Emotion before the fall?


SpiritDragon
 Share

Recommended Posts

I was having this discussion recently with my in-laws. They love the new temple videos emotion in the garden as opposed to the older "robotic" versions. For me while I appreciate the emotion for the sake of it evoking emotion, I find it strangely off. It seems to me that the scriptures discuss not knowing joy without sorrow, not happy without sad, clearly no good without evil. Any how the happy/sad and so forth has always struck me as they really couldn't appreciate emotions because they had nothing to relate anything too.

 

Do you think they had emotions in the garden? If so were they lacking in depth compared to post-fall? Scriptural references and conference talks backing up any particular position over and above opinion would be great.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think the film was intended to be literal in that aspect. In the past, a lot of people commented how the actors of previous films were "robotic" in nature (except the actor playing Satan). I haven't seen the film but looks like there was some good acting taking place. Emotions play a big role in most people's lives and in religion particularly. One could argue if adding such emotions to a Temple film could distract the audience from understanding what really took place (and yes, we are constantly bombarded with the idea that Mormons only prey with the "emotions" of people rather than using logic) but I haven't seen the film.

 

Now with regards to your second question about Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eve, personally I believe they did not know the kind of mortal emotions we feel but until after the Fall.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think the film was intended to be literal in that aspect. In the past, a lot of people commented how the actors of previous films were "robotic" in nature (except the actor playing Satan). I haven't seen the film but looks like there was some good acting taking place. Emotions play a big role in most people's lives and in religion particularly. One could argue if adding such emotions to a Temple film could distract the audience from understanding what really took place (and yes, we are constantly bombarded with the idea that Mormons only prey with the "emotions" of people rather than using logic) but I haven't seen the film.

 

Now with regards to your second question about Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eve, personally I believe they did not know the kind of mortal emotions we feel but until after the Fall.

 

I agree that the video does not need to be literal, the purpose is that we learn from it. At the same time I remember fellow missionaries talking about things they saw in the temple videos as literal and used these images to frame their understanding of doctrine. In this way I can see it being potentially dangerous to have any portion that may be inaccurate, although preferable if everyone studied things out more carefully before jumping to conclusions.

 

I'm not really out to prove the videos right or wrong, they were just the catalyst for the question of whether emotion existed in the garden of Eden.

 

I also think they didn't feel the same depth of emotions until after the fall, but I am unsure if they really had any at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the newest video they also have Adam digging for some reason in the Garden. I always understood that work was not necessary in the Garden. What would he be digging for? :)

 

I may not have seen the newest one yet, I've seen two, I understand their could be a third... Any how never noticed Adam digging - I guess in his child like state he wanted to play in the dirt like little boys do.:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe that God is Love, being with Him is being with Love itself.  When Adam and Eve were created, they had an awesome relationship with God and were in His presence, how could they not feel joy?  Sure they have no other human emotions to compare it to, but they had God! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe that God is Love, being with Him is being with Love itself.  When Adam and Eve were created, they had an awesome relationship with God and were in His presence, how could they not feel joy?  Sure they have no other human emotions to compare it to, but they had God! 

 

An interesting thought. Could they feel love without appreciating the difference between love and hate? Is there a difference between feeling, experiencing, and appreciating emotions?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An interesting thought. Could they feel love without appreciating the difference between love and hate? Is there a difference between feeling, experiencing, and appreciating emotions?

 

I don't think you need one to know about the other.  A baby is loved when it is born and it learns to smile and coo and laugh.  Should I be angry to the baby and abuse it so that it can really know and appreciate love?  Of course not!  All my children know what love is b/c my husband and I, and our extended families, friends and neighbors, give it to them, I have never hated them!  Why should anyone experience hate in order to know love and joy?  Do you hate your children first?  Did your parents at some time hate and abuse you so that you could know love?  Most likely not.  From what I understand, the majority of those children who grow up in abusive homes, pick up on that behavior and do the same to their own children.  They aren't more loving towards themselves and others, they're more hateful and distrustful. 

 

Adam and Eve were with God, He loved them, He created them and gave them a beautiful garden brimming with good food, and animals to know, and, I'm sure, just a plain gorgeous creation surrounding them!  Clean air, soft grass, great views of the mountains, clean streams, you name it, they had it all in its original perfection and beauty!  How could they not understand what love was when God so abundantly bestowed it on them? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An interesting thought. Could they feel love without appreciating the difference between love and hate? Is there a difference between feeling, experiencing, and appreciating emotions?

 

 

I don't think you need one to know about the other.  A baby is loved when it is born and it learns to smile and coo and laugh.  Should I be angry to the baby and abuse it so that it can really know and appreciate love?  Of course not!  All my children know what love is b/c my husband and I, and our extended families, friends and neighbors, give it to them, I have never hated them!  Why should anyone experience hate in order to know love and joy?  Do you hate your children first?  Did your parents at some time hate and abuse you so that you could know love?  Most likely not.  From what I understand, the majority of those children who grow up in abusive homes, pick up on that behavior and do the same to their own children.  They aren't more loving towards themselves and others, they're more hateful and distrustful. 

 

Adam and Eve were with God, He loved them, He created them and gave them a beautiful garden brimming with good food, and animals to know, and, I'm sure, just a plain gorgeous creation surrounding them!  Clean air, soft grass, great views of the mountains, clean streams, you name it, they had it all in its original perfection and beauty!  How could they not understand what love was when God so abundantly bestowed it on them? 

 

 

I would suggest that you're both partially right.  One does not need to experience hate to know love, but one may not fully understand the fullness and beauty of love without also experiencing hate.

 

Sort of along the lines of "Yea, I say unto you, my son, that there could be nothing so exquisite and so bitter as were my pains. Yea, and again I say unto you, my son, that on the other hand, there can be nothing so exquisite and sweet as was my joy." (Alma 36:21)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think you need one to know about the other.  A baby is loved when it is born and it learns to smile and coo and laugh.  Should I be angry to the baby and abuse it so that it can really know and appreciate love?  Of course not!  All my children know what love is b/c my husband and I, and our extended families, friends and neighbors, give it to them, I have never hated them!  Why should anyone experience hate in order to know love and joy?  Do you hate your children first?  Did your parents at some time hate and abuse you so that you could know love?  Most likely not.  From what I understand, the majority of those children who grow up in abusive homes, pick up on that behavior and do the same to their own children.  They aren't more loving towards themselves and others, they're more hateful and distrustful. 

 

Adam and Eve were with God, He loved them, He created them and gave them a beautiful garden brimming with good food, and animals to know, and, I'm sure, just a plain gorgeous creation surrounding them!  Clean air, soft grass, great views of the mountains, clean streams, you name it, they had it all in its original perfection and beauty!  How could they not understand what love was when God so abundantly bestowed it on them? 

 

Great thoughts again. It further opens my line of questioning however (which is a good thing). I find usually the more I learn about a topic the more I realize I don't know (and neither does any one else for that matter) but at the same time as more questions come up and get partially answered the whole becomes clearer. 

 

My new question based on your thoughts is that of being the recipient of love and that of being the giver of love or being full of love. So while obviously they were blessed by feeling God's love just as children are blessed with parental and other familial love, does this mean that they were/are capable of returning love?

 

Surely at some point kids return love to their parents, but at first? I don't know. They feel most comfortable with mom and dad around and will cry to communicate that they fear the unknown, but do they love back? Perhaps they do, but certainly not the same way adults learn to love, which is likely a big part of the puzzle. I'm not specifically saying that Adam and Eve nor little infants are incapable of emotion, I'm just curious about what level emotion operated at in the garden of eden. I find your example of little children useful, however I'm not convinced that post-fall children are even in the same league as pre-fall adam and Eve.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would suggest that you're both partially right.  One does not need to experience hate to know love, but one may not fully understand the fullness and beauty of love without also experiencing hate.

 

Sort of along the lines of "Yea, I say unto you, my son, that there could be nothing so exquisite and so bitter as were my pains. Yea, and again I say unto you, my son, that on the other hand, there can be nothing so exquisite and sweet as was my joy." (Alma 36:21)

 

Absolutely the kind of discussion I'm looking for, thank you. We are taught that we need opposition in all things. No good without evil, no happy without sad and so forth. Are all emotions relative? Can one only experience satisfaction in the absence of dissatisfaction, or can one be satisfied neutrally without really knowing it?

 

I suppose this is likely just one to chalk up to the realm of we can only speculate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Genesis 3:6 (Moses 4:12):

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

 

"Pleasant" implies emotion to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Genesis 3:6 (Moses 4:12):

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

 

"Pleasant" implies emotion to me.

 

Good find. I'd agree that pleasure insinuates an emotional response, but does it also insinuate that an opposite of pleasure such as pain existed in the garden?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good find. I'd agree that pleasure insinuates an emotional response, but does it also insinuate that an opposite of pleasure such as pain existed in the garden?

 

*shrug*

 

I tend to the childlike thing. Kids who aren't accountable certainly know pleasure and pain. But they don't KNOW pleasure or pain because they cannot really understand. The things that give them pleasure are, as often as not, stupid, as well as the things that sometimes give them pain. (Not that they don't experience true pleasure and pain, of course, but even then, they can't really understand). I expect it was likewise in the Garden. They weren't robots. They were simply innocent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

*shrug*

 

I tend to the childlike thing. Kids who aren't accountable certainly know pleasure and pain. But they don't KNOW pleasure or pain because they cannot really understand. The things that give them pleasure are, as often as not, stupid, as well as the things that sometimes give them pain. (Not that they don't experience true pleasure and pain, of course, but even then, they can't really understand). I expect it was likewise in the Garden. They weren't robots. They were simply innocent.

 

I'm now curious what really makes kids so different from adults, if indeed they are. I mean don't kids basically get pleasure out of having their way just like adults. It is easy to say that what brings kids pleasure or displeasure is stupid, but the same could be said of adults. Children fight over toys and don't like to eat food they don't prefer, and complain when they need to go somewhere they don't want to, and are disappointed to leave somewhere when they are enjoying themselves; it seems as though adults are just the same, the only difference being they don't express themselves the same.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm now curious what really makes kids so different from adults, if indeed they are. I mean don't kids basically get pleasure out of having their way just like adults. It is easy to say that what brings kids pleasure or displeasure is stupid, but the same could be said of adults. Children fight over toys and don't like to eat food they don't prefer, and complain when they need to go somewhere they don't want to, and are disappointed to leave somewhere when they are enjoying themselves; it seems as though adults are just the same, the only difference being they don't express themselves the same.

 

Well theoretically, adults know better (even though some seem oblivious). Kids do not. Eating nothing but chocolate, for example, doesn't mean anything to a kid. They do not put any consequence to the action. An adult knows there will be consequences, even if they choose to ignore said consequences.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well theoretically, adults know better (even though some seem oblivious). Kids do not. Eating nothing but chocolate, for example, doesn't mean anything to a kid. They do not put any consequence to the action. An adult knows there will be consequences, even if they choose to ignore said consequences.

 

I don't see it this way at all. Children are capable of understanding consequences once they are set forth, just like adults do. Furthermore if Adam and Eve are being referred to as children and yet incapable of understanding consequences, there should have been no second thought given to eating the fruit at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see it this way at all. Children are capable of understanding consequences once they are set forth, just like adults do.

 

We'll have to agree to see it differently then. I agree children are capable at some level (depending, of course on the child's age and maturity. a newborn is not capable of this, of course), but I disagree in terms of "just like adults do". This is literally not the case. They cannot reason like adults. They cannot see long term consequences. Sure, they can temporarily understand that if they do such-n-such they'll get a spanking or go on time out. How long does even that last though?

 

 

Furthermore if Adam and Eve are being referred to as children and yet incapable of understanding consequences, there should have been no second thought given to eating the fruit at all.

 

I think this is a great point, and I think it shows that it is invalid to think of Adam and Eve EXACTLY like children. On the other hand, as you pointed out, children do have some level of understanding of consequences. If you leave a child home and tell them flat out, particularly repeatedly, that if they leave the house they will be in dutch, most children will at least be aware that if they leave the house they are, actually going to be in dutch (if they do not get caught). What they cannot understand, usually, is why they should not leave the house beyond their parent's say so - kidnappings, car accidents, getting lost, etc., etc. Mayhaps it was something akin to that. Adam and Even could understand the basics of what the Lord warned them of. If they partook of the fruit they'd be in trouble with God and would die. But truly understanding what that fully entailed?   I dunno.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was having this discussion recently with my in-laws. They love the new temple videos emotion in the garden as opposed to the older "robotic" versions. For me while I appreciate the emotion for the sake of it evoking emotion, I find it strangely off. It seems to me that the scriptures discuss not knowing joy without sorrow, not happy without sad, clearly no good without evil. Any how the happy/sad and so forth has always struck me as they really couldn't appreciate emotions because they had nothing to relate anything too.

 

Do you think they had emotions in the garden? If so were they lacking in depth compared to post-fall? Scriptural references and conference talks backing up any particular position over and above opinion would be great.

 

Yes there were emotions prior to the fall - see Job 38:4-7 (in particular verse 7). 

 

I believe there is gross misunderstanding concerning a great many things that are plainly (rhetorically) taught in scripture.   For example, even though Adam and Eve had interface and talked directly with G-d, neither had the knowledge of good and evil.  One might think that knowing and interfacing with G-d would at least give a person a knowledge or understanding of good.  What then was the purpose of a tree with the knowledge of good as well as evil – why not call it the tree of knowledge of evil?

 

The rhetorically logical answer is that knowing G-d does not give knowledge of good.  This is one point that I believe demonstrates the Great Apostasy, is in the general understanding of what is taking place in the Eden epoch and if G-d himself had partaken of the fruit (had the knowledge) of the tree of knowledge of good and evil?  How could G-d possibly have knowledge of evil if he had not already partaken of the fruit of the tree himself?  If G-d could obtain such knowledge himself by a better way than the only option given to Adam and Eve – why ought we to worship a G-d that forces his creations to obtain such critically important knowledge by flawed or faulty method that can only end in death?  The problem that the great apostasy brings to the table, is that those trying to be devout in their faith are compelled to make up a response based in their desire to believe something but in no way able to withstand even the most simple and elementary rigors of rhetorical logic – forcing any honest person to declare themselves either atheistic or agnostic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes there were emotions prior to the fall - see Job 38:4-7 (in particular verse 7). 

 

I believe there is gross misunderstanding concerning a great many things that are plainly (rhetorically) taught in scripture.   For example, even though Adam and Eve had interface and talked directly with G-d, neither had the knowledge of good and evil.  One might think that knowing and interfacing with G-d would at least give a person a knowledge or understanding of good.  What then was the purpose of a tree with the knowledge of good as well as evil – why not call it the tree of knowledge of evil?

 

The rhetorically logical answer is that knowing G-d does not give knowledge of good.  This is one point that I believe demonstrates the Great Apostasy, is in the general understanding of what is taking place in the Eden epoch and if G-d himself had partaken of the fruit (had the knowledge) of the tree of knowledge of good and evil?  How could G-d possibly have knowledge of evil if he had not already partaken of the fruit of the tree himself?  If G-d could obtain such knowledge himself by a better way than the only option given to Adam and Eve – why ought we to worship a G-d that forces his creations to obtain such critically important knowledge by flawed or faulty method that can only end in death?  The problem that the great apostasy brings to the table, is that those trying to be devout in their faith are compelled to make up a response based in their desire to believe something but in no way able to withstand even the most simple and elementary rigors of rhetorical logic – forcing any honest person to declare themselves either atheistic or agnostic.

The thing that goes hand in hand with the Tree of Knowledge of good and evil is agency as well as its associated accountability. 

 

Just like one does not have to lose to be a winner but one has to have the chance for losing to be a winner, in the same way, one has to be put in a situation where sin is possible to be described as righteous.  The purposes of this life being to receive a body and to be tested to see if we will do what we are told to do and follow the will of God are not so separate.  The body we are given in this life allows us to have internal opposition but we do not want that opposition forever, just during the testing phase.

 

In taking a final exam, the chalk board is covered (if they even use those nowadays), the text books are closed and then the test takes place.  But the testing conditions were never intended to be permanent.  Similarly, God, in His wisdom, allows for a testing situation that was never intended to be permanent, thus death is needed.  Spiritual death is like the closing of the books etc, and the physical death is the way to not make the testing situation permanent.  The knowledge of the good and evil is like having false answers on a test with multiple choices.  The test requires those false options. Exposure to the false answer doesn't mean that someone is permanently affected by being exposed to it.  So the issue of God having knowledge of evil to me is not a problem at all.  In the same way that we can live in the world without being of the world.

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