Adam and Eve and the juicy fruit...

[Traveler]

I just found this website to see if anyone else had this same question and to hopefully find an answer. I read this entire thread but all I see is guesses and theories. Does no one have a solid answer to this question? I've had this question on my mind for several years and have yet to hear an answer that makes sense. God did in fact COMMAND them not to eat the fruit. Joseph Fielding Smith said they didn't have blood so they couldn't multiply. Were they not commanded to multiply? Why would God give a commandment that cant be fulfilled? Nephi tells us God doesn't do that. So the way he provided was through disobedience to another commandment? That just doesn't fit. What Nephi said was "I know that the lord giveth no commandments unto the children of men, save he shall prepare a way for them that they may accomplish the thing which he commandeth them". Any one KNOW the answer to this without guessing or theorizing? By all means please!

Then there's the "transgression" thing. Disobeying a commandment isn't a sin because what? I was told it was because of Adams intent But that answer could get people into trouble. Maybe there's another thread for that question. Quite a puzzle in my head here, sorry if It sounds like a rant.

I would say you are missing the forest because of all the trees. The means by which we may accomplish the thing which G-d has commanded is through repentance and the atonement of Christ. The Eden epoch is symbolic. There is no actual tree sitting somewhere with forbidden fruit. The tree of knowledge of good and evil is like unto the tree of life with its fruit. Knowledge of evil is the experience of death and knowledge of good is the experience of atonement or redemption of G-d.

G-d cannot command us to partake of evil and suffer death - to do so is a transgression of the law. But he has made a way that we can accomplish his commandments and repent of our transgression and receive a knowledge of the goodness of G-d's love and compassion. There is a way to gain knowledge of good and evil. And with that knowledge make a choice between good and evil in eternity.

The Traveler

[Just_A_Guy]

Why would God give a commandment that cant be fulfilled?

The Bible commands us to be perfect (Matt 5:48). It also tells us that perfection in this life is unattainable (Romans 3:23).

So, are we commanded to be perfect because God really expects that we will be perfect in the here-and-now? Or is the commandment, the keeping of which we know to be impossible, aspirational in nature--intended to trigger a process of searching, pondering, and effort that--if properly engaged and followed--will ultimately lead to the receipt of the further light and knowledge that the Father has promised to send us?

Then there's the "transgression" thing. Disobeying a commandment isn't a sin because what? I was told it was because of Adams intent But that answer could get people into trouble. Maybe there's another thread for that question. Quite a puzzle in my head here, sorry if It sounds like a rant.

Here's (retired judge) Dallin H. Oaks' take on the subject as per the Book of Mormon Student Manual:

“[The] contrast between a sin and a transgression reminds us of the careful wording in the second article of faith: ‘We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression’ (italics added). It also echoes a familiar distinction in the law. Some acts, like murder, are crimes because they are inherently wrong. Other acts, like operating without a license, are crimes only because they are legally prohibited. Under these distinctions, the act that produced the Fall was not a sin—inherently wrong—but a transgression—wrong because it was formally prohibited. These words are not always used to denote something different, but this distinction seems meaningful in the circumstances of the Fall” (in Conference Report, Oct. 1993, 98; or Ensign, Nov. 1993, 73).

[kmfor]

So is this all personal thoughts or actual doctrine? The whole Adam & Eve story, taught since primary, is church doctrine and are we not taught it literally and physically happened? Does anyone have any references to back up what they're saying? I saw the one about being perfect, which we can achieve eventually without being forced to disobey any other law. I like official references because it shows me that its not merely a personal belief and maybe true maybe not. I just want to know what the actual answer is from the church if there is one. Any references? Ill check out that talk by Dallin H Oaks, thanks for that.

[Just_A_Guy]

I don't think there's a "black-letter law" response from the Church on this one. I remember hearing back in seminary that the Lord's instructions didn't mean "you must not take it"; but rather "if you take it, this is what will happen"--but IMHO, that doesn't square with the plain meaning of the text.

[Seminarysnoozer]

I think you are missing a most important point. It is possible to go to Medical School despite issues one has in their past. In fact that is the theme and purpose of the parable of the Prodigal Son. It is not a matter of Satan missing out on an opportunity and it being lost forever. I do not believe he is being punished for not going along with the program. I believe it is more about - if you take this path or way it will take you to Babylon. If you take this other path or way it will take you to Zion. The only way to get to Zion is to take the way to Zion.

In short I do not think you understand the difference between being unable to do a thing and being able to do a thing but choosing not to do it.

The Traveler

I am honestly not sure that there is a difference between "not going along with the program" and "taking a path that leads to Babylon." Inaction and omission is taking a path. I don't see the difference. Inaction to listen to the spirit, to ask, to look towards the light is the same as taking a path to Babylon.

Satan chose not to believe in the plan, that it could work, he did not have faith in Christ. Unbelief leads to ignorance. There are too many scriptures that state that to even put here. And Satan attempts to cause the same misery he experiences to as many as he can. The misery being ignorance, spiritual blindness, hardened heart, darkness, etc. . 2 Corinthians 4;" 4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the flight of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them."

I agree with the path analogy but I think you are missing my point. The point is that by taking the wrong path one's capacity changes. One can become blind and lose knowledge one once had when the choice was made. Just like one can become enlightened by making right choices, the opposite is true, one can become blinded by making the wrong choices leading to a state of irreversible ineptitude. Is a drunk driver not responsible for a death that might have been caused by their state of unawareness? Or is the sin only drunkenness even if the person knew there is a chance of hurting someone while in a drunken state?

Alma explains; Alma 24;" 30 And thus we can plainly discern, that after a people have been once enlightened by the Spirit of God, and have had great knowledge of things pertaining to righteousness, and then have fallen away into sin and transgression, they become more hardened, and thus their state becomes worse than though they had never known these things."

Revelation given to Joseph Smith D&C 78; " 10 Otherwise Satan seeketh to turn their hearts away from the truth, that they become blinded and understand not the things which are prepared for them."

Ephesians 4:" 18 Having the understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart:

19 Who being past feeling have given themselves over unto lasciviousness, to work all uncleanness with greediness."

Under the Guide to the Scriptures, Death, Spiritual; "Separation from God and his influences; to die as to things pertaining to righteousness. Lucifer and a third part of the hosts of heaven suffered a spiritual death when they were cast out of heaven (D&C 29:36–37)."

In other words, Lucifer became the Devil (see D&C 29:36-37). He became separated from the influences of God just like becoming blinded to the influences of God it results in an ignorance to righteous things.

A spiritual death is explained in Alma 12:" 16 And now behold, I say unto you then cometh a death, even a second adeath, which is a spiritual death; then is a time that whosoever dieth in his sins, as to a temporal death, shall also die a spiritual death; yea, he shall die as to things pertaining unto righteousness."

[kmfor]

I don't think there's a "black-letter law" response from the Church on this one. I remember hearing back in seminary that the Lord's instructions didn't mean "you must not take it"; but rather "if you take it, this is what will happen"--but IMHO, that doesn't square with the plain meaning of the text.

I share the same opinion. One specific reference that comes to mind is Gen 3:11 where it uses the word "Commanded".

[Vort]

I share the same opinion. One specific reference that comes to mind is Gen 3:11 where it uses the word "Commanded".

It is much deeper and more basic than this.

• The consequence of sin is death. The consequence of Adam's and Eve's transgression was death.
  
• Sin cuts you off from the presence of God. Adam's and Eve's transgression cut them off from the presence of God.
  
• Sin is ignoring directions from God. Adam's and Eve's transgression involved ignoring God's directions.
  
• Sin is hearkening to Satan's voice. Adam's and Eve's transgression involved hearkening to Satan's voice.
  
• Sin, and only sin, must be forgiven by God. (Non-sin needs no forgiveness). Adam's transgression was forgiven by God.
  

If it looks like a duck and walks like a duck and quacks like a duck and smells like a duck and tastes like a duck, odds are it's a duck.

[Traveler]

It is much deeper and more basic than this.

Perhaps even deeper?

• The consequence of sin is death. The consequence of Adam's and Eve's transgression was death.
  

How then is death a consequence of someone that has not sinned?

• Sin cuts you off from the presence of God. Adam's and Eve's transgression cut them off from the presence of God.
  

How is it then that we are born cut off from the presents of G-d?

• Sin is ignoring directions from God. Adam's and Eve's transgression involved ignoring God's directions.
  

Is the Plan of Salvation (including the fall) inclusive or exclusive to G-d's directions?

• Sin is hearkening to Satan's voice. Adam's and Eve's transgression involved hearkening to Satan's voice.
  

Why then is Satan's voice included in Holy Scripture?

• Sin, and only sin, must be forgiven by God. (Non-sin needs no forgiveness). Adam's transgression was forgiven by God.
  

Is the knowledge of good and evil a sin?

If it looks like a duck and walks like a duck and quacks like a duck and smells like a duck and tastes like a duck, odds are it's a duck.

There is another possibility - it could be a duck hunter.

The Traveler

[kmfor]

Well, in all my searching through church authorized material ive come to the conclusion that: to "transgress" a law means to break a law, plain and simple. To "transgress" or "break" a law of God is what we call "sin". Adam did infact transgress a law, But since it was God's law, it could also be called a sin. You could call it Either one and be correct but the difference is just what the word means not whether they sinned or not. They did sin because they transgressed God's law. No authorized book or manual teaches that there is a difference between a sin and Adams transgression. At church recently the teacher taught the difference was the intent behind their actions but that was incorrect. I think there are many theories that even make it into sunday school but that doesn't make it true doctrine.