God commanded them to partake of the fruit and thus eliminating that particular transgression (and thus they would have been expelled for being mortal and for Eve calling Adam a dolt or what have you). Of course God would have known they wouldn't wait and accounted for it but I suppose that does satisfy that there was a way for them to have kept both commandments even if it didn't happen that way.

Most teachings inseparably connect the transgression with the fall and then expound on the necessity of the fall but that could just be reflecting the way things happened, the transgression lead to the fall, a hypothetical happening where they didn't transgress by eating the fruit (but were made capable of sinning and became mortal by partaking the fruit sans the transgression inherent in eating the forbidden fruit) isn't particularly worth teaching as it isn't how things unfolded.

There's nothing that says Adam and Eve couldn't have kids while in the garden of eden, is there?

Now it is taught that had they not partaken or transgressed the commandment to not partake they wouldn't have been able to fulfill the commandment to multiple and replenish the earth (PMG pg 49, Nephi 2:22-23, Moses 5:11).

Edited July 12, 2009 by Dravin

[EruditioSalvatus]

Ah, then why? Why'd they have to leave?

Or am I missing something...

[Dravin]

Ah, then why? Why'd they have to leave?

Or am I missing something...

Moses 4:28-31. Why that would have been a problem: Alma 12:21-26. The fall was a free ticket for expulsion from the garden as the fall was a prerequisite for children that puts a kink in any plans to stay in the garden and have kids either pre or post fall. Stay in the garden and you can't have kids, make it possible to have kids and you can't stay in the garden.

Edit: (One of many actually) This is not a universal Christian understanding, for instance Jehovah's Witnesses believe had they not fallen Adam and Eve would have stayed in the Garden and had kids and we'd all be living there right now free of pain and suffering and various other things. Don't know what other denominations say on the matter.

Edited July 12, 2009 by Dravin

[pam]

Dravin that's pretty much what I meant when I agreed with Seanette's theory. If they had chosen to stay in the Garden, they would have eventually had to have been commanded to eat of the fruit. If that were to never happen, the plan of salvation that we all agreed to in the premortal life would have been a moot point.

[Maxel]

I've come to view the two commandments as allegorical of our spiritual conditions before and after our descent to earth.

In the premortal existence, we saw that Heavenly Father was different from us (he had a body). We know that we wanted bodies as well. Heavenly Father explained what the price would be for gaining a body: adversity, temporary spiritual death, physical death, etc. We were willing anyway.

To catalyze humanity's existence, the first man and woman- Adam and Eve- had to receive contradictory commandments. One of them insured they would stay in their innocent state (not partaking of the fruit)- the other held a promise of progression (being fruitful and multiply). I think the choice of which to follow was left to the most basic part of Adam and Eve's innocent nature, and one reason Michael the archangel was chosen to be Adam was that Michael's basic nature was so powerfully good and virtuous: ultimately, he (and Eve) would choose to suffer the inevitable consequences of sin- to know what it is to err and taste the bitter in life- so that they could eventually grow to be more like Heavenly Father.

[EruditioSalvatus]

If plants can be grown to fruition then I don't see why children wouldn't, but either way what's done is done.

Like I said forsaking a commandment for the 'ultimate good' isn't new, neither is putting a positive spin on the whole fruit eating fiasco, but it's always fun to lean other people's ideas.

god's full of contradictions, so i suppose picking whatever is better overall should prevail?

Edited July 12, 2009 by EruditioSalvatus
not to double post

[deseretgov]

The way i reason it out is that ofcourse God commanded them to multiply and replenish the earth becasue that was their purpose. But it could not be done in their current state. They had to have mortal imperfect bodies. But going from a perfect immortal physical body to a mortal imperfect one would have been punishment(aka a fallen state). So God could command them to eat the fruit or else He would essentially be punishing them for following His commandments. So God had to command them NOT to eat the fruit. But notice this line in the scripture below.

Moses 3:17(emphasis added)

17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it, nevertheless, 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.

I don't know but to my imperfect mortal mind this almost seems like a little hint hint, wink wink, nudge nudge, ya know ya know. It's probably not though.

The very nature of the situation put God into a little bit of a corner so to speak. However if the scriptures said the God commanded Adam to eat fo the fruit then that would be a real contradition.

[Wingnut]

Anyone care to guess how long they lived in the Garden before partaking of the fruit?

Ben Raines

Long enough for dinosaurs to go instinct?

[deseretgov]

Long enough for dinosaurs to go instinct?

I thought there wan't death before the fall.

[ruthiechan]

I thought there wan't death before the fall.

In the garden, but what about outside of the garden?

[deseretgov]

In the garden, but what about outside of the garden?

How do you explain this then?

2 Ne. 2: 22(emphasis added)

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.

[DarksDad]

This is all very confusing, and this is what is kinda hard for a person coming from no real religious background to a faith with pretty specific beliefs. I always knew what I believed and was strong in it, now I am trying to place in words what I believe so I can compare it to the Latter Day Saint beliefs.

[Vort]

The "conflicting commandments" theory is untenable; it requires us to believe that 1 Ne 3:7 is false, and that God will willingly put us in a position where the Godly thing to do is to disobey God and obey Satan. This is absurd on its face, and I will not accept it. (If a prophet teaches this doctrine as revealed truth, then I will accept it. Short of that, it's a stupid, anti-truth doctrine, explicitly contradicting both revealed scriptural truth and the plain meaning of words. I don't care who espouses it, it's false.)

There are two main problems with viewing the partaking of the fruit as a straightforward sin:

• Lehi taught that if Adam had not transgressed, there would have been no Fall, and we know the Fall to be an essential part of the plan of salvation.
• Modern prophets have hedged mightily in calling Eve's action a "sin" in the regular sense, seeming to want to indicate that there was something not quite "sinful" in her action.

Here is my theory, and how I respond to the two problems listed above:

(Disclaimer: I have no intention of an in-depth discussion of temple teachings. However, the endowment ceremony itself clearly identifies which parts we are to keep strictly to ourselves. I will never reveal or discuss those matters, but beyond that, my understanding is that there is nothing wrong with talking of temple ordinances and such matters.)

As is commonly known, the endowment offers a stylized presentation of Adam and Eve as a way of showing man's fallen state and the need for redemption. In discussing the plan to expose his first children to temptation, God says, "If they yield to temptation..." He then goes on to explain the contingency plan for this possibility.

That phrase very clearly implies a second possibility: Maybe they won't yield to temptation. So what's on the other side of that "if"? Answer: We don't know. It's not presented to us -- probably because that's not the world we're living in.

This argument is bolstered by the response put in Satan's mouth when his culpability is exposed: He attempts to justify himself by certain previous actions. I won't go into that any more, but anyone who has received his or her endowment should know exactly what I'm talking about. This strongly suggests that disobeying God is not the only way to gain these blessings.

So how does this idea jibe with the problems noted above? Here are some possible answers:

• Maybe Lehi was not aware of this (relatively subtle) distinction between the cause of the Fall and the Fall itself. Perhaps what he meant to say was that if Adam and Eve had not partaken, there would have been no Fall. Obviously, Adam and Eve's partaking was done in transgression to God's direct commandment -- the scriptures are clear on this, and few will disagree. Lehi may not have been bothering to point out, or indeed may not even have been aware, that while our first parents did indeed transgress in partaking of the fruit, that need not always have been the case.
• Modern prophets teach in response to what is currently being taught.

  For example, Paul taught at length on the futility of works to gain salvation and the necessity of faith. Why? Probably because the people of his time, both Jews and Greeks, believed that religious ordinances such as animal or other sacrifices and celebratory observances somehow curried favor with their God or gods and built up a "reserve of righteousness" that would take them to their salvation. Paul pointed out in no uncertain terms that their piddling acts amounted to exactly nothing, and that salvation was available to them only through the atonement of Jesus.

  Yet today, we have (non-LDS) Christians openly teaching that works have no place whatsoever in our salvation, and that all we must do is proclaim our belief in and faith in Christ, and we too will have gained our salvation. This is a rank perversion of Paul's teachings -- yet without modern prophets and modern revelation to guide us, we might not realize that.

  Similarly, much Christian thought in the last thousand years has revolved around the culpability of Adam and Eve for the sinful world we live in, and their supposed filthiness in causing such chaos by their evil actions, opening Pandora's Box upon what would otherwise be a sinless and idyllic existence. Eve, especially, has been painted with this brush of evil, assigned personal responsibility for all our woes because of her partaking of the forbidden fruit. This is nonsense, of course. Adam was one of the greatest of all prophets through all ages, and Eve was a woman equal in spiritual stature and gifts to her husband. The story of the Fall is not designed to cast Adam and Eve in a bad light, but rather to illuminate our own situation in this sinful world. We, too, like Adam and Eve, are subject to all kinds of temptation, and we, too, on occasion yield to that temptation and suffer the consequences of it.

  It is my opinion that prophetic teaching about Adam and Eve is not because they did not truly sin, but because the world's perception of the Fall is so completely wrong.

Now, this is just my own idea. I don't claim it's the whole truth. It is certainly not gospel doctrine. But neither is the idea, commonly taught in Church (even in Gospel Essentials), that Eve did a wonderful and noble thing in disobeying God and yielding to Satan. The scriptures themselves make it clear that her actions in that case were not viewed as a virtuous thing, even though the ultimate effects of that act clearly did tend toward God.

[beefche]

As is commonly known, the endowment offers a stylized presentation of Adam and Eve as a way of showing man's fallen state and the need for redemption. In discussing the plan to expose his first children to temptation, God says, "If they yield to temptation..." He then goes on to explain the contingency plan for this possibility.

That phrase very clearly implies a second possibility: Maybe they won't yield to temptation. So what's on the other side of that "if"? Answer: We don't know. It's not presented to us -- probably because that's not the world we're living in.

This argument is bolstered by the response put in Satan's mouth when his culpability is exposed: He attempts to justify himself by certain previous actions. I won't go into that any more, but anyone who has received his or her endowment should know exactly what I'm talking about. This strongly suggests that disobeying God is not the only way to gain these blessings.

Vort, this is what I believe as well. I don't believe God "set" Adam and Eve up to fail. I believe that there was a contingency plan if they chose to not partake of the fruit. We just don't know what that part of the plan was.

We are forgetting that Satan was present in the Garden as well. Adam and Eve were like children and Eve was beguiled by Satan.

I don't know where the references are, but we have been told by prophets that a physical change happened when Adam and Eve transgressed. Therefore, they were physically unable to have children or die while in the Garden and innocent. Once they transgressed, death entered into the world and they were capable of having children. I believe that that applies to all the animals as well.

[Moksha]

When trying to make sense of allegory, it can be useful to look for the symbolic meanings of such allegory.

One meaning I take from the Fruit of Knowledge is the passage of Mankind from creatures of instinct to sentient beings aware of their environment who are able to continually learn and advance. Sort of the beginning of an eternal progression.

:)