2 Nephi 2:15-16 - opposition


Recommended Posts

2 Nephi 2:15-16 mentions opposition and enticement.

"And to bring about his eternal purposes in the end of man, ... it must needs be that there 
was an opposition; even the forbidden fruit in opposition to the tree of life; the one being 
sweet and the other bitter. Wherefore, the Lord God gave unto man that he should act for 
himself. Wherefore, man could not act for himself save it should be that he was enticed by 
the one or the other"

I can see that Eve was enticed to eat the forbidden fruit but were Adam and Eve ever enticed
to eat from the tree of life and all the other permitted trees,
 and if yes, by whom?

In light of what Adam and Eve said in Moses 5:10-11, did they eventually come to view the
forbidden tree as more sweet than bitter? 

Did Nephi also come to view the tree more sweet than bitter if it was the means for them to
experience joy, gain the ability to procreate, and to start their progression?

Matteo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, romans8 said:

2 Nephi 2:15-16 mentions opposition and enticement.

"And to bring about his eternal purposes in the end of man, ... it must needs be that there 
was an opposition; even the forbidden fruit in opposition to the tree of life; the one being 
sweet and the other bitter. Wherefore, the Lord God gave unto man that he should act for 
himself. Wherefore, man could not act for himself save it should be that he was enticed by 
the one or the other"

I can see that Eve was enticed to eat the forbidden fruit but were Adam and Eve ever enticed
to eat from the tree of life and all the other permitted trees,
 and if yes, by whom?

In light of what Adam and Eve said in Moses 5:10-11, did they eventually come to view the
forbidden tree as more sweet than bitter? 

Did Nephi also come to view the tree more sweet than bitter if it was the means for them to
experience joy, gain the ability to procreate, and to start their progression?

Matteo

Other than that it was present and granted immortality, not much is really said about the tree of life.

Concerning Adam and Eve's perception of the forbidden fruit I think this is a good question and indicative of thoughtful pondering. My take on it would be this: the bitterness of the forbidden fruit was that it brought about death, physical and spiritual. Whatever else may have been triggered by their partaking didn't change this and it's something we all still experience. 

Concerning child bearing and any other "sweetness" they experienced, and us for that matter, this came as they acted on the truths they were taught. Or in other words it came as they progressed along the path Lehi and Nephi saw in vision that lead to the tree of life. So while they may have been cut from the tree of life, Jesus Christ has made it accessible to us once more but only as we obey his gospel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, romans8 said:

2 Nephi 2:15-16 mentions opposition and enticement.

"And to bring about his eternal purposes in the end of man, ... it must needs be that there 
was an opposition; even the forbidden fruit in opposition to the tree of life; the one being 
sweet and the other bitter. Wherefore, the Lord God gave unto man that he should act for 
himself. Wherefore, man could not act for himself save it should be that he was enticed by 
the one or the other"

I can see that Eve was enticed to eat the forbidden fruit but were Adam and Eve ever enticed
to eat from the tree of life and all the other permitted trees,
 and if yes, by whom?

In light of what Adam and Eve said in Moses 5:10-11, did they eventually come to view the
forbidden tree as more sweet than bitter? 

Did Nephi also come to view the tree more sweet than bitter if it was the means for them to
experience joy, gain the ability to procreate, and to start their progression?

Matteo

We have no record of Adam and/or Eve ever partaking of the fruit of the tree of life.  To the contrary, we are told that cherubim and a flaming sword were sent specifically to create a physical barrier to Adam and Eve’s doing so.

The “tree of life” is a common ancient near eastern motif; and while Nephi was familiar with the Israelite creation narrative, the tree Nephi calls the “tree of life” is first and foremost a symbol of the love of God, to be eventually embodied in the form of Jesus Christ.  I wouldn’t necessarily “retcon” Nephi’s vision to try to extrapolate notions about the tree of life we read of in Genesis.

I have some private concerns about the way Moses 5:10-11 is phrased.  In general my notion of the decision to partake is that it was the right thing, done at the wrong time and (from Eve’s standpoint, at least) for the wrong reason.  The most handy modern-life analogue I can think of is a couple who breaks the law of chastity and, on learning that the woman has become pregnant, marry and keep the child; over the years finding joy and rejoicing in their child and in parenthood generally.  The Lord turned a bad decision into something that served His purpose and, in His mercy, offered forgiveness and redemption to the sinners.  But His mercy does not mean that the sin was not sin or that, were the sinners given the chance to go back in time to repeat or avoid their sin, they would not be expected to chose a more directly-righteous course. 

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, romans8 said:

2 Nephi 2:15-16 mentions opposition and enticement.

"And to bring about his eternal purposes in the end of man, ... it must needs be that there 
was an opposition; even the forbidden fruit in opposition to the tree of life; the one being 
sweet and the other bitter. Wherefore, the Lord God gave unto man that he should act for 
himself. Wherefore, man could not act for himself save it should be that he was enticed by 
the one or the other"

I can see that Eve was enticed to eat the forbidden fruit but were Adam and Eve ever enticed
to eat from the tree of life and all the other permitted trees,
 and if yes, by whom?

In light of what Adam and Eve said in Moses 5:10-11, did they eventually come to view the
forbidden tree as more sweet than bitter? 

Did Nephi also come to view the tree more sweet than bitter if it was the means for them to
experience joy, gain the ability to procreate, and to start their progression?

Matteo

Matteo, you often ask questions on this forum about LDS scripture and interpretation. Some of your questions are very worthwhile, occasionally even suggesting real insight into the conditions you are asking about; your questions above strike me as such. But I have difficulty taking seriously anything you ask, given your previous history on this forum of overt antimormonism and seemingly intentional misrepresentation and misinterpretation of LDS teachings.

I, for one (and I know I'm not the only one), do not wish to waste time talking with an antimormon. Can you offer any evidence, or even just your personal assurance, that you are no longer fishing for reasons to criticize or find fault, but that you are now asking questions because you are sincerely interested in understanding Latter-day Saint beliefs?

I don't insist that you be looking for baptism at the hand of a holder of the Priesthood. I simply want a sincere promise that your intentions are innocent and not bent toward finding fault or error. If I have that, I will be happy to engage you in conversation and welcome your questions and input as from a fellow list member and even a spiritual brother. Without that assurance, I will have little interest in further conversation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, romans8 said:

2 Nephi 2:15-16 mentions opposition and enticement.

"And to bring about his eternal purposes in the end of man, ... it must needs be that there 
was an opposition; even the forbidden fruit in opposition to the tree of life; the one being 
sweet and the other bitter. Wherefore, the Lord God gave unto man that he should act for 
himself. Wherefore, man could not act for himself save it should be that he was enticed by 
the one or the other"

I can see that Eve was enticed to eat the forbidden fruit but were Adam and Eve ever enticed
to eat from the tree of life and all the other permitted trees,
 and if yes, by whom?

In light of what Adam and Eve said in Moses 5:10-11, did they eventually come to view the
forbidden tree as more sweet than bitter? 

Did Nephi also come to view the tree more sweet than bitter if it was the means for them to
experience joy, gain the ability to procreate, and to start their progression?

Matteo

Adam and Eve experienced a good deal of physical and mental change and development by the time they said those things in Moses 5: 10 -11, they had become far more advanced than in the days leading up to the Fall. I believe Adam and Eve’s experience in physical bodies began with very basic sensations, perceptions and understanding and grew from there, and continued after they fell.

Subjectively speaking, sweetness and bitterness can be equally enticing, especially when we are exposed to one in excess (I’m thinking of the principle used in culinary pairings), and together they interact at the right time, place and other conditions to create a full experience. Perfumes are another example – they often contain small, imperceptible amounts of foul-smelling ingredients to enhance the overall result). So, one fruit being sweet and the other being bitter allows both fruits to be subjectively enticing.

God commanded them to eat all but one fruit, and the serpent invited them to eat that one fruit (ignoring the others), but the actual enticement came from the interplay between the couple, these other persons and their environment. God told them they would die (whatever that might mean to beings who knew nothing but immortality), which is more of a dissuasion than an enticement, and the serpent told them they would not die but have knowledge (whatever that could mean to submissive, childlike beings), and subtly prompted their need for independence, but these came from the persons, not the fruit itself. Fruit is an object and does not act, so the enticement is in the eye of the subjective beholders who act for themselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/30/2022 at 2:04 PM, Vort said:

I, for one (and I know I'm not the only one), do not wish to waste time talking with an antimormon. Can you offer any evidence, or even just your personal assurance, that you are no longer fishing for reasons to criticize or find fault, but that you are now asking questions because you are sincerely interested in understanding Latter-day Saint beliefs?

I am here to understand some LDS beliefs.  If you take my questions the wrong way, then kindly excuse
me. If I were to ever quote something from a church teaching manual that may be contrary to a belief you
hold dear, then we can agree to disagree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/31/2022 at 10:15 AM, CV75 said:

Adam and Eve experienced a good deal of physical and mental change and development by the time they said those things in Moses 5: 10 -11, they had become far more advanced than in the days leading up to the Fall.

What changed in Eve's child-bearing and her relationship with Adam when God said "I will
greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children;
and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee
"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, romans8 said:

I am here to understand some LDS beliefs.  If you take my questions the wrong way, then kindly excuse
me. If I were to ever quote something from a church teaching manual that may be contrary to a belief you
hold dear, then we can agree to disagree.

To be fair, I think there’s a language gap here along with other issues

. @romans8You have to understand that LDS forums are flooded with people with think they can tear others faith down with bible quotes, “insightful” questions, etc. So I understand why loyal members get frustrated over these questions. I can’t read your mind, so no, I’m not accusing you. 

Edited by LDSGator
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, romans8 said:

What changed in Eve's child-bearing and her relationship with Adam when God said "I will
greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children;
and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee
"?

Matteo, just so I can answer your question better, let me ask you first:

Is it your interpretation of the Christian tradition in which you were raised, that God’s statement to Eve in Genesis 3:16 meant that Eve must never be thereafter  experience joy, or understand the nature of good and evil, or comprehend and wonder at the nature of the redemption God had offered her, or take delight in parenthood?

And if so:  do you regard it as the moral duty of all human beings to experience mortal life as an uninterrupted parade of mental and physical suffering, and to regard the fact of their very existence as an overall curse from God?  Or, is it just women who have that duty?

I mean, the subtext of your question seems to be “how dare those heretical Mormons suggest that Eve ever found happiness when Dah Byble says she and the rest of her satanic seductress seed are supposed to be perpetually miserable!”

Is that the worldview from which you’re asking your question?  Or is something getting lost in translation here?

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

mean, the subtext of your question seems to be “how dare those heretical Mormons suggest that Eve ever found happiness when Dah Byble says she and the rest of her satanic seductress seed are supposed to be perpetually miserable!”

I agree more or less, though I fear some of his questions are lost in translation. 
 

If he’s like the 10,000 other people who come on LDS forums and try to act like they possess great knowledge and insight that the rest of us fools don’t…well then, we get it. These cats never understand that we’ve heard it all before. So let them just reiterate the tired old cliches. They are the religious versions of Nickleback. 

Edited by LDSGator
Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:
2 hours ago, LDSGator said:

They are the religious versions of Nickleback. 

You told me on Facebook that you love Nickleback.

NickELback. Get the name of my all-time fave group right, mocking infidels.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/6/2022 at 10:09 AM, romans8 said:

What changed in Eve's child-bearing and her relationship with Adam when God said "I will
greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children;
and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee
"?

I suspect it was more a chemical (bio-, neuro- or other) change at that point than a structural change, and it affected in both their bodies. But where the message is primarily spiritual, being parents would entail great effort (multiplied "sorrow") and descendants (multiplied "conception" as children become parents generation after generation). The "husband" of course was given the priesthood sealing keys to ensures this happen in the Lord's way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
On 8/6/2022 at 6:27 PM, Just_A_Guy said:

Is it your interpretation of the Christian tradition in which you were raised, that God’s statement to Eve in Genesis 3:16 meant that Eve must never be thereafter  experience joy, or understand the nature of good and evil, or comprehend and wonder at the nature of the redemption God had offered her, or take delight in parenthood?

And if so:  do you regard it as the moral duty of all human beings to experience mortal life as an uninterrupted parade of mental and physical suffering, and to regard the fact of their very existence as an overall curse from God?  Or, is it just women who have that duty?

i would say that had the Fall not occurred, child-bearing would not entail the sorrow brought
upon by it. Also, the relationship between her and Adam would not have changed as the latter
part of Genesis 3:16 refers to.  I think the first part of verse 16 applies initially to Eve, and then
extends to all women who would have husbands and give birth to children. The same would be
said of the men after Adam in verse 17.

In their fallen state, they could eventually be redeemed and experience joy.  But should they 
commit further evil?  No.

Or maybe verses 16 and 17 could be interpreted to mean they have their effects on Adam and
Eve only.  Like Moses 5:10-11 might be said that transgression enabled Adam and Eve to gain the
ability to have children whereas subsequent parents did not have to transgress God's command
to gain this ability to procreate.

Regarding the second question. The Fall brought upon all mankind (starting with Adam and Eve
and their first children) a separation from God.  We live in a broken world, filled with mental and
physical suffering.  Even nature and the animal kingdom was harmed in the Fall.  

I view their change of existence as a punishment for disobedience.  Even though their descendants
are not directly punished for their sin, they do suffer the consequences thereof.  I found some
interpretation of this at
https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/how-are-women-saved-through-childbearing

I do not necessarily agree with all of it.

"Even though many women today and in history may feel the ongoing effects of the curse in the pains 
of childbirth and the lifelong wounds that it may leave, I urge all of our Christian sisters not to 
despair. God’s word to you is hope, not curse. God’s plan for you is salvation, not destruction.

Yes, just as the man must work out his salvation through the cursed futilities and miseries of his 
labor (Genesis 3:18–19), millions of women must find her salvation through the pains and miseries of 
childbearing. The path of salvation is the same for her as for all the saints: continuing in faith 
and love and holiness, with self-control".

I find the concept of the curse of Adam mentioned in Moroni 8.

"Behold, I came into the world not to call the righteous but sinners to repentance; the whole need 
no physician, but they that are sick; wherefore, little children are whole, for they are not capable 
of committing sin; wherefore the curse of Adam is taken from them in me, that it hath no power over 
them; and the law of circumcision is done away in me
".

What curse of Adam is taken from little children in Christ? 

Edited by romans8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, romans8 said:

i would say that had the Fall not occurred, child-bearing would not entail the sorrow brought
upon by it. Also, the relationship between her and Adam would not have changed as the latter
part of Genesis 3:16 refers to.  I think the first part of verse 16 applies initially to Eve, and then
extends to all women who would have husbands and give birth to children. The same would be
said of the men after Adam in verse 17.

In their fallen state, they could eventually be redeemed and experience joy.  But should they 
commit further evil?  No.

Or maybe verses 16 and 17 could be interpreted to mean they have their effects on Adam and
Eve only.  Like Moses 5:10-11 might be said that transgression enabled Adam and Eve to gain the
ability to have children whereas subsequent parents did not have to transgress God's command
to gain this ability to procreate.

Regarding the second question. The Fall brought upon all mankind (starting with Adam and Eve
and their first children) a separation from God.  We live in a broken world, filled with mental and
physical suffering.  Even nature and the animal kingdom was harmed in the Fall.  

I view their change of existence as a punishment for disobedience.  Even though their descendants
are not directly punished for their sin, they do suffer the consequences thereof.  I found some
interpretation of this at
https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/how-are-women-saved-through-childbearing

I do not necessarily agree with all of it.

"Even though many women today and in history may feel the ongoing effects of the curse in the pains 
of childbirth and the lifelong wounds that it may leave, I urge all of our Christian sisters not to 
despair. God’s word to you is hope, not curse. God’s plan for you is salvation, not destruction.

Yes, just as the man must work out his salvation through the cursed futilities and miseries of his 
labor (Genesis 3:18–19), millions of women must find her salvation through the pains and miseries of 
childbearing. The path of salvation is the same for her as for all the saints: continuing in faith 
and love and holiness, with self-control".

I find the concept of the curse of Adam mentioned in Moroni 8.

"Behold, I came into the world not to call the righteous but sinners to repentance; the whole need 
no physician, but they that are sick; wherefore, little children are whole, for they are not capable 
of committing sin; wherefore the curse of Adam is taken from them in me, that it hath no power over 
them; and the law of circumcision is done away in me
".

What curse of Adam is taken from little children in Christ? 

Very nice, but I don’t see where you have answered my question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/6/2022 at 9:04 AM, romans8 said:

I am here to understand some LDS beliefs.  If you take my questions the wrong way, then kindly excuse
me. If I were to ever quote something from a church teaching manual that may be contrary to a belief you
hold dear, then we can agree to disagree.

Romans8 I am glad you are here.  I'm glad that you are asking questions.  As long as they remain sincere and courteous then there is no problem.  Just keep in mind that this particular forum section "LDS Gospel Discussion" is to discuss what we as LDS believe.  It's not the forum to debate our beliefs.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/13/2022 at 9:49 AM, romans8 said:

I would say that had the Fall not occurred, child-bearing would not entail the sorrow brought
upon by it.

Without some sort of claim to extra-biblical authority, that seems to me an extremely tough interpretation to make considering the bible clearly indicates that Adam and Eve were not even aware that they were naked until after partaking of the forbidden fruit.  I can only imagine such a lack of awareness would make it difficult to reproduce.

On 8/13/2022 at 9:49 AM, romans8 said:

. . . their descendants
are not directly punished for their sin, they do suffer the consequences thereof.

This statement, on its own, is accurate.  The concept of original sin is false, however, the descendents of Adam and Eve are subject to the consequences of their actions.  Interestingly, this type of circumstance (where children suffer negative effects from the actions of their parents) is replete throughout history.

 

All this said, I would encourage you to reconsider your definition of the word curse as it pertains to the scriptures.  Sometimes, it appears evident that 'curse' simply means, long-term negative natural consequences.  Perhaps not in all cases, but certainly in quite a few.  The Fall certainly fits this definition well.

Edited by person0
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/14/2022 at 11:05 PM, person0 said:

Without some sort of claim to extra-biblical authority, that seems to me an extremely tough interpretation to make considering the bible clearly indicates that Adam and Eve were not even aware that they were naked until after partaking of the forbidden fruit.  I can only imagine such a lack of awareness would make it difficult to reproduce.

One thing I see is that Eve did not notice she was naked after she ate and before
Adam ate.  Why did it take both of their eating to reveal their nakedness?

Would you consider the animals having a lack of awareness made it difficult for them
to reproduce when God commanded them to be fruitful and multiply?

 

On 8/14/2022 at 11:05 PM, person0 said:

This statement, on its own, is accurate.  The concept of original sin is false, however, the descendents of Adam and Eve are subject to the consequences of their actions.  Interestingly, this type of circumstance (where children suffer negative effects from the actions of their parents) is replete throughout history.

In the Book of Mormon, I could not find the phrase "original sin" but I did find a mention of
"original guilt".

The concept of original sin can be viewed by some as false, but it depends on how one defines
the phrase.

"Hence came the saying abroad among the people, that the Son of God hath atoned for original 
guilt, wherein the sins of the parents cannot be answered upon the heads of the children, 
for they are whole from the foundation of the world
" (Moses 6:54).

I interpret "the sins of the parents" here is a reference to Adam and Eve.  It is also 
elaborated in Alma 42:1-7 with the phrases "first parents" and "punishment of the sinner".

I view "original guilt" and "original sin" as "first guilt" and "first sin".   I find this principle of
"original sin" and the sin of Adam is some of your church publications.

Here is the most recent example I found.

Religion 212-212 – New Testament Student Manual (2018)
"Jesus Christ is the Only Begotten Son of God the Eternal Father. He is our Creator. He is 
our Teacher. He is our Savior. His atonement paid for the sin of Adam and won victory over 
death, assuring resurrection and immortality for all men
".

And another:

"Pride is the great sin of self-elevation. It is for so many a personal Rameumptom, a holy
stand that justifies envy, greed, and vanity. In a sense, pride is the original sin, for
before the foundations of this earth, pride felled Lucifer, a son of the morning "who was
in authority in the presence of God." If pride can corrupt one as capable and promising
as this, should we not examine our own souls as well?"
(Pride and the Priesthood).

 

On 8/14/2022 at 11:05 PM, person0 said:

All this said, I would encourage you to reconsider your definition of the word curse as it pertains to the scriptures.  Sometimes, it appears evident that 'curse' simply means, long-term negative natural consequences.  Perhaps not in all cases, but certainly in quite a few.  The Fall certainly fits this definition well.

In Moroni 8:8, it seems to me that the Fall is described as a negative as the curse of Adam is taken
away from little children in Christ.  Back in 2 Nephi, it is described as a positive in that "Adam fell,
that men might be".  Then others may view it as a positive in that it enabled procreation.

Earlier in the Book of Mormon, I see mention of the curse being put on the Lamanites; where dark 
skin was a sign of this curse. 

As it pertains to the scriptures, when is a curse really a curse and not a negative consequence?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, romans8 said:

I thought I did.  Let me know which specific part.

Question 1 - unanswered:  Is it your interpretation of the Christian tradition in which you were raised, that God’s statement to Eve in Genesis 3:16 meant that Eve must never be thereafter  experience joy, or understand the nature of good and evil, or comprehend and wonder at the nature of the redemption God had offered her, or take delight in parenthood?

Question 2 - unanswered:  And if so:  do you regard it as the moral duty of all human beings to experience mortal life as an uninterrupted parade of mental and physical suffering, and to regard the fact of their very existence as an overall curse from God?  Or, is it just women who have that duty?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/20/2022 at 10:26 AM, romans8 said:

One thing I see is that Eve did not notice she was naked after she ate and before
Adam ate.

Moses chose to wait until after they had both eaten to indicate their joint awareness of their nakedness.  That choice does not inherently imply what you have suggested.  It would require authority like that of Moses to validate such an assertion.  

On 8/20/2022 at 10:26 AM, romans8 said:

As it pertains to the scriptures, when is a curse really a curse and not a negative consequence?

Negative and natural consequences are different things which can both happen simultaneously.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/22/2022 at 8:25 AM, person0 said:

Moses chose to wait until after they had both eaten to indicate their joint awareness of their nakedness. 

Do you believe Eve noticed any change in her circumstances (like realizing she was naked, feeling
shame or fear) after she ate and before Adam ate?  I would say no; otherwise she would have 
warned Adam.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/22/2022 at 8:25 AM, person0 said:

Negative and natural consequences are different things which can both happen simultaneously.

What is the curse of Adam mentioned in Moroni 8:8?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
On 8/20/2022 at 3:55 PM, Just_A_Guy said:

Question 1 - unanswered:  Is it your interpretation of the Christian tradition in which you were raised, that God’s statement to Eve in Genesis 3:16 meant that Eve must never be thereafter  experience joy, or understand the nature of good and evil, or comprehend and wonder at the nature of the redemption God had offered her, or take delight in parenthood?

Question 2 - unanswered:  And if so:  do you regard it as the moral duty of all human beings to experience mortal life as an uninterrupted parade of mental and physical suffering, and to regard the fact of their very existence as an overall curse from God?  Or, is it just women who have that duty?

 

Question 1: I believe that Adam and Eve experienced joy before the Fall.  They lived in a perfect paradise
and had fellowship with God and each other, and experience all the beauty around them. Unless they were
robots and had no emotions ... which I don't believe.   I believe God wanted them to only experience good
and not evil.  If we parents today, we could use the example of our children.  If I were a father, I would not
want my children to know about evil or to experience it.

I searched and found this church teaching.

Adam and Eve were happy in their beautiful home in the Garden of Eden, for they had been given everything
they could want for food and for pleasure. They knew nothing of evil, for their world was all good. Often in the
cool of early evening the Lord would walk and talk with them, and their happiness was complete.

Question 2: my answer to question 1 was no.  But I can address it too.  I do not consider it a moral duty or a
duty for all human beings to experience mortal life as you stated. They experience happiness in their life but
also experience misery due to consequences which began with the Fall.  I do not refer to the Fall as the curse
of Adam as Moroni 8:8

Edited by romans8
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