Dont Know If I Can Believe That Adam And Eve Didnt Sin In The Garden

[mathonihah]

The connection between a knowledge of good and evil (or wisdom – Genesis 3:6) and procreation is mature, first-hand experience with life and death. Procreation cannot occur without the death of the gametes involved (the same principle as John 12:24). Adam and Eve had to have first-hand knowledge and experience with life and death to be able to generate gametes that would be able to die as single entities in order to fulfill the higher purpose of creating a new human life that could be tested in a mortal environment. So this wisdom is essential for bringing element and spirit together by means of procreation as well as by means of resurrection.

I don't accept that their gametes "die" as a result of procreation. They combine with the opposite gamete to create a new life form. They are transformed or metamorphosed into a different life form from their original state, like a larvae that transforms into a butterfly. You wouldn't say that the larvae has "died," but has transformed itself into a different life form. The same thing can be said of gametes when they are cross-fertilized to create a new embryo. I don't see why that couldn't happen to immortal beings, such as Adam and Eve were in the Garden of Eden.

For the remainder of your post, It seems that you are mixing up a lot of unrelated things. I agree that one purpose of mortality is that mankind could be tested in a mortal environment; but that is unrelated to the question of why without partaking of the fruit they could not have procreated. Likewise, "bringing element and spirit together," by procreation or resurrection, is irrelevant to the same question.

Edited December 20, 2012 by mathonihah

[Alan]

Eve was not punished but rather rejoiced after her transgression making it very clear that she did not sin.

I have to respectfully disagree with this statement. Both Adam and Eve were punished. They were required to leave the garden. Adam was told he was now going to have to make a living by the sweat of his brow, and Eve was going to have considerable pain in childbirth. The serpent was also punished.

But the most telling punishment of all was that they would die.

[CV75]

It seems that you are mixing up a lot of unrelated things.

You fail to recognize that “good” and “evil” also refer to “life” and “death.” Anyone born into this life gains this type of wisdom. Resurrected beings have obviously already obtained this wisdom. Their gametes do indeed “die” as single entities as they combine to create a new life--if indeed they have physical children in the resurrection, which I doubt -- you misconstrue D&C 45: 54, 57 and 58: while verse 54 can apply to those who are resurrected at the Lord’s Second Coming, the “wise” in verse 57 (the mortal virgins who are ready at His coming—these are not resurrected at His coming) “abide the day” as mortals. Their children grow up without sin, but still with the wisdom gained by mortality and death in their bodies, for they will die (D&C 63:51).

In Adam and Eve’s case, as immortal beings (like resurrected beings mentioned above), I highly doubt they could have physical children.

Furthermore in Adam and Eve’s case, as immortal terrestrial beings they had not received the requisite wisdom, entailing among other things a measure of selflessness and unity (being one flesh) that wasn’t realized until Adam sacrificed his immortality to follow Eve, who it could be said also sacrificed in being the first to make the decision. Note Genesis 2:24: a man leaves father and mother (which Adam, as a terrestrial creation could not do, since he was continually in the presence of the Father, whether figuratively or literally, except by partaking of the forbidden fruit) to be one flesh with his wife who had become inaccessible by having first partaken of the fruit.

At any rate, it is pretty clear to me that the connection between partaking of the forbidden fruit (or obtaining wisdom) and the power to procreate is found in the threshold of requisite wisdom (the experience of both life and death, good and evil, and all they entail) that permits the expression of one flesh to be manifest physically in the form of offspring as well as in the spiritual ways mentioned (unity of purpose, sacrifice, selflessness, etc.).

[urroner]

Adam and Eve obviously knew right from wrong. Evilness is the end product of choosing wrong.

Rob, why is it obvious they knew right from wrong?

[Calm]

I don't accept that their gametes "die" as a result of procreation. They combine with the opposite gamete to create a new life form.

And what happens to the rest that were available but are no longer needed once the combination takes place? What happens to them may be irrelevant to procreation, but could be relevant to whether or not death is present while procreation is going on which would then place procreation outside the deathless state. Edited December 20, 2012 by calmoriah

[mathonihah]

In Adam and Eve’s case, as immortal beings (like resurrected beings mentioned above), I highly doubt they could have physical children.

That is precisely the problem I have with this doctrine—God giving Adam and Eve contradictory commandments. God didn't just present them with two possible options: to partake of the fruit and endure pain and suffering, but gain experience and have kids; or to not partake and remain happily ever after in the Garden of Eden. He specifically forbade them to eat of the fruit. He said, "I forbid it". He specifically commanded them not to partake of the fruit. It just does not seem logical that God should give them that kind of commandment, while at the same time commanding them to "multiply and replenish the earth," knowing full well that they could not do that without breaking the other commandment. That seems to me to be something totally out of character for God to do. That is why I believe there is a missing piece of the puzzle which we do not know yet, and you have not been able to supply it.

[CV75]

That is precisely the problem I have with this doctrine—God giving Adam and Eve contradictory commandments. God didn't just present them with two possible options: to partake of the fruit and endure pain and suffering, but gain experience and have kids; or to not partake and remain happily ever after in the Garden of Eden. He specifically forbade them to eat of the fruit. He said, "I forbid it". He specifically commanded them not to partake of the fruit. It just does not seem logical that God should give them that kind of commandment, while at the same time commanding them to "multiply and replenish the earth," knowing full well that they could not do that without breaking the other commandment. That seems to me to be something totally out of character for God to do. That is why I believe there is a missing piece of the puzzle which we do not know yet, and you have not been able to supply it.

I will explain it one more time; no need to go round and round on it except to perpetuate a failure to understand; it isn’t the end of the world.

1. The commands are not contradictory. Both could be accomplished.

2. In the long run, wisdom might have been gotten some other way. They could choose for themselves. Never were they commanded to obey God and not hearken to Satan. So for Adam’s and Eve’s own reasons, the threat of death was insufficient to counter the promise of wisdom. Only after the fall were they commanded to obey God and not Satan.

3. But the fact remains that wisdom, or knowledge of life/good and evil/death is prerequisite to procreation. Whether they obtained wisdom by eating the forbidden fruit or by some other way is immaterial.

4. So, they could have not partaken of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil (as God forbade), obtained wisdom in some other way (that God would not forbid---and yes, I can think of at least one), and then fulfill the command to multiply and replenish the earth.

5. The necessary role of death in procreation is that two separate “fleshes” / entities die as they unite into a new “one flesh” / entity. Death is part of gaining wisdom as described in #3.

[Storm Rider]

That is precisely the problem I have with this doctrine—God giving Adam and Eve contradictory commandments. God didn't just present them with two possible options: to partake of the fruit and endure pain and suffering, but gain experience and have kids; or to not partake and remain happily ever after in the Garden of Eden. He specifically forbade them to eat of the fruit. He said, "I forbid it". He specifically commanded them not to partake of the fruit. It just does not seem logical that God should give them that kind of commandment, while at the same time commanding them to "multiply and replenish the earth," knowing full well that they could not do that without breaking the other commandment. That seems to me to be something totally out of character for God to do. That is why I believe there is a missing piece of the puzzle which we do not know yet, and you have not been able to supply it.

What is the value of free will in God's plan for us?

[Freedom]

That is precisely the problem I have with this doctrine—God giving Adam and Eve contradictory commandments. God didn't just present them with two possible options: to partake of the fruit and endure pain and suffering, but gain experience and have kids; or to not partake and remain happily ever after in the Garden of Eden. He specifically forbade them to eat of the fruit. He said, "I forbid it". He specifically commanded them not to partake of the fruit. It just does not seem logical that God should give them that kind of commandment, while at the same time commanding them to "multiply and replenish the earth," knowing full well that they could not do that without breaking the other commandment. That seems to me to be something totally out of character for God to do. That is why I believe there is a missing piece of the puzzle which we do not know yet, and you have not been able to supply it.

it was a choice between two options. Stay in the garden or start the plan of salvation. So long as they partook of the tree of life they were not allowed to eat of the tree of knowledge. If they partook of the tree of knowledge they were not allowed to partake of the tree of life. It was not a contradiction at all.

[mathonihah]

I will explain it one more time; no need to go round and round on it except to perpetuate a failure to understand; it isn’t the end of the world.

1. The commands are not contradictory. Both could be accomplished.

2. In the long run, wisdom might have been gotten some other way. They could choose for themselves. Never were they commanded to obey God and not hearken to Satan. So for Adam’s and Eve’s own reasons, the threat of death was insufficient to counter the promise of wisdom. Only after the fall were they commanded to obey God and not Satan.

3. But the fact remains that wisdom, or knowledge of life/good and evil/death is prerequisite to procreation. Whether they obtained wisdom by eating the forbidden fruit or by some other way is immaterial.

4. So, they could have not partaken of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil (as God forbade), obtained wisdom in some other way (that God would not forbid---and yes, I can think of at least one), and then fulfill the command to multiply and replenish the earth.

5. The necessary role of death in procreation is that two separate “fleshes” / entities die as they unite into a new “one flesh” / entity. Death is part of gaining wisdom as described in #3.

Thank you for your interesting posts and discussions. I have gained quite a lot of insights from it, as I am sure others have done too—although I must necessarily reserve judgement on some of your points for now pending further insights into the subject. I think that this discussion has gone as far as it needs to go.

[mathonihah]

What is the value of free will in God's plan for us?

You need to explain that a bit more.

[mathonihah]

it was a choice between two options. Stay in the garden or start the plan of salvation. So long as they partook of the tree of life they were not allowed to eat of the tree of knowledge. If they partook of the tree of knowledge they were not allowed to partake of the tree of life. It was not a contradiction at all.

The contradiction I was referring to relates to the commandment to multiply and replenish the earth, followed by the commandment not to partake of the forbidden fruit—If it is the case that the first commandment could not be kept without breaking the second.

[thesometimesaint]

I have to respectfully disagree with this statement. Both Adam and Eve were punished. They were required to leave the garden. Adam was told he was now going to have to make a living by the sweat of his brow, and Eve was going to have considerable pain in childbirth. The serpent was also punished.

But the most telling punishment of all was that they would die.

I'm not volunteering any time soon, but death isn't necessarily a punishment.

[Freedom]

The contradiction I was referring to relates to the commandment to multiply and replenish the earth, followed by the commandment not to partake of the forbidden fruit—If it is the case that the first commandment could not be kept without breaking the second.

No contradiction. They had a choice - stay in the garden and partake of the fruit, or leave the garden and have children. They could not eat of the fruit of knowledge and stay in the garden. My children follow strict chastity rules while at home. They are taught to grow up and have children of their own, but they cannot do this until they partake of the figurative tree of knowledge which is a coming of age to become adults. Once they are adults, they must partake of the tree, leave the safety and security of my home, and start on their own.

[Rob Osborn]

Rob, why is it obvious they knew right from wrong?

You cant sin unless you know right from wrong. The law and commandment were in place already. Adam and Eve disobeyed knowing it was wrong.

[Calm]

You cant sin unless you know right from wrong. The law and commandment were in place already. Adam and Eve disobeyed knowing it was wrong.

Not according to others:

Adam and Eve were the first to come. They were given their free agency without the capacity of knowing right from wrong until after they had partaken of the fruit of “the tree of knowledge of good and evil. …” (Moses 3:17.)

http://www.lds.org/g...hen-us?lang=eng

I was going to collect more quotes supporting this, but lds.org is now down for maintenance so no go.

Also from lds.org:

Our Heavenly Father gave Adam and Eve agency, or freedom to choose. He commanded them not to eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Obeying this commandment meant they could remain in the garden, but they could not progress by learning from experiences and challenges.

https://www.lds.org/...vation?lang=eng

It would seem according to the above that the only way of progression was to break the commandment not to eat.

Edited December 20, 2012 by calmoriah

[Calm]

Agency (knowing right from wrong) requires a knowledge of good and evil, which Adam and Eve received from partaking of the tree as demonstrated in the lesson here:

http://www.lds.org/manual/book-of-mormon-video-guide/chapter-4-2-nephi-2?lang=eng

How could they have known right from wrong prior to that partaking. Yes, God had told them not to do something, but understanding that just because someone doesn't want you to do something means that doing that something is wrong, even if that someone is God, doesn't come to a person automatically. It takes learning of what is good and what is not first.

[CV75]

Also from lds.org:

https://www.lds.org/...vation?lang=eng

It would seem according to the above that the only way of progression was to break the commandment not to eat.

I read the above as follows: “Our Heavenly Father gave Adam and Eve agency, or freedom to choose. He commanded them not to eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. [but He did not command them not to obtain wisdom, or knowledge of good and evil or of life and death and other opposing principles.] Obeying this commandment meant they could remain in the garden, but they could not progress by learning from experiences and challenges [without getting wisdom some other way instead].

To me, this means the only way of progression was to obtain wisdom by partaking of the forbidden fruit, or by some other way.

Edir: just read your next post so if this is irrelevant, please ignore.

Edited December 20, 2012 by CV75

[Calm]

Working off of cached sites: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:J97giasynEYJ:https://www.lds.org/new-era/1973/09/qa-questions-and-answers%3Flang%3Deng+site:lds.org+adam+eve+innocent&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=safari

“Why did the Lord command Adam and Eve to multiply in the Garden of Eden when they could not have children before the fall? This is especially confusing when we have such scriptures as 1 Nephi 3:7, which states ‘… the Lord giveth no commandments unto the children of men, save he shall prepare a way for them that they may accomplish the thing which he commandeth them.’”

One important point to consider in this question is whether or not Adam and Eve could have had children while they were in the Garden of Eden. The scriptures do not say Adamand Eve could not have children; they say Adam and Eve would not have had children if they had remained in a state of innocence, not knowing good from evil.

Also from that site:

Sometimes it helps to understand a religious question if we ask ourselves, How else could our Heavenly Father have done this? For example, how else could our Heavenly Father have brought about the necessary conditions that resulted from the fall of Adam and Eve? Following are four possibilities, and the only acceptable one is the one followed by the Lord:

1. What if the Lord had created the world in such a way that evil and sin would have been here from the beginning? In this case, God would be responsible for all sin and evil.

2. What if God had created the world in such a way that we never could commit any sin? In other words, what if he had never given us any law? It is true that in such a condition we never could have broken a law (committed sin), and thus there would have been no evil, no pain, or no disease. But if there is no possibility for sin and for the punishment and misery that accompany it, then there is no possibility for good and for the blessings and joy that follow obedience to law. None of us would want that type of world.

3. What if God had created a world where he would give us law (the opportunity of choice) but would not give us free agency (the freedom of choice)? How could there be any real growth in this situation? What development is there if we do things only because we have to do them? Also, how could a just God hold us responsible for our acts if we had no choice in the matter?

4. The other major possibility is the one the Lord followed. He created a world that was without sin or evil, and he placed Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden in a state of innocence. He then gave law (the opportunity of choice) to Adam and Eve, and he also gave them their free agency (the freedom of choice). Then, and this is a very important point, he did not hold Adam and Eve responsible for any transgression they committed in their state of innocence.

Edited December 20, 2012 by calmoriah

[Calm]

I read the above as follows: “Our Heavenly Father gave Adam and Eve agency, or freedom to choose. He commanded them not to eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. [but He did not command them not to obtain wisdom, or knowledge of good and evil or of life and death and other opposing principles.] Obeying this commandment meant they could remain in the garden, but they could not progress by learning from experiences and challenges [without getting wisdom some other way instead].

To me, this means the only way of progression was to obtain wisdom by partaking of the forbidden fruit, or by some other way.

Edir: just read your next post so if this is irrelevant, please ignore.

Just collecting ideas so please feel free to make comments.

[Freedom]

I read the above as follows: “Our Heavenly Father gave Adam and Eve agency, or freedom to choose. He commanded them not to eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. [but He did not command them not to obtain wisdom, or knowledge of good and evil or of life and death and other opposing principles.] Obeying this commandment meant they could remain in the garden, but they could not progress by learning from experiences and challenges [without getting wisdom some other way instead].

To me, this means the only way of progression was to obtain wisdom by partaking of the forbidden fruit, or by some other way.

Edir: just read your next post so if this is irrelevant, please ignore.

I think you are taking the story way too literally in my opinion. The trees are symbols, and are intrinsic to the plan of salvation. They needed to partake of the fruit. The question you might want to answer is - what was the fruit? The scriptures refer to the tree of knowledge as the olive tree, so the fruit was olives. Eating the olive is symbolic of receiving the gift of the Ghost. The fruit of the tree of life was white and delight some and this is manifested in the mosaic law as the white loaves held in the holy of holys, or the gift of eternal life.

They had top pass over the law of eternal life and enter into mortality to begin the plan of salvation. Adam fell (entered into mortality) so that man might be.

[Calm]

I read the above as follows: “Our Heavenly Father gave Adam and Eve agency, or freedom to choose.

I don't think agency is just about freedom to choose, but I believe it must have accountability attached to it for choice to be an exercise of agency. If so, then Adam and Eve weren't 'free agents' until after they partook of the tree. Prior to that they had a choice, but were not acting as agents in the sense of the agency God has granted us that allows us to progress.

Eve by making a choice that had a consequence of change attached to it, created a situation where progression was possible. Any choices that had simply maintained the status quo would apparently according to the teachings I have cited and am finding all over the place on lds.org have resulted in no progress. Spiritual progress apparently needs past a certain point the loss of innocence, it needs accountability which requires the knowledge of right and wrong to go into effect.

[Calm]

The scriptures refer to the tree of knowledge as the olive tree, so the fruit was olives.

Where does it do this? I thought this was apocryphal (though I think it is the best choice). Certainly the depiction in the temple doesn't look anything like olives.

[DavidB]

I don't believe this statement ..But I am wondering If there are any teachings to justify this quote

I have not read any but the first post, Elders Oaks spoke that it was "transgression" and suggested that it was not sin. I have seen non Apostle use the word sin rather than transgression. I also recall seeing the word transgression and sins used synonymously though at the moment I can not provide a reference.

[CV75]

I don't think agency is just about freedom to choose, but I believe it must have accountability attached to it for choice to be an exercise of agency. If so, then Adam and Eve weren't 'free agents' until after they partook of the tree. Prior to that they had a choice, but were not acting as agents in the sense of the agency God has granted us that allows us to progress.

Eve by making a choice that had a consequence of change attached to it, created a situation where progression was possible. Any choices that had simply maintained the status quo would apparently according to the teachings I have cited and am finding all over the place on lds.org have resulted in no progress. Spiritual progress apparently needs past a certain point the loss of innocence, it needs accountability which requires the knowledge of right and wrong to go into effect.

Yes; I think my earlier posts along the way reflect this line of thinking. God gave them agency in the garden (Moses 7:32), but they were very limited in what they had to work with in exercising it, and in the wisdom gained as a result. It is interesting (to me, anyway) to view this on a couple of levels:

The “technical” wisdom gained by stewarding over the garden to see what works best; the “visceral” or “state of” wisdom gained by partaking of the forbidden fruit (or by any alternative means) which opened the way for the human family to get bodies in a fallen (or wise) state; the spiritual (including practical) wisdom gained after the fall and throughout mortality. And all this hinges on the agency exercised in the pre-mortal life, where we gained the wisdom to make the choice to proceed and temporarily forget so as to live by faith. With each stage of wisdom, we gain an opportunity to expand agency.

The independence required to partake of the fruit (or otherwise obtain wisdom) can, in a sense, be considered a relinquishing of innocence as Eve began to think and evaluate more serious options.