Tree of knowledge of good and evil


Recommended Posts

Why did it have to be a commandment from God to not eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil as opposed to simply providing a choice?

 

Genesis 2; "16 And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:

 17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die."

 

Then in Moses the command seems a little more open; "16 And I, the Lord God, commanded the man, saying: Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat,

 17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it, nevertheless, thou mayest choose for thyself, for it is given unto thee; but, remember that I forbid it, for in the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die."

 

And then in Abraham it seems like more of a choice; "12 And the Gods commanded the man, saying: Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat,

 13 But of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the time that thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die."

 

Abraham's description sounds more like, this is what you do if you want to stay in the garden but if you don't want to then eat of the tree of knowledge and then you will die.  The commandment seems to be a strong statement against what Satan will tell them in a while that they won't die.  My question is why would God "command" them to not die?  Why didn't he simply say if you want to live in the garden forever choose this tree and if you want to move onto mortality with its accompanying death then choose this tree.  As it states in Moses "thou mayest choose for thyself" but then He "forbid"s it.  Why did He have to "forbid" it?

 

We believe that Adam and Eve made the choice knowing the consequences and still did it.  This is what Joseph Fielding Smith said; "Did Adam sin when he partook of the forbidden fruit? I say to you, no, he did not! Now, let me refer to what was written in the book of Moses in regard to the command God gave to Adam. [Moses 3:16–17.]

“Now this is the way I interpret that: The Lord said to Adam, here is the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. If you want to stay here, then you cannot eat of that fruit. If you want to stay here, then I forbid you to eat it. But you may act for yourself, and you may eat of it if you want to. And if you eat it, you will die."

 

In other words the commandment to not eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil is only if they wanted to stay in the Garden of Eden, then it is a commandment.  But the moment they do not want to stay in the Garden and they want to move on, as was previously planned, then they can eat of the tree of knowledge.  Am I misunderstanding what Joseph Fielding Smith is saying?  The commandment only pertained to the situation of staying in the Garden and eating of the tree of knowledge at the same time.  That could not be done and that was the commandment, right?  The commandment is one or the other but you can't have both.  Like I tell my kids, you can have one dessert or the other but not both, if you choose this one then I forbid you to have the other one. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would like to understand why you feel the interpretation of the command, is that they were commanded not to die?  It appears to me the command is against some other principle, while death is merely the consequence.

Thanks for responding.  I was beginning to wonder if I was getting no response because I answered my own question in the OP.

 

I am assuming but since the scriptures tie in the act of eating of the tree with death and the other tree is called the tree of life, I think it is reasonable to assume the two trees are opposite each other, death and life.  And, I think this is why I posed the question, to better understand the purpose of the commandment, if we want to call it that.

 

It also seems reasonable if He is saying that you can eat of all the trees freely and remain alive in the garden forever, to do that I command you not to eat of the tree of death.   Kind of like telling the kids you can go play in the park but don't talk to strangers ...  He is saying if you want to remain in paradise then we can't have you exposed to evil influences.  But, when you are ready to move forward it is up to you, it is given to choose. 

 

I have read the other principle is that of choosing freely vs choices that come with consequences.  Even if that were the principle being taught by the command then that is also associated with death as one has to become an agent unto their self and be out of the protective watch of God to learn that principle.

 

What is the principle that you see at play with that command?  And I assume you are calling it a command as opposed to presenting two mutually exclusive choices - life or death.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find this to be an interesting subject, but I don't have the answers. Commandments or having choices laid out, sin vs transgression. I just never know all of what is truly there to be learned and how to wrap my head around everything.

 

Why did it need to be a commandment and not just choices? I really don't know, I suppose on the one hand it could be argued that it was a choice was the options set forth. On the other hand there is the "forbidden" aspect that doesn't really constitute a valid option.

 

Ultimately I believe that it needed to be a commandment and not just two equal choices, because the outcomes of either choice were not equal. One involved falling from the presence of God and introducing death into the world, something I'm not sure God "can" give as an option, therefore it is forbidden, but they were (we are) free to choose. If Adam and Eve partook of the fruit when told it was simply a choice, but not a forbidden choice it would be unjust to cast them out and introduce mortality because it is a punishment. God punishes those who disobey while blessing those who obey. If this process did not follow the laws of mercy and justice God would cease to be God.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I know there have been talks distinguishing "sin" as separate from "transgression", I personally find it unhelpful. To my thinking, they are one and the same. A sin is a transgression, a transgression is a sin. Both are disobedience to the commandments of God. I don't see the difference.

 

Edit: Which puts me into the rare situation of disagreeing with a statement by a prophet (Joseph Fielding Smith as snoozer quotes). Adam disobeyed God. What else is there to possibly call that other than sin? Of course I'm only disagreeing in the defining of a word...so...hopefully I'm not on the road to apostasy. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find this to be an interesting subject, but I don't have the answers. Commandments or having choices laid out, sin vs transgression. I just never know all of what is truly there to be learned and how to wrap my head around everything.

 

Why did it need to be a commandment and not just choices? I really don't know, I suppose on the one hand it could be argued that it was a choice was the options set forth. On the other hand there is the "forbidden" aspect that doesn't really constitute a valid option.

 

Ultimately I believe that it needed to be a commandment and not just two equal choices, because the outcomes of either choice were not equal. One involved falling from the presence of God and introducing death into the world, something I'm not sure God "can" give as an option, therefore it is forbidden, but they were (we are) free to choose. If Adam and Eve partook of the fruit when told it was simply a choice, but not a forbidden choice it would be unjust to cast them out and introduce mortality because it is a punishment. God punishes those who disobey while blessing those who obey. If this process did not follow the laws of mercy and justice God would cease to be God.

Is mortality really a punishment though?   Where do we get the idea that mortality is a punishment?

 

We get things we didn't have before, how is that a punishment?  We get a body and we get the experience and opportunity to move forward in the plan of happiness and be more like God.  Especially calling the tree a tree of knowledge of good and evil makes it sound like an acceptable choice as opposed to calling it the tree of death.  If they were even choices I would think calling the one tree, the tree of life and the other the tree of death would be a more clear either-or choice.

 

We believe that Adam and Eve knew the plan well enough to choose the right direction and the one that would lead to greatest happiness.  

 

I guess I am trying to understand the need to call it a commandment and a punishment.  Why not just call it a choice and a consequence?   Because in reality the choice is 1. tree of Life - stay in garden in paradisacal state and not move forward with plan of happiness vs 2. Tree of death - open the door for mortality, opens ability for everyone to get a body, allows the need for a savior, ends with resurrection and a state of glory.  

 

In other words, maybe we are reading the words wrong.  Maybe "you will surely die" is a good thing ... along the lines of 'if you go to college you are certainly going to have to take a final exam'.  Well yeah, I want to take a final exam so I can get the degree I want.  Just like, yeah, I want to die so I can get the degree I want.  

 

I have a son that loves to go camping, he is in a place with less "things" less conveniences, away from mom and dad and he likes it because he can do things there that he cant at home.  Is it a state of having less? yes but it is not permanent.  Same with mortality.  I think all those that didnt like the idea of coming to mortality left with Satan and are now trying to convince us that it is a punishment like they did in the war in Heaven.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I know there have been talks distinguishing "sin" as separate from "transgression", I personally find it unhelpful. To my thinking, they are one and the same. A sin is a transgression, a transgression is a sin. Both are disobedience to the commandments of God. I don't see the difference.

 

Edit: Which puts me into the rare situation of disagreeing with a statement by a prophet (Joseph Fielding Smith as snoozer quotes). Adam disobeyed God. What else is there to possibly call that other than sin? Of course I'm only disagreeing in the defining of a word...so...hopefully I'm not on the road to apostasy. :D

So, if there are these two ways of looking at it, why do you think it had to be a commandment with which there could be disobedience as opposed to simply a choice with attached consequences? 

 

As much as God has to be just to be God, He also can't work for two different outcomes.  He can't prepare the great and noble ones for certain acts and at the same time command them not to do it. I think He can still be just by saying, if you choose this, these are the circumstances; you will be out of my presence and you will have agency and accountability etc. If that is known ahead of time, then it is just after the choice is made.  Not sure why it has to be forbidden.  Unless what is forbidden is to eat of the tree of death when one wants to stay in the Garden.  Like Satan wanting his inheritance before going through the steps.  God is saying, you can't have knowledge of good and evil and freely eat from the Garden at the same time, that He forbids and commands against. But, they were given the option to live one way or the other when ready. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, if there are these two ways of looking at it, why do you think it had to be a commandment with which there could be disobedience as opposed to simply a choice with attached consequences? 

 

I haven't completely read the rest of your reply yet (I have attention issues) but off the top of my head on this sentence...what's the difference. Choice with attached consequences pretty much sums up life and the test there of (as understood by agency). Commandments are simply Gods means of warning us against negative consequence and guiding us towards good ones.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As much as God has to be just to be God, He also can't work for two different outcomes.  He can't prepare the great and noble ones for certain acts and at the same time command them not to do it. I think He can still be just by saying, if you choose this, these are the circumstances; you will be out of my presence and you will have agency and accountability etc. If that is known ahead of time, then it is just after the choice is made.  Not sure why it has to be forbidden.  Unless what is forbidden is to eat of the tree of death when one wants to stay in the Garden.  Like Satan wanting his inheritance before going through the steps.  God is saying, you can't have knowledge of good and evil and freely eat from the Garden at the same time, that He forbids and commands against. But, they were given the option to live one way or the other when ready. 

 

Well how do you know this isn't the way God presented the command to Adam? There's no reason to presume (assuming we accept that Adam made a knowing choice) that God did not lay it out that clearly to them. All we get is "I forbid it", but that's from how long ago through how many writers and translators, etc.?  I know we get the same from other scriptures, but that does not mean that all God said was "I forbid it". Seems reasonable to me that God gave Adam and Eve exactly the knowledge they needed (as He does with all of us) to make choices.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is mortality really a punishment though?   Where do we get the idea that mortality is a punishment?

 

We get things we didn't have before, how is that a punishment?  We get a body and we get the experience and opportunity to move forward in the plan of happiness and be more like God.  Especially calling the tree a tree of knowledge of good and evil makes it sound like an acceptable choice as opposed to calling it the tree of death.  If they were even choices I would think calling the one tree, the tree of life and the other the tree of death would be a more clear either-or choice.

 

Obviously the fall was necessary to the plan, but after once having a body the consequence of again being separated from it does not seem like anything other than less than ideal. I tend to agree with were the folk prophet is going not seeing the difference between a commandment with consequences and a choice with consequences laid out. The thing is that in the limited scripture we do have on the matter we are told it is forbidden as you stated in your opening post. The physical effects of the fall are only one part of the consequences. Spiritual separation also took place which certainly can't be seen as a favourable outcome either. By my understanding all of God's punishment is simply a natural order of consequences based on decisions, not a vindictive torture randomly selected to fit rules invented for amusement. Therefore I posit that bad consequences and punishment may very well be one and the same, but perhaps not entirely.

 

I like your question of why the tree is named the tree of knowledge of good and evil. I have often thought simply calling it the tree of opposition would be fitting. But I think ultimately the knowledge of good and evil is indeed the best description. Going back to the idea of consequences and punishment I wonder if death was intrinsically attached to the fruit itself as it appears the knowledge of good and evil was, or if it was the affixed punishment to the transgression of the law pertaining to eating it? Either way it is hard to separate the two, because even if the fruit didn't inherently cause mortality with increased understanding, the Lord clearly explained that it would be a consequence/punishment for doing so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As per the thread from a few weeks back -- the fruit and the trees may or may not be literal anyhow, right? :)  It may simply have been a choice between continuing on in innocence, or stepping into opposition. That, of course, still leads to Semsnoozers question, maybe phrased a bit more simply.

 

If the plan of salvation was that we face opposition, then why did the Lord forbid Adam to choose opposition?

 

I cannot help but thing it comes down to the word. Forbid. We think of this in terms of laying down a mandate. But if we tweak it a bit and see it as laying down a warning instead, perhaps it makes more sense.

 

Instead of "I don't want you to do this," it may have meant, "I am warning you that if you do this it will both suck and blow at the same time."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I may easily be oversimplistic, however, I honestly believe God to remain God needed to "forbid" because all things good come from God.

 

In essence, the decision must have been brought to pass by us, and God being good, could not recommend something of this nature.  In other words, technically, he doesn' lead his children to sin, the exact opposite.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I may easily be oversimplistic, however, I honestly believe God to remain God needed to "forbid" because all things good come from God.

 

In essence, the decision must have been brought to pass by us, and God being good, could not recommend something of this nature.  In other words, technically, he doesn' lead his children to sin, the exact opposite.

 

I've been thinking about it and came up with pretty much the same idea. God had to forbid it because it led to death, and God's purpose is to bring to pass life, therefore He forbids that which brings death.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am convinced that the tree of knowledge of good and evil is not what many make it out to be.

 

Point #1:  Does anyone really believe that the spirit children of the Father had no concept of good and evil in the pre-existence?  How can it be that living in the presents of G-d the sprit children of the Father had no example of good from which they could obtain knowledge????  Again how could Lucifer sin against The Father if there was no understanding or knowledge of evil????

 

Point #2: We know that the plan of the Father included a fall.  Adam and Eve did not do anything contrary to the plan of G-d the Father (actually I personal believe they did do something contrary to the plan of the father – but it was not partaking of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil).  The plan of salvation was for all the spirit children of the Father to fall.  How can there be a sin or transgression for following the plan of G-d????

 

Point #3:  The fall included all the children of the Father that chose to follow the Father’s Plan of Salvation – not just Adam and Eve.  Why????

 

Point #4:  The Fall was necessary for Adam and Eve to have the “breath of Life” or be able to have children.  All this was part of the conditions of having a “Physical” experience.   How does a mortal body become a parameter for reproduction????

 

Point #5:  This is the main point – If we rely on scripture alone we will not obtain the knowledge of Good and Evil?  Why must we partake – be invested both physically and spiritually???

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Point #1:  Does anyone really believe that the spirit children of the Father had no concept of good and evil in the pre-existence?  How can it be that living in the presents of G-d the sprit children of the Father had no example of good from which they could obtain knowledge????  Again how could Lucifer sin against The Father if there was no understanding or knowledge of evil????

 

Irrelevant. We don't know how much of the pre-existent knowledge Adam and Eve retained.

 

Point #2: We know that the plan of the Father included a fall.  Adam and Eve did not do anything contrary to the plan of G-d the Father (actually I personal believe they did do something contrary to the plan of the father – but it was not partaking of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil).  The plan of salvation was for all the spirit children of the Father to fall.  How can there be a sin or transgression for following the plan of G-d????

 

God commands. We obey. Elsewise it is sin. Whether we understand it to be inside, outside, or upside God's plan is not the issue. God says to cut off Laban's head do we say, "But, that's against thy plan." No. We do as God commands regardless of our logical sense of it. Trying to put action and choice within the scope of God's plan rather than obedience to God's word is a half truth. We cannot understand. We can obey.

 

Point #3:  The fall included all the children of the Father that chose to follow the Father’s Plan of Salvation – not just Adam and Eve.  Why?????

 

This is a good point and valid to the discussion. If the fall had to be chosen, and thereby Adam had to eat the fruit, then what about all the rest of us who ate no fruit?

 

Point #4:  The Fall was necessary for Adam and Eve to have the “breath of Life” or be able to have children.  All this was part of the conditions of having a “Physical” experience.   How does a mortal body become a parameter for reproduction?????

 

Uh...

 

Point #5:  This is the main point – If we rely on scripture alone we will not obtain the knowledge of Good and Evil?  Why must we partake – be invested both physically and spiritually???

 

What?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I haven't completely read the rest of your reply yet (I have attention issues) but off the top of my head on this sentence...what's the difference. Choice with attached consequences pretty much sums up life and the test there of (as understood by agency). Commandments are simply Gods means of warning us against negative consequence and guiding us towards good ones.

I think that is the very issue I am wanting to understand better.  The war in Heaven was about the plan of happiness. We all chose to follow God's plan with all of its consequences.  The plan included coming into mortality and being separated from God for a short period of time.  We all understood that the reason to come here was to receive a body and to be tested so that we could move forward in the plan of happiness.  Those all sounded positive to us, they weren't considered negative consequences.  Are they now negative consequences whereas before they were positive?  I think for God's plan, it was a positive step that resulted from Adam and Eve partaking of the tree of knowledge of good and evil.  Isn't that how we are to understand it now?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well how do you know this isn't the way God presented the command to Adam? There's no reason to presume (assuming we accept that Adam made a knowing choice) that God did not lay it out that clearly to them. All we get is "I forbid it", but that's from how long ago through how many writers and translators, etc.?  I know we get the same from other scriptures, but that does not mean that all God said was "I forbid it". Seems reasonable to me that God gave Adam and Eve exactly the knowledge they needed (as He does with all of us) to make choices.

Doctrines of the Gospel Manual from LDS.org under "Chapter 8: The Fall" says; "

Adam and Eve brought about the Fall by their own choice.

  1. Adam and Eve were commanded not to partake of the tree of knowledge of good and evil (see Genesis 2:15–17; Moses 3:15–17; Abraham 5:11–13)."

 

I only see three ways to understand this but maybe there are others; either 1. They were commanded to never partake of the tree of knowledge of good and evil under any circumstance. or 2. they were commanded to not partake of the tree of knowledge of good and evil if they intended to continue to partake of every other tree in the garden including the tree of life. or 3. they were given a choice to either partake of the tree of life with its consequences or partake of the tree of knowledge with its consequences making it a full knowledge choice.

 

I think number 2 is correct.  That is my current understanding but I am not 100% sure.  The reason I think it is correct is because there are many places in the scriptures and writings of the church that call it a commandment (as opposed to choice A vs choice B, like option 3 above) and call Adams and Eve's act as disobedience.  Joseph Fielding Smith says this is a peculier situation, it is the only time God has said "I forbid" something but then follows with thou mayest choose.

 

Smith also says;

  • “We came into this world to die. That was understood before we came here. It is part of the plan, all discussed and arranged long before men were placed upon the earth. When Adam was sent into this world, it was with the understanding that he would violate a law, transgress a law, in order to bring to pass this mortal condition which we find ourselves in today” (Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, 1:66).

 

I think it had to be that way for a few reasons, one of which is so that God did not "create" this fallen world.  He created paradise and all in its perfect state but the Fall of Adam is what created this mortal state.  In this way the atonement corrects all the things the Fall did including all the changes to our body and the world around us are redeemed by the atonement.  If it was purely a choice then we would have to say that God created corruption and then gave Adam the choice to pursue corruption.  Adam would be no better than Lucifer if he actually chose corruption over paradise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I may easily be oversimplistic, however, I honestly believe God to remain God needed to "forbid" because all things good come from God.

 

In essence, the decision must have been brought to pass by us, and God being good, could not recommend something of this nature.  In other words, technically, he doesn' lead his children to sin, the exact opposite.

I disagree with him not recommending it.  He did recommend it when He presented the plan to us in the war in Heaven.  He told us that we should come to this world, be separated from Him, receive a body and be tested here.  To say that He couldn't recommend it is, I think, incorrect.  We all chose His plan which included that step.

 

This might be semantics, but I think He had to allow man to act on his own to bring this about.  I liken it to when a young adult is ready to leave the house of her parents.  The parents, being good parents, are not going to push the kid out of the house but at the same time might say 'if you are going to stay here then I forbid you to be out past 11 pm'.  There are certain rules the parents can state if the young adult is to stay with the parents.  Now, if she wants to leave and be on her own, fine, then she will have to really be on her own and be cut off from everything she enjoyed while with her parents. By doing it this way, the forward moving step of maturing is done by the person and therefore the reward for such a choice is truly theirs.  This is also why this act is not really a choice with punishment but a choice with restrictions and conditions.  We all agreed to live in a restricted and specific conditions related to mortality which are forbidden in a Celestial environment and this was all in accordance to God's recommended plan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am convinced that the tree of knowledge of good and evil is not what many make it out to be.

 

Point #1:  Does anyone really believe that the spirit children of the Father had no concept of good and evil in the pre-existence?  How can it be that living in the presents of G-d the sprit children of the Father had no example of good from which they could obtain knowledge????  Again how could Lucifer sin against The Father if there was no understanding or knowledge of evil????

 

Point #2: We know that the plan of the Father included a fall.  Adam and Eve did not do anything contrary to the plan of G-d the Father (actually I personal believe they did do something contrary to the plan of the father – but it was not partaking of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil).  The plan of salvation was for all the spirit children of the Father to fall.  How can there be a sin or transgression for following the plan of G-d????

 

Point #3:  The fall included all the children of the Father that chose to follow the Father’s Plan of Salvation – not just Adam and Eve.  Why????

 

Point #4:  The Fall was necessary for Adam and Eve to have the “breath of Life” or be able to have children.  All this was part of the conditions of having a “Physical” experience.   How does a mortal body become a parameter for reproduction????

 

Point #5:  This is the main point – If we rely on scripture alone we will not obtain the knowledge of Good and Evil?  Why must we partake – be invested both physically and spiritually???

This may be semantics but did Lucifer sin or rebel against God?  D&C " Wherefore, because that Satan rebelled against me, and sought to destroy the agency of man, which I, the Lord God, had given him, and also, that I should give unto him mine own power; by the power of mine Only Begotten, I caused that he should be cast down;"

 

He basically said; "I don't want to do it anymore, I'm done".  Is that a sin or lack of capacity to go on further in the plan?

 

Its kind of like when my kids moan and groan about having to do Family Home Evening and especially when they are asked to give the lesson or participate in some other way (that is rare that they do that - by the way), 'do we have to?'

 

I look at Lucifer's act the same way; 'Do we have to? Who all here would rather just get your due inheritance without having to go through mortality?  We might sin, we might get hurt.  Do we really have to do it??'  To me he sounds more like a whinning, spoiled, complaining, rebellious brat that didn't honor his parents.  It was more of a sin of ommision, lack of willingness to keep going.  Then he was cast out and became really nasty and miserable wanting to make everyone around him miserable.

 

One thing we really don't understand is how our spirits were formed and organized as spirit children of our Father in Heaven.  I believe we have talked about it on this forum before but God likely did not have within his capacity the ability to form our spirits all alike, all like Christ.  There must be some process which is out of His control that allows for spirits of varied character, some more valiant than others.  In other words, Satan is Satan because of his spiritual make up, not that he had to be exposed to some evil force to draw him into rebelliousness. All the spirits that make it to Earth were valiant and faithful spirits, some more valiant than others. All the ones that didn't have the capacity for this phase of our preparation were weeded out by the first estate test.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Irrelevant. We don't know how much of the pre-existent knowledge Adam and Eve retained.

 

 

 

Why is this irrelevant?  If Adam and Eve did not understand what is good and what is evil than how are Adam and Eve responsible for the fall.  My point is that Adam and Eve - as well as all the spirit children of the Father were exposed to good and evil but that the knowledge was incomplete.

 

God commands. We obey. Elsewise it is sin. Whether we understand it to be inside, outside, or upside God's plan is not the issue. God says to cut off Laban's head do we say, "But, that's against thy plan." No. We do as God commands regardless of our logical sense of it. Trying to put action and choice within the scope of God's plan rather than obedience to God's word is a half truth. We cannot understand. We can obey.

 

 

I believe you are leaving out important information.  (See Alma 42:22)  G-d cannot be unjust nor can he give unjust commandments - If he did he would cease to be G-d.   Rather than G-d giving a commandment as many interpret this in scripture – I see G-d rather giving a warning concerning his plan.  Those that accept his plan and participate in the fall will die, both spiritually and physically.  It was not that partaking of the fruit was a sin (even though this is the popular interpretation of the fall)  But that following the plan of G-d had consequences or if you will risks.  I personally do not believe that the desire to know the good from evil was contrary to G-d’s plan, a rebellion against his will, an actual transgression or sin.  I believe this particular epoch (the fall)) and doctrine is the most misunderstood principle in the Grand Plan of Salvation.

 

 

 

This is a good point and valid to the discussion. If the fall had to be chosen, and thereby Adam had to eat the fruit, then what about all the rest of us who ate no fruit?

 

It is my belief that all the spirit Children of the Father that are born into mortality chose to partake of the fruit of knowledge of good and evil as much as did Adam and Eve.   That the epoch of the fall of Adam and Eve is symbolic of the choice we all made to accept the Plan of Salvation as presented to us in the pre-existence.   Using a similar symbolism – We all drank the cool aid.

 

 

 

Uh...

 

Point #4.  If the fall did not take place - man and woman would not be able to have children.  I do not know how to make this principle more clear.  It was a commandment for man and woman to multiply and replenish the earth.  The only what this could occure was to partake of the friut of the tree.  In essence it was the will of G-d to partake of the fruit.  I do not believe G-d gave conflicting (unjust) commandments.

 

 

What?

Point #5.  Without the revelation taught in the temples we would not understand that the fall was according to the plan of G-d.  But even the basic instruction in the temple is not clear and thus we must be "awakened" from our deep sleep to accomplish the purpose of our creation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Point #5:  This is the main point – If we rely on scripture alone we will not obtain the knowledge of Good and Evil?  Why must we partake – be invested both physically and spiritually???

I reread this point.

 

The revealed gospel doesn't go into any great detail of why we needed a trial body other than the more obvious reason of being in a state that was temporary from which we could leave behind this mortal body.   But even before that, the reasons for us needing a mortal body experience are not well understood.  Why couldn't we be just under some temporary spiritual veil and receive the same test as mortality?

 

In other words, I agree that we have to partake of the physical but I don't think we really have explained to us very well what that means. Why do we have to control passions and desires that come from the body?  Is that because the resurrected body will still have those passions that we have to still control or is it just part of the temporary test and it won't be part of the resurrected body?  And in the direction I think you are heading, we have to have some "physical" understanding of the principles as it says in the scriptures "according to the flesh".  Why does the test have to be "according to the flesh"?

 

I believe this ties into the opening post question of why this was a commandment and not just a choice in that if it was a choice it coudn't be "according to the flesh" it would have to only be "according to the laws of God".   As the laws of God are higher than "according to the flesh" laws, that awakening process from the low state to the higher state is part of His purpose, it is somehow part of the immortality and Eternal Life process.

 

It kind of reminds me of the shepherds in Jesus time would break the leg of the young lamb so it would learn dependency from its shepherd and not want to stray later.  We agreed to have our leg broken, basically.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe you are leaving out important information.  (See Alma 42:22)  G-d cannot be unjust nor can he give unjust commandments - If he did he would cease to be G-d.   Rather than G-d giving a commandment as many interpret this in scripture – I see G-d rather giving a warning concerning his plan.  Those that accept his plan and participate in the fall will die, both spiritually and physically.  It was not that partaking of the fruit was a sin (even though this is the popular interpretation of the fall)  But that following the plan of G-d had consequences or if you will risks.  I personally do not believe that the desire to know the good from evil was contrary to G-d’s plan, a rebellion against his will, an actual transgression or sin.  I believe this particular epoch (the fall)) and doctrine is the most misunderstood principle in the Grand Plan of Salvation.

 

We're really back to the same debate we've had before. We don't entirely agree. I do not believe mankind is equipped to interpret God's justice. So we obey. Yes, God cannot be just. But that doesn't mean He never does things that WE think are unjust. The scriptures and doctrines are full of examples of this. God does things that seem unjust to man all the time. And man, being foolish, therefore ignores God, relegates something He did or said to unimportant, or turns away from Him accordingly.

 

But, like I said, we don't really entirely disagree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I reread this point.

 

The revealed gospel doesn't go into any great detail of why we needed a trial body other than the more obvious reason of being in a state that was temporary from which we could leave behind this mortal body.   But even before that, the reasons for us needing a mortal body experience are not well understood.  Why couldn't we be just under some temporary spiritual veil and receive the same test as mortality?

 

In other words, I agree that we have to partake of the physical but I don't think we really have explained to us very well what that means. Why do we have to control passions and desires that come from the body?  Is that because the resurrected body will still have those passions that we have to still control or is it just part of the temporary test and it won't be part of the resurrected body?  And in the direction I think you are heading, we have to have some "physical" understanding of the principles as it says in the scriptures "according to the flesh".  Why does the test have to be "according to the flesh"?

 

I believe this ties into the opening post question of why this was a commandment and not just a choice in that if it was a choice it coudn't be "according to the flesh" it would have to only be "according to the laws of God".   As the laws of God are higher than "according to the flesh" laws, that awakening process from the low state to the higher state is part of His purpose, it is somehow part of the immortality and Eternal Life process.

 

It kind of reminds me of the shepherds in Jesus time would break the leg of the young lamb so it would learn dependency from its shepherd and not want to stray later.  We agreed to have our leg broken, basically.

 

We are given to know in the gospel that a spiritual fall and mortal experience was necessary for the plan of salvation.   Only those that were willing to experience a physical mortal experience and a spiritual fall being exiled from the presents of G-d the Father and his society of heaven could someday experience the glory of resurrection and exaltation.   The fall was and is one of the 3 greatest blessings made available to man.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We're really back to the same debate we've had before. We don't entirely agree. I do not believe mankind is equipped to interpret God's justice. So we obey. Yes, God cannot be just. But that doesn't mean He never does things that WE think are unjust. The scriptures and doctrines are full of examples of this. God does things that seem unjust to man all the time. And man, being foolish, therefore ignores God, relegates something He did or said to unimportant, or turns away from Him accordingly.

 

But, like I said, we don't really entirely disagree.

I am always grateful for your input.  I think it is important to realize that the Holy Ghost will never give witness that G-d is unjust.  If we think G-d to be unjust or if it appears that G-d is unjust it is only because we are not in tune with the spirit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

God commands. We obey. Elsewise it is sin. Whether we understand it to be inside, outside, or upside God's plan is not the issue. God says to cut off Laban's head do we say, "But, that's against thy plan." No. We do as God commands regardless of our logical sense of it. Trying to put action and choice within the scope of God's plan rather than obedience to God's word is a half truth. We cannot understand. We can obey.

What about D&C 58; "26 For behold, it is not meet that I should command in all things; for he that is compelled in all things, the same is a slothful and not a wise servant; wherefore he receiveth no reward.

 27 Verily I say, men should be anxiously engaged in a good cause, and do many things of their own free will, and bring to pass much righteousness;"

 

Could it be that this was more of a choice with consequences so that we could receive the reward as stated in D&C 58?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share