A knowledge of good and evil

[Fether]

Moses 5:11

"Were it not for our transgression we never should have had seed, and never should have known good and evil, and the joy of our redemption, and the eternal life which God giveth unto all the obedient"

On occasion, while reading scripture, I'll pass over a phrase that doesn't quite make sense with other things I have read in scripture and my mind will make a mental pin for further investigation in the future. This is one of those pins.

"Were it not for our transgression we should never have... known good and evil."

Sounds a little paradoxical to me. Isn't the nature of transgression evil? Did Adam and Eve have some concept of right and wrong? Tad R. Callster in his book "The infinite Atonement" makes this passing statement. 

"Adam and Eve were in a state of innocence, without a full knowledge of good and evil" (bold added for emphasis, p. 32)

Was the limit of their understanding of right and wrong just a matter of innocent confusion of conflict, as they had never encountered a lie or the idea that God may be holding back from them as presented by Satan?

[Traveler]

15 hours ago, Fether said:

Moses 5:11

"Were it not for our transgression we never should have had seed, and never should have known good and evil, and the joy of our redemption, and the eternal life which God giveth unto all the obedient"

On occasion, while reading scripture, I'll pass over a phrase that doesn't quite make sense with other things I have read in scripture and my mind will make a mental pin for further investigation in the future. This is one of those pins.

"Were it not for our transgression we should never have... known good and evil."

Sounds a little paradoxical to me. Isn't the nature of transgression evil? Did Adam and Eve have some concept of right and wrong? Tad R. Callster in his book "The infinite Atonement" makes this passing statement. 

"Adam and Eve were in a state of innocence, without a full knowledge of good and evil" (bold added for emphasis, p. 32)

Was the limit of their understanding of right and wrong just a matter of innocent confusion of conflict, as they had never encountered a lie or the idea that God may be holding back from them as presented by Satan?

 

I believe that the key is understanding what the knowledge of good and evil is.  The experience of death is the knowledge of evil and the experience of the atonement is the knowledge of good.

 

The Traveler

[CV75]

16 hours ago, Fether said:

Moses 5:11

"Were it not for our transgression we never should have had seed, and never should have known good and evil, and the joy of our redemption, and the eternal life which God giveth unto all the obedient"

On occasion, while reading scripture, I'll pass over a phrase that doesn't quite make sense with other things I have read in scripture and my mind will make a mental pin for further investigation in the future. This is one of those pins.

"Were it not for our transgression we should never have... known good and evil."

Sounds a little paradoxical to me. Isn't the nature of transgression evil? Did Adam and Eve have some concept of right and wrong? Tad R. Callster in his book "The infinite Atonement" makes this passing statement. 

"Adam and Eve were in a state of innocence, without a full knowledge of good and evil" (bold added for emphasis, p. 32)

Was the limit of their understanding of right and wrong just a matter of innocent confusion of conflict, as they had never encountered a lie or the idea that God may be holding back from them as presented by Satan?

Perhaps they did not have a "full knowledge" in that the did not have a "full understanding of the meaning" of good and evil. They were obviously exposed to good (God) and evil (the evil), but they lacked a full appreciation, not having experienced the full effects of either. As paradisaical beings, they had life and joy (meaning they had the absence of suffering, which is not the same as rejoicing). But nothing to compare it to, they lacked a fullness. They had a wariness of the tree of knowledge, but this was based solely on their trust in God, and the sophistries of the devil gave them an opportunity to put that feeling away.

[Snigmorder]

15 hours ago, Fether said:

Moses 5:11

"Were it not for our transgression we never should have had seed, and never should have known good and evil, and the joy of our redemption, and the eternal life which God giveth unto all the obedient"

On occasion, while reading scripture, I'll pass over a phrase that doesn't quite make sense with other things I have read in scripture and my mind will make a mental pin for further investigation in the future. This is one of those pins.

"Were it not for our transgression we should never have... known good and evil."

Sounds a little paradoxical to me. Isn't the nature of transgression evil? Did Adam and Eve have some concept of right and wrong? Tad R. Callster in his book "The infinite Atonement" makes this passing statement. 

"Adam and Eve were in a state of innocence, without a full knowledge of good and evil" (bold added for emphasis, p. 32)

Was the limit of their understanding of right and wrong just a matter of innocent confusion of conflict, as they had never encountered a lie or the idea that God may be holding back from them as presented by Satan?

To quote Orson Pratt:

"This tree, of which they both ate, was called the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Why was it thus termed? I will explain a mystery to you, brethren, why this was called so. Adam and Eve, while in the garden of Eden, had not the knowledge you and I have; it is true, they had a degree of intelligence, but they had not the experience, they had not the knowledge by experience, which you and I have: all they knew was barely what they knew when they came there; they knew a commandment had been given to them, and they had sufficient knowledge to name the beasts of the field as they came up before them; but as for the knowledge of good, they had not got it, because they never had anything contrary to good placed before them.

We will bring up an example. For instance, suppose you had never tasted anything that was sweet--never had the sensation of sweetness--could you have any correct idea of the term sweetness? No. On the other hand, how could you understand bitter if you never had tasted bitterness? Could you define the term to them who had experienced this sensation, or knew it? No. I will bring another example. Take a man who had been perfectly blind from his infancy, and never saw the least gleam of light--could you describe colors to him? No. Would he know anything about red, blue, violet, or yellow? No; you could not describe it to him by any way you might undertake. But by some process let his eyes be opened, and let him gaze upon the sun beams that reflect upon a watery cloud, producing the rainbow, where he would see a variety of colors, he could then appreciate them for himself; but tell him about colors when he is blind, he would not know them from a piece of earthenware. So with Adam previous to partaking of this fruit; good could not be described to him, because he never had experienced the opposite. As to undertaking to explain to him what evil was, you might as well have undertaken to explain, to a being that never had, for one moment, had his eyes closed to the light, what darkness is."

I don't read past this point because he starts to sound Protestant.

Also, I'll take this time to say I don't like Tad Callister's book. There, I said it.

[Fether]

4 hours ago, Snigmorder said:

.

Also, I'll take this time to say I don't like Tad Callister's book. There, I said it.

Now I'm curious x) why?

[Snigmorder]

2 minutes ago, Fether said:

Now I'm curious x) why?

I didn't like his liberal use of quotations from The Journal of discourses to reach broad and far-reaching conclusions.

Of course, I never read the book entirely, just read a few pages here and there. I did read an entire chapter about law and didn't agree with what he seemed to be saying. What do you think of the book?

[Fether]

39 minutes ago, Snigmorder said:

I didn't like his liberal use of quotations from The Journal of discourses to reach broad and far-reaching conclusions.

Of course, I never read the book entirely, just read a few pages here and there. I did read an entire chapter about law and didn't agree with what he seemed to be saying. What do you think of the book?

Im not finished but I have enjoyed it thus far. Every half hour or so I read something that inspires me and I go off on tangents... but a lot of things do that to me.

He had a section where he talks about things that are knowable and how we shouldn't allow the prospect that we can't know everything to keep us from diving deep and trying figure it out anyway. It was really good!. Little sections like that here and there make it worth it. I do feel like half the book is just quotes from past general authorities though.

[CV75]

23 hours ago, Fether said:

Was the limit of their understanding of right and wrong just a matter of innocent confusion of conflict, as they had never encountered a lie or the idea that God may be holding back from them as presented by Satan?

I would like to add the element of factual confusion introduced by the devil's interjection of doubt into the equation. Eve was beguiled, or was manipulated into being confused by the devil's half-truths contradicting God's words (2 Nephi 2:18). That is not the best state of mind with which to make a decision,

Edited July 25, 2017 by CV75

[Fether]

44 minutes ago, CV75 said:

That is not the best state of mind with which to make a decision,

How quickly after the initial beguiling did Eve partake? Most accounts suggest it was a matter of seconds... but was that the case??

[CV75]

13 hours ago, Fether said:

How quickly after the initial beguiling did Eve partake? Most accounts suggest it was a matter of seconds... but was that the case??

I do not know (Genesis 3;6 and Moses 4:12 allow for some time for her to "see" the various counterpoints to the command not to partake), but she was still beguiled according to the records, and I'm suggesting that includes being uncertain as to the validity of the original command not to partake. The devil doesn't only introduce doubt about God and His words, but doubt about ourselves and what we think we hear, see and should do.

[Fether]

1 hour ago, changed said:

Why would they have "never had seed" without the transgression?  I personally think the transgression was bringing spirits into the world without their full knowledge, without their full agency.  We say we chose to come here - but it was not an informed choice.  We had no experience, did not know what good and evil were just as Adam and Eve did not.   It seems like a transgression to get someone into something against their will, without their fully informed choice.  Our birth into this world is necessary, but is a transgression for everyone I think... Eve did what had to be done.

I  think like discussed above, we had a concept of conflict as we were all envolved in the war in heaven. Many of us even deliberately chose to disobey God.

ALSO... there are multiple sourges that say the sin in the garden was NOT a swxual transgression. 

One source: https://www.lds.org/ensign/1998/01/in-the-beginning-a-latter-day-perspective?lang=eng

"Some even erroneously think that Adam and Eve’s transgression was sexual in nature. They assume that none of the general conditions we find on earth now would ever have come if our first parents had not been sinful."

Tad R Calister says it and so does Bruce R McConkie

[Fether]

24 minutes ago, changed said:

The war in heaven did give us experience, but we still did not have the experience of a physical body - so the physical component of everything was not experienced and not understood.  I agree, the sin/transgression was not sex - the point is not how life was created, it is the act of uniting spirit and flesh without the spirit's full knowledge.  To me the transgression is getting a spirit into something they have never experienced and therefore could not make an informed choice about.

I think you are wrong

[anatess2]

1 hour ago, changed said:

The war in heaven did give us experience, but we still did not have the experience of a physical body - so the physical component of everything was not experienced and not understood.  I agree, the sin/transgression was not sex - the point is not how life was created, it is the act of uniting spirit and flesh without the spirit's full knowledge.  To me the transgression is getting a spirit into something they have never experienced and therefore could not make an informed choice about.

This is picking pebbles out of the weeds.

The transgression is disobedience.  Simple as that.