Original Sin. What does it mean to you?

[theplains]

On 09/01/2017 at 7:27 PM, Okrahomer said:

The Bible also teaches this, or do you not consider the Atonement of Christ a great blessing?

Yes to your question.  And the fall was the great curse.

Jim

[pogi]

1 hour ago, Glenn101 said:

I do not really understand your reasoning there. Are you saying that God would eventually have given the fruit to Adam and Eve or otherwise enabled them to know the difference between right and wrong? 

Glenn

Yes, that is exactly what I am saying.  I believe that the fruit of knowledge was intended as a gift predicated upon obedience which allowed them access to the spirit/light of Christ.  The light of Christ is the knowledge of good and evil.   Instead of first knowing the good through the fruit by the hand of the Savior, they first knew the evil through the fruit by the hand of Lucifer.  Instead of being comforted by the presence of God as their eyes were first opened, they were comforted by the presence of Lucifer.  Instead of fearing Lucifer, they feared God.   It was God's intended role to give them the fruit.  Lucifer was literally trying to take the place of God, as he likes to do.  

The first thing most animals see when their eyes are first opened is their mother from whence they came, and the mother imprints through their newly opened eyes.  Instead of opening his eyes to his mother hen (Christ/God), Adam imprinted first with Lucifer.  Lucifer was not ignorant at all in his deception.  The mother teaches what is safe and what we should fear.  Lucifer made them feel safe in his presence and caused them to fear God and hide.

He wanted to be the first influence on their newly opened moral eyes to confuse evil for good and good for evil.  He basically said, "I accept you for who you are, you are safe with me, but God will not accept you, you are not safe with God...hide!"

I believe that a fall was inevitable with Satan loose, but it did not have to come by means of the fruit.  I don't believe that God rigged or forced the fall by means of conflicting commands.  That was not necessary.  I also don't believe that God's plan would not have been frustrated had Eve obeyed and not partaken of the fruit.  To think that God made it an option to frustrate his plan through obedience is kind of a strange notion.  

There is more than one way to fall down a mountain.

Edited January 12, 2017 by pogi

[Bobbieaware]

20 minutes ago, theplains said:

I believe God knew they would disobey him. But I don't believe God ordained them to disobey him. If
i remember correctly, I think I recall someone saying on this forum that he believed there was a great
celebration in heaven when Adam and Eve both ate from the forbidden fruit.

Thanks,
Jim

So God knew it was going to happen and for some strange reason let it happen (like he was powerless to create beings whom he foreknew wouldn't disobey). Or is it that the only kind of beings he could create are of the type that would unavoidably disobey?

The celebration in heaven didn't occur until the Lord promised there would be an infinite and eternal sacrifice to replace the otherwise never-ending curse of the fall, with the promise of glorious resurrected bodies, eternal life and a fullness of joy. It would be delusional to celebrate the fall for its own sake, as nothing but darkness and misery stems from it. It's the atonement of Christ that replaces the unending curse and miseries of the fall with the glorious Gospel of Jesus Christ. And that is indeed a cause for celebration, just as the angels of heaven celebrated and sang songs of jubilation amd praise on the night Christ was born.

[Bobbieaware]

40 minutes ago, theplains said:

Yes to your question.  And the fall was the great curse.

Jim

The Book of Mormon teaches that the fall is the greatest curse one could ever imagine -- endless physical death and banishment from the presence of God in hell forever. The point you seem to be missing is that the atonement of Christ counteracts the curse of the fall and makes blessings possible that wouldn't be possible without there first being a fall. It seems because you want to find fault you're refusing to believe the Book of Mormon teaches the fall is a completely negative state of existence without the mighty change wrought through the atonement. So I'll say it one last time, the fallen state is totally negative and destructive without the atonement. There is no positivity in the fall, it's only the Gospel of Christ that brings goodness and positivity to the earthly mortal experience. Through the mortal experience, we learn how to overcome opposition by exercising faith unto salvation, and that's a good thing. The refiner's fire of mortality can be a good and empowering experience only because of the atonement of Christ. On its own, the fall is completely and utterly destructive.

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, theplains said:

Yes to your question.  And the fall was the great curse.

So if the atonement was the great blessing and the fall was the great curse does that mean if Adam and Eve hadn't been "deceived" by the devil that there would be no need for Christ?
What does that signify to the standard Christian belief of Christ as God incarnate?

[Glenn101]

2 hours ago, pogi said:

The first thing most animals see when their eyes are first opened is their mother from whence they came, and the mother imprints through their newly opened eyes.  Instead of opening his eyes to his mother hen (Christ/God), Adam imprinted first with Lucifer.  Lucifer was not ignorant at all in his deception.  The mother teaches what is safe and what we should fear.  Lucifer made them feel safe in his presence and caused them to fear God and hide.

However, Eve's eyes were not opened when she saw the snake or Lucifer in the form of a snake, or whatever. It was still only after she and Adam had partaken of the fruit that their eyes were opened. They had seen God long before and many times before they saw the serpent. And Lucifer was ignorant in his deception for God told us in Moses 4:6 that "he knew not the mind of God." His deception brought into play the very thing he, Lucifer, was attempting to foil.

Your interpretation of the fall still leaves a more serious paradox than the one spelled out in the Moses and by Lehi, the first being the result of a direct revelation from God to Moses. If God gave Adam and Eve permission to partake of that fruit and gain the knowledge of good and evil, it would be as a direct consequence and with of His permission to partake of that fruit that sin entered the world.

 

Until and if I receive further light, I am going to have to stick with the words of Moses and Lehi have left with us. I don't have a problem with it that you do. 

 

Glenn

 

 

[JLHPROF]

13 minutes ago, Glenn101 said:

 If God gave Adam and Eve permission to partake of that fruit and gain the knowledge of good and evil, it would be as a direct consequence and with of His permission to partake of that fruit that sin entered the world.

Now THAT poses an interesting dilemma.

God cannot violate law or he would cease to be God. 
However, God chose his son to redeem mankind from the fall long before it happened.
God commanded Adam and Eve to multiply and replenish and then commanded them not to do the thing necessary to accomplish the command.

So just how complicit is God in the presence of sin in the world.  It is an eternal law that there must needs be opposition in all things.
By arranging for sin to enter the world, but not actually causing a sin, how complicit is God?

[Calm]

4 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

So just how complicit is God in the presence of sin in the world.  It is an eternal law that there must needs be opposition in all things.
By arranging for sin to enter the world, but not actually causing a sin, how complicit is God?

When we start debating how responsible for sin God is, it underlines even more for me how clueless we are about his reasoning and the actual process of progress and the Atonement and how much better it is at times to simply have faith and not try to impose on God with our mortal understanding.

I believe there is a Plan of Salvation, but I believe what we know is mostly a symbolic representation of it and the portrayal is less precise than a three year old's explanation of the need, process, and result of a heart transplant.

[pogi]

17 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

However, Eve's eyes were not opened when she saw the snake or Lucifer in the form of a snake, or whatever. It was still only after she and Adam had partaken of the fruit that their eyes were opened. They had seen God long before and many times before they saw the serpent.

Who was standing their when their spiritual eyes were first opened, God or Satan?  Who did they hide from when their spiritual eyes were first opened, God or Satan?  Was Satan not attempting to take the place of God in this? 

17 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

And Lucifer was ignorant in his deception for God told us in Moses 4:6 that "he knew not the mind of God." His deception brought into play the very thing he, Lucifer, was attempting to foil.

What part of the mind of the Lord did Satan not know?  That is largely up to interpretation influenced by your understanding of the broader story.  

What did Satan want?

• To destroy the agency of man (Moses 4:3)
• He sought to take the place of God, to take the kingdom of God and Christ (D&C 76:25-28 & Isaiah 14:12-14)

What did Satan know?

• He knew that the fruit was part of the plan of salvation in other worlds.
• He was privy of the plan through the councils and debates in the preexistence.
• He knew that the tree of life would give agency to man.
  • If his goal was to destroy agency, why would Satan offer Adam the key to moral agency through the fruit?  A strange notion, no?  He could have accomplished his goals and destroyed the plan of god (which he knew) simply by not tempting them to eat of the fruit.  There must have been another reason why he gave the fruit.  Perhaps because he knew that if he didn't...God would.
  • According to my theory - Because Satan knew that he couldn't accomplish his first objective in destroying agency, then he simply moved on to his second objective...to take the place of God. 

What did Satan not know?

• He didn't know the mind of God in regards to the consequences for successfully offering the fruit to man.
  • He was completely surprised and angered at the curse for doing what had been done in other worlds. 
  • Why the surprise?  Shouldn't he have anticipated the curse? Perhaps not if this was the first time that the serpent succeeded in offering man the fruit, but was instead given by God in other worlds.  

17 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

Your interpretation of the fall still leaves a more serious paradox than the one spelled out in the Moses and by Lehi, the first being the result of a direct revelation from God to Moses.

I have offered a possible explanation for Lehi and Moses (I have other possibilities as well).  I have not yet heard a possible explanation from you for 1 Nephi 3:7, which is substantiated in the D&C and New Testament as well. 

Quote

If God gave Adam and Eve permission to partake of that fruit and gain the knowledge of good and evil, it would be as a direct consequence and with of His permission to partake of that fruit that sin entered the world.

 So, is moral agency a good thing or a bad thing? Was it God's will for Adam and Eve to have moral agency or not?  To whom does the light of Christ belong?  Did God not give Adam permission to choose for himself anyway?  As such sin entered the world through God's permission to choose, according to your own line of logic.  According to your theory, God wanted Adam to read through the lines of his words when he said "but it is given thee to chose".  "Don't eat it"..wink, wink, nudge nudge.  It is all so convoluted.   

Sin was not a direct consequence of the fruit...moral agency was.  Sin is not the direct consequence of moral agency as God promises a way (1 Nephi 3:7).  Sin is the direct consequence of the misuse of moral agency.  Sin is not the direct consequence of moral agency any more than righteousness is.  Moral agency is good.  All good things are gifts from God.

Quote

Wherefore, I beseech of you, brethren, that ye should search diligently in the light of Christ that ye may know good from evil; and if ye will lay hold upon every good thing, and condemn it not, ye certainly will be a child of Christ.

Doesn't sound all that bad to me.  In other words, God is commanding us to search diligently in the fruit of the tree of knowledge. 

Edited January 12, 2017 by pogi

[JLHPROF]

20 minutes ago, pogi said:

What did Satan know?

• He knew that the fruit was part of the plan of salvation in other worlds.
• He was privy of the plan through the councils and debates in the preexistence.
• He knew that the tree of life would give agency to man.
  • If his goal was to destroy agency, why would Satan offer Adam the key to moral agency through the fruit?  A strange notion, no?  He could have accomplished his goals and destroyed the plan of god (which he knew) simply by not tempting them to eat of the fruit.  There must have been another reason why he gave the fruit.  Perhaps because he knew that if he didn't...God would.
  • According to my theory - Because Satan knew that he couldn't accomplish his first objective in destroying agency, then he simply moved on to his second objective...to take the place of God.

What did Satan not know?

• He didn't know the mind of God in regards to the consequences for successfully offering the fruit to man.
  • He was completely surprised and angered at the curse for doing what had been done in other worlds.
  • Why the surprise?  Shouldn't he have anticipated the curse? Perhaps not if this was the first time that the serpent succeeded in offering man the fruit, but was instead given by God in other worlds.

This is very interesting.
Going to think on this portion of your theory for a bit.

Thanks.

[Bobbieaware]

42 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

This is very interesting.
Going to think on this portion of your theory for a bit.

Thanks.

I believe a possible flaw to this theory is that both the tree of life AND the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (two distinct trees, with two distinct roles to fulfill)) were placed in the garden so that man would have agency, or the opportunity to make moral choices. As far as it goes, the tree of life IS essential in order for man to have free agency, but the tree of the knowledge of good and evil  IS EQUALLY ESSENTIAL in an uncreated reality that can only exist upon the principle of there being a diametric opposition in all things. The Book of Mormon makes it perfectly clear that free agency cannot be affirmed in any other way than by having moral choices in which we choose between the uncreated principle of good and the uncreated principle of evil. Symbolically speaking, there is no agency in the garden without both the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Mother Eve testified (and even rejoiced) when she realized the only way spiritual growth is possible is if we taste the bitter (I.e. the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil) so that we will learn through our own experience how to prize the good (epitomized in the tree of life and holiness). As father Lehi said, there is no worthwhile meaning to life unless intelligences are everlastingly engaged in the eternal battle betwwen good and evil. Hence, there is no spiritual progression unless we partake of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. This is something we all do when we commit the first sin for which we are held morally culpable by the justice of God.

Edited January 12, 2017 by Bobbieaware

[Glenn101]

7 minutes ago, pogi said:

I have offered a possible explanation for Lehi and Moses (I have other possibilities as well).  I have not yet heard a possible explanation from you for 1 Nephi 3:7, which is substantiated in the D&C and New Testament as well. 

Actually I have answered that. If you remember that the way that was prepared for Nephi to obtain the plates necessitated that he break one of the ten commandments, "thou shalt not kill." Contradictory no? 

12 minutes ago, pogi said:

Sin was not a direct consequence of the fruit...moral agency was.

I do not believe that is correct. God's plan involved agency from the very first. "in the Garden of Eden, gave I unto man his agency" (Moses 7:32) "Satan rebelled against me, and sought to destroy the agency of man, which I, the Lord God, had given him (man I believe, not just Satan). Having the ability to know good from evil is what enabled sin to enter into the world. 

20 minutes ago, pogi said:

So, is moral agency a good thing or a bad thing?

Well, since it came from God, it must be a good thing.

21 minutes ago, pogi said:

He didn't know the mind of God in regards to the consequences for successfully offering the fruit to man.

• He was completely surprised and angered at the curse for doing what had been done in other worlds. 
• Why the surprise?  Shouldn't he have anticipated the curse? Perhaps not if this was the first time that the serpent succeeded in offering man the fruit, but was instead given by God in other worlds.  

 

I can't debate any of those conjectures because we do not have enough information. We do not know how much Satan knows of the actual Plan of Salvation but I have an idea that Satan did not really know the details and thus did not know the mind of God. We do not know how much we were told about the plan of salvation either or about the Garden of Eden. It is all speculation.

It is no wonder though that we currently have something like 39000 Christian denominations in this world though. There is enough in the scriptures for anyone to start their own denomination. Even with prophets and apostles there is a lot we do not yet know about the Plan of Salvation, else we would not be debating in this topic. 

 

Glenn

[pogi]

24 minutes ago, Glenn101 said:

Actually I have answered that. If you remember that the way that was prepared for Nephi to obtain the plates necessitated that he break one of the ten commandments, "thou shalt not kill." Contradictory no? 

Right, I forgot about that.  We both know that there are exceptions to the command to not kill, such as in defense of our life and liberty, etc.  Reading the Old Testament, it is clear that there were plenty of exceptions made to the command to not kill.  Any exception from any command must come from God himself.  Such was the case with Nephi.  God made the exception, not Nephi.  He was guided to kill Laban to fulfill God's other command to collect the gold plates.  God provided the way in fulfillment of 1 Nephi 3:7.  

God did not make an exception with the fruit however.  This was totally different.  1 Nephi 3:7 is still true, God will always provide a way to accomplish the things that he has commanded, even if that means making an exception to previous commands.  What way would God have provided to fulfill both commands in the garden? Or, should we dismiss 1 Nephi 3:7 as a false doctrine because God does not really provide a way all the time? 

39 minutes ago, Glenn101 said:

I do not believe that is correct. 

Having the ability to know good from evil is what enabled sin to enter into the world. 

Yes, it enabled sin to enter the world, as it enabled righteousness to enter the world, but it caused neither.  Our use or misuse of moral agency is the cause.  We can't blame God for that.  

If you ask your kid, "why did you eat the cookie when I told you not to?"  How will you respond if he says, "moral agency made me do it!"  Moral agency itself is neutral to sin and righteousness.  It does not cause either, it just makes them possible - which is good.

Moral agency is like college, we can use it to succeed or fail, but it does not cause us to succeed or fail, it simply gives us the tools.  Should we blame the parents for sending their kids to school when their kids fail? Neither would God be responsible for sin by providing us with moral agency.  

59 minutes ago, Glenn101 said:

God's plan involved agency from the very first. "in the Garden of Eden, gave I unto man his agency" (Moses 7:32)

That is what I am saying.  The scriptures say that God did enable us to choose sin or righteousness.  That was his plan.  That does not make him responsible however for our choices.  Either way you look at it God gave gave us agency then sent Lucifer after us.  God made sin possible either way.  God only enabled agency, but it is us who enables sin.  

1 hour ago, Glenn101 said:

Well, since it came from God, it must be a good thing.

Exactly!  It was God's to give, and it was and is a "good" gift.  Because it is "good", then there is no darkness or sin in giving it.  To permanently forbid it just does not make any sense whatsoever.  There is no good logic in it. 

Quote

He hath given unto you that ye might know good from evil, and he hath given unto you that ye might choose life or death; and ye can do good and be restored unto that which is good, or have that which is good restored unto you; or ye can do evil, and have that which is evil restored unto you.

Quote

Wherefore, men are free according to the flesh; and all things are given them which are expedient unto man. And they are free to choose liberty and eternal life, through the great Mediator of all men, or to choose captivity and death, according to the captivity and power of the devil; for he seeketh that all men might be miserable like unto himself (2 Nephi 2:27).

 

[pogi]

2 hours ago, Bobbieaware said:

I believe a possible flaw to this theory is that both the tree of life AND the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (two distinct trees, with two distinct roles to fulfill)) were placed in the garden so that man would have agency, or the opportunity to make moral choices. As far as it goes, the tree of life IS essential in order for man to have free agency, but the tree of the knowledge of good and evil  IS EQUALLY ESSENTIAL in an uncreated reality that can only exist upon the principle of there being a diametric opposition in all things. The Book of Mormon makes it perfectly clear that free agency cannot be affirmed in any other way than by having moral choices in which we choose between the uncreated principle of good and the uncreated principle of evil. Symbolically speaking, there is no agency in the garden without both the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Mother Eve testified (and even rejoiced) when she realized the only way spiritual growth is possible is if we taste the bitter (I.e. the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil) so that we will learn through our own experience how to prize the good (epitomized in the tree of life and holiness). As father Lehi said, there is no worthwhile meaning to life unless intelligences are everlastingly engaged in the eternal battle betwwen good and evil. Hence, there is no spiritual progression unless we partake of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. This is something we all do when we commit the first sin for which we are held morally culpable by the justice of God.

The tree of knowledge, "diametrically opposed" to the tree of life?  I don't think so.  I don't think that you really believe that if you think about it.  We all agree that the fruit was good.  If it was good, then it cannot be diametrically opposed to good.  The light of Christ, diametrically opposed to good...I can never accept that notion.  The diametric opposition was the serpent which whispered in their ear in opposition to what God was speaking in the other ear.  It wasn't conflicting commands that gave opposition, it was the serpent that gave opposition.  Only by the serpent could Adam choose.

You are right, the tree of knowledge and the tree of life did have distinct roles, but they were symbiotic rather than oppositional roles.  These two trees represent the keys to immortality (tree of life) and eternal life (tree of knowledge).  Adam and Eve were given immortality, but eternal life evaded them.  To know God, aka to know good, is eternal life.  Knowledge of God and his goodness, in other words, is eternal life.  The tree of knowledge was the key.  Such knowledge requires preparation and is predicated upon obedience.  Do a scriptural study on knowledge and its role in eternal life and how it relates to obedience.  Study also how knowledge of evil comes by disobedience, it will be "eye opening".  Also, read Elder Bednar's book called Increase in Learning to better understand the role of knowledge in salvation.

The tree of knowledge was indeed presented in opposition to the tree of life, not because it was oppositional in nature, but because it was forbidden.  To partake before the time brought death through transgression.  Therein was the bitterness. It was a symbolic bitterness.  The fruit itself was sweet and delicious according to Eve.  Until they were prepared, partaking of the tree of knowledge was indeed in opposition to God.  Just as partaking in sex before the preparation of marriage is in opposition to God.  The spiritual results of sex before marriage is bitter, even when the fruit itself tastes sweet. 

Once again, God did not need to contradict himself to create opposition.  That idea is totally convoluted and contrived.  We fall just fine without contradicting commands.  So why was it necessary in the garden?  That idea is not parallel to true life in the least and gives no ritualistic significance or meaning to us in our lives.

Think of what you are suggesting.  Moral agency in opposition to God?  No, no, no, that was his plan!  He is who it comes through.  IT is what made Adam "like God."  God eats the fruit. His light IS the fruit.  It is in part what gives him Godhood. It is not opposed to the tree of life, but symbiotic in the goal of immortality AND eternal life. 

 

Edited January 13, 2017 by pogi

[Bobbieaware]

17 hours ago, pogi said:

Right, I forgot about that.  We both know that there are exceptions to the command to not kill, such as in defense of our life and liberty, etc.  Reading the Old Testament, it is clear that there were plenty of exceptions made to the command to not kill.  Any exception from any command must come from God himself.  Such was the case with Nephi.  God made the exception, not Nephi.  He was guided to kill Laban to fulfill God's other command to collect the gold plates.  God provided the way in fulfillment of 1 Nephi 3:7.  

God did not make an exception with the fruit however.  This was totally different.  1 Nephi 3:7 is still true, God will always provide a way to accomplish the things that he has commanded, even if that means making an exception to previous commands.  What way would God have provided to fulfill both commands in the garden? Or, should we dismiss 1 Nephi 3:7 as a false doctrine because God does not really provide a way all the time? 

Yes, it enabled sin to enter the world, as it enabled righteousness to enter the world, but it caused neither.  Our use or misuse of moral agency is the cause.  We can't blame God for that.  

If you ask your kid, "why did you eat the cookie when I told you not to?"  How will you respond if he says, "moral agency made me do it!"  Moral agency itself is neutral to sin and righteousness.  It does not cause either, it just makes them possible - which is good.

Moral agency is like college, we can use it to succeed or fail, but it does not cause us to succeed or fail, it simply gives us the tools.  Should we blame the parents for sending their kids to school when their kids fail? Neither would God be responsible for sin by providing us with moral agency.  

That is what I am saying.  The scriptures say that God did enable us to choose sin or righteousness.  That was his plan.  That does not make him responsible however for our choices.  Either way you look at it God gave gave us agency then sent Lucifer after us.  God made sin possible either way.  God only enabled agency, but it is us who enables sin.  

Exactly!  It was God's to give, and it was and is a "good" gift.  Because it is "good", then there is no darkness or sin in giving it.  To permanently forbid it just does not make any sense whatsoever.  There is no good logic in it. 

 

Perhaps you brought up the following previously and I missed it, but I believe you may be leaving a critically important element out of your scenario. There wasn't just the one commandment that stipulated our first parents couldn't partake of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, which was actually the second commandment they received. The first commandment was to multiply and replenish the earth. Yet the Book of Mormon makes it clear there could be no childbearing while they were still in the paradisical state. So in order to keep the first commandment they had to be willing violate the second. This is a classic conundrum. How do you fulfill God's word to keep the commandment to multiply and replenish the earth if God's pronounced second commandment continues to be obeyed in perpetuity, the continued obedience to which would render them childless forever? And don't forget, it appears Eve was well-aware of the fact that she was partaking of the fruit so "that man may be" or, in other words, fulfill the first commandment. Because there were two conflicting commandments, the first of which could not be fulfilled if the second was not ever transgressed, our first parents were between a rock and a hard place. It seems mother Eve had the wisdom to know the first commandment took precedence over the second. And it's also likely she knew her loving Heavenly Father wouldn't give two conflicting commandments unless he had some provision in waiting that would bless their lives for the better. This may very well be the reason why. after giving the second commandment, the Lord didn't leave it at that, for he strangely said, "nevertheless, you can chose for yourself..."

Edited January 13, 2017 by Bobbieaware

[Bobbieaware]

41 minutes ago, pogi said:

The tree of knowledge, "diametrically opposed" to the tree of life?  I don't think so.  I don't think that you really believe that if you think about it.  We all agree that the fruit was good.  If it was good, then it cannot be diametrically opposed to good.  The light of Christ, diametrically opposed to good...I can never accept that notion.  The diametric opposition was the serpent which whispered in their ear in opposition to what God was speaking in the other ear.  It wasn't conflicting commands that gave opposition, it was the serpent that gave opposition.  Only by the serpent could Adam choose.

You are right, the tree of knowledge and the tree of life did have distinct roles, but they were symbiotic rather than oppositional roles.  These two trees represent the keys to immortality (tree of life) and eternal life (tree of knowledge).  Adam and Eve were given immortality, but eternal life evaded them.  To know God, aka to know good, is eternal life.  Knowledge of God and his goodness, in other words, is eternal life.  The tree of knowledge was the key.  Such knowledge requires preparation and is predicated upon obedience.  Do a scriptural study on knowledge and its role in eternal life and how it relates to obedience.  Study also how knowledge of evil comes by disobedience, it will be "eye opening".  Also, read Elder Bednar's book called Increase in Learning to better understand the role of knowledge in salvation.

The tree of knowledge was indeed presented in opposition to the tree of life, not because it was oppositional in nature, but because it was forbidden.  To partake before the time brought death through transgression.  Therein was the bitterness. It was a symbolic bitterness.  The fruit itself was sweet and delicious according to Eve.  Until they were prepared, partaking of the tree of knowledge was indeed in opposition to God.  Just as partaking in sex before the preparation of marriage is in opposition to God.  The spiritual results of sex before marriage is bitter, even when the fruit itself tastes sweet. 

Once again, God did not need to contradict himself to create opposition.  That idea is totally convoluted and contrived.  We fall just fine without contradicting commands.  So why was it necessary in the garden?  That idea is not parallel to true life in the least and gives no ritualistic significance or meaning to us in our lives.

Think of what you are suggesting.  Moral agency in opposition to God?  No, no, no, that was his plan!  He is who it comes through.  IT is what made Adam "like God."

 

This is where I believe you're making a mistake. The tree wasn't just about a knowledge of goodness, it also had a spiritually poisonous element that, if ingested,  would bring great sorrow, suffering and ungodliness into the world. The tree embodies the great eternal struggle between good and evil. It didn't just bring goodness. That was Christ's job through the atonement. Partaking of its fruit actually brought complete physical and spiritual death into the world and without Christ all would be lost. You're not seriously saying you believe a fullness of salvation could have been obtained without there first being a fall followed by infinite and eternal atonement, are you?

By the way, the fruit was sweet and delicious, but  followed by a monumental bellyache. A lot of sin is like that -- ask any hardcore addict.

Edited January 13, 2017 by Bobbieaware

[pogi]

15 hours ago, Bobbieaware said:

Perhaps you brought up the following previously and I missed it, but I believe you may be leaving a critically important element out of your scenario. There wasn't just the one commandment that stipulated our first parents couldn't partake of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, which was actually the second commandment they received. 

I have addressed this.  I don't mean to blow you off, but I don't want to rehash everything again.  You can go back and revisit it if you like 

[pogi]

15 hours ago, Bobbieaware said:

This is where I believe you're making a mistake. The tree wasn't just about a knowledge of goodness, it also had a spiritually poisonous element that, if ingested,  would bring great sorrow, suffering and ungodliness into the world.

First, I don't claim that the tree was just about knowledge of goodness.  It is abundantly clear that the fruit was the light of Christ which caused them to know good from evil.  There is nothing spiritually poisonous about the light of Christ.  The fruit did not bring sorrow, suffering and ungodliness into the world, the fall (transgression) did that. 

15 hours ago, Bobbieaware said:

The tree embodies the great eternal struggle between good and evil. It didn't just bring goodness...

The tree brought the goodness of moral agency.  That is all it brought.  All other goodness and evil is not from the tree, but from Jesus Christ and Satan.  The tree simply gave each access to the battle ground of the soul and allows us to choose whom we will follow - a good thing.  

Quote

whatsoever is good cometh from God, and whatsoever is evil cometh from the devil (Alam 5:40; Omni 1:25).

If the tree is "diametrically opposed" to God, as you suggest then it could only come from Satan.  Where did the tree come from?  Who planted it?  Who called it "very good"?  Satan certainly didn't plant it.  It did not come from him. 

The tree does not "bring" evil.  Satan brings evil and our desires can consume it or reject it:

Quote

Yea, and I know that good and evil have come before men; he that knoweth good from evil is blameless; but he that knoweth good and evil, to him it is given according to his desirs, whether he desireth good or evil, life or death, joy or remorse of conscience (Alma 29:5).

The one raised to happiness according to his desires of happiness, or good according to his desires of good; and the other to evil; for as he has desired to do evil all the day long even so shall he have his reward of evil when the night cometh (Alma 41:5)

He [God] hath given unto you that ye might know good from evil, and he hath given unto you that ye might choose life or death, and ye can do good and...have that which is good restored unto you; or you can do evil, and have that which is evil restored unto you (Hel 14:31)

As you can see, moral agency is of God, there is no evil in it as no evil can come from God.  Evil comes from our desires.  Again, moral agency which came from God cannot be diabolically opposed to God.  That is a major flaw in thinking. 

How can you deny the light of Christ in the fruit?

15 hours ago, Bobbieaware said:

Partaking of its fruit actually brought complete physical and spiritual death into the world

I think I have thoroughly debunked this as being scriptural.  It is exceedingly clear that death (both physical and spiritual) came by transgression of God's law, being separated from the tree of life. 

15 hours ago, Bobbieaware said:

You're not seriously saying you believe a fullness of salvation could have been obtained without there first being a fall followed by infinite and eternal atonement, are you?

No, I am not saying that.  A fullness of salvation requires an absolute knowledge of God - which requires us to know everything that he knows, or else we could not be God's ourselves.  They were yet infants in the knowledge of good.  The fruit was simply the key to have access to God's fullness.  The key simply opened the door to have access to knowledge of good.  Adam and Eve would have fallen one way or another, an infinite atonement still would have been required.  This life still would be probationary.

Edited January 13, 2017 by pogi

[Bobbieaware]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

I have addressed this.  I don't mean to blow you off, but I don't want to rehash everything again.  You can go back and revisit it if you like 

Rather than rehashing everything again, why don't you just give me a succinct response in two or three lines?

 

[Bobbieaware]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

First, I don't claim that the tree was just about knowledge of goodness.  It is abundantly clear that the fruit was the light of Christ which caused them to know good from evil.  There is nothing spiritually poisonous about the light of Christ.  The fruit did not bring sorrow, suffering and ungodliness into the world, the fall (transgression) did that. 

The tree brought the goodness of moral agency.  That is all it brought.  All other goodness and evil is not from the tree, but from Jesus Christ and Satan.  The tree simply gave each access to the battle ground of the soul and allows us to choose whom we will follow - a good thing.  

If the tree is "diametrically opposed" to God, as you suggest then it could only come from Satan.  Where did the tree come from?  Who planted it?  Who called it "very good"?  Satan certainly didn't plant it.  It did not come from him. 

The tree does not "bring" evil.  Satan brings evil and our desires can consume it or reject it:

As you can see, moral agency is of God, there is no evil in it as no evil can come from God.  Evil comes from our desires.  Again, moral agency which came from God cannot be diabolically opposed to God.  That is a major flaw in thinking. 

How can you deny the light of Christ in the fruit?

I think I have thoroughly debunked this as being scriptural.  It is exceedingly clear that death (both physical and spiritual) came by transgression of God's law, being separated from the tree of life. 

No, I am not saying that.  A fullness of salvation requires an absolute knowledge of God - which requires us to know everything that he knows, or else we could not be God's ourselves.  They were yet infants in the knowledge of good.  The fruit was simply the key to have access to God's fullness.  The key simply opened the door to have access to knowledge of good.  Adam and Eve would have fallen one way or another, an infinite atonement still would have been required.  This life still would be probationary.

Good response! Why would God want to deprive his children the light of Christ and enforce the commandment to not partake of the of the light of Christ with the most dire consequences imaginable -- endless physical death and total spiritual death forever in hell?

[Bobbieaware]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

First, I don't claim that the tree was just about knowledge of goodness.  It is abundantly clear that the fruit was the light of Christ which caused them to know good from evil.  There is nothing spiritually poisonous about the light of Christ.  The fruit did not bring sorrow, suffering and ungodliness into the world, the fall (transgression) did that. 

The tree brought the goodness of moral agency.  That is all it brought.  All other goodness and evil is not from the tree, but from Jesus Christ and Satan.  The tree simply gave each access to the battle ground of the soul and allows us to choose whom we will follow - a good thing.  

If the tree is "diametrically opposed" to God, as you suggest then it could only come from Satan.  Where did the tree come from?  Who planted it?  Who called it "very good"?  Satan certainly didn't plant it.  It did not come from him. 

The tree does not "bring" evil.  Satan brings evil and our desires can consume it or reject it:

As you can see, moral agency is of God, there is no evil in it as no evil can come from God.  Evil comes from our desires.  Again, moral agency which came from God cannot be diabolically opposed to God.  That is a major flaw in thinking. 

How can you deny the light of Christ in the fruit?

I think I have thoroughly debunked this as being scriptural.  It is exceedingly clear that death (both physical and spiritual) came by transgression of God's law, being separated from the tree of life. 

No, I am not saying that.  A fullness of salvation requires an absolute knowledge of God - which requires us to know everything that he knows, or else we could not be God's ourselves.  They were yet infants in the knowledge of good.  The fruit was simply the key to have access to God's fullness.  The key simply opened the door to have access to knowledge of good.  Adam and Eve would have fallen one way or another, an infinite atonement still would have been required.  This life still would be probationary.

Good response! Why would God want to deprive his children the light of Christ and enforce the commandment to not partake of the of the light of Christ with the most dire consequences imaginable -- endless physical death and total spiritual death forever in hell?

[pogi]

3 hours ago, Bobbieaware said:

Good response! Why would God want to deprive his children the light of Christ and enforce the commandment to not partake of the of the light of Christ 

First, your theory is subject to the same line of questioning.  Why would God withhold and permanently forbid the light of Christ - the knowledge of good and evil?  Why would God associate the light of Christ with poison and with death and hell, instead of associating those things with transgression?  Why would God put the light of Christ in a corruptible and poisonous fruit?  How can anything which contains the blessings of the light of Christ be diametrically opposed to God?  It doesn't make sense!

Here is why I believe he withheld the fruit: The blessing of the fruit was irrevocably predicated upon obedience, as all knowledge of good is.  Instead of first knowing the good through obedience, they first knew the evil through disobedience.  Instead of being a blessing, it became a curse unto them.  Only through reconciliation was the blessing realized.

Quote

There is a law, irrevocably decreed in heaven before the foundations of this world, upon which all blessings are predicated—

 And when we obtain any blessing from God, it is by obedience to that law upon which it is predicated (D&C 130:20-21).

3 hours ago, Bobbieaware said:

Why...the most dire consequences imaginable -- endless physical death and total spiritual death forever in hell?

That is according to the demands of justice as outlined in the Book of Mormon.  Any transgression, ignorant or not, has the same eternal consequence of death and hell. No transgressor, no matter how big or small, can abide in God's full presence and are subject to the full demands of justice. Hence they were expelled from God's presence and the tree of life, and death resulted.  Death was the demands of justice and the wages of any transgression.  That is why the atonement is required - to answer the demands of justice.  The most dire "consequence imaginable" was swallowed up in Christ who overcame both death and hell.

The consequence was not in relation to the fruit, but in relation to transgression as is made abundantly clear in scripture.  It is not the cause of the fruit that requires atonement, it is the cause of transgression.

 

Edited January 13, 2017 by pogi

[pogi]

6 hours ago, Bobbieaware said:

Rather than rehashing everything again, why don't you just give me a succinct response in two or three lines?

I agree that the fruit made them capable of having children.  I don't believe that the fruit made any direct physical changes to their body however.  It is my personal belief that Adam and Eve didn't have sexual relations before the fruit (no, I don't believe the fruit was sex as some believe, but there are many symbolic parallels)...they were in a total state of emotional numbness without knowledge of good and evil, and as such they didn't and couldn't know passion.  I don't think they even knew how to have children. They didn't even recognize their own nakedness.  It was a state of utter and complete numbness.  Is it any coincidence that the word used for "sex" in scripture is a conjugate of the word "knowledge"? In my opinion, the fruit was required for knowledge (sex).  Just as the fruit gives knowledge of good through obedience and evil through disobedience, sex gives knowledge of good through obedience and evil through disobedience.  The phrase, "Adam knew his wife" is first mentioned in Moses 5:2 & Gen 4:1, only after they had partake of the fruit.  

 Not unlike Nephi, who was stumped as to how to fulfill the command to get the plates, I think the first command was a mystery to Adam and Eve in that they did not know how to fulfill it without the fruit.  Satan was right, there was no other way but through the fruit.  What Satan neglected to tell them is that there was another means prepared for them for the partaking of the fruit.  Another half truth and clever deception of the adversary! 

Edited January 13, 2017 by pogi

[mfbukowski]

31 minutes ago, pogi said:

I agree that the fruit made them capable of having children.  I don't believe that the fruit made any direct physical changes to their body however.  It is my personal belief that Adam and Eve didn't have sexual relations before the fruit (no, I don't believe the fruit was sex as some believe, but there are many symbolic parallels)...they were in a total state of emotional numbness without knowledge of good and evil, and as such they didn't and couldn't know passion.  I don't think they even knew how to have children. They didn't even recognize their own nakedness.  It was a state of utter and complete numbness.  Is it any coincidence that the word used for "sex" in scripture is a conjugate of the word "knowledge"?  The phrase, "Adam knew his wife" is first mentioned in Moses 5:2 & Gen 4:1, after they had partake of the fruit.

 Not unlike Nephi, who was stumped as to how to fulfill the command to get the plates, I think the first command was a mystery to Adam and Eve in that they did not know how to fulfill it without the fruit.  I hold strongly however that 1 Nephi 3:7 is not just a sweet but untrue thought...a way would have been prepared. 

Ostler notes that the "sin" was not eating the fruit,  but hiding from God "because we were naked." Eating the fruit demonstrated agency and the ability to reason through the paradox of being commanded to not eat the fruit, and also to multiply, but turning away from God to hide, their second act of agency, demonstrated pride over obedience - their personal will be done over God's will as they understood it, be done.

There is more here we will have to discuss. 

 

[pogi]

9 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Ostler notes that the "sin" was not eating the fruit,  but hiding from God "because we were naked." Eating the fruit demonstrated agency and the ability to reason through the paradox of being commanded to not eat the fruit, and also to multiply, but turning away from God to hide, their second act of agency, demonstrated pride over obedience - their personal will be done over God's will as they understood it, be done.

There is more here we will have to discuss. 

 

Interestingly enough, I have never read Ostler but came to the same conclusion in some of my notes and writings on the subject.  The first "sin" was not eating the fruit, but hiding from God in shame.  Before the fruit, their nakedness was symbolic of innocence, after the fruit, Satan turned that innocence into shame.  He whispered in their ear something like this "God will not accept you like this, you have ruined everything, you are a big mistake...quick hide!"  Toxic shame!  If Satan can make us feel uncomfortable in God's presence through shame...he wins! We become more comfortable in the presence of Satan as he "accepts us for who we are".  We don't have to be afraid of exposure in his darkness.  It is all deception.  Shame is one of the greatest tools of the adversary.  It is the binding chains of hell which keep us from the light. That is why I believe Satan wanted to give them the fruit first. Shame does ironically result in pride.  "My will be done."  

Faith is not so much an act of walking in darkness, but an act of stepping into the light.  Which is what Adam did by saying, "here am I".  That single act of faith made reconciliation possible.  It must have been terrifying to step into the light of exposure for the first time.  I think they were in hiding some great while before they got up the nerve.