Question about the Fall?

[SpiritDragon]

Hi everyone,

I have never successfully answered the following question to my own satisfaction. In the garden of Eden Adam and Eve were commanded to multiply and replenish the earth, but also not to partake of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. If man could not have seed until after the fall, did God give contradicting commandments?

Now some may say that they could have seed before the fall, but the scriptures are clear that all are fallen (no unfallen posterity of Adam and Eve) and further through modern revelation we know that no seed existed before the fall.

Is there any way that this can be explained so that God did not give Adam a commandment that could not be kept?

[Guest]

He didn't command them not to eat of the tree. He told them they may eat of all the trees but that one, because if they did, they would "surely die". Tiny difference, but a difference nonetheless.

[Just_A_Guy]

Or, the commandment not to partake was a temporary and not a permanent injunction--in other words, "You may not eat it now; but at some point I will return and I may give you instruction to the contrary."

[Anddenex]

This is a very good question. In connection with Eowyn (sorry Ewoyn, not sure why I saw Backroads) post please read Moses 3: 17, and pay attention to the part where The Lord says, "Though mayest choose for thyself."

JAG provides an interesting thought I have not considered.

We also have been taught that the two commandments in the garden actually provide Adam and Eve the ability to have moral agency. Without the opposition even within the garden, righteousness could not be brought to pass. We know that without opposition, without moral agency, there is no purpose to our existence.

The choice given to Adam and Eve placed them in a quandary. They could have chosen to live forever, without sin, or they could choose to eat, and allow children to be able to become as God also, with the ability to know good from evil.

They appear contradictory, yet I don't believe they were. The interesting thing, however, is ask yourself this question, "Would Adam have partaken of the fruit if the commandment to multiply and replenish the earth wasn't given?"

If you read, "Adam fell that men might be and men are that they might have joy" the answer is very clear.

Edited October 17, 2012 by Anddenex

[SpiritDragon]

I appreciate the thoughts so far. However, when I read Moses 3:16 and 17 it seems to me that this is very much a commandment. In all things we are free to choose our actions, but the consequences are set forth. Agency is a fundamental part of God's plan.

I would tend to agree that Adam would not likely have partaken of the fruit without the commandment to multiply and replenish the earth, but this only serves to reinforce the contradictory nature of the commands. He saw that to keep one he must breech the other.

Now it does seem apparent that disobedience was required for man to fall, and the fall was required for the plan of happiness to unfold, but under the conditions of two opposing instructions.

My wife just threw an interesting thought at me however, that may be something to ponder upon. She mentioned how sometimes the Lord commands people to kill, even though we are commanded not to kill. This can be seen by the children of israel being commanded to stone certain sinners, such as to kill a killer for killing, so they exact upon the perpetrator a similar act to which s/he committed but it is counted as good to them and not evil.

Along the same line of thought that it is better a man should die than a nation should dwindle in unbelief, perhaps it is better for God to create the conditions of the fall so that His plan would unfold... even if it meant giving contradictory commandments.

I am still not fully satisfied with this answer at the moment either, but it is a thought provoker.

[skippy740]

Let's go in order:

1) Eve was 'beguiled' by the serpent. Why?

Moses 4:10-12

10 And the serpent said unto the woman: Ye shall not surely die;

11 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

12 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it became pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make her wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and also gave unto her husband with her, and he did eat.

Step 1: Eve partook of the fruit to become more like God - knowing good from evil.

Step 2: THEN Adam partook.

Adam had to make a choice. Eve will be cast out.

Now what is Adam to do? He partakes also to fulfill the commandment to multiply and replenish the earth.

Moses 4:18

18 And the man said: The woman thou gavest me, and commandest that she should remain with me, she gave me of the fruit of the tree and I did eat.

What we also learn is the difference between a transgression of the law and a sin.

Was it a sin that Adam and Eve partook of the fruit? No. It was not against the will of God.

Moses 4:6

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.

Did they transgress the commandment or law that God gave? Yes. God gave two commandments:

1) multiply & replenish the earth

2) do not partake of the fruit of the tree of knowledge

2 Nephi 2:25

25 Adam fell that men might be; and men are, that they might have joy.

You cannot have joy without the knowledge of good and evil.

Children couldn't be born until Adam transgressed the law to introduce a fallen state.

Something else to consider: God cannot create anything that is less than absolute perfection. Anything He creates, is an extention of Him, His power and His Priesthood.

Therefore, if we are to be tested, we need to be tested in a less-than-perfect place.

But He cannot create that, because everything He creates is perfect.

So, man himself, must introduce sin and transgression into the world to allow us to be tested to see if we will do all things whatsoever the Lord God commands.

The fall of Adam was in line with the mind and will of God.

[Just_A_Guy]

Was it a sin that Adam and Eve partook of the fruit? No. It was not against the will of God.

I confess I don't find this line of reasoning terribly persuasive. It is possible that one's sinful behavior inadvertently brings to pass God's will, the betrayal of the Lord by Judas Iscariot being perhaps the best example. I submit that it is possible that doing the right thing nevertheless constitutes sin if it is done for the wrong reasons or at the wrong time. Cain and Solomon offered sacrifices to the Lord that were counted against them for unrighteousness, for example.

Does it really matter whether Adam's and Eve's actions constituted a "sin" versus a "transgression"? Why?

[Vort]

Hi everyone,

I have never successfully answered the following question to my own satisfaction. In the garden of Eden Adam and Eve were commanded to multiply and replenish the earth, but also not to partake of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. If man could not have seed until after the fall, did God give contradicting commandments?

Now some may say that they could have seed before the fall, but the scriptures are clear that all are fallen (no unfallen posterity of Adam and Eve) and further through modern revelation we know that no seed existed before the fall.

Is there any way that this can be explained so that God did not give Adam a commandment that could not be kept?

"Contradicting commandments" is an oxymoron. God gave our first parents a commandment: Don't partake of the fruit. They disobeyed the commandment. As a result, they received exactly the same result that any of us do when we disobey God's commandments: They were cut off from his presence, inheriting spiritual (and temporal) death.

[skippy740]

http://www.millennialstar.org/sin-and-transgression/

What is the difference between a sin and a transgression? | Ask Gramps

http://www.lds.net/forums/learn-about-mormon-church/44351-transgression-vs-sin.html

Why does the distinction matter? To understand that our First Parents were not "guilty of Original Sin" and understanding the mind and will of God in the creation of the world.

[Vort]

Why does the distinction matter? To understand that our First Parents were not "guilty of Original Sin" and understanding the mind and will of God in the creation of the world.

Original Sin is a false Catholic dogma that states that Adam's sin has condemned us all. It is a false idea, and no distinction between "sin" and "transgression" is necessary to prove it false. Note that the scriptures make no distinction between the terms: "Sin is transgression of the law."

[Seminarysnoozer]

Hi everyone,

I have never successfully answered the following question to my own satisfaction. In the garden of Eden Adam and Eve were commanded to multiply and replenish the earth, but also not to partake of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. If man could not have seed until after the fall, did God give contradicting commandments?

Now some may say that they could have seed before the fall, but the scriptures are clear that all are fallen (no unfallen posterity of Adam and Eve) and further through modern revelation we know that no seed existed before the fall.

Is there any way that this can be explained so that God did not give Adam a commandment that could not be kept?

This is the way my husband and I explained it to our kids but this is just as an example to help understand the concepts; (Remember though, all metaphors have their parts of inexactness.)

Imagine a young adult who says "I am ready to leave the house and make it on my own to prove that I can do it on my own. I want to do this so I can learn responsibility and accountability." The parents, in response, say; "Okay, I like the fact that you want to learn responsibility and accountability and have the agency, in fact we encourage you to do it. But, if you really want to do that then I will have to give you the freedom to do it. What that means is that once you leave the door with those intentions (once you eat of the tree of death - the tree of knowledge of good and evil) you will be cut off from our bank account and you will no longer be sleeping in this house (you will be cut off from the tree of life). You can decide when you are ready for such a decision (Hang out in the garden until you are ready). We will leave it up to you." The child has to decide between going out on their own and therefore learning responsibility and accountability or she could stay in the house for a longer period of time until she is ready. But once she makes that decision then she is cut off, because if not then there is no real opportunity to learn those things. (My husband always likes to throw in the comment; "You gotta cut the umbilical cord at some point") Of course the parents in that metaphor would also say; "Now if you need any assistance, you just give us a call and if you need advice on how to proceed we are here to give it to you." And, "Remember all the instruction we have given you on how to be successful in such an endeavor, to be successful you will have a guide and instruction" (A Savior and gospel, Holy Ghost, etc. is provided to ensure success) The process will determine who much you will faithfully follow your parents instructions or try to pave your own individual path.

Hope that helps. By the way, it is not just Adam and Eve that made that decision, we all did, individually.

Edited October 17, 2012 by Seminarysnoozer

[rameumptom]

2 Nephi 2 says there is opposition in all things. Without a choice being laid out for Adam and Eve, they could not have a choice: live forever in the Garden by not partaking of the fruit, or have seed by partaking of the fruit. Each had a consequence. Adam and Eve had to make a choice between consequences.

Without such a choice of opposites, there could be no life without death, happiness without misery, etc. All would be a composite in one, with neither life nor death.

[Traveler]

Hi everyone,

I have never successfully answered the following question to my own satisfaction. In the garden of Eden Adam and Eve were commanded to multiply and replenish the earth, but also not to partake of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. If man could not have seed until after the fall, did God give contradicting commandments?

Now some may say that they could have seed before the fall, but the scriptures are clear that all are fallen (no unfallen posterity of Adam and Eve) and further through modern revelation we know that no seed existed before the fall.

Is there any way that this can be explained so that God did not give Adam a commandment that could not be kept?

I believe that the fall is one of the most misunderstood doctrines in Christianity – even among LDS despite that there is so much more revelation available to LDS. It seems to me that the old traditional Christian doctrine still reigns in the minds of LDS. Therefore it is my purpose in this post to awaken the readers not to new ideas but to the truth as it was known anciently when the scriptures were created.

The fall is part of the very beginning landscape of understanding G-d’s marvelous plan of salvation and is tightly coupled to the doctrine of creation. The two doctrines of creation and fall are paramount in understanding the role and purpose of Jesus – both as savior and redeemer and as the one and only G-d for all of mankind. For traditional Christians the basis for understanding creation and the fall are recorded in the Holy Scriptures in the very ancient book of Genesis. Geneses was written anciently in an ancient Hebrew poetic format and is intended to be understood symbolically. The essential ideas of the doctrines are given as poetic metaphors which can only but understood properly by covenant and the influence of the Holy Spirit. This is why the sacred temple covenants begin with the creation and the fall – to establish the covenant by which the fall can properly be understood.

Jesus often used the concept of treasure and money to symbolically introduce a metaphoric understanding of the kingdom of heaven – that does not mean that we are to literally believe that wealth and money defining principles of the kingdom of heaven. Likewise the metaphoric use of symbols concerning the fall needs to be understood and kept in context of sacred covenants. Because of the sacred nature of covenant relating to the fall – I feel inclined to only touch on a few principles of understanding.

The first, concerns the use of Adam and Eve as individuals exercising choice and partaking of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. LDS should understand that we are not to view Adam and Eve in the epoch choice as unique individuals as our first parents partaking of the fruit. But we are to understand that Adam and Eve are “Symbolic” and that we are to think or understand the epoch as if we are Adam and Eve. Thus this is not to be thought of as some kind of factual story of Adam and Eve partaking of the fruit but rather the story of our decision to participate in the plan of salvation, partake of the fruit and become mortal.

In addition the symbolism of the fall teaches us why we must follow that divinely appointed and anointed being given responsibility for the path or way to the symbolic-metaphoric tree of life. Thus we are to understand the need for a savior and redeemer that possesses the symbolic-metaphoric flaming sword of both judgment and salvation.

The Traveler

[Marlin1]

The following truth is revealed in The Bible, D&C and Book of Mormon: The Lord does not give commandments without preparing a way to accomplish the things which he has commanded. The "how" of obedience is not always clear. With regard to the brass plates, what was impossible to Laman and Lemuel, became entirely possible to Nephi because he chose to obey and walk in faith, and the way was prepared for him to obey.

The Lord promised Adam and Eve after giving both commandments that he would return and give further instruction. Unfortunately, Adam and Eve partook of the fruit before they ever received that further instruction. So, the answer of "how?" will forever be a matter of speculation because Adam and Eve chose to partake of the forbidden fruit.

The following scripture is telling:

“He that keepeth his commandments receiveth truth and light, until he is glorified in truth and knoweth all things(knowledge of good & evil)…Behold here is the agency of man, and here is the condemnation of man; because that which was from the beginning is plainly manifest unto them, and they receive not the light. And every man whose spirit receiveth not the light is under condemnation.” (D&C 93: 29,31-32)

Edited October 24, 2012 by Marlin1

[SpiritDragon]

Marlin1 this is likely the best way of looking at this anyone has ever shared with me, thankyou.

[Seminarysnoozer]

The Lord promised Adam and Eve after giving both commandments that he would return and give further instruction. Unfortunately, Adam and Eve partook of the fruit before they ever received that further instruction. So, the answer of "how?" will forever be a matter of speculation because Adam and Eve chose to partake of the forbidden fruit.

Moses 4; "30 For as I, the Lord God, liveth, even so my words cannot return void, for as they go forth out of my mouth they must be fulfilled." God does not say that He is going to do something and then not do it.

So, He did come back and give them instructions like He said He would; Moses 4: " 21 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, between thy seed and her seed; and he shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

22 Unto the woman, I, the Lord God, said: I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception. In sorrow thou shalt bring forth children, and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

23 And unto Adam, I, the Lord God, said: Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the fruit of the tree of which I commanded thee, saying—Thou shalt not eat of it, cursed shall be the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life.

24 Thorns also, and thistles shall it bring forth to thee, and thou shalt eat the herb of the field.

25 By the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, until thou shalt return unto the ground—for thou shalt surely die—for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou wast, and unto dust shalt thou return."

[Marlin1]

He did return to give further instruction, you are right, but where were Adam and Eve when he returned? They were in hiding. What would have been his instruction had they not partaken? Again, that will forever be speculation. We can be assured that he would have prepared a way.

[jb789]

I think Traveler provided some excellent points, in that, in the temple, we are to understand the Fall as being symbolic, and to consider ourselves as Adam and Eve.

Max Skousen wrote a great book on this very subject, called Looking Beyond the Mark:

Max Skousen-Looking Beyond the Mark

In his book, Max explains what he believes the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil symbolizes - that it is our tendency to falsely judge what is good and evil, and to see things as opposites, rather than as a unified whole. This may be difficult to understand at first, but it makes a great deal of sense to me now.

Lucifer (the father of all lies!) said that by partaking of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, Adam and Eve would become as Gods (Lucifer even said that is how God obtained his knowledge). Lucifer also explained that by partaking of this fruit, Adam and Eve would comprehend that "everything has it's opposite". According to Max, and I wholeheartedly agree, this was a deception of Lucifer, which led to the spiritual separation of God and man.

I'm not going to explain it in detail (it would take quite a while), but I strongly suggest you read Max's book - I've provided a link above. This book was very helpful to me in understanding this very concept. We are specifically told in the scriptures that the Tree of Life is symbolic of the love of Christ. However, we are not specifically told what the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil symbolizes. Reading the book by Max may give you some good inspiration on this. Basically, the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil is the illusion by which we judge this to be good, and this to be bad, this to be preferable, this to be not preferable, etc. In eastern philosophy, this would be known as "duality" - which is a condition of the fallen/natural/carnal mind, which views things in opposites, and thus always in conflict.

I personally believe the Fall was helpful in this way - in order for Adam and Eve to realize what they already had by living with God, they had to experience being without Him, they had to Fall. It was still an error - the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil surely does not lead one to God! Lucifer falsely persuaded them that it would.

Max Skousen teaches we can only come to the Tree of Life (pure love of Christ) by leaving the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. Remember, this is symbolism. Thus, we must become as a child, "knowing nothing", having put aside all our prejudices, beliefs, etc, so that we are truly humble and teachable as children. Doing this is symbolically not partaking of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. Doing this will allow us to led by the Spirit (not by knowledge!) to the Tree of Life (love of Christ).

I hope this helps - it's important to remember that these are symbols. A great part of understanding that Fall is to understand what the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil symbolizes, and how partaking of it draws us away from God, rather than towards Him.

P.S. I could be mistaken, but I don't believe anywhere in the scriptures it states Adam and Eve could not have children while in the Garden of Eden. Adam partake of the fruit so he could remain with Eve (because she was already going to be cast out for eating the fruit). However, if neither had partaken, it appears they very would could have remained in the Garden and multiplied.

Edited October 26, 2012 by jb789

[Seminarysnoozer]

He did return to give further instruction, you are right, but where were Adam and Eve when he returned? They were in hiding. What would have been his instruction had they not partaken? Again, that will forever be speculation. We can be assured that he would have prepared a way.

I disagree, I doubt God approaches anything with "if plan A doesn't work, I will go with plan B", he does not vary. I think He would have patiently waited to act the way He knew they would act when He gave them that position in the first place.

We vary, but we are not talking about human variability, we are talking about God saying that He will come back with further instruction. I believe, the moment He said that about himself, if that is the case, He knew exactly when and how that was going to happen .... just like it happened.

[james12]

...In his book, Max explains what he believes the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil symbolizes - that it is our tendency to falsely judge what is good and evil, and to see things as opposites, rather than as a unified whole. This may be difficult to understand at first, but it makes a great deal of sense to me now.

Lucifer (the father of all lies!) said that by partaking of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, Adam and Eve would become as Gods (Lucifer even said that is how God obtained his knowledge). Lucifer also explained that by partaking of this fruit, Adam and Eve would comprehend that "everything has it's opposite". According to Max, and I wholeheartedly agree, this was a deception of Lucifer, which led to the spiritual separation of God and man.

I'm not going to explain it in detail (it would take quite a while), but I strongly suggest you read Max's book - I've provided a link above. This book was very helpful to me in understanding this very concept. We are specifically told in the scriptures that the Tree of Life is symbolic of the love of Christ. However, we are not specifically told what the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil symbolizes. Reading the book by Max may give you some good inspiration on this. Basically, the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil is the illusion by which we judge this to be good, and this to be bad, this to be preferable, this to be not preferable, etc. In eastern philosophy, this would be known as "duality" - which is a condition of the fallen/natural/carnal mind, which views things in opposites, and thus always in conflict.

Yet we have this from the scriptures, "for if they never should have bitter they could not know the sweet" (D&C 29:39) and again, "it is given unto them to know good from evil" (Moses 6:56). How do these scriptures fit into this philosophy of "duality" and not viewing things as opposites?

P.S. I could be mistaken, but I don't believe anywhere in the scriptures it states Adam and Eve could not have children while in the Garden of Eden. Adam partake of the fruit so he could remain with Eve (because she was already going to be cast out for eating the fruit). However, if neither had partaken, it appears they very would could have remained in the Garden and multiplied.

Here is the scripture that indicates that Adam and Eve could have no children:

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. And they would have had no children; wherefore they would have remained in a state of innocence, having no joy, for they knew no misery; doing no good, for they knew no sin. (2 Ne 2:22-23)

[Marlin1]

jb789,

I disagree with Skousen. The tree does not represent our tendency to falsely judge. Their eyes were opened by the fruit. All things do have their opposites. The whole is not unified. Good is not unified with evil. God himself said that they are become as one of us...

I think that people erroneously assume that because the fruit was forbidden that it was somehow bad, or represents something bad. Not all things that are forbidden are bad. I believe that it was forbidden the same way the sex is forbidden before marriage. They needed to be prepared. Without proper preparation, Lucifer would gain control of their hearts. Which he did. The scriptures say that Adam loved Lucifer more than God.

The tree was a very, very good thing. It was incredibly sacred and necessary for salvation. I personally believe that the further instruction that they would have received would have been preparatory to partaking the fruit.

That's alright if you disagree with me seminarysnoozer, like I said it is all speculation. I'm not claiming that I'm right.

Edited October 26, 2012 by Marlin1

[jb789]

Yet we have this from the scriptures, "for if they never should have bitter they could not know the sweet" (D&C 29:39) and again, "it is given unto them to know good from evil" (Moses 6:56). How do these scriptures fit into this philosophy of "duality" and not viewing things as opposites?

Here is the scripture that indicates that Adam and Eve could have no children:

Yes, I see the scripture - indeed, if Adam had not transgressed, he would have remained in the Garden (yet Eve would have left) - thus, being separated, they would not be able to have children (yet the scripture doesn't indicate that if both were to remain in the Garden, they are incapable of having children).

As for the concept of duality and opposites, my understanding is that it is necessary to experience the "bitter fruit" of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, to realize that it is not the way. However, when one is spiritually reborn (eastern philosophy terms this "enlightenment", yet is is the same as being reborn spiritually/entering into the rest of the Lord, etc), they no longer view things from this dualistic mindset. They are no longer labeling this "good", and this "bad", and thus constantly judging in their own minds this versus that. They see truth as a whole, not as divided into opposites.

Again, this can be hard to understand (as what this really means is we transcend the "carnal mind"), but the Spirit very much does indicate to me it is true. Surely God in the eternities does not continually experience the bitter to know the good - perhaps at one time in His probation he did, but such a continually experience of opposites is not part of joy. Remember a time when you felt great peace and joy - is there an "opposite" to this? Or rather, is such a blissful experience complete in itself?

Little children do not experience life in such a conflicted, opposite-driven fashion. We are told to become as little children, and to not partake of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. The great misconception, I believe, is that we forget that the promised "blessings" of the tree of knowledge of good and evil (knowledge of God, knowing everything has it's opposite, etc) were proposed by Lucifer, the father of all lies. This was a great deception, on under which many are still living! From God's own direction, this tree leads to spiritual death. It is the other tree - the love of Christ, that leads to life eternal.

[jb789]

jb789,

I disagree with Skousen. The tree does not represent our tendency to falsely judge. Their eyes were opened by the fruit. All things do have their opposites. The whole is not unified. Good is not unified with evil. God himself said that they are become as one of us...

I think that people erroneously assume that because the fruit was forbidden that it was somehow bad, or represents something bad. Not all things that are forbidden are bad. I believe that it was forbidden the same way the sex is forbidden before marriage. They needed to be prepared. Without proper preparation, Lucifer would gain control of their hearts. Which he did. The scriptures say that Adam loved Lucifer more than God.

The tree was a very, very good thing. It was incredibly sacred and necessary for salvation. I personally believe that the further instruction that they would have received would have been preparatory to partaking the fruit.

That's alright if you disagree with me seminarysnoozer, like I said it is all speculation. I'm not claiming that I'm right.

No problem in disagreeing! This isn't something yet specified by modern prophets so it's all up to personal revelation etc at this point. Nonetheless, I think understanding what the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil symbolizes is key. For me, reading the books of Max Skousen was very helpful - I can say that I felt genuine inspiration while reading them, for me they were very helpful.

[Marlin1]

jb789,

It's actually found in the second scripture that James12 listed - 2 Nephi 2:22-23. "...and they would have had no children."

I really like where you are going with non-judgment approach of eastern mindfulness, and not labeling things, people, and even self as good or bad. I believe in that approach fully. We are taught not to judge people, but we are taught to judge with a righteous judgement. Not so much between people and things, rather between powers and principles. We do have to judge between the real dualities of good and evil.

[james12]

Yes, I see the scripture - indeed, if Adam had not transgressed, he would have remained in the Garden (yet Eve would have left) - thus, being separated, they would not be able to have children (yet the scripture doesn't indicate that if both were to remain in the Garden, they are incapable of having children).

As for the concept of duality and opposites, my understanding is that it is necessary to experience the "bitter fruit" of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, to realize that it is not the way. However, when one is spiritually reborn (eastern philosophy terms this "enlightenment", yet is is the same as being reborn spiritually/entering into the rest of the Lord, etc), they no longer view things from this dualistic mindset. They are no longer labeling this "good", and this "bad", and thus constantly judging in their own minds this versus that. They see truth as a whole, not as divided into opposites.

Again, this can be hard to understand (as what this really means is we transcend the "carnal mind"), but the Spirit very much does indicate to me it is true. Surely God in the eternities does not continually experience the bitter to know the good - perhaps at one time in His probation he did, but such a continually experience of opposites is not part of joy. Remember a time when you felt great peace and joy - is there an "opposite" to this? Or rather, is such a blissful experience complete in itself?

Little children do not experience life in such a conflicted, opposite-driven fashion. We are told to become as little children, and to not partake of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. The great misconception, I believe, is that we forget that the promised "blessings" of the tree of knowledge of good and evil (knowledge of God, knowing everything has it's opposite, etc) were proposed by Lucifer, the father of all lies. This was a great deception, on under which many are still living! From God's own direction, this tree leads to spiritual death. It is the other tree - the love of Christ, that leads to life eternal.

Thanks, both good points. I'll have to consider them.