Adam & Eve idea, outside of the box?

[askandanswer]

He never said that sinning had to be a part of the learning process, but He set up a situation where nothing could happen until sin had been committed. From one perspective, it was a no-win situation. On the one hand, Adam and Eve could either commit a sin of omission by ignoring the commandment to go forth and multiply, and keep the commandment not to eat the fruit, or they could commit sin of commission by eating the fruit and thereby be enabled to keep the commandment to go forth and multiply. The commencement, although not the continuation, of the plan, depended entirely on some sort of sin. 

I suspect that God was just waiting for the fruit to be eaten before He came back with His additional instructions. it's also unstated how many times previously God had returned and given other instructions prior to Him giving the instructions that we are told of in another place. 

There were two special trees in the garden. If I had been Adam, I would have made fruit salad, rather than just sampling one type of fruit at a time.  I wonder what outcomes that would have produced? 

[estradling75]

2 hours ago, askandanswer said:

He never said that sinning had to be a part of the learning process, but He set up a situation where nothing could happen until sin had been committed. From one perspective, it was a no-win situation. On the one hand, Adam and Eve could either commit a sin of omission by ignoring the commandment to go forth and multiply, and keep the commandment not to eat the fruit, or they could commit sin of commission by eating the fruit and thereby be enabled to keep the commandment to go forth and multiply. The commencement, although not the continuation, of the plan, depended entirely on some sort of sin. 

I suspect that God was just waiting for the fruit to be eaten before He came back with His additional instructions. it's also unstated how many times previously God had returned and given other instructions prior to Him giving the instructions that we are told of in another place. 

There were two special trees in the garden. If I had been Adam, I would have made fruit salad, rather than just sampling one type of fruit at a time.  I wonder what outcomes that would have produced? 

I don't know...  There is just so much we don't know about God and his plan for Adam and Eve other then their transgressions did not thwart it... However because of our lack of knowledge I am not sure we can say that it was the only way it could of happened because that was "did" happen.  To me that is like saying that because God prepared for the lost of the 116 pages of the Book of Mormon that the actions of one Joseph Smith and Martin Harris had to happen or the Book of Mormon would have never come forth

[CV75]

On 4/6/2016 at 2:43 PM, NeedleinA said:

Well, do you ever have a moment when you learn/hear something different/outside of the box and go, "Hum, that was really interesting!". I just had one of those moments. I just finished up 40 minutes of watching a lecture: Evolution and Latter-day Saint Theology: The Tree of Life and DNA, from a FAIR Conference. 

Perhaps old news to others, but new to me in several areas. If I understood the speaker correctly as he gave his opinion, I took away the following and would be interested in your thoughts.

1. Adam & Eve were not inherently immortal.
2. Death (in various forms) was occurring in the garden. Examples he gave: Did Adam & Eve have hair, nails and human skin? If so, they are the result of dead cells. Did Adam & Eve ever pick a fruit off of a tree and discard it on the ground? Being separated from the tree, did it rot or live forever on the ground?
3. He addresses our common understanding/translation regarding: 2 Nephi 2:22
4. His theory: two mortal beings Adam & Eve had been plucked out of the mainstream (ongoing population on Earth), isolated in the Garden of Eden and while there had access to the Tree of Life. The tree made them immortal while they were partaking of it. Once kicked out, a cherubim had to then be placed in front of tree to stop them from "continuing" to eat from it. 

Anyways, I thought it was interesting enough to open up for a discussion if anyone had any thoughts about it. 

FYI: The videos are 4x 10min parts into 40min whole. Parts 3 & 4 are where he gets into his theory.

 

My 2 cents, from D&C 131:7:

As terrestrial creations, the tabernacles of Adam and Eve were composed of the dust of a “more fine or pure” earth, which would have given them a more refined physiology than telestial creatures possess, one that did not require the separation of spirit from matter for life-sustaining activities and processes.

It could also be said that pure eyes do not discern death. For example, God does not see us as dead, but only as passing from one estate into another.

So Adam and Eve may not have perceived or conceptualized death because they were too pure, and (perhaps more so) because their physiology did not involve death. Other terrestrial flora and fauna would have possessed this same attribute of innocence and physiology.

As far as the physiology of eating terrestrial fruit, there may be some metaphor in the use of the words “eat” and “fruit” in the scriptural text. For example, the “fruit” may have been an aroma or energy wavelength produced by the tree, instead of sweet, fleshy produce containing seed. “Eat” may refer to smelling, touching, or otherwise absorbing desirable energy by means other than digesting a fruit body.

This might also explain how Adam and Eve could not have children (if terrestrial fruit does not have seed or cannot accommodate spirits, leaving the seed or fruit bodies dormant), and how their hair, teeth and skin cells were not manifestations of dead, but of living terrestrial tissue governed by the glory of their own spirits, or maintained by the terrestrial energy they exchange.

 

Edited April 19, 2016 by CV75
I thought a little more about it and revised the italicized prts.

[Rhoades]

On 4/10/2016 at 0:04 AM, Just_A_Guy said:

God said an earthly probation was necessary, but He never said sinning had to be a part of that learning process.  We did that ourselves.

We know that when Adam and Eve were left alone in the Garden, they were promised that God would return eventually with further instructions.  What if those instructions would have created a situation where Eve's partaking the fruit was done with full understanding of the ramifications and represented a covenant, rather than a product of a satanic deceit?  What if, given a different chain of events in the Garden, the earth and its inhabitants could have been had paradisiacal glory for its entire temporal existence rather than just the last thousand years?  How do we know that mortality had to end through death, rather than through translation as it will in the Millennium?

Sinning isn't needed in order to learn (e.g. Jesus), but opposition is necessary.  I don't think he intended for a paradisaical glory to provide us with the necessary opposition.  Also, it's important to know that at the end of the millennium there will be much opposition.

 

[Rhoades]

Quote

Now, once 2 Nephi 2:22 is dealt with, then I would throw out the challenge (and I’ve done this to many students over a number of years) to identify any other scripture that tells us that Adam and Eve were inherently immortal. Interesting question!

I'm either not understanding this correctly or he's not very familiar with the scriptures.  Was he was trying to find other scriptures that teach that death came about from Adam's fall?  The obvious one is 1 Corinthians 1 15:20-22.  It's even a seminary scripture mastery.

21 For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.

22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

 

Edited April 19, 2016 by Rhoades
Corrected verse numbers

[Just_A_Guy]

4 hours ago, Rhoades said:

Sinning isn't needed in order to learn (e.g. Jesus), but opposition is necessary.  I don't think he intended for a paradisaical glory to provide us with the necessary opposition.  Also, it's important to know that at the end of the millennium there will be much opposition.

Fair point; but I wonder where that leaves--say--a child who is born five years after the Second Coming, and completes their earthly probation 105 years after the Second Coming--with the end of the Millennium still nine hundred years away.

[LeSellers]

15 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Fair point; but I wonder where that leaves--say--a child who is born five years after the Second Coming, and completes their earthly probation 105 years after the Second Coming--with the end of the Millennium still nine hundred years away.

Won't happen, a child born during the Millennium will live to the age of a tree. That's largely understood to mean to the finish, when Satan will be loosed for a season.

Lehi

Edited April 19, 2016 by LeSellers

[Vort]

30 minutes ago, LeSellers said:

Won't happen, a child born during the Millennium will live to the age of a tree. That's largely understood to mean to the finish, when Satan will be loosed for a season.

I don't understand it to mean that. In fact, I would argue that such a meaning is not consonant with the following verse: "And when he dies he shall not sleep, that is to say in the earth, but shall be changed in the twinkling of an eye, and shall be caught up, and his rest shall be glorious." This does not sound at all like end-of-the-Millennium talk.

[Just_A_Guy]

"Age of a tree" is 100 years per Joseph Fielding Smith as cited in the current Seminary manual on the D&C.  

https://www.lds.org/manual/doctrine-and-covenants-and-church-history-student-study-guide/the-church-in-ohio-and-missouri/doctrine-and-covenants-101-a-response-to-troubles-in-jackson-county-missouri?lang=eng

[Rhoades]

6 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Fair point; but I wonder where that leaves--say--a child who is born five years after the Second Coming, and completes their earthly probation 105 years after the Second Coming--with the end of the Millennium still nine hundred years away.

Similarly, I also wonder about children who die in infancy.

In 1800 the estimated global child mortality rate was over 40%.  Even in 1950 it was about 20%.  This is the percent of people that died before age 5.  If throughout the history of the world there were similar child mortality rates, that means a LOT of people didn't get to experience mortality as an adult.  The celestial kingdom will be loaded with such people.  My guess is that the child mortality rate wasn't always so high, but I really have no way of knowing.  Either way, I realize that many many people have a different mortal experience.