The sweet and bitter tree in the Garden of Eden

[telnetd]

 A Pearl of Great Price manual says these were figurative trees.

"The scriptures set forth that there were in the Garden of Eden two trees. One was the 
tree of life, which figuratively refers to eternal life; the other was the tree of knowledge
of good and evil, which figuratively refers to how and why and in what manner mortality
and all that appertains to it came into being” (A New Witness for the Articles of Faith
[1985], 86)."

But an earlier Ensign article in February 1994 says it was literal.

"As Latter-day Saints, we believe that Adam and Eve partook of actual fruit. Joseph 
Fielding Smith also explained, “This was a transgression of the law, but not a sin in 
the strict sense, for it was something that Adam and Eve had to do!” (Doctrines of 
Salvation, 1:115.)". 

According to 2 Nephi 2:15, "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".

Was the ordering of the terms "sweet" and "bitter" done intentionally to reflect that 
the forbidden fruit was sweet?

If the trees were not literal, how would one interpret Moses 4:13: "they sewed fig 
leaves together and made themselves aprons" to cover their nakedness?

[webbles]

Funny that you quote a 1985 article first (your quote even gives the year) and then say an article written in 1994 is earlier.

[longview]

1 hour ago, telnetd said:

Was the ordering of the terms "sweet" and "bitter" done intentionally to reflect that 
the forbidden fruit was sweet?

Based on many decades of scripture study, I would say that 2Ne2:15 is chiastic. Meaning the bitter is related to the Forbidden Fruit and the sweet is related to the Tree of Life. Which makes logical sense based on the many scriptures that touch on the sweet and bitter.

[Calm]

3 hours ago, telnetd said:

 A Pearl of Great Price manual says these were figurative trees.

"The scriptures set forth that there were in the Garden of Eden two trees. One was the 
tree of life, which figuratively refers to eternal life; the other was the tree of knowledge
of good and evil, which figuratively refers to how and why and in what manner mortality
and all that appertains to it came into being” (A New Witness for the Articles of Faith
[1985], 86)."

But an earlier Ensign article in February 1994 says it was literal.

"As Latter-day Saints, we believe that Adam and Eve partook of actual fruit. Joseph 
Fielding Smith also explained, “This was a transgression of the law, but not a sin in 
the strict sense, for it was something that Adam and Eve had to do!” (Doctrines of 
Salvation, 1:115.)". 

According to 2 Nephi 2:15, "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".

Was the ordering of the terms "sweet" and "bitter" done intentionally to reflect that 
the forbidden fruit was sweet?

If the trees were not literal, how would one interpret Moses 4:13: "they sewed fig 
leaves together and made themselves aprons" to cover their nakedness?

They can be both at the same time, like flags and clothing may be.

Edited July 25 by Calm

[Pyreaux]

21 hours ago, telnetd said:

If the trees were not literal, how would one interpret Moses 4:13: "they sewed fig 
leaves together and made themselves aprons" to cover their nakedness?

Genesis Rabbah 15:7, Rabbi Nehemiah famously argued that the forbidden tree was a fig tree. 

Are you wondering if the other trees were symbols, what is the fig tree symbolic of? 

If the other trees represent things like carnal awareness, agricultural civilization, or temple mysteries, the fig tree carries many symbols related to that. The shape of the fruit, its dense seeds, and the milky latex sap secreted by the tree were widely linked to human reproductive anatomy in ancient medicine.

If the "knowledge" gained in Eden represents the transition from a hunter-gatherer existence (living off spontaneous wilderness) to the burdens of agrarian civilization, the fig is a prime cultural marker. The fig was one of the earliest domesticated fruit trees in the Fertile Crescent, predating grain farming. Cultivating fig trees requires a settled life, grafting, irrigation, and long-term planning. 

Fig leaves are notoriously rough, dry out rapidly, and crumble. In an allegorical story, the fig leaf symbolizes the inadequacy of human-efforts to fix a spiritual breach before God steps in to provide durable holy, white sheep skin garments, atoned (covered) by a lamb, as it were.

If the Garden of Eden is understood as a Temple, the sacred trees were in the "midst"/middle like the Menorah tree is in the Temple, the fig tree represents something maybe at the threshold of sacred space, the tree-like pillar or tree wall art of the Temple. The fig leaf apron to poorly recreate the High Priest's Ephod (Exodus 28) that Adam may have lost.

"Blessed is he that watcheth, and keepeth his garments, lest he walk naked, and they see his shame." (Revelation 16:15)

In scripture, "garments" are often metaphorical for "works", like in Isaiah. White garments in Revelations are the righteous works of those who were (already) sanctified. Filthy garments are wicked works. Naked is to be void of works. One could, and have, interpret Genesis as the eyes of Adam and Eve obtained a spiritual sight, they saw they did not yet have righteous works.

Edited July 26 by Pyreaux

[Calm]

38 minutes ago, Pyreaux said:

Fig leaves are notoriously rough, dry out rapidly, and crumble

They can also cause skin irritation, especially if skin with the sap on it is exposed to sunlight…which makes using fig leaves to cover ‘nakedness’ not the best choice.  😛 

Had to keep the title attached, lol

Quote

The Curious Cases of Burn by Fig Tree Leaves…

Abstract

Phytophotodermatitis is a condition which is caused by contact with some plants containing furocoumarins. Furocoumarins in sap of fig tree are the main cause of its irritability when come in contact with the skin. The main symptoms are burning sensation and pain, itchy erythema, and edema, which usually begin 24 h after exposure. The leaf and root sap of the fig tree are the most potent parts causing irritant reaction. We report four children who were playing with fig tree leaves during a family picnic. They were referred to a burn center with second-degree burn in about 10% of total body surface area, due to phytophotodermatitis. 

I include this under “things that show just how evil Lucifer can be”…

Edited July 26 by Calm

[Rain]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

They can also cause skin irritation, especially if skin with the sap on it is exposed to sunlight…which makes using fig leaves to cover ‘nakedness’ not the best choice.  😛 

Had to keep the title attached, lol

I include this under “things that show just how evil Lucifer can be”…

My husband can attest to how painful this is as we have 2 fig trees that he has to trim.  Even with long sleeves, pants etc he always manages to have a problem with it.