Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil

[CAS]

57 minutes ago, pogi said:

I don't think my theory disagrees that experience plays a role in acquiring knowledge of good and evil.  As I stated, the experience of obedience/disobedience is required. 

What role do you think the light of Christ plays in comprehending good and evil though?

Keep in mind that it was not the tree of knowledge that was being guarded by cherubim and a flaming sword, but I get what you are saying. 

I mean this in a nice way. Actually the scripture reads like this: "Genesis 3:24 So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life." Using your interpretation Eve is still in the garden of Eden and you can still get into the garden, per just that verse. The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil is in the garden (that's where they were when they partook of the fruit) and none of us can get to it nor into the garden. I have read the pomegranate stuff and all the related stuff, it is conjecture. We have, however, the knowledge of good and evil, which first came from the fruit of the tree, now comes from mortal life itself, our own experience and the teachings of others-yet mainly from the Spirit of the Lord which is one of the symbolical meanings of the tree.

[pogi]

44 minutes ago, CAS said:

I mean this in a nice way. Actually the scripture reads like this: "Genesis 3:24 So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life." Using your interpretation Eve is still in the garden of Eden and you can still get into the garden, per just that verse. The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil is in the garden (that's where they were when they partook of the fruit) and none of us can get to it nor into the garden. I have read the pomegranate stuff and all the related stuff, it is conjecture. We have, however, the knowledge of good and evil, which first came from the fruit of the tree, now comes from mortal life itself, our own experience and the teachings of others-yet mainly from the Spirit of the Lord which is one of the symbolical meanings of the tree.

I'm sorry but I don't really understand what you are saying or disagreeing with.  Can you clarify?  My interpretation doesn't place Eve in the garden after being kicked out. The passage you mention reinforces what I said that the purpose of the cherubim and flaming sword was to guard the tree of life and not necessarily the tree of knowledge (see Alma 42: 3-7 for clarification).  I don't know what you mean by "pomegranate stuff".  I think perhaps you misunderstand my interpretation. 

You seem to acknowledge that the tree of knowledge of good and evil represents the light of Christ - great, that is what I am saying. 

Think about it - if the tree represents the Spirit of the Lord or light of Christ, are you suggesting that the only way possible for them to partake, or acquire, such a gift was through disobedience? 

The tree was deemed “very good” by God himself (Genesis 1:31)  So, why was it forbidden?  I suggest that it was forbidden as sex is forbidden before marriage or baptism is forbidden before being prepared, etc.  I believe they were being prepared by the Lord. 

The fruit was actually sweet and delicious tasting according to Eve.  The bitterness was only symbolic of the consequences of disobedience of eating the fruit before the time - death. 

The following are passages which support my theory in that the fruit was intended as a gift from God predicated upon obedience, and represents the light of Christ which opens our eyes to know good from evil:

Quote

The Spirit of Christ is given to every man that he may know good from evil...is sent forth by the power and gift of Christ (Moroni 7:16)

Quote

Knowledge is a precious gift (Prov. 8:10; Hos. 6:6; Prov. 1:7; Prov. 9:10; Col. 2:3; Prov. 14:18).

Quote

He that keepeth his commandments receiveth truth and light, until he is glorified in truth and knoweth all things [knowledge of good & evil]…Behold here is the agency of man, and here is the condemnation of man; because that which was from the beginning is plainly manifest unto them, and they receive not the light. And every man whose spirit receiveth not the light is under condemnation.” (D&C 93: 28,31-32) - 

Quote

“I will go and do the things which the Lord hath commanded, for I know that 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 commanded them” (1 Nephi 3:7)

Quote

“Stop, and stand still until I command thee, and I will provide means whereby thou mayest accomplish the thing which I have commanded thee” (D&C 5:34). 

Quote

…but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it. (1 Corinthians 10:13)

Quote

He that keepeth his commandments receiveth truth and light, until he is glorified in truth and knoweth all things [knowledge of good and evil] (D&C 93:28).

I suggest that it was intended as a gift of Christ through obedience, or else these passages do not really speak truth. 

 

Edited February 27, 2019 by pogi

[Maidservant]

3 hours ago, pogi said:

I don't think my theory disagrees that work, and life experience play roles in acquiring any type of knowledge.  Keep in mind, we are talking about a specific kind of knowledge here.  Adam and Eve had plenty of knowledge before partaking of the fruit, but they had no moral compass - no way to distinguish good from evil.  As I stated, the light of Christ and the experience of obedience/disobedience is required for the acquisition of moral knowledge. 

So, I 'm not sure what you disagree with exactly.  Do you disagree that the tree represents the light of Christ?  Do you disagree that the light of Christ is what allows us to know good and evil?  Or, do you disagree that the fruit would have been provided through obedience?  I think we likely both acknowledge that disobedience is not the ONLY way to acquire knowledge - so why should we consider that it was the ONLY way for Adam and Eve?  So what further instruction would God have given Adam and Eve had they obeyed?  We will never know because they disobeyed before the promised further knowledge was delivered.

Keep in mind that it was not the tree of knowledge that was being guarded by cherubim and a flaming sword, but I get what you are saying.  

Cheap knowledge was freely handed to them through the experience of disobedience- no cherub, no flaming sword, no traversing anything required.  Typical of Satan to offer the appeal of cheap and instant gratification.  I believe the Lord was preparing them for something more noble - something worth waiting and working for - a knowledge only gained through persistent obedience inn the face of temptation.  I believe that a way of obedience would have been prepared for them (1 Nephi 3:7). 

I am not saying that they could have lived eternally without transgressing, they were human and would have fallen eventually, I am simply suggesting that maybe it didn't have to happen the way it did.  I don't believe the Lord gives commands without preparing a way to obey and fulfill his will. I don't believe the Lord commands against his will either. 

Let me say that when I disagree, obviously we are all going to be in different places on this; not saying I've got it all right.  I just find it fascinating that a foundational story can give rise to so much.

But to try to clarify what I disagree with, I disagree that Lucifer interrupted something and did something anomalous. I can't even imagine Heavenly Father not handling that ahead of time if it was going to be a problem and he preferred another method (instead of after, as we frame it, with a Savior; it was ALL part of the plan) i.e. how did Satan make his way into the Garden at all.  It couldn't have been a difficult thing to bar him from it, as if Heavenly Father simply neglected to do it or was surprised by it.  I also find it interesting to hear you frame Adam and Eve's choice as disobedience, since I never have done that.  I have always understood their choice as one for progression, which very much was an obedience.  I disagree that knowing right from wrong happened in this lifetime--otherwise we could not have made any choice at any time previous to this life, and we obviously did, even to following the Savior.  They chose to leave their state, but they didn't actually disobey any laws.  They didn't even disobey God, since God told them they could choose, but he warned them what they would face.  In fact, Eve followed God and not Satan in making her choice.  I also don't really see this earth life as a quest for/of obedience.

Adam and Eve chose to enter mortality and all that that entails.  It is not that 'disobedience' gives the 'best' experience; it is that struggle and hazard and loss and death and defeat and, yes, weakness and and and and and give the 'best' experience.   I think very much Heavenly Father wants us to have these overwhelming experiences and to overcome.  I think very much that Heavenly Father wants us to encounter the Adversary.  Obviously, he shows us the way over the gulf, not to drown in it.  He shows us the rock to build our house on, but he doesn't stop the rain and the floods.  That rock and that way you might term obedience, but I guess I find that to be an understatement of what is needed as the way.  I actually think that obedience is a much lesser thing, because a person can do that without any knowledge whatsoever.  (I do disagree that the tree or fruit is the light of Christ; I think it represents our entire earth journey.)

I also don't see Lucifer as an agent of evil or disobedience or temptation; I see him as the agent of testing (as he was in the story of Job; it was Job's friends who did the tempting, not Satan; Satan was an agent of destruction of loss--of clearing the way until the only thing you have left is yourself and you have to find out what that is).

I see how you have learned it, and it is a beautiful testimony as well.  But it's just so different from what I get out of it.

You are right, I got it wrong; the flaming sword guarded the Tree of Life.

Edited February 27, 2019 by Maidservant

[Maidservant]

2 hours ago, CAS said:

 the pomegranate stuff

 

1 hour ago, pogi said:

"pomegranate stuff"

that was me

[Maidservant]

I think I will also say, that I do not understand this template to show us that we are or ever were bound by the choice two people made a long time ago.  We are bound by our choice.  We are, each and all, Adam and Eve.  We each partake of the fruit when we agree to come here.  We are bound by our own choice, not by the choice of others.  Otherwise, our agency is not preserved.  This template shows us our choices, not another's.  Otherwise, why the importance to tell it?  We understand that we each must make the choice to follow the Savior; Adam and Eve cannot make that for us.  So by the same token, I hope we can understand that we must make the choice to enter the mortal state (eat the fruit) and all that it entails; Adam and Eve cannot make that for us either.

Edited February 27, 2019 by Maidservant

[CAS]

18 hours ago, pogi said:

I'm sorry but I don't really understand what you are saying or disagreeing with.  Can you clarify?  My interpretation doesn't place Eve in the garden after being kicked out. The passage you mention reinforces what I said that the purpose of the cherubim and flaming sword was to guard the tree of life and not necessarily the tree of knowledge (see Alma 42: 3-7 for clarification).  I don't know what you mean by "pomegranate stuff".  I think perhaps you misunderstand my interpretation. 

You seem to acknowledge that the tree of knowledge of good and evil represents the light of Christ - great, that is what I am saying. 

Think about it - if the tree represents the Spirit of the Lord or light of Christ, are you suggesting that the only way possible for them to partake, or acquire, such a gift was through disobedience? 

The tree was deemed “very good” by God himself (Genesis 1:31)  So, why was it forbidden?  I suggest that it was forbidden as sex is forbidden before marriage or baptism is forbidden before being prepared, etc.  I believe they were being prepared by the Lord. 

The fruit was actually sweet and delicious tasting according to Eve.  The bitterness was only symbolic of the consequences of disobedience of eating the fruit before the time - death. 

The following are passages which support my theory in that the fruit was intended as a gift from God predicated upon obedience, and represents the light of Christ which opens our eyes to know good from evil:

I suggest that it was intended as a gift of Christ through obedience, or else these passages do not really speak truth. 

 

Guess I misunderstood you.

[CAS]

16 hours ago, Maidservant said:

I think I will also say, that I do not understand this template to show us that we are or ever were bound by the choice two people made a long time ago.  We are bound by our choice.  We are, each and all, Adam and Eve.  We each partake of the fruit when we agree to come here.  We are bound by our own choice, not by the choice of others.  Otherwise, our agency is not preserved.  This template shows us our choices, not another's.  Otherwise, why the importance to tell it?  We understand that we each must make the choice to follow the Savior; Adam and Eve cannot make that for us.  So by the same token, I hope we can understand that we must make the choice to enter the mortal state (eat the fruit) and all that it entails; Adam and Even cannot make that for us either.

I do not know if I had a choice about coming here, I do not remember agreeing to come here, but I do think that is doctrinal. If I did agree to come here and if I saw what kind of a family I was going to, well, all I can say is, that was a brave choice. Because I would really like to change that and go to a loving and non-violent and non-abandoning family. All people ARE a type of our first parents in a very real AND symbolic sense, particularly those of us who have children. Adam and Eve gave us all the gift of being mortal, as did our parents. But we would not have our second estate bodies and current choices and opportunities under other circumstances. Ever since the first time I heard someone say that I chose to come here I have inwardly guffawed and I suppose I shouldn't.

[CAS]

17 hours ago, Maidservant said:

 

that was me

I think I saw that but I was referring to stuff on my old LDS discs I was researching.

[pogi]

17 hours ago, Maidservant said:

Let me say that when I disagree, obviously we are all going to be in different places on this; not saying I've got it all right.  I just find it fascinating that a foundational story can give rise to so much.

I agree, I too find it interesting how we can each get different things out of the story based on our life experience.  Maybe it is supposed to be that way - layers of meaning that we are to apply to our personal lives as if we are Adam and Eve.

17 hours ago, Maidservant said:

But to try to clarify what I disagree with, I disagree that Lucifer interrupted something and did something anomalous.

I don't know - his punishment was rather harsh for what you make sound like a benign, and perhaps even expected act - as if he was on the Lord’s errand.  Satan seemed to be surprised at the punishment for doing what had been done on other worlds.  I asked myself, why?  If this had been done on other worlds, why was he surprised at the punishment?  It seems like he should have expected it.  It is my belief that on other worlds, the Lord gave the fruit and not Lucifer or some other devil.  They may have tried, but failed.  That is the only reason that I can think of that explains the harsh curse and the unexpected punishment.  It also might help explain why some prophets have commented that our world is the most righteous and the most wicked, and is the only world that would crucify their Savior.  If that saying is true, perhaps it is because Satan was banished here and thus has more influence here, as he failed on other worlds to give other Adam's the fruit.

17 hours ago, Maidservant said:

I can't even imagine Heavenly Father not handling that ahead of time if it was going to be a problem and he preferred another method (instead of after, as we frame it, with a Savior; it was ALL part of the plan) i.e. how did Satan make his way into the Garden at all.  It couldn't have been a difficult thing to bar him from it, as if Heavenly Father simply neglected to do it or was surprised by it. 

Agency was central to the plan.  To ban Satan from the garden would have disrupted the plan.  The plan was for us to have agency and for a Savior to provide a way. Transgression could have happened in many different ways, I don't believe that the plan was dependent upon Adam transgressing by taking the fruit. 

17 hours ago, Maidservant said:

I also find it interesting to hear you frame Adam and Eve's choice as disobedience, since I never have done that.  I have always understood their choice as one for progression, which very much was an obedience.  I disagree that knowing right from wrong happened in this lifetime--otherwise we could not have made any choice at any time previous to this life, and we obviously did, even to following the Savior.  They chose to leave their state, but they didn't actually disobey any laws.  They didn't even disobey God, since God told them they could choose, but he warned them what they would face.  In fact, Eve followed God and not Satan in making her choice.

This is a fairly common attempt for some in our faith at explaining their decision and the seeming conflicting commandments.  I don't think it is justifiable however.  They were clearly commanded not to partake.  By saying that they have a choice however, does not remove or diminish the command in anyway - he was simply explaining their right to agency.  He would say the same to any command -  "thou shalt not steal, but it is given unto you to choose..."  The freedom of choice doesn't justify transgression of law.  God doesn't command us to not do something, then give us subtle nods and winks as if it is really want us to do it.  Adam clearly transgressed law.  This is strongly established in all scripture.

17 hours ago, Maidservant said:

Adam and Eve chose to enter mortality and all that that entails.  It is not that 'disobedience' gives the 'best' experience; it is that struggle and hazard and loss and death and defeat and, yes, weakness and and and and and give the 'best' experience.   I think very much Heavenly Father wants us to have these overwhelming experiences and to overcome.  I think very much that Heavenly Father wants us to encounter the Adversary.  Obviously, he shows us the way over the gulf, not to drown in it.  He shows us the rock to build our house on, but he doesn't stop the rain and the floods.  That rock and that way you might term obedience, but I guess I find that to be an understatement of what is needed as the way.  I actually think that obedience is a much lesser thing, because a person can do that without any knowledge whatsoever. 

I think there is a lot of truth to what you say here.  Thanks for sharing.

 

Edited February 27, 2019 by pogi

[Nofear]

On 2/26/2019 at 11:55 PM, Maidservant said:

But to try to clarify what I disagree with, I disagree that Lucifer interrupted something and did something anomalous. I can't even imagine Heavenly Father not handling that ahead of time if it was going to be a problem and he preferred another method (instead of after, as we frame it, with a Savior; it was ALL part of the plan) i.e. how did Satan make his way into the Garden at all.  It couldn't have been a difficult thing to bar him from it, as if Heavenly Father simply neglected to do it or was surprised by it.

Lucifer was cast out of Heaven for aggressive disagreement with a plan that had worked countless times before. He would be kind of silly to say, "Oh, I want to be Satan. My turn!" Being cast out, but not in real particular trouble per se, he still had some degree of freedom and autonomy. With that, he goes to the Garden and tries to mess up the Plan which had been enacted countless times before (without a Satan -- indeed, a plan that *requires* one of God's children to choose to damn himself for all eternity seems a bit capricious to put it mildly). God was aware of it and a Savior was needed (just as it was always needed, humanity can sin quite well enough without a satan) but allowed Lucifer the opportunity to condemn himself. He did. As a consequence, his "travel permit", as it were was revoked and he was confined here to eat the dust of the earth all his days. No world hopping for him anymore. He got one and only one shot at his shenanigans. Other worlds would not be subject to his attempts at disruption.

[Robert F. Smith]

On 2/25/2019 at 1:49 PM, clarkgoble said:

Not at all clear why this is illogical. It might seem implausible, particularly to a modern mind. No one is quite sure what to make of Moses' serpent although many assume it has ties to Egypt in some way. It seems like most of those elements were expunged out of Judaism by the time of the Josiah reforms and certainly by the time the post-exilic compilation of canon. (Although the removal possibly starts with Hezekiah - see 2 Kings 18:4 although that's usually seen as written in the exile)

We know there were snake based cultic items in broader Canaan - often tied to Ashtoreth. Although at the time of Hezekiah the Egyptian symbol was rather popular too. Particularly winged snakes. It's worth noting that many scholars note there's no archaeological evidence of cultic reforms during Hezekiah so the 2 Kings reference may be Deuteronomists who were purging Judaism of any Egyptian or Canaanite similarities creating a bit of history to justify their reforms. The snake is a symbol of kingship in Egypt and you can see elements of that when Moses pits his snake against the Pharoah's.

It's also a symbol of life in Egypt, so the imagery by Moses makes complete sense contextually. The bigger question contextually isn't why Moses would do this, but why the children of Israel who come out of Egypt would be skeptical............................

Her is a 7th century BC bulla (seal impression) of a flying serpent or Seraph from Jerusalem (BAR 38/1):

Not too long ago, a bronze serpent was found in Oman, South Arabia, dating to Iron II, which is contemporary with Lehi and Nephi (CNRS,  “First non-utilitarian weapons found in the Arabian Peninsula,” ScienceDaily, March 10, 2016, online at https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/03/160310080816.htm).

ETA:  Here are some more Seraphim,  with Hebrew script, the first with a particularly Egyptian solar disk and uraei:

Edited March 1, 2019 by Robert F. Smith