Adam and Eve and the juicy fruit...

[carlimac]

I'm preparing a primary lesson on this for tomorrow and it's set my mind a-spinning. Why would the Lord require a commandment to be broken ( eat the fruit) in order to keep another one (multiply and replenish)? Why is this so counter-intuitive? What was the purpose of Adam and Eve going through that? I hope it doesn't sound too blasphemous to say, but sometimes in my mind it comes off as a trick. Why didn't He just put Adam and Eve on the earth in the state that the rest of us were in when we got here and say- OK you have your agency to follow the rules or not. It's called free agency. Really, what was the point of that whole garden scene?

I personally think some details are missing from the story. It would make more sense to me if God had laid out the whole thing and said, Here's what happens if you choose to stay in the garden. And here's what happens if you eat the fruit and become mortal. Stay in the garden, don't eat the fruit, you get to stay with me, don't have to make any choices but you don't get to have kids or progress. Or partake of the fruit, leave the garden for good and I can't go with you but you can make your own decisions, progress toward godhood and go have kids. In the temple movie and in the scriptures they are portrayed as being somewhat too innocent minded. Not thinkers who would ponder and come up with the best answer.

So is it all just symbolic and not literal? I know it's symbolic in the temple- especially the movie. I mean where did Satan get all those clothes? And if he never was given a body, why is he portrayed on earth with a body? Obviously the answer is that it's just symbolism and we can't let that disturb us. But I am still struggling with the idea that God would give Adam and Eve a commandment that was impossible to keep immediately, among other things.

Also, does anyone know the reference to how we know Adam and Eve didn't have blood when they were in the garden? That's what the Primary manual tells us to teach the kids. How do we know that?

Edited February 1, 2014 by carlimac

[james12]

I'm preparing a primary lesson on this for tomorrow and it's set my mind a-spinning. Why would the Lord require a commandment to be broken ( eat the fruit) in order to keep another one (multiply and replenish)? Why is this so counter-intuitive? What was the purpose of Adam and Eve going through that?

I have considered this same question over the last couple of days, partly due to another thread on this site. Joseph once said, "The elements are eternal. That which has a beginning will surely have an end. Take a ring, it is without beginning or end; cut it for a beginning place, and at the same time you have will an ending place. ...If the soul of man had a beginning it will surely have an end" (see BOAP January 5, 1841). Is our birth not a beginning? If so then our life will have an end, death. If anything which has a beginning must have an end, how then can there be birth in heaven? For if we are born then we must die and we are not eternal. This raises some very interesting questions and I have more thoughts along these lines.

Also, does anyone know the reference to how we know Adam and Eve didn't have blood when they were in the garden? That's what the Primary manual tells us to teach the kids. How do we know that?

This question about blood is also interesting. Joseph Fielding Smith said:

Adam had a spiritual body until mortality came upon him through the violation of the law under which he was living, but he also had a physical body of flesh and bones. … Now what is a spiritual body? It is one that is quickened by spirit and not by blood. …When Adam was in the Garden of Eden, he was not subject to death. There was no blood in his body and he could have remained there forever. This is true of all the other creations” (Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, 1:76–77).

If this statement is true it raises more questions because didn't Adam and Eve come here to gain a body like all of us? How is it then that they had a physical body already quickened by the Spirit?

[Dravin]

Why would the Lord require a commandment to be broken ( eat the fruit) in order to keep another one (multiply and replenish)? Why is this so counter-intuitive? What was the purpose of Adam and Eve going through that?

Some past discussion on the issue that might be helpful in your pondering: http://www.lds.net/forums/lds-gospel-discussion/23464-eating-forbidden-fruit.html

Also, does anyone know the reference to how we know Adam and Eve didn't have blood when they were in the garden?

Off the top of my head there isn't anything in the standard works that spells out that Adam and Eve did not poses blood, but it's an idea coming from prophetic/apostolic exposition. For instance Doctrines of Salvation by Joseph Fielding Smith gives such an explanation of their condition (1:76-77 based on Doctrines of the Gospel Student Manual Chapter 8: The Fall ). I think Mormon Doctrine also gives such an explanation but I don't have a copy to double check.

[Just_A_Guy]

I'm preparing a primary lesson on this for tomorrow and it's set my mind a-spinning. Why would the Lord require a commandment to be broken ( eat the fruit) in order to keep another one (multiply and replenish)? Why is this so counter-intuitive? What was the purpose of Adam and Eve going through that? I hope it doesn't sound too blasphemous to say, but sometimes in my mind it comes off as a trick. Why didn't He just put Adam and Eve on the earth in the state that the rest of us were in when we got here and say- OK you have your agency to follow the rules or not. It's called free agency. Really, what was the point of that whole garden scene?

A thought that occurred to me sometime ago--and I don't remember where it came from--is that it would be contrary to the nature of God to create something that was not perfect. Because the fall played out as it did, we don't get to blame God for our physical/moral weaknesses (though heaven knows, some people still try). Because those are a legacy of the fall, not the creation. With due deference to my own individual responsibility as per the 2nd Article of Faith--my weaknesses are Adam's fault, not God's; and my duty is to overcome them, not wallow in them. (See 1 Corinthians 15:20-22, 45-49).

I personally think some details are missing from the story.

I agree. My perception--and I think the temple portrayal supports this a bit; but the scriptures we have unfortunately don't--is that the Father intended for Adam and Eve to partake of the fruit, but not right then--that there were additional instructions Adam and Eve were supposed to receive before they made their decision. Satan then entered the scene and tried to co-opt God's rightful role by offering to Adam and Eve divine knowledge that (he claimed) the Father was wrongfully withholding.

In the temple movie and in the scriptures they are portrayed as being somewhat too innocent minded.

The newer two movies do a much better job of portraying the conflict that Adam and Eve felt when they made their respective decisions. But even then--I agree

So is it all just symbolic and not literal? . . . But I am still struggling with the idea that God would give Adam and Eve a commandment that was impossible to keep immediately, among other things.

I think Adam and Eve were real people. I think they did face a significant quandary, and that the way they sought to resolve that quandary resulted in both a spiritual and temporal fall for all mankind that made the Atonement necessary. And I think Adam, Eve, the Father, Jehovah, and Satan played more or less the roles that we are taught they played in the making of that decision. Whether they actually ate a "fruit", or whether there was an actual physical place called "Eden" that they ultimately had to leave, or to what degree some of the persons involved may have acted by proxies (e.g. Satan/talking serpent)--I try to keep an open mind.

(But when I taught this lesson in primary two weeks ago, I kept a literalistic bent as per the manual.)

[Guest]

I've wondered recently if part of it was protecting them from the sorrow and difficulty of mortal life. I think so many of our commandments are to protect us and preserve our happiness. Also of note is that He never put them under covenant to not eat the fruit; He said that they may not eat it, nevertheless, it was their choice.

[RMGuy]

I'll tag on if I may...we are taught that Adam and Eve, were faced with a difficult choice and after careful deliberation choice the best that they could.

How? They supposedly didn't know good from evil yet.

Only my opinion, but this story, together with many others, makes much more sense if approached as allegorical as opposed to literal. If a literal approach works for you, awesome. If forced to choose between literal or fictional I would go with fictional every time. Hence allegorical allows me personally to still exercise faith and not throw the baby out with the bath water...figuratively speaking.

-RM

[Just_A_Guy]

I don't reject out-of-hand the notion of the Fall narrative as being allegorical; but with one caveat: If we say "it's allegorical", then we should be putting more effort into understanding what it truly represents. Some people do that, and they pull some really interesting doctrinal nuggets out of the tale. But hopefully we don't just take "it's allegorical" as an excuse to dismiss the tale as an ancient invention of the sun-baked minds of credulous desert sheep-herders, and therefore not put any more thought into it. "It's allegorical" shouldn't end a scriptural discussion; it should broaden and deepen it.

Edited February 1, 2014 by Just_A_Guy

[carlimac]

Some past discussion on the issue that might be helpful in your pondering: http://www.lds.net/forums/lds-gospel-discussion/23464-eating-forbidden-fruit.html

Off the top of my head there isn't anything in the standard works that spells out that Adam and Eve did not poses blood, but it's an idea coming from prophetic/apostolic exposition. For instance Doctrines of Salvation by Joseph Fielding Smith gives such an explanation of their condition (1:76-77 based on Doctrines of the Gospel Student Manual Chapter 8: The Fall ). I think Mormon Doctrine also gives such an explanation but I don't have a copy to double check.

Thanks. My search button for this forum still doesn't work right.

[applepansy]

I'm preparing a primary lesson on this for tomorrow and it's set my mind a-spinning. Why would the Lord require a commandment to be broken ( eat the fruit) in order to keep another one (multiply and replenish)?

Because Adam and Eve had to exercise their Agency.

Nothing in the scriptures suggests that Adam an Eve didn't understand more than we do. We don't know how long they were in the garden. We do know they walked and talked with Heavenly Father. I think they would have learned a lot from Him.

Edited February 1, 2014 by applepansy

[Blackmarch]

I'm preparing a primary lesson on this for tomorrow and it's set my mind a-spinning. Why would the Lord require a commandment to be broken ( eat the fruit) in order to keep another one (multiply and replenish)? Why is this so counter-intuitive? What was the purpose of Adam and Eve going through that? I hope it doesn't sound too blasphemous to say, but sometimes in my mind it comes off as a trick. Why didn't He just put Adam and Eve on the earth in the state that the rest of us were in when we got here and say- OK you have your agency to follow the rules or not. It's called free agency. Really, what was the point of that whole garden scene?

I personally think some details are missing from the story. It would make more sense to me if God had laid out the whole thing and said, Here's what happens if you choose to stay in the garden. And here's what happens if you eat the fruit and become mortal. Stay in the garden, don't eat the fruit, you get to stay with me, don't have to make any choices but you don't get to have kids or progress. Or partake of the fruit, leave the garden for good and I can't go with you but you can make your own decisions, progress toward godhood and go have kids. In the temple movie and in the scriptures they are portrayed as being somewhat too innocent minded. Not thinkers who would ponder and come up with the best answer.

So is it all just symbolic and not literal? I know it's symbolic in the temple- especially the movie. I mean where did Satan get all those clothes? And if he never was given a body, why is he portrayed on earth with a body? Obviously the answer is that it's just symbolism and we can't let that disturb us. But I am still struggling with the idea that God would give Adam and Eve a commandment that was impossible to keep immediately, among other things.

Also, does anyone know the reference to how we know Adam and Eve didn't have blood when they were in the garden? That's what the Primary manual tells us to teach the kids. How do we know that?

He did not command them not to as in the breath just before that he gave them permission to partake of all things in the garden (which would include the tree of knowledge). Or else we see the only instance of God contradicting himself in the scriptures.

What God's saying is basically "...but, I don't want you to eat the fruit of knowledge because you'll die" He's not giving a direct commandment.

as for spirits wearing clothes.. no idea. But i'm guessing they are capable of something as angels who haven't been embodied appeared to people and were never reported as naked.

[SpiritDragon]

A thought that came up during a recent discussion on this topic in Gospel Doctrine is that Adam and Eve needed the garden time to adjust to having bodies and not always being in the presence of God. Sort of a time to learn things in innocence like we all have as children before we reach the age of accountability. The garden is somewhat a representation of Adam and Eve's childhood, after partaking of the fruit they knew the difference between good and evil and could be held accountable.

Another interesting point is that it often seems as though being cast out of the garden is a punishment. This point is not actually explicitly stated (at least not that we were aware of during our discussion). Adam is told that the ground will be cursed for his sake. In fact the use of the words "for thy sake" could likely be referring to a blessing, as in Adam will be blessed with learning to work ground that has been cursed from spontaneously bringing forth perfect and abundant food without effort on man's part. Really though we still have a pretty fantastic capacity for plants to grow on their own; makes me wonder what the garden was like.

[bytebear]

I believe that God cannot create imperfection, so he had to establish a situation where the agency of Adam and Eve created imperfection.

[carlimac]

I believe that God cannot create imperfection, so he had to establish a situation where the agency of Adam and Eve created imperfection.

He created me. I'm imperfection personified.

[bytebear]

He created me. I'm imperfection personified.

But you were perfect when you were created. You only became imperfect when you were put into an imperfect world.

[Traveler]

There have been a few threads started recently on the forum surrounding the Creation and the Eden epoch (the Fall of man). In LDS theology the Creation and Fall are two great elements in the “Plan of Salvation” or “Great Plan of Happiness”. As we discuss these topics I am a bit surprised that my personal understanding seems to be very much a minority LDS opinion. That is – what seems obvious to me concerning Adam and Eve and the Fall seems to be quite foreign to everyone else.

I believe that the scripture representation of the fall as a choice of Adam and eve is not as literal as many seem to be discussing. Rather I see the presentation as symbolic of a choice made by all of us in the pre-existence. I believe that the Fall of Adam and Eve is representative of the exile of G-d’s children from the kingdom of heaven. That as a result of the Fall – all mankind lost citizenship in the Kingdom of Heaven where G-d the Father resides at the King and supreme Suzerain. Having lost our rights Jesus (G-d the Son) became the King and Supreme Suzerain of that society and kingdom of those fallen (including Satan and his followers). I believe we exercised our Agency in the pre-existence to learn by experience the good from the evil. We are now living out the consequences of that choice as we struggle in our fallen state with hope and faith in Jesus – first to redeem us by his sacrifice and second to experience faith without knowledge that his sacrifice will save us.

Thus the store of Adam and Eve is not just about our first parents but a symbolic epoch that represents each of us as though we are Adam and Eve. I have thought that the earth was prepared for the fallen spirits that we may learn by experience good from evil. And this point I have great difficulty and cannot argue as true because as I understand there are elements of life and death that have been occurring on earth for eons before the time that our first parents (Adam and Eve) were cast from Eden as physical mortals subject to death that is so common here. This point is difficult because it seems to violate scripture and there is no empirical science to indicate that a new species began to inhabit earth some 6,000 years ago. For me there is something missing.

The Traveler

[carlimac]

There have been a few threads started recently on the forum surrounding the Creation and the Eden epoch (the Fall of man). In LDS theology the Creation and Fall are two great elements in the “Plan of Salvation” or “Great Plan of Happiness”. As we discuss these topics I am a bit surprised that my personal understanding seems to be very much a minority LDS opinion. That is – what seems obvious to me concerning Adam and Eve and the Fall seems to be quite foreign to everyone else.

I believe that the scripture representation of the fall as a choice of Adam and eve is not as literal as many seem to be discussing. Rather I see the presentation as symbolic of a choice made by all of us in the pre-existence. I believe that the Fall of Adam and Eve is representative of the exile of G-d’s children from the kingdom of heaven. That as a result of the Fall – all mankind lost citizenship in the Kingdom of Heaven where G-d the Father resides at the King and supreme Suzerain. Having lost our rights Jesus (G-d the Son) became the King and Supreme Suzerain of that society and kingdom of those fallen (including Satan and his followers). I believe we exercised our Agency in the pre-existence to learn by experience the good from the evil. We are now living out the consequences of that choice as we struggle in our fallen state with hope and faith in Jesus – first to redeem us by his sacrifice and second to experience faith without knowledge that his sacrifice will save us.

Thus the store of Adam and Eve is not just about our first parents but a symbolic epoch that represents each of us as though we are Adam and Eve. I have thought that the earth was prepared for the fallen spirits that we may learn by experience good from evil. And this point I have great difficulty and cannot argue as true because as I understand there are elements of life and death that have been occurring on earth for eons before the time that our first parents (Adam and Eve) were cast from Eden as physical mortals subject to death that is so common here. This point is difficult because it seems to violate scripture and there is no empirical science to indicate that a new species began to inhabit earth some 6,000 years ago. For me there is something missing.

The Traveler

Maybe we believe it's literal because we've been taught since Primary days that it is. I just taught that lesson yesterday as literal because there was nothing in the manual instructing me to say it was just a representation of something else. You should have seen my daughter's face when I told them that Adam and Eve's bodies didn't have blood yet in the Garden of Eden. Total dismay! And yet, that was straight out of the manual.

[estradling75]

Why would the Lord require a commandment to be broken ( eat the fruit) in order to keep another one (multiply and replenish)?

I am wondering why we assume this? I know that is how it went down... But I think its a mistake to say that because that is what happened that God 'required' it to happen that way and only that way. It is possible that another path was available in the mind of God. A path that closed with the transgression and has never be told to us (because what would be the point of that now?)

Let take something that I think is a similar kind of situation but much more recent. The lost of the first 116 pages of the Book of Mormon. God clearly had that covered. Does the fact that God was ready to deal with the lost mean that God 'required' that they be lost? I think we can all agree that would be a no. They were lost and we know how things were made right. But had Martin Harris and Joseph Smith chose differently the biggest change would be that the Book of Mormon would be 116 pages longer.

[Traveler]

I am wondering why we assume this? I know that is how it went down... But I think its a mistake to say that because that is what happened that God 'required' it to happen that way and only that way. It is possible that another path was available in the mind of God. A path that closed with the transgression and has never be told to us (because what would be the point of that now?)

Let take something that I think is a similar kind of situation but much more recent. The lost of the first 116 pages of the Book of Mormon. God clearly had that covered. Does the fact that God was ready to deal with the lost mean that God 'required' that they be lost? I think we can all agree that would be a no. They were lost and we know how things were made right. But had Martin Harris and Joseph Smith chose differently the biggest change would be that the Book of Mormon would be 116 pages longer.

I am not sure this is quite the same. The question that I would have is -- Was the fall a necessary part of the Father's "Plan of Salvation"?

Please note the word necessary - I do not believe that Joseph loosing the 116 pages through Oliver was necessary. But I do believe that the fall and man becoming mortal was a necessary element in the plan of salvation. I believe the scriptures are clear - without the fall man could not be (we, as sons and daughters of "Adam and Eve" would not have received physical bodies.

The Traveler

[Traveler]

Maybe we believe it's literal because we've been taught since Primary days that it is. I just taught that lesson yesterday as literal because there was nothing in the manual instructing me to say it was just a representation of something else. You should have seen my daughter's face when I told them that Adam and Eve's bodies didn't have blood yet in the Garden of Eden. Total dismay! And yet, that was straight out of the manual.

Did the manual imply that all animals that existed prior to the fall - did not have blood and would not die? Or did the manual imply that only creatures in Eden (not in the world where Adam and Eve were cast or sent) were with

without blood?

The Traveler

[estradling75]

I am not sure this is quite the same. The question that I would have is -- Was the fall a necessary part of the Father's "Plan of Salvation"?

Please note the word necessary - I do not believe that Joseph loosing the 116 pages through Oliver was necessary. But I do believe that the fall and man becoming mortal was a necessary element in the plan of salvation. I believe the scriptures are clear - without the fall man could not be (we, as sons and daughters of "Adam and Eve" would not have received physical bodies.

The Traveler

Of course its not quite same... The fall was a singular event quite different in scale from the lost of the 116 page. I wasn't attempting to compare the scale of the events because that totally does not work. I was comparing God's response to disobedience in both cases, and how it does not prelude there being a better path forward.

Let rephrase the OP point of concern that I was addressing... Can/will obeying the commands of God frustrate God's plans? I think when phrased this way the answer becomes stunningly clear... But we let the magnitude, importance, and what really happened obscure what should be a very simple answer.

[Traveler]

Of course its not quite same... The fall was a singular event quite different in scale from the lost of the 116 page. I wasn't attempting to compare the scale of the events because that totally does not work. I was comparing God's response to disobedience in both cases, and how it does not prelude there being a better path forward.

Let rephrase the OP point of concern that I was addressing... Can/will obeying the commands of God frustrate God's plans? I think when phrased this way the answer becomes stunningly clear... But we let the magnitude, importance, and what really happened obscure what should be a very simple answer.

Thank you for your input to my opinion. I really enjoy trying out ideas with others on this forum - but I think my questions sometime upset others - but for me it is not just the solution but how or means others come to a conclusion that are important to me. Sometime questioning someone's methods is interpreted as a question of their integrate. If someone if offended I am sorry for that but not for my quest for understanding.

One of the OP points concerns the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil - is the fruit literal or symbolic? I believe that this is a most important choice that was necessary for all of G-d's children to consider. I do not believe that important choice was left only to Adam and Eve with consequences for all else. I know scripture indicates that G-d commanded that the fruit not be touched or tasted. But I am thinking that this particular commandment was not a commandment like, "Thou shall not commit adultery". I believe that all that G-d advises is a commandment.

But I believe that in the pre-existence G-d plainly informed us that by symbolically partaking (choice of informed agency) of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil that there would be definite consequences - specifically death. Symbolically Satan was also involved and tried to convince us all that death was not necessary - that we could taste the fruit without dying or suffering death.

The choice was made to partake of the fruit and come to earth where it was know that death would be a necessity - and with death much suffering. The one caveat was the atonement - but that is another element of the plan of salvation. With this choice man suffered spiritual death and was cast out of heaven (as was Satan).

Jesus offered to be our mediator and the G-d that oversees the fallen until the judgment day (when he would act as our Advocate with the Father). This is why Satan was able to come before the ruling place of G-d (in the epoch of Job) and why Jesus is the only G-d without any savior or any other G-d beside him. It is why he only would atone for our sins and why Jesus commands the Apostles and all others that report to him and why he alone reports to the Father and receives commandments from the Father for mankind.

The Traveler

[Seminarysnoozer]

I'm preparing a primary lesson on this for tomorrow and it's set my mind a-spinning. Why would the Lord require a commandment to be broken ( eat the fruit) in order to keep another one (multiply and replenish)? Why is this so counter-intuitive? What was the purpose of Adam and Eve going through that? I hope it doesn't sound too blasphemous to say, but sometimes in my mind it comes off as a trick. Why didn't He just put Adam and Eve on the earth in the state that the rest of us were in when we got here and say- OK you have your agency to follow the rules or not. It's called free agency. Really, what was the point of that whole garden scene?

I personally think some details are missing from the story. It would make more sense to me if God had laid out the whole thing and said, Here's what happens if you choose to stay in the garden. And here's what happens if you eat the fruit and become mortal. Stay in the garden, don't eat the fruit, you get to stay with me, don't have to make any choices but you don't get to have kids or progress. Or partake of the fruit, leave the garden for good and I can't go with you but you can make your own decisions, progress toward godhood and go have kids. In the temple movie and in the scriptures they are portrayed as being somewhat too innocent minded. Not thinkers who would ponder and come up with the best answer.

So is it all just symbolic and not literal? I know it's symbolic in the temple- especially the movie. I mean where did Satan get all those clothes? And if he never was given a body, why is he portrayed on earth with a body? Obviously the answer is that it's just symbolism and we can't let that disturb us. But I am still struggling with the idea that God would give Adam and Eve a commandment that was impossible to keep immediately, among other things.

Also, does anyone know the reference to how we know Adam and Eve didn't have blood when they were in the garden? That's what the Primary manual tells us to teach the kids. How do we know that?

If a young adult child says to her parents, "It's time for me to find a place of my own and become an adult." The parents would not say, 'okay, once you find the place we will move in with you'. They would say something along the lines of; 'that's great that you want to learn responsibility, you should find a place on your own when you are ready but if you really want to learn responsibility then you are going to have to pay for the place on your own and take responsibility for supporting yourself. To do that we will have to have limited involvement. Of course, if you have any problems along the way we will help.'

It wouldn't make sense for the young adult who wants to learn responsibility to find a place on her own and yet still live with mom and dad.

There was a plan put into place that would allow for a probationary period of learning and proving our ability to have responsibility without having it be a permanent condition. Without going through the whole plan of salvation, the fall of Adam and Eve was a necessary step to allow for some responsibility and provide a way back, a Savior.

As great as living with mom and dad one's whole life may sound, it is a growth stunting choice. One has to break away from mom and dad even before she becomes a perfect mom (or dad). Just like a young adult moving out of the house, there is a fall in terms of home, food, finances, etc. from what was previously enjoyed. This is done so the young adult can get back to that point herself and provide the same opportunity for the next generation. A fall from glory requires a transgression. God is just.

[Drpepper]

I'm preparing a primary lesson on this for tomorrow and it's set my mind a-spinning.

while this thread is primarily about reaching understanding regarding Adam and Eve and there choices. It is this first sentence that grabbed my attention first and foremost.

Primary teacher is one of the most sacred and rewarding callings in the church. The influence a teacher can have on young impressionable minds can last a lifetime.

While no doubt that lesson has now come and gone. If you were preparing a lesson for your class such questions as the ones you have asked are probably not necessary for their young minds.

I just had a quick chance to skim over the lesson and was quite gobsmacked at the simple profound doctrine taught in the lesson. I couldn't see the blood part but it would no doubt pale into insignificance compared to all the other valuable truths in the lesson.

In fact the lesson itself taught quite succinctly the truth about many of the speculative positions being thrown around this post

Funny as humans we often think the deeper we dig the more we will find but the Gospel can be quite the opposite. If someone at church is struggling with their testimony or understanding ill often encourage them to ask one of the primary teachers if they can sit in on their lesson on perhaps attend Gospel Principles.

Didn't mean to rave about this, my point was if your mind is spinning about doctrinal issues for you primary class then your probably not preparing the right thing. I would suggest praying for each child individually about what they need to know and in doing so theres a good chance you'll find your own answers as well. That is the miracle of teaching.

[Praetorian_Brow]

I can't help picturing gum being offered.

[Seminarysnoozer]

I can't help picturing gum being offered.

Lol, maybe that is why they were told not to eat it, just chew it for a while and then spit it out (tree gum), but instead they swallowed.