Tree of knowledge of good and evil


Recommended Posts

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.

For the sake of all those reading this, I think it is important to understand that there are two spiritual deaths and sometimes they get wrapped up into one.  The first spiritual death, everyone has to experience but also everyone is redeemed from it through Christ' atonement and children under the age of 8 are protected from the effects of it as well. 

 

Helaman 14; "16 Yea, behold, this death bringeth to pass the resurrection, and redeemeth all mankind from the first death—that spiritual death; for all mankind, by the fall of Adam being cut off from the presence of the Lord, are considered as dead, both as to things temporal and to things spiritual.

 17 But behold, the resurrection of Christ redeemeth mankind, yea, even all mankind, and bringeth them back into the presence of the Lord.

 18 Yea, and it bringeth to pass the condition of repentance, that whosoever repenteth the same is not hewn down and cast into the fire; but whosoever repenteth not is hewn down and cast into the fire; and there cometh upon them again a spiritual death, yea, a second death, for they are cut off again as to things pertaining to righteousness."

 

I think it is important to understand that it is not necessary for the plan of salvation to experience a second spiritual death.  Ponder the idea that in order to suffer a spiritual death "again", a "second" death then that means that all had to be made alive again from the first death, otherwise it wouldn't be called the "second death" but simply remaining dead from the first time.  But we understand that we are made alive in Christ from the effects of the Fall as is the case with children under the age of 8.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

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?

 

 

It's sort of funny if you think about it. One of those gospel paradoxes. We are commanded to not be commanded in all things.

 

As to your point. The logic is askew. The idea that God does not command us in all things does not alleviate our responsibility to obey in all things. The scripture you quote is really more about the details. At the broadest level, God has commanded in that which we must do. But He does not detail out how. For example. Serve. But how? Make cookies. Work in someone's yard? Read to them. Babysit? The details are left to us in most cases. But the principle is commanded, and we should obey. And by obedience we gain salvation.

 

I mean, really, if there is something we are supposed to do that God has not commanded us, what is is? Anything you come up with would fit within His commands. Love God. Love your neighbor. Have faith. Keep the commandments and ordinances. Serve. Worship. Teach. Etc., etc...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

Well, do we really know that he "recommended" Adam and Eve to partake of the tree of knowledge of good and evil in our pre-mortal life.  We know a plan was presented, but we don't have any knowledge as to how this plan was presented, or if our Father in heaven recommended them.

 

I think God's nature is true, in essence, if he "forbid" Adam and Even to partake of the fruit in the garden, I see no reason why he would recommend it before then.

 

I would agree, we all accepted, at least those of us who kept our first estate, this aspect of the plan.  However, that is my major thought -- we had to choose it ourselves.

 

I am not so sure, "recommend," is the best choice of words, but seeing I am unable to provide a better word, that word suffices my intellect at the moment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think God's nature is true, in essence, if he "forbid" Adam and Even to partake of the fruit in the garden, I see no reason why he would recommend it before then.

 

I believe the word you are looking for is forbidded. If he "forbidded" Adam and Eve...  :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

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?

 

Is Christ a "slothful and not a wise servant"?  See John 8:28

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just wanted to point out that it is necessary to be in a state to be able to taste both the bitter and the sweet to know the difference.  The spiritual offspring of the Father could not know sin in the presents of the Father and not be cast out as was Lusifer who became Satan through sin and being cast out.  The condition of mortality and fallen from grace spiritualy - all the spiritual offspring of the Father would taste both good and evil (the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil).  D&C 29:39 tells us that we cannot know good (sweet) without knowing bitter (evil).  To have the knowledge necessary to be like the Father we must come to the knowledge of good and evil.  This knowledge could not be learned in the presents of the Father because opposition cannot exist in his presents.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just wanted to point out that it is necessary to be in a state to be able to taste both the bitter and the sweet to know the difference.  The spiritual offspring of the Father could not know sin in the presents of the Father and not be cast out as was Lusifer who became Satan through sin and being cast out.  The condition of mortality and fallen from grace spiritualy - all the spiritual offspring of the Father would taste both good and evil (the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil).  D&C 29:39 tells us that we cannot know good (sweet) without knowing bitter (evil).  To have the knowledge necessary to be like the Father we must come to the knowledge of good and evil.  This knowledge could not be learned in the presents of the Father because opposition cannot exist in his presents.

Well now we have come full circle because you keep refering to what Lucifer did as evil.  How can you on one hand say that evil existed in the premortal world and then say that it could not be in the presence of God? 

 

I believe that as well, that opposition could not exist in His presence. So is rebellion opposition?  As soon as one is given the opportunity to rebel and they choose rebellion over obedience then they are out of His presence like what happened to the third of the host of heaven.  Did we rebel?  No.

 

I agree that we come here to know good and evil to some degree but as was the lie told to Eve, it does not all come in this life and it doesn't have to be achieved in total in this life.  This life is just the doorway for the rest of our growth to become like our Heavenly Father.  The major purpose of this life is not knowledge, I think that is a big misconception about the purpose of our life here.  That is important and I am not trying to downplay it but that is simply not true.  According to Doctrines of the Gospel Chapter 10; "The purpose of Earth Life" the reasons to come into mortality are to A. have joy  B. Obtain a physical body C. Be tested in that body D. To learn faith in God through our trials (this is where the tasting of the bitter comes into play -  but it is to learn faith, for those that had enough faith before, like those who die before the age of 8 it isn't necessary)  E. To develop the attributes of Godliness

 

We are not here to experiment in evil.  We are to live in the world but not be of the world and remain clean from the world. I am not here to "taste" evil. I may be faced with it and know about it, but I don't want to "taste" evil in any form. My goal is to make sure evil does not become any part of my soul and when I leave my corrupted body behind I hope it hasn't made it into my soul in any form and if it has then I hope my repentence will wash it out 100%, completely out of my memory.

 

Within the last purpose E, it is described further as line upon line learning and overcoming the world, it says nothing about tasting the bitter.  President Kimball said about purpose E; “Christ became perfect through overcoming. Only as we overcome shall we become perfect and move toward godhood. … The time to do this is now, in mortality.

“… Men do not suddenly become righteous any more than a tiny acorn suddenly becomes an oak. Advancement to perfection can nevertheless be rapid if one resolutely strides toward the goal”

 

 

So the only "purpose" of this life as it relates to tasting the bitter is in its relationship to developing faith.  Like the example I gave earlier, the shepherd breaking the lamb's leg to learn dependence on its master.   There are already some that exhibited that kind of faith, they are those that don't need this test, those that die before the age of 8 or those that cannot have accountability in this life for other reasons. So, it is not a necessary step to taste the bitter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well now we have come full circle because you keep refering to what Lucifer did as evil.  How can you on one hand say that evil existed in the premortal world and then say that it could not be in the presence of God? 

 

I believe that as well, that opposition could not exist in His presence. So is rebellion opposition?  As soon as one is given the opportunity to rebel and they choose rebellion over obedience then they are out of His presence like what happened to the third of the host of heaven.  Did we rebel?  No.

 

I agree that we come here to know good and evil to some degree but as was the lie told to Eve, it does not all come in this life and it doesn't have to be achieved in total in this life.  This life is just the doorway for the rest of our growth to become like our Heavenly Father.  The major purpose of this life is not knowledge, I think that is a big misconception about the purpose of our life here.  That is important and I am not trying to downplay it but that is simply not true.  According to Doctrines of the Gospel Chapter 10; "The purpose of Earth Life" the reasons to come into mortality are to A. have joy  B. Obtain a physical body C. Be tested in that body D. To learn faith in God through our trials (this is where the tasting of the bitter comes into play -  but it is to learn faith, for those that had enough faith before, like those who die before the age of 8 it isn't necessary)  E. To develop the attributes of Godliness

 

We are not here to experiment in evil.  We are to live in the world but not be of the world and remain clean from the world. I am not here to "taste" evil. I may be faced with it and know about it, but I don't want to "taste" evil in any form. My goal is to make sure evil does not become any part of my soul and when I leave my corrupted body behind I hope it hasn't made it into my soul in any form and if it has then I hope my repentence will wash it out 100%, completely out of my memory.

 

Within the last purpose E, it is described further as line upon line learning and overcoming the world, it says nothing about tasting the bitter.  President Kimball said about purpose E; “Christ became perfect through overcoming. Only as we overcome shall we become perfect and move toward godhood. … The time to do this is now, in mortality.

“… Men do not suddenly become righteous any more than a tiny acorn suddenly becomes an oak. Advancement to perfection can nevertheless be rapid if one resolutely strides toward the goal”

 

 

So the only "purpose" of this life as it relates to tasting the bitter is in its relationship to developing faith.  Like the example I gave earlier, the shepherd breaking the lamb's leg to learn dependence on its master.   There are already some that exhibited that kind of faith, they are those that don't need this test, those that die before the age of 8 or those that cannot have accountability in this life for other reasons. So, it is not a necessary step to taste the bitter.

 

The result of sin is death.  We cannot know or understand sin without the death esperience - not possible in the presents of G-d.  Now as an exercise to the reader (from my days as a math student): What is in opposition to death that we might know the good?  This is not a trick question thought it may look like one but the answer is rhetorically simple.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who is talking in D&C 58?  It is Christ.  Christ is saying to us that we should not be commanded in every thing by Him. Christ is the word. Did Christ ever do anything He didn't want to do? No.

 

Hmmmm.   It is my understanding that Christ drank the bitter cup when he did not really want to.  Many would argue he did want to for reasons that were important to him.  But I think I understand because I have done things I did not want to because I believed and had faith that something worthwhile would come of it – and not just for me. 

 

It is part of my understanding of discipline.   That we learn to do the right thing rather than do what we want thinking it is the right thing.  Some may not understand this difference and I am not about to make them understand – even though I often think I would really like to make them.

 

Let me put it this way Seminary - I see the natural man as someone that does what they want - A saint of G-d is someone that has faith that what G-d as of them is what they really want even though they do not realize it yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, do we really know that he "recommended" Adam and Eve to partake of the tree of knowledge of good and evil in our pre-mortal life.  We know a plan was presented, but we don't have any knowledge as to how this plan was presented, or if our Father in heaven recommended them.

 

I think God's nature is true, in essence, if he "forbid" Adam and Even to partake of the fruit in the garden, I see no reason why he would recommend it before then.

 

I would agree, we all accepted, at least those of us who kept our first estate, this aspect of the plan.  However, that is my major thought -- we had to choose it ourselves.

 

I am not so sure, "recommend," is the best choice of words, but seeing I am unable to provide a better word, that word suffices my intellect at the moment.

Joseph Fielding Smith; "“Adam and Eve were chosen to come here as the primal parents of humanity. And they were placed in the Garden of Eden where there was no death and we read in the scriptures that they could have lived in that Garden forever, but not under the most favorable circumstances. For there, although they were in the presence of God, they were deprived of certain knowledge and understanding in a condition where they could not understand clearly things that were necessary for them to know. Therefore, it became essential to their salvation and to ours that their nature should be changed. The only way it could be changed was by the violation of the law under which they were at that time. Mortality could not come without violation of that law and mortality was essential, a step towards our exaltation. Therefore, Adam partook of the forbidden fruit, forbidden in a rather peculiar manner for it is the only place in all the history where we read that the Lord forbade something and yet said, ‘Nevertheless thou mayest choose for thyself.’ He never said that of any sin. I do not look upon Adam’s fall as a sin, although it was a transgression of the law. It had to be. And Adam came under a different law. The temporal law. And he became subject to death."

 

What law did they violate?  The Garden of Eden law.  Which is why I am saying it seems that the eating of the tree of knowledge was the way out of the Garden of Eden.  God recommended that they not stay in the Garden of Eden forever. They could choose when they were ready to leave by violating the law of Paradise. Just like if I were to say that in my house my young adult children are under my rules.  If you cant follow my rules then leave the house and be on your own. They wouldn't have to break the rules to leave, they could simply say, 'I can't expect to become a responsible person if I don't get out on my own and therefore I am not willing to live under your wing forever'.

 

They knew that they were going to be the "primal parents" and they knew that it was essential that their nature should change.  I can't imagine they would have just gotten those two statements alone without any further details as to what does "primal parent" mean and 'what does it mean to have our nature change'.   Change from what and how? would have certainly been part of the discussion and presented as part of the plan.  I am sure we all asked those questions without having the certain knowledge as President Smith says, this is knowledge of pain and sorrow; "He [Adam] had knowledge, of course. He could speak. He could converse. There were many things he could be taught and was taught; but under the conditions in which he was living at that time it was impossible for him to visualize or understand the power of good and evil. He did not know what pain was. He did not know what sorrow was; and a thousand other things that have come to us in this life that Adam did not know in the Garden of Eden and could not understand and would not have known had he remained there."

 

And Marion G. Romney; "Adam voluntarily, and with full knowledge of the consequences, partook of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, that men might be. … For his service we owe Adam an immeasurable debt of gratitude"

 

Where did Adam obtain that knowledge ahead of time for which we have an "immeasurable debt of gratitude"?  If it was anything less than following God's recommendation than I don't think we would be grateful for it. I don't think we would have a debt of gratitude for him going against God's plan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Joseph Fielding Smith; "“Adam and Eve were chosen to come here as the primal parents of humanity. And they were placed in the Garden of Eden where there was no death and we read in the scriptures that they could have lived in that Garden forever, but not under the most favorable circumstances. For there, although they were in the presence of God, they were deprived of certain knowledge and understanding in a condition where they could not understand clearly things that were necessary for them to know. Therefore, it became essential to their salvation and to ours that their nature should be changed. The only way it could be changed was by the violation of the law under which they were at that time. Mortality could not come without violation of that law and mortality was essential, a step towards our exaltation. Therefore, Adam partook of the forbidden fruit, forbidden in a rather peculiar manner for it is the only place in all the history where we read that the Lord forbade something and yet said, ‘Nevertheless thou mayest choose for thyself.’ He never said that of any sin. I do not look upon Adam’s fall as a sin, although it was a transgression of the law. It had to be. And Adam came under a different law. The temporal law. And he became subject to death."

 

What law did they violate?  The Garden of Eden law.  Which is why I am saying it seems that the eating of the tree of knowledge was the way out of the Garden of Eden.  God recommended that they not stay in the Garden of Eden forever. They could choose when they were ready to leave by violating the law of Paradise. Just like if I were to say that in my house my young adult children are under my rules.  If you cant follow my rules then leave the house and be on your own. They wouldn't have to break the rules to leave, they could simply say, 'I can't expect to become a responsible person if I don't get out on my own and therefore I am not willing to live under your wing forever'.

 

They knew that they were going to be the "primal parents" and they knew that it was essential that their nature should change.  I can't imagine they would have just gotten those two statements alone without any further details as to what does "primal parent" mean and 'what does it mean to have our nature change'.   Change from what and how? would have certainly been part of the discussion and presented as part of the plan.  I am sure we all asked those questions without having the certain knowledge as President Smith says, this is knowledge of pain and sorrow; "He [Adam] had knowledge, of course. He could speak. He could converse. There were many things he could be taught and was taught; but under the conditions in which he was living at that time it was impossible for him to visualize or understand the power of good and evil. He did not know what pain was. He did not know what sorrow was; and a thousand other things that have come to us in this life that Adam did not know in the Garden of Eden and could not understand and would not have known had he remained there."

 

And Marion G. Romney; "Adam voluntarily, and with full knowledge of the consequences, partook of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, that men might be. … For his service we owe Adam an immeasurable debt of gratitude"

 

Where did Adam obtain that knowledge ahead of time for which we have an "immeasurable debt of gratitude"?  If it was anything less than following God's recommendation than I don't think we would be grateful for it. I don't think we would have a debt of gratitude for him going against God's plan.

 

You brought up some interesting points and I thought perhaps we should start a new thread.  However, this thread is specifically about the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.   I have stated a number of times that I personally believe a great deal of information is missing from scripture and revelation concerning the tree.

 

I do not believe G-d made up a tree and rules about the tree in an effort to trick mankind into the fall.  That just is not the sort of thing I understand about G-d.  Therefore I see the whole doctrine of the tree of knowledge of good and evil to be symbolic.   The question is – What is the tree and what does it represent?

 

We LDS know that the partaking of the tree of knowledge of good and evil was a pivotal, important and necessary part of The Father’s plan from the very inception of his plan.  Partaking of the tree and bringing about the fall was and has always been the plan.  And this is not a plan B – it is plan A from the start.

 

I do not believe G-d makes up unjust or unnecessary laws.  I do not believe that G-d made up death to be associated with the tree just so mankind would have something to stumble into mortality with, talk, wonder about and forever ask questions.  I believe death is the only possible result for anyone engaged in understanding the knowledge of good and evil.  I believe G-d did not create the condition, choice or the result but rather in his wisdom he utilized the just and true principles in the only way they could be utilized for the benefit of those seeking such wisdom. 

 

I have said this before – that it is reasonable to my thinking and rhetorical logic that all that have a mortal experience choose to partake of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil.  It was not an Adam and Eve only choice.  I would also point out that every reference in scripture concerning fruit and commandments is symbolic and not associated with some tree anywhere.  I would also point out that having a mortal body in order to suffer physical and spiritual death is the only way in all eternity to come by the knowledge of good and evil.  I believe if there was another viable way G-d would have offered that possibility and even recommended it.

 

And finally I would make a point about making “rules” in one’s home.   The idea of live by my rules or leave is, in my mind, the attitude of Satan rather than G-d.  I believe the attitude of G-d is to instruct concerning correct principles and let individuals govern themselves – meaning to achieve the blessings or suffer the consequences of principles and laws that are just and true and have no bearing on wants or desires.  As odd as it may seem to some – I believe Satan was excommunicated from the society of heaven.  Not for the benefit of the society of heaven but for the benefit of Satan.  Because Satan could not abide heavenly society of G-d any better than we could abide on the sun.  (see I can also use symbolism to put forth an idea)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

And finally I would make a point about making “rules” in one’s home.   The idea of live by my rules or leave is, in my mind, the attitude of Satan rather than G-d.  I believe the attitude of G-d is to instruct concerning correct principles and let individuals govern themselves – meaning to achieve the blessings or suffer the consequences of principles and laws that are just and true and have no bearing on wants or desires. 

Great points!  thanks.

 

I agree with everything you have stated, I think.  Could I say then, that you think the choice to eat of the tree of Knowledge was less of a disobedient act than it was a choice?  Going back to the original question of the thread, why did God have to forbid the act of eating from the tree as opposed to saying, eat of that tree and you will suffer these known consequences.  Why "command" or "forbid" the act? 

 

Despite you not liking "rules" in the house, the only reason I bring that up as an example is to propose the idea that what God is commanding is that they could not stay in the Garden and eat of the tree of knowledge at the same time.  So, to stay in the Garden one is forbidden to eat of that tree.  I think that is what you are saying too, is it not?  (I was not trying to support any particular parenting method by the example or suggest it was the right thing to do or what I have done, just using it as a commonly known scenario.)

 

One last thing, what did you mean by "The attitude of God ... have no bearing on wants or desires."  What has no bearing on wants or desires?

 

And also, didn't we all "choose to partake of the tree of knowledge" by way of passing the first estate test?

There may be a difference between choosing to do it and actually doing it.  The willingness to do it may be enough for some.

 

Are there some souls then, if put in the same situation as Adam and Eve that would have not chosen the tree of knowledge that are now here on Earth.  I think I remember reading somewhere that Adam and Eve were chosen (that we all can agree with) but were especially chosen because it was certain that they would choose the tree of knowledge.  But, then that would imply that there are some possibly that wouldn't have carried it out.  You are suggesting that all of us had to do it to even come here.  So, that would take away the idea that Adam and Eve were specifically chosen to do it as Brigham Young says; "Adam and Eve were chosen to come here as the primal parents of humanity."  He also said; "Did they [Adam and Eve] come out in direct opposition to God and to his government? No. But they transgressed a command of the Lord, and through that transgression sin came into the world. The Lord knew they would do this, and he had designed that they should."

 

As you seem to suggest we all symbolically partook of the fruit of the tree of knowledge by our own choice, then what exactly did Adam and Eve do for us in that regard that, as Marion G. Romney puts it, "For his service we owe Adam an immeasurable debt of gratitude."  What was the service provided from Adam to each one of us such that it could be called an "immeasurable debt" of gratitude?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In essence, I agree with your statement, however I haven't read any evidence that God recommend Adam and Eve to partake of the fruit.  Why would a perfect God recommend and then forbid Adam and Eve to partake  -- which would appear contradictory to me.

 

I would agree God proposed the plan.  God provided us with knowledge regarding this plan.  The temple provides us with knowledge concerning the state of mind Adam had when he was placed in the garden...how then did Adam gain this knowledge regarding the tree? 

 

I can't think of any reason as a Father where I would recommend something, and then forbid it later, but then again, this could be a celestial law by which I am unware of.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Heavenly Father wants us to have this experience of mortality in a fallen state. Heavenly Father wanted Adam and Eve to leave the Garden so they could experience mortality in a fallen state. He wants us to have Eternal Life. God isn't as much concerned with our physical life. The only way that man can receive immortality and eternal life is to live through mortality in a fallen state where we must make moral decisions. Some decisions are easy. Other decisions we must sacrifice that which is seemingly good for the hope of something that is better.

-Finrock

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Heavenly Father wants us to have this experience of mortality in a fallen state. Heavenly Father wanted Adam and Eve to leave the Garden so they could experience mortality in a fallen state. He wants us to have Eternal Life. God isn't as much concerned with our physical life. The only way that man can receive immortality and eternal life is to live through mortality in a fallen state where we must make moral decisions. Some decisions are easy. Other decisions we must sacrifice that which is seemingly good for the hope of something that is better.

-Finrock

Then why was it forbidden to eat of the tree of knowledge and not just presented as an option?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In essence, I agree with your statement, however I haven't read any evidence that God recommend Adam and Eve to partake of the fruit.  Why would a perfect God recommend and then forbid Adam and Eve to partake  -- which would appear contradictory to me.

 

I would agree God proposed the plan.  God provided us with knowledge regarding this plan.  The temple provides us with knowledge concerning the state of mind Adam had when he was placed in the garden...how then did Adam gain this knowledge regarding the tree? 

 

I can't think of any reason as a Father where I would recommend something, and then forbid it later, but then again, this could be a celestial law by which I am unware of.

He was able to talk and meet with God while in the Garden.  The only knowledge he didn't have was that pertaining to the power of pain and sorrow and the things that are learned in mortality.  He would have had access to all the things we had before this life including an understanding of the plan for happiness and what would have to happen to all for that plan.  I understand he is in a different state of mind than would be with premortal life but it would have to be a higher state than we currently find ourselves in that he had a paradisical body (brain) and was conversing with God. In other words, he knew more than we know now but without the experiential knowledge.

 

Smith, "He [Adam] had knowledge, of course. He could speak. He could converse. There were many things he could be taught and was taught; but under the conditions in which he was living at that time it was impossible for him to visualize or understand the power of good and evil. He did not know what pain was. He did not know what sorrow was; and a thousand other things that have come to us in this life that Adam did not know in the Garden of Eden and could not understand and would not have known had he remained there."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In essence, I agree with your statement, however I haven't read any evidence that God recommend Adam and Eve to partake of the fruit.  Why would a perfect God recommend and then forbid Adam and Eve to partake  -- which would appear contradictory to me.

 

I would agree God proposed the plan.  God provided us with knowledge regarding this plan.  The temple provides us with knowledge concerning the state of mind Adam had when he was placed in the garden...how then did Adam gain this knowledge regarding the tree? 

 

I can't think of any reason as a Father where I would recommend something, and then forbid it later, but then again, this could be a celestial law by which I am unware of.

I believe you are asking the right question.  I have puzzled much of my life concerning the tree of Knowledge of good and evil and the fall and how such things fit together in the grand plan of salvation.  To be honest the doctrine of the fall so troubled me that I considered looking outside the Abrahamic religions including science for resolution.  The problem is the overwhelming evidence that our mortal existence is a fallen state of spirituality and an unquestionable state of physical inferiority that inevitably results in death. 

 

It is this stupor of truth and knowledge that convinced me above all other evidence that the world and especially traditional Christianity is in a baron state of doctrinal apostasy directly distorting the fall of man to such a point as to leave man stuck with unresolvable inconsistencies.  Hardly anything of what I thought I knew of the fall made rational sense and skewed the attributes of G-d to such an extent that I wondered how it was that anyone could reconcile such profound contradictions.  Let me offer some examples.

 

#1: That a righteous G-d of truth would forbid knowledge of good and evil.

 

#2: That Satan (a serpent) could unhinge G-d’s brilliant plan for man and force the most intelligent being associated with this universe to an alternate plan “B”.

 

#3: That G-d, knowing in advance what would happen, if Satan was given access to Adam and Eve in the garden made no attempt to inform Adam and Eve by way warning or of commandment of the danger associated with Satan – but go to great lengths to warm and forbid them concerning the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

 

#4: That G-d, in controlling all the initial parameters and conditions of the garden is exempt from any justice that resulted in the outcome.

 

And these are just a few. 

 

Having spent many years studying (scriptures revelations and commentary), asking experts questions and seeking truth through every means possible; including meditation and prayer.  I have come to understand that for this most sacred doctrine G-d has revealed the truth through symbolism for the same reasons that Jesus taught in parables.  That the only way one can make sense of the fall is through the assistance of the Holy Ghost.

 

I believe there are 3 great pillars in the plan of salvation.  The first is the fall of man, the second is the atonement of Christ and the 3rd is the final judgment and resurrection of man.  That the 3 pillars are tightly coupled and that one cannot be understood without the other two.  And that the restoration of this knowledge breaking through the obscurity and darkness is the greatest witness of the great apostasy and restoration in theses last days.  That without this knowledge we cannot be saved and without the ordnance works of the temples that those that lived during the great apostasy cannot be saved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe you are asking the right question.  I have puzzled much of my life concerning the tree of Knowledge of good and evil and the fall and how such things fit together in the grand plan of salvation.  To be honest the doctrine of the fall so troubled me that I considered looking outside the Abrahamic religions including science for resolution.  The problem is the overwhelming evidence that our mortal existence is a fallen state of spirituality and an unquestionable state of physical inferiority that inevitably results in death. 

 

It is this stupor of truth and knowledge that convinced me above all other evidence that the world and especially traditional Christianity is in a baron state of doctrinal apostasy directly distorting the fall of man to such a point as to leave man stuck with unresolvable inconsistencies.  Hardly anything of what I thought I knew of the fall made rational sense and skewed the attributes of G-d to such an extent that I wondered how it was that anyone could reconcile such profound contradictions.  Let me offer some examples.

 

#1: That a righteous G-d of truth would forbid knowledge of good and evil.

 

#2: That Satan (a serpent) could unhinge G-d’s brilliant plan for man and force the most intelligent being associated with this universe to an alternate plan “B”.

 

#3: That G-d, knowing in advance what would happen, if Satan was given access to Adam and Eve in the garden made no attempt to inform Adam and Eve by way warning or of commandment of the danger associated with Satan – but go to great lengths to warm and forbid them concerning the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

 

#4: That G-d, in controlling all the initial parameters and conditions of the garden is exempt from any justice that resulted in the outcome.

 

And these are just a few. 

 

Having spent many years studying (scriptures revelations and commentary), asking experts questions and seeking truth through every means possible; including meditation and prayer.  I have come to understand that for this most sacred doctrine G-d has revealed the truth through symbolism for the same reasons that Jesus taught in parables.  That the only way one can make sense of the fall is through the assistance of the Holy Ghost.

 

I believe there are 3 great pillars in the plan of salvation.  The first is the fall of man, the second is the atonement of Christ and the 3rd is the final judgment and resurrection of man.  That the 3 pillars are tightly coupled and that one cannot be understood without the other two.  And that the restoration of this knowledge breaking through the obscurity and darkness is the greatest witness of the great apostasy and restoration in theses last days.  That without this knowledge we cannot be saved and without the ordnance works of the temples that those that lived during the great apostasy cannot be saved.

So, does Joseph Fielding Smith's summary fit with your current understanding? "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, there are the laws of God for Paradise and then there are the laws "according to the flesh".  As for the laws of Paradise, the tree of knowledge is forbidden but if the choice is made to live under the laws in which the three pillars come into play - "according to the flesh" laws, then eat of the fruit and you will die which is part of the three pillars of the 'fleshy' law and gospel.  The laws according to the flesh (the ones that pertain to the three pillars) would be a transgression of the laws of God for Paradise as they are outside the boundries of those laws of Paradise.  In that way, Christ is allowed to take responsibility for man as they now fall under those laws, and Christ' atonement satisfies the laws of God for Paradise.  In that way, there is no spiritual fall unless there is a breaking of the laws according to the flesh now, the gospel, which we would call sin and would have to repent calling upon Christ atonement as it is under His laws (the three pillars), according to the flesh, that we would sin.

 

The symbolism of the Fall is the symbolic handing over of the responsibility for justice from God's law to Christ' law.  God's law (or debt as it is sometimes symbolized) is satisfied by Christ' atonement but now we must satisfy any broken gospel law (according to the flesh) through Christ atonement when suffering a second spiritual death.  The first spiritual death is covered from the foundations of the Earth, in other words before it even had any effect, by the second pillar. One cannot be without the other and never was a single pillar.  The first spiritual death never stood alone, even according to your reasoning, it was always supported by the other pillars.

 

Mosiah 15; " Having ascended into heaven, having the bowels of mercy; being filled with compassion towards the children of men; standing betwixt them and justice; having broken the bands of death, taken upon himself their iniquity and their transgressions, having redeemed them, and satisfied the demands of justice."

 

That merciful gift to all is ours to lose, it is given to all in the beginning so that we don't have to suffer the effects of the spiritual fall in the beginning only to be lost if we sin; Alma 11; " 41 Therefore the wicked remain as though there had been no redemption made, except it be the loosing of the bands of death; for behold, the day cometh that all shall rise from the dead and stand before God, and be judged according to their works."   Which implies that for those that are not wicked there is a redemption made - i.e. - those that die before the age of 8, or could not be accountable for other reasons and those that sin but repent.

 

Bruce R. McConkie "Thus the atonement of Christ is designed to ransom men from the effects of the fall of Adam in that both spiritual and temporal death are conquered; their lasting effect is nullified. The spiritual death of the fall is replaced by the spiritual life of the atonement, in that all who believe and obey the gospel law gain spiritual or eternal life—life in the presence of God where those who enjoy it are alive to things of righteousness or things of the Spirit."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe you are asking the right question.  I have puzzled much of my life concerning the tree of Knowledge of good and evil and the fall and how such things fit together in the grand plan of salvation.  To be honest the doctrine of the fall so troubled me that I considered looking outside the Abrahamic religions including science for resolution.  The problem is the overwhelming evidence that our mortal existence is a fallen state of spirituality and an unquestionable state of physical inferiority that inevitably results in death. 

 

Thank you for the thoughtful conversation.  The Old Testament appears to be full of contradictions in relation to the character of a loving God by which the Pearl of Great Price clarifies some aspects; however, through personal study and personal revelation the contradictions become an illusion -- mirage.  

 

For example, when the scriptures are read without the spirit the message of our Savior is easily recognized why the Jews thought the Savior would be something other than he was.  He was a Savior of souls.  A Savior to help them to help themselves, and yet despite their overt fidelity to their God they could not recognize him when he walked among them.

 

In essence, they did not read the scriptures as influenced by the Holy Ghost.  The scriptures can only be understood properly through light, intelligence, and intelligence is only conveyed through the power of God's spirit.  I have come to know, for myself, your words to be true, "That the only way one can make sense of the fall is through the assistance of the Holy Ghost."

 

The only way the children of God will come to know truth is to increase in intelligence and intelligence is conveyed by communication with God through his Spirit.

 

I am intrigued by others thoughts, and what appears to be a contradiction when the Lord commanded, forbid, Adam and Eve to partake of the fruit although he wanted us to become like him -- as you specified.  As for me, I remove this contradiction, and my mind ponders nature.  The nature of God and the nature of the natural man.  God's nature abhors sin.  I am more inclined, at least at this moment, to believe that his reason of forbidding dealt more with this nature, rather than his a forbidding to grow in knowledge -- intelligence.  But as you say, at face value, this is a contradiction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 God's nature abhors sin.  I am more inclined, at least at this moment, to believe that his reason of forbidding dealt more with this nature, rather than his a forbidding to grow in knowledge -- intelligence.  But as you say, at face value, this is a contradiction.

Putting those statements together in that way, do you believe that Adam eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil was a sin?

If it is not a sin, is it a contradiction? Can it only be a contradiction if it is a sin?

 

I think the idea that knowledge of itself is what we are after is a misconception of the true root of intelligence which is agency.  The lessons learned here are directly tied into agency.  The agency we have here is created by there being opposition, good and evil.  The choice of "trees" in the garden represent that fork in the road between agency and no agency, not just "knowledge".  I think the focus is not on abhoring sin but the point at which a loving parent decides it is time to cut the ties with His children and turn over the responsibility (at least in part) to His children so they might grow from their own agency. He would forbid agency when His children are not ready for it and yet hopes they would be ready for it at some time, the right time being the point at which the child says they are ready by eating of that tree.

 

I "forbid" my little ones to swim without their floaties until the time they are ready to take the risk of trying to swim without their floaties.  And at the same time I forbid them to swim without their floaties I want them to learn how to swim (when they are willing to take that step).  When they take that step then we throw the floaties away (like not allowing Adam and Eve to eat of the tree of life), cause they can't have both, wear the floaties and really learn how to swim. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Putting those statements together in that way, do you believe that Adam eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil was a sin?

If it is not a sin, is it a contradiction? Can it only be a contradiction if it is a sin?

 

I think the idea that knowledge of itself is what we are after is a misconception of the true root of intelligence which is agency.  The lessons learned here are directly tied into agency.  The agency we have here is created by there being opposition, good and evil.  The choice of "trees" in the garden represent that fork in the road between agency and no agency, not just "knowledge".  I think the focus is not on abhoring sin but the point at which a loving parent decides it is time to cut the ties with His children and turn over the responsibility (at least in part) to His children so they might grow from their own agency. He would forbid agency when His children are not ready for it and yet hopes they would be ready for it at some time, the right time being the point at which the child says they are ready by eating of that tree.

 

I "forbid" my little ones to swim without their floaties until the time they are ready to take the risk of trying to swim without their floaties.  And at the same time I forbid them to swim without their floaties I want them to learn how to swim (when they are willing to take that step).  When they take that step then we throw the floaties away (like not allowing Adam and Eve to eat of the tree of life), cause they can't have both, wear the floaties and really learn how to swim. 

 

If we review scripture for face value, we are informed that Adam and Even sinned when they partook of the fruit.  In the example of your children wearing floaties, sin isn't involved.  This is learning line up line, precept upon precept.  As such, in order for Adam or Eve to sin, a commandment must have been given and a commandment disobeyed.  In this case, God's "forbid" couldn't have been simply a progression request.  Yet, I fully agree, agency is an important aspect of this statement.

 

Let's say, sin wasn't involved, as you suggested would a contradiction still occur?  Possibly, however, it would require more knowledge.  As in your example, we know the reason for the floaties and we know the reason why they are no longer without the floaties.  Progression.

 

As for the tree of knowledge of good and evil, we know agency was given, choices were provided, but in connection with the floaties analogy then it would make more sense that God would have delivered a message, "when you are ready...," partake of the fruit, until you are ready I forbid it.

 

At what point would taking off the floaties be considered sin?  I don't think at anytime it would be considered sin.  A parent might gently scold and say, "Wow, keep those on or out of the pool until you are ready."

 

I enjoy these conversations, although they ultimately result in more pondering.  TheTraveler proposes other contradictions of the fall I hadn't really considered.  Why didn't God warn Adam and Eve about Satan?  If your child was in the pool and you knew of a boy/girl who was being aggressive in the pool, a warning would be given to stear clear. 

 

At some point, this will be revealed :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If we review scripture for face value, we are informed that Adam and Even sinned when they partook of the fruit.  In the example of your children wearing floaties, sin isn't involved.  This is learning line up line, precept upon precept.  As such, in order for Adam or Eve to sin, a commandment must have been given and a commandment disobeyed.  In this case, God's "forbid" couldn't have been simply a progression request.  Yet, I fully agree, agency is an important aspect of this statement.

 

Let's say, sin wasn't involved, as you suggested would a contradiction still occur?  Possibly, however, it would require more knowledge.  As in your example, we know the reason for the floaties and we know the reason why they are no longer without the floaties.  Progression.

 

As for the tree of knowledge of good and evil, we know agency was given, choices were provided, but in connection with the floaties analogy then it would make more sense that God would have delivered a message, "when you are ready...," partake of the fruit, until you are ready I forbid it.

 

At what point would taking off the floaties be considered sin?  I don't think at anytime it would be considered sin.  A parent might gently scold and say, "Wow, keep those on or out of the pool until you are ready."

 

I enjoy these conversations, although they ultimately result in more pondering.  TheTraveler proposes other contradictions of the fall I hadn't really considered.  Why didn't God warn Adam and Eve about Satan?  If your child was in the pool and you knew of a boy/girl who was being aggressive in the pool, a warning would be given to stear clear. 

 

At some point, this will be revealed :)

 

It is my personal opinion that your post indicates a great deal of brilliance (intelligence).  You are asking some good questions.   It seems to me that there is very little literal exactness in the Eden epoch and the symbolism of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.   For example, I do not believe that the knowledge of Good and Evil is in any way related to sin.  Without question G-d the Father himself possesses such knowledge without sin – neither in having such knowledge nor in having acquired such knowledge. 

 

I believe it is important to understand that there was a just, real and actual fall.  Not a pretense or a pretend fall.   But there must be a fall from which we cannot regret our place and just end the ordeal because we have had enough of it.   I do not believe that there is anything unjust or false in the fall.  From my understanding of G-d and his plan there had to be a fall but a very real conundrum in bringing about a true, honest and just fall for all mankind.  Thus there had to be a transgression.  Not just a transgression committed by Adam and Eve but a transgression partaken of by all that would come to mortality.  It is a transgression matter that must include both justice and agency.  Not something we are “tricked” into or as Eve said – beguiled!   If such was the case – I do not believe agency was a parameter of the fall of man.

 

In short I believe we are to understand that there are many important and critical elements of the fall that we are not told of or have revelation concerning, in this life.  I have long sought resolution to many things I do not understand concerning the fall and though I believe my quests have been partly rewarded  for some things I have not received any more comfort beyond – “have faith and the time will come when all such questions will be resolved.”  But in all honesty patients are not my best character attribute and I am also troubled by those that think or would indicate they know the answers when they in reality do not seem to understand much concerning the questions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

As for the tree of knowledge of good and evil, we know agency was given, choices were provided, but in connection with the floaties analogy then it would make more sense that God would have delivered a message, "when you are ready...," partake of the fruit, until you are ready I forbid it.

 

Isn't that what Joseph Fielding Smith is saying here; "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."?

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