Swinging the Ax Safely and Conflicting Commandments

[Guest]

A recent thread was about Adam and Eve and the Fall.  One sub-topic was about the conflicting commandments that they were given.  I'm wondering if they really were conflicting.

Jesus was approached by the Pharisees presenting the woman taken in adultery.  The Law of Moses required that she be stoned.  Yet he obeyed the law of the land and did not condone murder.  Doesn't that mean that they did not follow the Law of Moses?  Conflicting?  The Savior took the road of encouraging anyone without sin to cast the firs stone.  None took him up on it.  But He, Himself, was without sin.  So, why did He disobey the Law of Moses?  Did he?  No.  He forgave her because He was God and could forgive whom He would forgive.

Not contradictory.

Recently I was out in the yard planting trees with my kids.  My young son (Mighty Mouse, now Fireball) asked me for a turn at the ax (most of the ground is thoroughly invaded by large roots).  I handed it over to him.  I noticed how awkwardly he was holding and swinging the ax.  He also had a very odd stance.  But I realized he was not violating nay safety rules that had been drilled into him.  He was simply awkward and, therefore, completely ineffective.  He simply couldn't do it.  Then the epiphany.

The very same safety protocols that were meant to protect him also made his work completely ineffective.  In order for him in his inexperience, weakness, and diminutive stature to satisfy the safety rules, he simply couldn't swing that ax with sufficient force to cut through the wood in any significant or efficient manner.  So, I wondered if I told him to NOT follow the safety protocols, how much more effective would he be in chopping that wood?  I considered that he would actually be able to make a mark in that wood and eventually cut though it.  But the flip side was that he would more likely hit his foot or leg long before he got through the wood.

So, I wondered how I did it.  When he became duly worn out, I analyzed what I was doing as I swung the ax.  I was also doing it safely.  But I had greater strength and bulk to put behind the ax.  I also had greater experience.  I had gone through all he had with the awkwardness and inexperience.  But I had developed not only physically, but mentally and spiritually to be able to do it right AND be safe while doing it.

I believe that on some level the two commandments that Adam and Eve were given were actually able to be satisfied in some way.  But in their weakness, their inexperience, their awkwardness, etc. they didn't know how to satisfy both commandments.

I'm well aware that looking at it this way also causes other doctrines to be considered.  True.  But I just haven't got there yet.  But it was because I was thinking about Adam and Eve as we were "tending our garden" when I saw my son swing that ax.  I felt I just had to share the idea and see if it stuck.

[anatess2]

@Carborendum, it is in simple moments like spending some time in the garden with the kids that I get a lot of my "epiphanies" and I get to dig deeper into gospel teachings.  The last time that happened to me was at a Stake Youth Dance with my kids.  My youngest finally became old enough to attend a Stake Dance and so both my kids were in attendance.  My husband and I decided to help out so we can take compromising pictures.  That simple moment from weeks ago led to me studying gospel principles from another perspective.

In any case, your epiphany of the two conflicting commandments is gold.  That's how I've looked at it.

[Traveler]

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

A recent thread was about Adam and Eve and the Fall.  One sub-topic was about the conflicting commandments that they were given.  I'm wondering if they really were conflicting.

Jesus was approached by the Pharisees presenting the woman taken in adultery.  The Law of Moses required that she be stoned.  Yet he obeyed the law of the land and did not condone murder.  Doesn't that mean that they did not follow the Law of Moses?  Conflicting?  The Savior took the road of encouraging anyone without sin to cast the firs stone.  None took him up on it.  But He, Himself, was without sin.  So, why did He disobey the Law of Moses?  Did he?  No.  He forgave her because He was God and could forgive whom He would forgive.

Not contradictory.

Recently I was out in the yard planting trees with my kids.  My young son (Mighty Mouse, now Fireball) asked me for a turn at the ax (most of the ground is thoroughly invaded by large roots).  I handed it over to him.  I noticed how awkwardly he was holding and swinging the ax.  He also had a very odd stance.  But I realized he was not violating nay safety rules that had been drilled into him.  He was simply awkward and, therefore, completely ineffective.  He simply couldn't do it.  Then the epiphany.

The very same safety protocols that were meant to protect him also made his work completely ineffective.  In order for him in his inexperience, weakness, and diminutive stature to satisfy the safety rules, he simply couldn't swing that ax with sufficient force to cut through the wood in any significant or efficient manner.  So, I wondered if I told him to NOT follow the safety protocols, how much more effective would he be in chopping that wood?  I considered that he would actually be able to make a mark in that wood and eventually cut though it.  But the flip side was that he would more likely hit his foot or leg long before he got through the wood.

So, I wondered how I did it.  When he became duly worn out, I analyzed what I was doing as I swung the ax.  I was also doing it safely.  But I had greater strength and bulk to put behind the ax.  I also had greater experience.  I had gone through all he had with the awkwardness and inexperience.  But I had developed not only physically, but mentally and spiritually to be able to do it right AND be safe while doing it.

I believe that on some level the two commandments that Adam and Eve were given were actually able to be satisfied in some way.  But in their weakness, their inexperience, their awkwardness, etc. they didn't know how to satisfy both commandments.

I'm well aware that looking at it this way also causes other doctrines to be considered.  True.  But I just haven't got there yet.  But it was because I was thinking about Adam and Eve as we were "tending our garden" when I saw my son swing that ax.  I felt I just had to share the idea and see if it stuck.

 

I will use my father as what I believe to be the better example.  He would have said to me, “Son, you are not ready to swing an ax.  Here is a small hatchet and this is how to use it.  When you have mastered this little hatchet, we will move you up to something else.”

As per Adam and Eve in the garden epoch – I believe what we are given in scripture goes much deeper and beyond the literal text into principles that were heavily debated in the “counsel” in heaven during our pre-existence.  There are consequences that must be suffered in choosing a mortal experience.  I believe that what we are told of Eden is symbolically significant but currently missing some pieces because for now we must live by faith.  So many think the commandments given are conflicting.  The conflict is only in what we think we understand. 

I believe the reality was that in order to have knowledge of good we must have knowledge of evil.  In order to have knowledge of evil we must choose to experience death and become fallen.  But then through the sacrifice of Christ we would experience resurrection (repentance) and life and thus have knowledge of good and evil.  The commandment was, as I believe, to accept the plan of G-d and choose between being forever innocent in the garden or to partake of the fruit and be responsible for the consequences – but then to have faith that good would prevail over death; by and through the pure unspotted sacrifice of Christ.

 

The Traveler

[Guest]

21 minutes ago, Traveler said:

I will use my father as what I believe to be the better example.  He would have said to me, “Son, you are not ready to swing an ax.  Here is a small hatchet and this is how to use it.  When you have mastered this little hatchet, we will move you up to something else.”

That doesn't really speak to the garden though.  You imply that there would be a gradual learning process.  But that goes contrary to statements made about Adam and Eve FOREVER being useless in the Garden.

As for the hatchet, my son did use a hatchet.  He learned it very well.  But the hatchet itself is an almost useless tool even when used by a grown man.  So, for him to then use an ax, well, the hatchet didn't really do much for him.  It never did for me either.

[Rob Osborn]

Strangely, there isnt any scripture stating specifically that Adam and Eve were given two conflicting commandments.

[Crypto]

This is a fascinating line of thinking.

Edited March 8, 2018 by Crypto

[Vort]

5 hours ago, Carborendum said:

So, why did He disobey the Law of Moses?  Did he?  No.  He forgave her because He was God and could forgive whom He would forgive.

Not contradictory.

Not that I necessarily disagree with the gist of what you're saying -- but for the record, Jesus did not "forgive" the woman taken in adultery. He simply refused to condemn her at that time, instructing her to go and sin no more. I think we all get the same treatment; for now, our judgment is suspended and we are exhorted to repent.

[Just_A_Guy]

14 minutes ago, Vort said:

Not that I necessarily disagree with the gist of what you're saying -- but for the record, Jesus did not "forgive" the woman taken in adultery. He simply refused to condemn her at that time, instructing her to go and sin no more. I think we all get the same treatment; for now, our judgment is suspended and we are exhorted to repent.

Nor did He undermine Mosaic law.  Capital crimes required two witnesses; and in stonings the first stone had to be thrown by the primary witness who must not have been guilty of the same crime.  The genius of this story is that Jesus enacted mercy by out-Phariseeing the Pharisees.

Edited March 8, 2018 by Just_A_Guy

[Vort]

14 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Nor did He undermine Mosaic law.  Capital crimes required two witnesses; and in stonings the first stone had to be thrown by the primary witness who must not have been guilty of the same crime.  The genius of this story is that Jesus enacted mercy by out-Phariseeing the Pharisees.

I wonder if Jesus' doodling in the sand was, in reality, him buying time while he sought revelation to know the hearts and actions of these men, thus having full confidence in their adulterous guilt and inability to exercise the law against this woman.

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, Vort said:

I wonder if Jesus' doodling in the sand was, in reality, him buying time while he sought revelation to know the hearts and actions of these men, thus having full confidence in their adulterous guilt and inability to exercise the law against this woman.

That combines two theories on that doodling.  It finally makes sense.

[person0]

3 hours ago, Carborendum said:

That combines two theories on that doodling.  It finally makes sense.

What was the other theory?

[Rob Osborn]

5 hours ago, Vort said:

I wonder if Jesus' doodling in the sand was, in reality, him buying time while he sought revelation to know the hearts and actions of these men, thus having full confidence in their adulterous guilt and inability to exercise the law against this woman.

Doubtful.

[wenglund]

17 hours ago, Carborendum said:

A recent thread was about Adam and Eve and the Fall.  One sub-topic was about the conflicting commandments that they were given.  I'm wondering if they really were conflicting.

Jesus was approached by the Pharisees presenting the woman taken in adultery.  The Law of Moses required that she be stoned.  Yet he obeyed the law of the land and did not condone murder.  Doesn't that mean that they did not follow the Law of Moses?  Conflicting?  The Savior took the road of encouraging anyone without sin to cast the firs stone.  None took him up on it.  But He, Himself, was without sin.  So, why did He disobey the Law of Moses?  Did he?  No.  He forgave her because He was God and could forgive whom He would forgive.

Not contradictory.

Recently I was out in the yard planting trees with my kids.  My young son (Mighty Mouse, now Fireball) asked me for a turn at the ax (most of the ground is thoroughly invaded by large roots).  I handed it over to him.  I noticed how awkwardly he was holding and swinging the ax.  He also had a very odd stance.  But I realized he was not violating nay safety rules that had been drilled into him.  He was simply awkward and, therefore, completely ineffective.  He simply couldn't do it.  Then the epiphany.

The very same safety protocols that were meant to protect him also made his work completely ineffective.  In order for him in his inexperience, weakness, and diminutive stature to satisfy the safety rules, he simply couldn't swing that ax with sufficient force to cut through the wood in any significant or efficient manner.  So, I wondered if I told him to NOT follow the safety protocols, how much more effective would he be in chopping that wood?  I considered that he would actually be able to make a mark in that wood and eventually cut though it.  But the flip side was that he would more likely hit his foot or leg long before he got through the wood.

So, I wondered how I did it.  When he became duly worn out, I analyzed what I was doing as I swung the ax.  I was also doing it safely.  But I had greater strength and bulk to put behind the ax.  I also had greater experience.  I had gone through all he had with the awkwardness and inexperience.  But I had developed not only physically, but mentally and spiritually to be able to do it right AND be safe while doing it.

I believe that on some level the two commandments that Adam and Eve were given were actually able to be satisfied in some way.  But in their weakness, their inexperience, their awkwardness, etc. they didn't know how to satisfy both commandments.

I'm well aware that looking at it this way also causes other doctrines to be considered.  True.  But I just haven't got there yet.  But it was because I was thinking about Adam and Eve as we were "tending our garden" when I saw my son swing that ax.  I felt I just had to share the idea and see if it stuck.

I like the analogy, and I think it may be useful in dealing with a variety of gospel paradoxes. It provided me with an epiphany of my own.

To wit, I think it fails to consider a key aspect of the over-all plan, and/or perhaps the need for the two contradictory commands. To me, it fails to consider the fall.

Using your analogy, let's assume that one of the primary wishes (commands) as a father is for your son to ultimately become uninjurible by the ax, even as his father.

Clearly, experience and development are required to achieve that wish or command.

However, what if that experience and development were absolutely dependent upon your son first being injured, and then being placed under conditions that are continually at high risk for injury and death, with the provision that your other medically trained son would provide a way for all your children to be healed from ax injuries and saved from death, and ultimate attain a state that is without risk of injury. 

And, let's reasonably assume that injuries from the ax were not possible were your son to continue chopping according to the safety protocols (commands)--i.e. because the protocols are so effective, your son's state of health would remain unchanged, as also his inexperience and lack of development. He would not know, as do the fathers, the joys of safety because he knew not the pain of harm. Change was only possible by violating the safety protocols.

To me, the requisite occurrence of the fall (or ax injury) necessitated conflicting commandments. Or, said another way, the fact that the fall (ax injury) was requisite to fulfill the fathers wish (or command) for his son to become uninjurable, unavoidably brought it into conflict with his safety protocols.

 While the conflict isn't stated explicitly in the scriptures, it is, to my way of thinking, undeniably implicit--a mystery hidden in plain sight.

But, I am evidently the odd man out on this one--though I am somewhat puzzled that no alarm bells have gone off from everyone but me being in agreement with the good man, Rob Osborn (just kidding).

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[CV75]

23 hours ago, Carborendum said:

I believe that on some level the two commandments that Adam and Eve were given were actually able to be satisfied in some way.  But in their weakness, their inexperience, their awkwardness, etc. they didn't know how to satisfy both commandments.

God can multiply without becoming mortal. He has spirit children; gives these spirits bodies in a paradisaical world; and begets a Savior in the mortal world.

Evidently paradisaical beings like Adam and Eve cannot multiply without first partaking of the tree of knowledge. This fruit isn’t always, eternally forbidden, otherwise we could not progress. At some point the Lord may well have given permission to them to proceed and partake of the tree of knowledge, and proceed to multiply and replenish the earth. so in addition to weakness, inexperience and awkwardness, there may have been a factor of timing.

Perhaps if undertaken under certain circumstances, partaking of the tree of knowledge doesn’t necessarily result in mortality and death. Perhaps paradisaical brings can multiply and replenish the earth without becoming mortal, and these children are eventually sent to other paradises like our Adam and Eve were. That is why they had the choice -- it was given unto them what to do and when to do it in timing other than the Lord's.

Now whether paradisaical beings who are multiplying and replenishing can become exalted without experiencing and comprehending mortal life and death is another question. If not, there would have to a mechanism for death to enter their worlds, again under their own volition.

[CV75]

22 hours ago, Traveler said:

I will use my father as what I believe to be the better example.  He would have said to me, “Son, you are not ready to swing an ax.  Here is a small hatchet and this is how to use it.  When you have mastered this little hatchet, we will move you up to something else.”

This kind of sounds like what I posted... "Adam and Eve, you are now ready to partake of the tree of knowledge. It is given to you when to do that (or not). Assuming you partake, when you have mastered multiplying and replenishing in a paradisaical sphere, we will move you up to a bigger challenge: mortal life and death. if you so choose, for it is given to you." As descendants of Adam and Eve, we do not know how that would happen, since they partook at an earlier stage.

[CV75]

22 hours ago, Carborendum said:

That doesn't really speak to the garden though.  You imply that there would be a gradual learning process.  But that goes contrary to statements made about Adam and Eve FOREVER being useless in the Garden.

True, they may have remained in the garden forever, but there also may possibly have come a point, had they waited, when the Lord would invite them to partake of the tree of knowledge, whether that resulted in paradisaical procreation or mortal procreation. Of course all we know is the path they actually took and how we have to view andd eal with that in faith, and not the others they might have taken.

[CV75]

4 hours ago, wenglund said:

I like the analogy, and I think it may be useful in dealing with a variety of gospel paradoxes. It provided me with an epiphany of my own.

To wit, I think it fails to consider a key aspect of the over-all plan, and/or perhaps the need for the two contradictory commands. To me, it fails to consider the fall.

Using your analogy, let's assume that one of the primary wishes (commands) as a father is for your son to ultimately become uninjurible by the ax, even as his father.

Clearly, experience and development are required to achieve that wish or command.

However, what if that experience and development were absolutely dependent upon your son first being injured, and then being placed under conditions that are continually at high risk for injury and death, with the provision that your other medically trained son would provide a way for all your children to be healed from ax injuries and saved from death, and ultimate attain a state that is without risk of injury. 

And, let's reasonably assume that injuries from the ax were not possible were your son to continue chopping according to the safety protocols (commands)--i.e. because the protocols are so effective, your son's state of health would remain unchanged, as also his inexperience and lack of development. He would not know, as do the fathers, the joys of safety because he knew not the pain of harm. Change was only possible by violating the safety protocols.

To me, the requisite occurrence of the fall (or ax injury) necessitated conflicting commandments. Or, said another way, the fact that the fall (ax injury) was requisite to fulfill the fathers wish (or command) for his son to become uninjurable, unavoidably brought it into conflict with his safety protocols.

 While the conflict isn't stated explicitly in the scriptures, it is, to my way of thinking, undeniably implicit--a mystery hidden in plain sight.

But, I am evidently the odd man out on this one--though I am somewhat puzzled that no alarm bells have gone off from everyone but me being in agreement with the good man, Rob Osborn (just kidding).

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I think the ultimate conflict is in that the two commandments are in some ways conflicting and in some ways not!

But in this way, all God's children can legitimately progress as it it is given them, no harm / no foul. Definitely, no matter how it plays out, experiencing opposition according ot he light and knowledge we have is absolutely essential. what we see as conflict may be a kind of functional and not combative opposition, like justice and mercy, faith and knowledge, effort and grace.

[Traveler]

19 hours ago, Vort said:

I wonder if Jesus' doodling in the sand was, in reality, him buying time while he sought revelation to know the hearts and actions of these men, thus having full confidence in their adulterous guilt and inability to exercise the law against this woman.

 

I have encountered speculation that Jesus was writing the names of prominent individuals that were there - that were unworthy to accuse.

 

The Traveler

[wenglund]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

...what we see as conflict may be a kind of functional and not combative opposition, like justice and mercy, faith and knowledge, effort and grace.

That is possible.

However, in some ways, opposition is made functional by virtue of its combativeness--i.e. conflict.

For the Borg, resistance may be futile, but for mankind resistance is essential. Our muscles would atrophy absent combative opposition. Our physical existence is based on a fundamental principle of equal and opposite forces in nature. Indeed, without the combative opposition or conflict between chaos and order, we would all go crazy--or at least more crazy than we already are.

What better way would there be for the Father to introduce His children into a world of conflict than by way of conflict. To me, conflict, in some respects, is a beautiful thing. 

Thanks, -Wade Englund

Edited March 9, 2018 by wenglund

[Guest]

15 hours ago, person0 said:

What was the other theory?

You don't even know the first theory.  Why are you asking about the second?

1) I had heard many people say that when the Savior was writing in the sand, he was actually writing the names of those present and the sins they were guilty of.  This seemed to come out of nowhere and made no sense.  But I keep hearing it in almost every ward I've been in when we come across that passage in the year we study the New Testament.

2) My favorite is that He took a "celestial time-ouit" to consider things before proceeding.  This would give him that moment to gain the insight that would be denied a lesser being.

This statement that @Vort gave seems to combine them without going so far as saying he actually wrote a list of names and accompanying sins.  I rather like that synergy.

[CV75]

3 hours ago, wenglund said:

That is possible.

However, in some ways, opposition is made functional by virtue of its combativeness--i.e. conflict.

For the Borg, resistance may be futile, but for mankind resistance is essential. Our muscles would atrophy absent combative opposition. Our physical existence is based on a fundamental principle of equal and opposite forces in nature. Indeed, without the combative opposition or conflict between chaos and order, we would all go crazy--or at least more crazy than we already are.

What better way would there be for the Father to introduce His children into a world of conflict than by way of conflict. To me, conflict, in some respects, is a beautiful thing. 

Thanks, -Wade Englund

I think 2 Nephi 2 shows us that opposition for its own sake (the purpose being to establish agency and existence) is a good thing. But as to the forms it can take (conflict, complements, direction and movement (spiritual and temporal), etc.) perhaps not so much, as in conflict for its own sake.

I think God introduced His children into a world of opposition when He put them in the Garden of Eden where they had day, night; single, couple; male, female; sweet, bitter; etc. They had God, who was more developed than they, and they had a devil without a body (as opposed to them and God); a devil who knew more than they but less than God.

It seems that the “conflict” type of opposition arose when Adam questioned Eve’s choice to eat the forbidden fruit, and perhaps before that, more internally, in Eve’s finding the fruit desirable but knowing it was forbidden. Had they waited until God lifted the restriction on their partaking of the tree of knowledge, they would have found conflict eventually in another way, and certainly upon entering mortality.

With God being perfectly reconciled and unconquerable, I don’t see Him as the instigator of conflict but as the defender of agency and by extension the law of opposition. This is why I see Him putting Adam and Eve into conditions where various kinds of opposition exist but not establishing a specific conflict. That was up to lesser intelligences according to the light they had (Adam and Eve some, the devil none).

[wenglund]

On 3/9/2018 at 12:59 PM, CV75 said:

I think 2 Nephi 2 shows us that opposition for its own sake (the purpose being to establish agency and existence) is a good thing. But as to the forms it can take (conflict, complements, direction and movement (spiritual and temporal), etc.) perhaps not so much, as in conflict for its own sake.

 

I think God introduced His children into a world of opposition when He put them in the Garden of Eden where they had day, night; single, couple; male, female; sweet, bitter; etc. They had God, who was more developed than they, and they had a devil without a body (as opposed to them and God); a devil who knew more than they but less than God.

 

It seems that the “conflict” type of opposition arose when Adam questioned Eve’s choice to eat the forbidden fruit, and perhaps before that, more internally, in Eve’s finding the fruit desirable but knowing it was forbidden. Had they waited until God lifted the restriction on their partaking of the tree of knowledge, they would have found conflict eventually in another way, and certainly upon entering mortality.

 

With God being perfectly reconciled and unconquerable, I don’t see Him as the instigator of conflict but as the defender of agency and by extension the law of opposition. This is why I see Him putting Adam and Eve into conditions where various kinds of opposition exist but not establishing a specific conflict. That was up to lesser intelligences according to the light they had (Adam and Eve some, the devil none).

 

I agree that there was opposition and some knowledge of good and evil and thus agency in the Garden. I believe the same is true for the preexistence. 

However, as mentioned earlier, I don't think you are sufficiently factoring the fall into equation because, to me, the fall not only made the conflict unavoidable on several levels, but it took opposition and agency and the knowledge of good and evil to a whole other level--a level of the Gods. Otherwise, the fall wouldn't have been necessary.

Yet, if the Plan was of God, and reflected His will; and if the fall was a requisite part of the Plan, then it may be reasonably concluded that the fall was God's will. 

And, if the fall was only possible through disobedience,  then it follows that God gave a command so that it could be disobeyed, but also He gave a commandment that he intended to be disobeyed, which takes opposition beyond the type of "mercy vs. Justice" to actual conflict.

Furthermore, even if one disagrees that disobedience was needed in order for Adam and Eve to fall, were the fall only possible by partaking of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, then God's commandment forbidding partaking of the fruit, whether rescinded later or not (something I have never heard of), also went beyond just opposition (along the lines of mercy vs. justice) to actual conflict with God's own will.

So, to me, the conflict is not only unavoidable, but a part of God's perfection, particularly in His raising of his children to become even as He is. In this respect, conflict is a beautiful thing. 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[CV75]

12 hours ago, wenglund said:

I agree that there was opposition and some knowledge of good and evil and thus agency in the Garden. I believe the same is true for the preexistence. 

However, as mentioned earlier, I don't think you are sufficiently factoring the fall into equation because, to me, the fall not only made the conflict unavoidable on several levels, but it took opposition and agency and the knowledge of good and evil to a whole other level--a level of the Gods. Otherwise, the fall wouldn't have been necessary.

Yet, if the Plan was of God, and reflected His will; and if the fall was a requisite part of the Plan, then it may be reasonably concluded that the fall was God's will. 

And, if the fall was only possible through disobedience,  then it follows that God gave a command so that it could be disobeyed, but also He gave a commandment that he intended to be disobeyed, which takes opposition beyond the type of "mercy vs. Justice" to actual conflict.

Furthermore, even if one disagrees that disobedience was needed in order for Adam and Eve to fall, were the fall only possible by partaking of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, then God's commandment forbidding partaking of the fruit, whether rescinded later or not (something I have never heard of), also went beyond just opposition (along the lines of mercy vs. justice) to actual conflict with God's own will.

So, to me, the conflict is not only unavoidable, but a part of God's perfection, particularly in His raising of his children to become even as He is. In this respect, conflict is a beautiful thing. 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I took the idea of God giving the fruit of the tree of knowledge to His paradisaical children in other worlds came from Hugh Nibley: “Satan disobeyed orders when he revealed certain secrets to Adam and Eve, not because they were not known and done in other worlds, but because he was not authorized in that time and place to convey them [ https://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1123&index=5 ]…it was not his prerogative to do so—regardless of what had been done in other worlds. (When the time comes for such fruit, it will be given us legitimately.) [ https://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1114&index=6]”

I take full responsibility for the notion that procreation, enabled by partaking of the fruit of the tree of knowledge, could occur in a paradisaical condition. But as long as Satan was still there, at some point, disobedience and a Fall certainly would have eventually taken place, somehow. None of God’s children (except Christ) have the knowledge and faith He does, or the proficiency that Satan has, so at some point along the way someone would have disobeyed something and caused the fall of paradise.

But God could have also introduced mortality with His approved partaking of the tree of knowledge if it was simply His time for Adam and Eve to experience mortality. Here again, none of God’s mortal children fully possess either His or the devil’s advantages so at some point sin would enter the picture in the same way we see that innocent children conceive sin in their hearts (D&C 93:39, Moses 6:55).

This is why I see opposition as the driving principle, and not so much conflict, though conflict is a subset of opposition and certainly a part of mortality, and a necessary step toward exaltation through the merits of Christ and our agency. But because we cannot win exaltation on our own, conflict does not reflect any advantage we innately possess over the devil (no contest!).

[zil]

3 hours ago, CV75 said:

I take full responsibility for the notion that procreation, enabled by partaking of the fruit of the tree of knowledge, could occur in a paradisaical condition. But as long as Satan was still there, at some point, disobedience and a Fall certainly would have eventually taken place, somehow. None of God’s children (except Christ) have the knowledge and faith He does, or the proficiency that Satan has, so at some point along the way someone would have disobeyed something and caused the fall of paradise.

But God could have also introduced mortality with His approved partaking of the tree of knowledge if it was simply His time for Adam and Eve to experience mortality. Here again, none of God’s mortal children fully possess either His or the devil’s advantages so at some point sin would enter the picture in the same way we see that innocent children conceive sin in their hearts (D&C 93:39, Moses 6:55).

This is why I see opposition as the driving principle, and not so much conflict, though conflict is a subset of opposition and certainly a part of mortality, and a necessary step toward exaltation through the merits of Christ and our agency. But because we cannot win exaltation on our own, conflict does not reflect any advantage we innately possess over the devil (no contest!).

I think the fall was necessary before procreation could have happened, but otherwise agree with you (assuming I understand).  I see the alternate to Satan's temptation as follows:

1) God explains that in order for Adam and Eve to obtain the experiential knowledge of good and evil which is required for eternal progression and eventual exaltation, they must choose mortality.  He also explains that they will not be able to procreate until they choose to become mortal.  And he explains that because there are negative consequences to this fallen state, that they must choose it - God will not force it on them.  But that if they do, he will provide a Savior for them.

2) Adam and Eve then understand sufficient to choose the consequences, and choose to fall.  Having become mortal, they can now reproduce and experience good and evil.

...at least, that's my take on it (which is worth everything you paid for it).

Edited March 12, 2018 by zil

[Rob Osborn]

I do know this- the plan did not require Satan to tempt Adam and Eve in order for them to progress. This principle is eternal- opposition does not require there to be evil first. 

Theres just too much missing from the story to know exactly what was going on and why. Its obvious that God commanded them to only worship him and no other. Disobedience to that command would lead to and be the cause of their fall. 

Other than those facts we dont have much to go on.