Trees in the Garden

[mikbone]

While contemplating on the 2 main trees in the Garden of Eden I came to the conclusion that the trees are amazing but that the properties that the Trees provide can be simply described. I'm probably oversimplifying...

Both trees taste good and are nourishing.

Tree of Life - Changes mortals to immortals, transforms the body so that it is quickened with spirit instead of blood.

Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil - Changes immortals to mortals, transforms the body so that blood runs through the circulatory system. This tree also allows the consumer to discern between right and wrong. I was thinking that the simplest way to achieve this knowledge would be if the fruit allowed the partaker to perceive the Light of Christ.

Can you think of any other properties?

[Justice]

If it was the fruit of the tree that actually caused the change in Adam and Eve, then wouldn't all the animal life have to eat of the tree also?

[mikbone]

If it was the fruit of the tree that actually caused the change in Adam and Eve, then wouldn't all the animal life have to eat of the tree also?

I've given that a thought...

Gen. 3: 17 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;

Obviously all the living things in Eden that were immortal had to be changed to a mortal state. I'm unsure if plants or animals outside of Eden were mortal or immortal though. Anyways, the Lord cursed the ground for Adam's sake after the Fall. This curse could have been achieved to causing a rain to fall that contained the active ingredient of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil...

I do believe that the fruit of the ToKoG&E did actually make Adam and Eve mortal though. When Eve partook of the fruit, she was changed. She knew that she was very different than Adam at that point and felt a deep desire to have Adam join her in mortality.

[Guest mysticmorini]

if one of the properties of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is that it allows people to perceive the light of christ then no animal could have partaken of it because we know animals are innocent and have no knowledge of good or evil.

[Gwen]

if eating of the tree is what gave them the knowledge then that suggests there was evil in the garden and they were oblivious to it.

i always thought the garden was a perfect place. the knowledge that came from the tree had nothing to do with the tree but the command. eating from the tree broke the law, the consequence was to be kicked out, being kicked out presented them with evil and thus they learned the difference between good and evil.. here in this world not the garden. a chain of events as opposed to a direct result.

but then i must admit to never really thinking on it past what i considered a satisfactory elementary level. lol

[BookofMormonLuvr]

It seems to me that the Garden of Eden may have been a immortal paradise in the mist of a already mortal world. Which could, potentially, bridge the gap between creationists and evolutionists. But I doubt it, since evolutionists are bent on believing we evolved from some ameba or something.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

if eating of the tree is what gave them the knowledge then that suggests there was evil in the garden and they were oblivious to it.

i always thought the garden was a perfect place. the knowledge that came from the tree had nothing to do with the tree but the command. eating from the tree broke the law, the consequence was to be kicked out, being kicked out presented them with evil and thus they learned the difference between good and evil.. here in this world not the garden. a chain of events as opposed to a direct result.

but then i must admit to never really thinking on it past what i considered a satisfactory elementary level. lol

If satan was in the Garden, then, yes, there was at least some evil permitted in reside there. For practical purposes I would assume- to facilitate the Fall.

[mikbone]

if one of the properties of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is that it allows people to perceive the light of christ then no animal could have partaken of it because we know animals are innocent and have no knowledge of good or evil.

Maybe the fruit allows humans to flip the switch that allows us to percieve the light of christ. Animals probably dont have the switch.

Putting glass on a person with a detached retina will not improve their eyesight.

It just seems more likely that the fruit would have an effect on the body or spirit of mankind instead of adding a new volume of data to our brains...

[Seminarysnoozer]

While contemplating on the 2 main trees in the Garden of Eden I came to the conclusion that the trees are amazing but that the properties that the Trees provide can be simply described. I'm probably oversimplifying...

Both trees taste good and are nourishing.

Tree of Life - Changes mortals to immortals, transforms the body so that it is quickened with spirit instead of blood.

Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil - Changes immortals to mortals, transforms the body so that blood runs through the circulatory system. This tree also allows the consumer to discern between right and wrong. I was thinking that the simplest way to achieve this knowledge would be if the fruit allowed the partaker to perceive the Light of Christ.

Can you think of any other properties?

I don't think the trees have to 'contain' any properties at all any more than the waters of baptism have some special cleansing power in and of themselves. It's not like I can hang around after a baptism and scoop up the water and clean my sins away by pouring the water on my body. Or are there special properties in a piece of bread that has been blessed by the sacrament that if we analyzed it's chemical properties we would find something different about it from any other piece of bread?

I suspect those trees are the same, they are simply symbolic and only contain powers in as much as God takes action when they are eaten under the right circumstances. God transformed the immortal body into a mortal one, right? ... not a tree or a fruit.

[mikbone]

I don't think the trees have to 'contain' any properties at all any more than the waters of baptism have some special cleansing power in and of themselves. It's not like I can hang around after a baptism and scoop up the water and clean my sins away by pouring the water on my body. Or are there special properties in a piece of bread that has been blessed by the sacrament that if we analyzed it's chemical properties we would find something different about it from any other piece of bread?

I suspect those trees are the same, they are simply symbolic and only contain powers in as much as God takes action when they are eaten under the right circumstances. God transformed the immortal body into a mortal one, right? ... not a tree or a fruit.

Sure...

The fruit of these trees could be literal or figurative. I don't understand why you would need to put a figurative cherubim with a flaming sword to guard a figurative tree but go figure...

I choose to believe that the trees are literal. But if they are symbolic then the powers or objects that they represent do achieve miraculous effects.

Something changed Adam and Eve from immortals to mortals. The bread of the sacrament is symbolic of Christ's body just as was the sacrificial lamb during the Law of Moses.

When the Three Nephites were translated a change came upon their bodies. You could say that they partook of the fruit of the tree of life. I don't know if they actually ate the fruit to change their bodies but they did change. You could also say that the priesthood changed them. We don't know.

But it does not offend me to think that God uses tools to accomplish his goals. Look at the urim and thummin, liahona, and ark of the covenant.

Does the Lord use tools or does he just need Priesthood? The scientist in me wants to think that God is the ultimate power in the universe because he completely understands matter, space, and time. That He uses tools to achieve his desires and that there is no 'magic'.

[Seminarysnoozer]

Sure...

The fruit of these trees could be literal or figurative. I don't understand why you would need to put a figurative cherubim with a flaming sword to guard a figurative tree but go figure...

I choose to believe that the trees are literal. But if they are symbolic then the powers or objects that they represent do achieve miraculous effects.

Something changed Adam and Eve from immortals to mortals. The bread of the sacrament is symbolic of Christ's body just as was the sacrificial lamb during the Law of Moses.

When the Three Nephites were translated a change came upon their bodies. You could say that they partook of the fruit of the tree of life. I don't know if they actually ate the fruit to change their bodies but they did change. You could also say that the priesthood changed them. We don't know.

But it does not offend me to think that God uses tools to accomplish his goals. Look at the urim and thummin, liahona, and ark of the covenant.

Does the Lord use tools or does he just need Priesthood? The scientist in me wants to think that God is the ultimate power in the universe because he completely understands matter, space, and time. That He uses tools to achieve his desires and that there is no 'magic'.

He could have put a real cherubim with a flaming sword in front of a figurative tree, sure why not. We have real doors and walls around a figurative veil.

God is the master of science but He is also the master of psychology, which some would even say is a science. There are tools also in psychology. After all, He is judging us based on 'psychological' measures, what is in our heart.

The trees could still be literal but without intrinsic power. So, the question you posed is not whether they are literal or figurative but do they contain some intrinsic power of themselves that doesn't, at least in part, require God's hand after it was created. As if a bug could climb up on the tree start eating the fruit unintentionally and become immortal without having to live in a Telestial world. Even the liahona, urim and thummim worked via spiritual power, so called 'magic'.

This actually carries a greater significance because I think there are some that are out there that believe Adam and Eve were so simple minded that they just looked at the trees as just trees with good fruit on them and didn't really understand the significance of it. ... like when my daughter when she was 4 years old wanted to eat the sacrament because she was hungry not because it carried any particular significance.

[mikbone]

As if a bug could climb up on the tree start eating the fruit unintentionally and become immortal without having to live in a Telestial world.

Now you are just teasing me. Everyone knows that there were no bugs in the Garden of Eden.

[Moksha]

How deeply are we Mormons entrenched in this idea of bodies being without blood? What is the original scripture that this idea comes from and does it have more than one meaning?

[Seminarysnoozer]

Now you are just teasing me. Everyone knows that there were no bugs in the Garden of Eden.

Well, if you want to focus on that instead of the point I was making, then yes I was just teasing you.

... so, "everything that creepeth upon the Earth" doesn't include bugs?

Seriously though, look at my whole point. Thanks.

[jayanna]

How deeply are we Mormons entrenched in this idea of bodies being without blood? What is the original scripture that this idea comes from and does it have more than one meaning?

Bible dictionary page 670 under Fall of Adam...Bible Dictionary: Fall of Adam It is pretty clear, and seems literal, but you'll have to read it for yourself and decide.

[mikbone]

He could have put a real cherubim with a flaming sword in front of a figurative tree, sure why not. We have real doors and walls around a figurative veil.

Yes the Temple is a special place that protects the sacred nature of the endowment ordinance. But the figurative veil in the temple points to real veil. There are actual angles that guard the actual veil. The ToKoG&E in the temple narrative is figurative obviously, but I believe that it is based on a real tree.

I have a view of the Garden of Eden that is probably much different then the majority of LDS members. I imagine that the Garden of Eden was the Lords Vacation. After Adam was created the Lord saw that his work was good and he rested - Moses 3:2. I think that the Lord and his Eternal wife came to Eden and raised Adam and Eve just like a normal family. They watched Adam and Eve actually grow up. Adam had a mother and father just like everyone else, but his parents were perfect. Then spent many quality hours, days, and years together.

The trees could still be literal but without intrinsic power. So, the question you posed is not whether they are literal or figurative but do they contain some intrinsic power of themselves that doesn't, at least in part, require God's hand after it was created. As if a bug could climb up on the tree start eating the fruit unintentionally and become immortal without having to live in a Telestial world. Even the liahona, urim and thummim worked via spiritual power, so called 'magic'.

YES. I believe that the ToL and the ToKoG&E are both real trees, both with active ingredients that have pharmacological effects upon humans. But the rest of creation became mortal because the Lord cursed the Earth for Adam's sake. When eve partook of the fruit of the ToKoG&E she immediately realized that things were very different. She now perceived the Light of Christ and had blood coursing through her veins. She was different then Adam, and she knew it. This was before the Lord cursed her. And the rest of creation did not change until after the Lord cursed it, Moses 4: 23-24.

This actually carries a greater significance because I think there are some that are out there that believe Adam and Eve were so simple minded that they just looked at the trees as just trees with good fruit on them and didn't really understand the significance of it. ... like when my daughter when she was 4 years old wanted to eat the sacrament because she was hungry not because it carried any particular significance.

I don't think that Adam and Eve were simple minded. I believe that they partook of the Tree after informed consent. Eve may have been beguiled, but Adam chose to partake of the fruit of the ToKoG&E knowing that he would experience pain, humiliation, sorrow, and death. And this he did because he loved Eve. Never in the rest of the narrative of the scriptures do you see Adam question or curse the Lord because of his situation. Adam accepted the fall as a consequence of his actions.

Adam is my favorite prophet. He is such a noble figure of strength, love, and self sacrifice. I sincerely believe that Adam (Michael) was the Angel that comforted the Lord in the Garden of Gethsemane, Luke 22:43. What Michael said to Jesus during that visit is probably the second most noble act that ever occurred on Earth. It is what gave Christ the motivation to perform the Eternal Atonement when Elohim himself could not comfort our Savior.

Edited September 19, 2010 by mikbone

[Seminarysnoozer]

I think Eden was in a celestial sphere... Adam/Eve/animals - that they started out as perfect celestial beings. Usually when perfect celestial beings show up, they show up in the form of something like this:

(Old Testament | 2 Kings 6:17)

17 And Elisha prayed, and said, LORD, I pray thee, open his eyes, that he may see. And the LORD opened the eyes of the young man; and he saw: and, behold, the mountain was full of horses and chariots of fire round about Elisha.

I think that when Adam and Eve ate the fruit, they crossed through a veil, they passed from the realm of Elicha's chariots of fire, from the celestial realm (which lies around us as we type) into this mortal realm. Their celestial bodies joined mortality - they realized they had bodies, went to find fig leaves... their eyes were opened just as the yojng man in the verse above. God sais "Where are you Adam?" as if Adam was now in a different place, a different sphere... that the fruit helped Adam and Eve enter into another sphere... this old mortal sphere... (rather than a young earth).

So, then you are saying that the Earth was not cursed after the transgression, it was already that way?

The example you gave, you are describing how celestial beings enter a telestial world. The celestial realm may not need "fire" round about when they exist purely in a celestial realm. I think the description of the guard around the Tree of Life after the fruit from the tree of knowledge was taken may suggest that there was no previous need to have "chariots of fire round about." So, that either means that the garden of Eden was not on the Earth before the fall or that the whole Earth was not mortal before the fall. Sunday school teachings would say that there was no death on the Earth before the fall.

[Seminarysnoozer]

YES. I believe that the ToL and the ToKoG&E are both real trees, both with active ingredients that have pharmacological effects upon humans. But the rest of creation became mortal because the Lord cursed the Earth for Adam's sake. When eve partook of the fruit of the ToKoG&E she immediately realized that things were very different. She now perceived the Light of Christ and had blood coursing through her veins. She was different then Adam, and she knew it. This was before the Lord cursed her. And the rest of creation did not change until after the Lord cursed it, Moses 4: 23-24.

As a scientist, I can't believe you are saying this. If I have a friend who eats a can of beans and then gets dry mouth, blurry vision, muscle aches and goes into respiratory failure and dies and then I have another friend who also eats some of that can of beans and also gets blurry vision, muscles aches and goes into respiratory failure and dies, I am not going to conclude that the beans had some magical power in and of themselves that would cause this problem. We would say that because we know other people who eat beans, even from cans who don't die. And because of our medical knowledge we would already suspect those beans were contaminated by Clostridium Botulinum.

I don't think we can jump to that conclusion that the fruit itself contained the ability to make any changes without being able to examine the fruit and know about that physiology even if the change occurred right after she ate it any more than I would conclude that beans make people go into respiratory failure because I've seen it before. Because that would be a false statement to attribute those symptoms to beans, it should be attributed to the bacteria and the toxin made by the bacteria, in that example.

[mikbone]

As a scientist, I can't believe you are saying this. If I have a friend who eats a can of beans and then gets dry mouth, blurry vision, muscle aches and goes into respiratory failure and dies and then I have another friend who also eats some of that can of beans and also gets blurry vision, muscles aches and goes into respiratory failure and dies, I am not going to conclude that the beans had some magical power in and of themselves that would cause this problem. We would say that because we know other people who eat beans, even from cans who don't die. And because of our medical knowledge we would already suspect those beans were contaminated by Clostridium Botulinum.

I don't think we can jump to that conclusion that the fruit itself contained the ability to make any changes without being able to examine the fruit and know about that physiology even if the change occurred right after she ate it any more than I would conclude that beans make people go into respiratory failure because I've seen it before. Because that would be a false statement to attribute those symptoms to beans, it should be attributed to the bacteria and the toxin made by the bacteria, in that example.

Well I'm well versed with the scientific method...

Your example is horribly flawed. You are comparing well knows substances (beans and botulism) to a completely unknown substance, the fruit of the ToKoG&E.

You're correct in stating that we cannot jump to conclusion based on the limited data that we have, but we can make suppositions...

As far as we know, only 2 people partook of the ToKoG&E. Eve and them Adam, and both of them were changed from immortals to mortals.

It could have been a retrovirus within the fruit that modified the DNA of Adam & Eve. Nevertheless, it was what was found within the Fruit that made the change.

[Seminarysnoozer]

Well I'm well versed with the scientific method...

Your example is horribly flawed. You are comparing well knows substances (beans and botulism) to a completely unknown substance, the fruit of the ToKoG&E.

You're correct in stating that we cannot jump to conclusion based on the limited data that we have, but we can make suppositions...

As far as we know, only 2 people partook of the ToKoG&E. Eve and them Adam, and both of them were changed from immortals to mortals.

It could have been a retrovirus within the fruit that modified the DNA of Adam & Eve. Nevertheless, it was what was found within the Fruit that made the change.

I wasn't comparing the beans to the fruit. I was giving an example of how the scientific method is needed to understand the true cause and effect. I realize you know the scientific method, that's why I am still shocked that you would jump to that conclusion so quickly. The main reason I used that example is because there are many reading this that don't know the scientific method, so they can see that we don't know all the variables.

You already said that the rest of the world didn't need to eat the fruit to change and then, like in your last sentence here said that it "was what was found in the fruit that made the change." So for Adam and Eve it had to come from the fruit but for the rest of the world it didn't? So, you already believe that the change can come about from some other mechanism but for Adam and Eve that was the only mechanism possible, why?

I think one of the main reasons it was done that way in the garden is because there had to be a way of symbolizing a solid contract, like signing on the bottom line. Adam and Eve had to show physically that they really wanted to go down that road. In a garden setting that sounds like a reasonable way to set up option - if you want to start your probationary period than eat the fruit of that tree, if you don't want to do that yet then eat of every other tree. The reason to speak against it being something intrinsic of the fruit is to strengthen the idea that Adam and Eve made a decision to go down that road and it wasn't just purely temptation because it tasted good or they were curious etc. It could very well be something in the fruit, it's just to me that seems to weaken what really happened in the Garden over the pathway being forced on them versus Adam and Eve being involved with the decision to move ahead.

If there was something intrinsic in the fruit that made the change, then it makes Adam and Eve more passive players in the process. That would be like taking some of the sacrament bread and feeding it to my non-member friends to help clean them of their sins. Or if I took some of the bread for later and when I committed the sin I would just eat the bread and clean myself of the sin without having to do anything else.

The other reason to say there was nothing intrinsic of the fruit to make those changes is to say that Adam could not run over to the tree of life and eat of that fruit right after eating the fruit from the tree of death and then live forever in that state, discussed in Justice' thread on that topic. Because it really isn't based on what they ate, it is based on their decision to either take door number one or door number two, they simply couldn't take both doors.

Anyways, sorry to go on and on, thanks for your conversation.

[mikbone]

You already said that the rest of the world didn't need to eat the fruit to change and then, like in your last sentence here said that it "was what was found in the fruit that made the change." So for Adam and Eve it had to come from the fruit but for the rest of the world it didn't? So, you already believe that the change can come about from some other mechanism but for Adam and Eve that was the only mechanism possible, why?

I think one of the main reasons it was done that way in the garden is because there had to be a way of symbolizing a solid contract, like signing on the bottom line. Adam and Eve had to show physically that they really wanted to go down that road. In a garden setting that sounds like a reasonable way to set up option - if you want to start your probationary period than eat the fruit of that tree, if you don't want to do that yet then eat of every other tree. The reason to speak against it being something intrinsic of the fruit is to strengthen the idea that Adam and Eve made a decision to go down that road and it wasn't just purely temptation because it tasted good or they were curious etc. It could very well be something in the fruit, it's just to me that seems to weaken what really happened in the Garden over the pathway being forced on them versus Adam and Eve being involved with the decision to move ahead.

If there was something intrinsic in the fruit that made the change, then it makes Adam and Eve more passive players in the process. That would be like taking some of the sacrament bread and feeding it to my non-member friends to help clean them of their sins. Or if I took some of the bread for later and when I committed the sin I would just eat the bread and clean myself of the sin without having to do anything else.

The other reason to say there was nothing intrinsic of the fruit to make those changes is to say that Adam could not run over to the tree of life and eat of that fruit right after eating the fruit from the tree of death and then live forever in that state, discussed in Justice' thread on that topic. Because it really isn't based on what they ate, it is based on their decision to either take door number one or door number two, they simply couldn't take both doors.

Anyways, sorry to go on and on, thanks for your conversation.

I'm with you totally here. I don't subscribe to Justice's opinion of the Tree of Life though.

Like I said, I believe that both of those trees are special. They have substances within the fruit itself that has physical effects on the bodies of mankind.

Cleon Skousen in his book the First 2000 Years explained that it was important that Adam and Eve make the decision to partake of mortality without any of God's intervention. If God had no part in the change then neither Adam, Eve nor thier posterity could say. "You did this to us, it is unfair!" The fall was designed such that mankind entered into mortality expressly against the recommendations of God. God then had to place the flaming sword to protect mankind from eating from the Tree of Knowledge, otherwise man would have screwed up the fall.

I disagree with your statement that this made Adam and Eve passive participants. On the contrary, it made Adam and Eve the active participants and God a passive participant.

It was Adam's decision to enter into mortality. Not God's

[Justice]

I don't subscribe to Justice's opinion of the Tree of Life though.

Exactly what are you referring to?

It was Adam's decision to enter into mortality. Not God's

This can still be true even if it was the actual transgression that caused the change in Adam's body, and not specifically the fruit.

[mordorbund]

How deeply are we Mormons entrenched in this idea of bodies being without blood? What is the original scripture that this idea comes from and does it have more than one meaning?

I got curious on this a couple of months back. The earliest reference I could find to pre-Fall Adam and Eve having spirit coursing through their veins instead of blood was Joseph Fielding Smith. In Doctrines of Salvation, he states essentially what is found in the Bible Dictionary using the verse in Leviticus as support, "the life of the animal is in its blood." In an earlier work (Man, his Origin and Destiny I think), he uses the same verse to show that Adam didn't have blood, and then in DofS it's expanded so that the blood is replaced with spirit.

Can anyone find anything earlier?

[mikbone]

Exactly what are you referring to?

To this...

The other reason to say there was nothing intrinsic of the fruit to make those changes is to say that Adam could not run over to the tree of life and eat of that fruit right after eating the fruit from the tree of death and then live forever in that state, discussed in Justice' thread on that topic. Because it really isn't based on what they ate, it is based on their decision to either take door number one or door number two, they simply couldn't take both doors.

I currently suppose that the Tree of Life was in the Garden so that The Lord and his wife could return to their Celestial state after they had created Adam and Eve as Mortals. As well as to change Adam & Eve to immortals soon after their mortal births such that they would be prepared for the fall.

I don't think that the Tree of Life was in the Garden to tempt or trick Satan into making Adam and Eve partake of the fruit of the ToKoG&E. I have decided to stop trying to figure out Satan and his mind set and motivation. He is a conundrum, and every time I have tried to figure him out I only end up with confusion. Its a fruitless activity.

Edited September 21, 2010 by mikbone

[mikbone]

I got curious on this a couple of months back. The earliest reference I could find to pre-Fall Adam and Eve having spirit coursing through their veins instead of blood was Joseph Fielding Smith. In Doctrines of Salvation, he states essentially what is found in the Bible Dictionary using the verse in Leviticus as support, "the life of the animal is in its blood." In an earlier work (Man, his Origin and Destiny I think), he uses the same verse to show that Adam didn't have blood, and then in DofS it's expanded so that the blood is replaced with spirit.

Can anyone find anything earlier?

Nope. I concur with your findings.