Adam And Eve And The Tree Of Life – To Live Forever In Sin

[Kiviuq]

In the narrative of Adam and Eve, they eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil and by this transgression they become mortal and spiritually separated from God.

What I have never quite understood is the meaning of the Tree of Life.

Do we think that these two trees were actual physical trees with fruit? Or might they be symbolic?

If they are real trees, then how can simply eating the fruit of the Tree of Life cause Adam to “live forever” in a state of sin? If there is some symbolic act that results in living forever, what is it? What is the purpose of guarding the Tree of Life after the fall?

Your collective insights are appreciated.

Kiviuq

[ksfisher]

The trees are symbolic.

We will all "live forever" in our sins if we do not accept the atonement of Christ.

We cannot return and live with the Savior until we have finished this life and been cleansed from our sins. Hence the guarded tree.

[Questing Beast]

In the narrative of Adam and Eve, they eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil and by this transgression they become mortal and spiritually separated from God.

What I have never quite understood is the meaning of the Tree of Life.

Do we think that these two trees were actual physical trees with fruit? Or might they be symbolic?

If they are real trees, then how can simply eating the fruit of the Tree of Life cause Adam to “live forever” in a state of sin? If there is some symbolic act that results in living forever, what is it? What is the purpose of guarding the Tree of Life after the fall?

Your collective insights are appreciated.

Kiviuq

The entire story is symbolic. This world is symbolic and not our immortal reality....

[Kiviuq]

The trees are symbolic.

We will all "live forever" in our sins if we do not accept the atonement of Christ.

We cannot return and live with the Savior until we have finished this life and been cleansed from our sins. Hence the guarded tree.

Your answer clears up a lot of my confusion. Yet the “live forever” aspect of this story seems to be a direct counter-balance to the effects of becoming mortal. So just what is the guardian of the tree doing? Do these cherubim keep us mortals alive until we’ve heard the gospel? I think there’s part of the symbolism that I’m still missing. What is the fruit of the Tree of Life in this case?

[bcuzbcuz]

Your answer clears up a lot of my confusion. Yet the “live forever” aspect of this story seems to be a direct counter-balance to the effects of becoming mortal. So just what is the guardian of the tree doing? Do these cherubim keep us mortals alive until we’ve heard the gospel? I think there’s part of the symbolism that I’m still missing. What is the fruit of the Tree of Life in this case?

It's just a story. Don't expect all the pieces to fit.

[ksfisher]

It's just a story. Don't expect all the pieces to fit.

It's a story with symbolic meaning. The symbols fit for those who understand the meaning of the symbols. Our problem, today, is that we are many years removed from the culture that understood the symbols.

[Yep]

The absolute feeling I get from some of the above statements towards symbolism make me uneasy. Symbolism isn't necessarily exclusionary. Literal aspects exist in my opinion and I always hesitate to state that an absolutely literal understanding of a subject is beyond the scope of a highly, perhaps entirely, symbolic event. Multiple layers of understanding based in symbolism do not deny the surface literal nature of things.

I know we have absolute statements to Eve being created from Adam's rib being symbolic and not literal. Do we have statements as such for the rest of the story?

[ksfisher]

The absolute feeling I get from some of the above statements towards symbolism make me uneasy. Symbolism isn't necessarily exclusionary. Literal aspects exist in my opinion and I always hesitate to state that an absolutely literal understanding of a subject is beyond the scope of a highly, perhaps entirely, symbolic event. Multiple layers of understanding based in symbolism do not deny the surface literal nature of things.

I know we have absolute statements to Eve being created from Adam's rib being symbolic and not literal. Do we have statements as such for the rest of the story?

There may have been two literal trees in the garden, but the trees aren't the point. Trees don't cause us to die or to live.

Our sins cause us to die and the atonement of Christ allows us to live again. That is the point of the symbolism.

From that perspective it doesn't matter if the trees were literal or not. What matters is that the garden was a place where Adam and Eve could obtain knowledge and then were free to act on that knowledge.

Edited April 22, 2013 by ksfisher

[Freedom]

One level to consider is that one tree is of personal choices, the other is of salvation. One is becoming responsible adults capable of sin, the other is priesthood power unto salvation,. We are bared from the latter tree until we are given the opportunity to repent and come unto christ. We are given a probationary state. So, rather than being cursed because we are sinners, we are saved through the atonement.

The tree of life is often depicted as the olive tree. Section 88 is referred to as the olive leaf, plucked from the tree of paradise. Look into the symbolism of the olive tree.

[CV75]

In the narrative of Adam and Eve, they eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil and by this transgression they become mortal and spiritually separated from God.

What I have never quite understood is the meaning of the Tree of Life.

Do we think that these two trees were actual physical trees with fruit? Or might they be symbolic?

If they are real trees, then how can simply eating the fruit of the Tree of Life cause Adam to “live forever” in a state of sin? If there is some symbolic act that results in living forever, what is it? What is the purpose of guarding the Tree of Life after the fall?

Your collective insights are appreciated.

Kiviuq

I think the net effect of the trees being actual trees or symbolic is the same.

Whether symbolic or real with fruit, the Tree of Life is just that: the source of binding the spirit and the body as an immortal entity is a physiological event controlled by the exercise of priesthood keys. God would be a liar if He were to exercise these keys unjustly, which would be the case if He allowed Adam to do so before having an opportunity to repent. So He guarded it—for all of us, this means we have an opportunity to repent before living forever.

The symbolic acts that allow us to live forever in sin (or in perfection) are the ordinances, which are real exercises of God’s power and keys, and the quality of life in immortality is realized by accepting or rejecting these ordinances in real, formal events.

[Derl Sanderson]

I think Yep makes a good point. To only approach scripture with a wooden, literal view makes no sense to me, but neither does reducing it to nothing more than metaphor, allegory, and mysticism.

I think that whatever literal/symbolic elements are represented by the trees, it seems clear that when Adam and Eve were precluded from the Tree of Life, it was at least in part because they weren't yet prepared to partake of its fruit.

I don't believe that Adam and Eve were to be permanently kept from the Tree of Life, because in one sense, that tree's fruit represents the Priesthood ordinances and covenants that bind us to Christ and ultimately return us home. But those things come to us over the course of time in mortality and are received subject to our faith and repentance. At that juncture, Adam and Eve were simply not prepared to partake of the fruit because its power and meaning could be of no effect until they had experienced some of the wrenching vicissitudes of mortality and responded appropriately with the knowledge they had received from the fruit of the first tree. But at that point in time, all these things were yet future for Adam and Eve.

Obviously I'm new here, and am not sure if I'm allowed to provide any links to other material, but I very much enjoy and agree with Valerie Cassler's ideas on this topic that she sets forth here:

http://www.fairlds.org/fair-conferences/2010-fair-conference/2010-the-two-trees

[Stone holm]

I have a problem with the idea that it was strictly symbolic. I don't see any doctrinal support for that position. There clearly was some type of physical change. After the change they were susceptible to physical death, not before. Since after the change they were also susceptible to sin, they could not partake of the other fruit since it had the ability to impart immortality, but not exaltation- hence they would have continued indefinitely in their fallen state. They were kicked out of the garden and it was removed from the Earth. Apparently such gardens are nurseries for human couples in the pre mortal state.

[CASteinman]

Do we think that these two trees were actual physical trees with fruit? Or might they be symbolic?

If they are real trees, then how can simply eating the fruit of the Tree of Life cause Adam to “live forever” in a state of sin? If there is some symbolic act that results in living forever, what is it? What is the purpose of guarding the Tree of Life after the fall?

I doubt I will help a great deal.

I think it is possible that they were real trees. I also think that the account we have of this incident is a symboic type of account so whether the trees were real or not, our understanding of them is symbolic -- and properly so.

[Ron Beron]

In the narrative of Adam and Eve, they eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil and by this transgression they become mortal and spiritually separated from God.

What I have never quite understood is the meaning of the Tree of Life.

Do we think that these two trees were actual physical trees with fruit? Or might they be symbolic?

If they are real trees, then how can simply eating the fruit of the Tree of Life cause Adam to “live forever” in a state of sin? If there is some symbolic act that results in living forever, what is it? What is the purpose of guarding the Tree of Life after the fall?

Your collective insights are appreciated.

Kiviuq

The Babylonian myth of the Tree of LIfe essentially equates the world of the divinity with the king as representative of the gods and secondly the king as the tree itself. S. Parbola states that the Tree,

it follows that the Tree had a dual function in Assyrian

imperial art. Basically, it symbolized the divine world order maintained by the Assyrian

king, but inversely it could also be projected upon the king to portray him as the Perfect

Man. This

interpretation accounts for the prominence of the Tree as an imperial sym-

bol35 because it not

only provided a legitimation for Assyria's rule over the world,36 but

it also

justified the king's position as the absolute ruler of the empire.37

To Christians it could represent the Divine Council with God at the head and more importantly God's emanations through its branches.

[CV75]

Your answer clears up a lot of my confusion. Yet the “live forever” aspect of this story seems to be a direct counter-balance to the effects of becoming mortal. So just what is the guardian of the tree doing? Do these cherubim keep us mortals alive until we’ve heard the gospel? I think there’s part of the symbolism that I’m still missing. What is the fruit of the Tree of Life in this case?

Yes, to “live forever” is immortality, and it is in opposition to mortality. Blocking the tree of life prevents us from gaining immortality before we have an opportunity to enter into the ordinances that permit us to live forever in the presence of God. The fruit of the tree of life is the gift of immortality. When eaten after the ordinances are entered into and kept attendant to the grace of Christ through His Atonement, it is in its most delicious form the gift of eternal life.

The fruit of the tree of life is partaken of in two steps: first, the resurrection (immortal life) and second, the judgment (ideally eternal life). So it is interesting the Book of Mormon explains that the tree of life is the love of God (1 Nephi 11:22--life), expressed in the form of the Son of God and His mission ((1 Nephi 11:24-onward), who is our Redeemer and Judge.

[Maidservant]

In the narrative of Adam and Eve, they eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil and by this transgression they become mortal and spiritually separated from God.

What I have never quite understood is the meaning of the Tree of Life.

Do we think that these two trees were actual physical trees with fruit? Or might they be symbolic?

If they are real trees, then how can simply eating the fruit of the Tree of Life cause Adam to “live forever” in a state of sin? If there is some symbolic act that results in living forever, what is it? What is the purpose of guarding the Tree of Life after the fall?

Your collective insights are appreciated.

Kiviuq

As I am presently understanding it, to be born--to come to this mortal condition--is to partake of the tree of knowledge of good from evil. I have come to this understanding by simply thinking or asking--what exactly is it that would yield the knowledge of good from evil? The only way to obtain this is to pass through mortal experience. And by the way, there are many places (not all) that do say 'good from evil' NOT 'good and evil' -- and the former is a quite different proposition from the latter.

I think the tree of life is just that--life. Also I like thinking of Lehi's Tree of Life dream.

I also am not sure about the entire relationship of these elements, but I have thought on that yes, there is the fall, but the process of being redeemed from the fall is also taking place right now in this life--thus the Tree of Life is accessible to us--but we must pass through the cherubim to do so. Which is quite temple-y, if you think about it.

Your answer clears up a lot of my confusion. Yet the “live forever” aspect of this story seems to be a direct counter-balance to the effects of becoming mortal. So just what is the guardian of the tree doing? Do these cherubim keep us mortals alive until we’ve heard the gospel? I think there’s part of the symbolism that I’m still missing. What is the fruit of the Tree of Life in this case?

I wonder about 'cherubim' also and I wonder what the Hebrew word means and if it MUST mean a person or being--in other words, I'm wondering if 'cherubim' is a what, not a who . . .

Honestly I've never thought about the 'live forever in their sin' part, I guess mainly because I never planned to, lol. But it's a good question.

The absolute feeling I get from some of the above statements towards symbolism make me uneasy. Symbolism isn't necessarily exclusionary. Literal aspects exist in my opinion and I always hesitate to state that an absolutely literal understanding of a subject is beyond the scope of a highly, perhaps entirely, symbolic event. Multiple layers of understanding based in symbolism do not deny the surface literal nature of things.

I know we have absolute statements to Eve being created from Adam's rib being symbolic and not literal. Do we have statements as such for the rest of the story?

While I agree with you that symbolism is not exclusionary nor does symbolism mean 'fiction' (in fact symbolism is a direct pointer to reality), nevertheless, when I read the text directly, there is nothing in that text that asks me to take it as history or literal. To the contrary, in order to take it literally or historically, I must rely on statements outside of the text (i.e. Joseph F. or Fielding Smith's vision recorded in D & C). And believe me I was originally perfectly willing to be literal/historical about it. But the text itself does not permit me--that's not what it says or what it is, so I have to be faithful to what I understand that God wants to show me which is that it is a sacred text bulging with knowledge that is opened by keys.

Genesis is an endowment text. There may be historical information to be gleaned from those endless depths and folds, but I do not think it would bear a resemblance to the surface story. And in Moses 1:34 it says: "Adam, which is many." And in the temple, we are plainly and directly told or instructed how we are to think of Adam and Eve.

Edited April 24, 2013 by Maidservant

[Stone holm]

Again I have a bias towards literalism, I tend to take things as symbolic when it is extremely obvious that they are so or when enough Prophets have said so -- but I don't see either being the case about the Garden of Eden. An example of what I would call symbolic is something clearly portrayed in a dream state and later explained in symbolic terms such as Lehi's vision, or something that would be patently absurd if taken literally like Christ having a sword for a tongue. Neither of these appear to apply to the Garden of Eden. Although BY dismissed the process of creation as fable, to my knowledge he never dismissed the idea of the Garden being a real place and the two trees being real trees.

[ksfisher]

Again I have a bias towards literalism, I tend to take things as symbolic when it is extremely obvious that they are so or when enough Prophets have said so -- but I don't see either being the case about the Garden of Eden. An example of what I would call symbolic is something clearly portrayed in a dream state and later explained in symbolic terms such as Lehi's vision, or something that would be patently absurd if taken literally like Christ having a sword for a tongue. Neither of these appear to apply to the Garden of Eden. Although BY dismissed the process of creation as fable, to my knowledge he never dismissed the idea of the Garden being a real place and the two trees being real trees.

Things can both really exist and be symbolic at the same time. The temple is a real building, but is also symbolic. The bread and water in the sacrament are real, but they have no power in themselves, their power lies in what they symbolize. There may have been real trees in the garden, but their power also lay in their use as symbols. The tree of life in itself cannot give life, only Christ can give life. The tree is symbolic of Christ's power to give life.

Edited April 24, 2013 by ksfisher

[Stone holm]

Things can both really exist and be symbolic at the same time. The temple is a real building, but is also symbolic. The bread and water in the sacrament are real, but they have no power in themselves, their power lies in what they symbolize. There may have been real trees in the garden, but their power also lay in their use as symbols. The tree of life in itself cannot give life, only Christ can give life. The tree is symbolic of Christ's power to give life.

Have no problem with adding symbolic meaning to events and objects in the Scriptural narrations, just feel uneasy when people take the next step and say the whole story was just symbolic. Although some Fundamentalists get carried away with their use of the OT, I still disagree with the depiction of the OT as just a bunch of mythical stories which was the position taken by several mainline Protestant Sects in the latter half of the 20th Century.

[Yep]

Things can both really exist and be symbolic at the same time. The temple is a real building, but is also symbolic. The bread and water in the sacrament are real, but they have no power in themselves, their power lies in what they symbolize. There may have been real trees in the garden, but their power also lay in their use as symbols. The tree of life in itself cannot give life, only Christ can give life. The tree is symbolic of Christ's power to give life.

I think that this is an concept that many non-LDS Christians have difficulty with. Hence, transubstantiation in the face of "this is my...". We need to make sure we don't fail to understand this concept, lest we fall into the same type of error. However, this does lead to the possibility of something stated having aspects not mentioned which are assumed that the reader will be aware of.

[Stone holm]

I think that this is an concept that many non-LDS Christians have difficulty with. Hence, transubstantiation in the face of "this is my...". We need to make sure we don't fail to understand this concept, lest we fall into the same type of error. However, this does lead to the possibility of something stated having aspects not mentioned which are assumed that the reader will be aware of.

Um, isn't that the mirror image? Taking something that is clearly symbolic and making real?

[Yep]

Um, isn't that the mirror image? Taking something that is clearly symbolic and making real?

In a manner, yes, but it obviously wasn't clearly symbolic to some.

I am speaking more to the fact that the Sacrament is real, we do take the bread and wine (or water). Yet we understand the symbolic aspects of the reality. Not that the symbolic aspects are real, only that the reality has symbolic meaning. I am speaking to being absolute as to complete reality or symbolism when it is possible that some are partly symbolic and partly real. I think that kfisher spoke to this.

[Stone holm]

[removed]

Don't mock any religious beliefs on these boards. -Ares

Edited April 25, 2013 by Ares

[Calm]

My understanding is rather limited (I need to study it more) so I will simply point out what I have been told and let a Catholic explain it in more detail (assuming I get it right)...there is a difference between the physical presence of Christ (that which appeared to the apostles after his resurrection) and the sacramental presence that is in the Eucharist.

Edited April 25, 2013 by calmoriah

[CASteinman]

My understanding is rather limited (I need to study it more) so I will simply point out what I have been told and let a Catholic explain it in more detail (assuming I get it right)...there is a difference between the physical presence of Christ (that which appeared to the apostles after his resurrection) and the sacramental presence that is in the Eucharist.

Its really a bit more than I can get to tonight, but this article makes a case for "the real presence"...

http://www.newadvent...then/05573a.htm

I am not entirely comfortable interpreting Catholic doctrines for them. I would accept what they say.

Edited April 25, 2013 by CASteinman