The Fall of Adam, Ancient Lie, and Redemption of Zion

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

I too see the story as largely allegorical. 

But in the current popular interpretation of events, I fail to find any applicability in my personal life.   If allegories are intended to be applied to ourselves, and we are each supposed to see ourselves as Adam and Eve, how does setting up a contradiction of commandment help me understand my mortal probation any better?

Here is the allegory as I noted previously, and as the popular interpretation goes:

1) You must go through door A.  2) Don't go through door B.  3) The only way to door A is through door B.  Good luck!   By the way, if you go through door B, you're dead buddy!     Even as an allegory, the traditional interpretation doesn't make sense and has no application in real life. 

 I fail to see any parallel scenario or application of this interpretation in my life.  It makes no sense.  There is no equivalent scenario.

I think there is greater pragmatic power and teaching in understanding not that obedience is impossible in some scenarios and the lord forces us to chose, but that the Lord prepares a way in the seemingly impossible, and if we fall, he will pick us up when we turn back to him.  Not all is lost.    

 

First off, for me, my paradigm is that it COULD be allegorical or not- it depends on what paradigm works best for each individual, but is NEVER a question of "It actually happened THIS way" because there are so many possible explanations and besides the idea that any ONE interpretation is "correct" is unknowable.   So for me it doesn't matter if it happened that way or not- we cannot know that in a fake-science - this-gizmo is -a-better-gizmo- way..  What IS important , I think, is that the spirit HAS confirmed to us, the story and lessons therein, or even NOT.   Each of us have our own path from our front door to any destination because we all live in "different places".  The central tenet of the church, as I think Pres Nelson is clearly teaching is "get your own testimony" no matter what that means for you!

As I see it, what is important is that God has confimed for each of us personally the way we see our paradigm as "reasonable".   He is our tutor and teaches us our path individually.   

I am convinced that if I was raised in this church, I would not be in it today.   I had to learn a lot of "False Doctrine" from other faith directions to find out what "worked" for me and what would not.   I think if I had been born "here" I would not have searched and found what I needed to believe.

Now another story.  As a child, among other places, I lived in San Diego CA in the early '60's.   It was about 16 freeway miles from my house to the border with Tijuana Mexico.   We were tourists when we first moved there, and relatives would visit us all the time and one of the places they wanted to go was "Tj".   It was a lot safer then and in many ways Tj was like a suburb of San Diego.   And there were good deals on stuff, so between the relatives and the prices, it was a fun place to go.  We would stroll down "Avenidea Revolucion"  - Tj's "main drag" https://www.tripadvisor.com/Attraction_Review-g150776-d152722-Reviews-Avenida_Revolucion-Tijuana_Baja_California.html and see the sights sounds and smells, and to us THAT was "Mexico".

So this started when I was about 10, and continued for several years until all the relatives had been to Tj and we San Diegans were "been there, done that"

But now the importance of the story for me.   

At first we would march down the Avenida looking at the guitar shops - I was into those-  and the tchotchkes, the glass ware, the and this and that and hear the music coming from the bars, and see pictures of the dancing girls who wore too much makeup and looked kind of mean to me, and we could hear the music- mostly rock n roll which reverberated down the street.

Then one day we did the same old thing with a new tourist relative, but it was drastically different.   I found those "mean" dancing girl pictures making funny faces VERY fascinating.   I could not figure how they had changed, but the more we walked, the more interested I became in the pictures of the dancing girls.  Suddenly now I noticed that many of them did not have much clothes on, and that made them MORE interesting.

I couldn't get them out of my head!   We would go home but those pictures stuck in my brain, and I wanted to see more!

Well this was now the mid-'60's and thank God there was no internet OR porn on it yet, but let me tell you that change was highly noticible, and having been raised as a good Catholic Altar boy, I felt guilty for my "impure thoughts" - words that made no sense to me before!   How could a thought be "impure"?

It must be about going to the bathroom but who thought about that?   What could be "lmpure" about a thought?

Well I learned.   And I could not get it out of my mind!!

I felt as though I was "fallen" so I had no problem now understanding what I understood to be "Original Sin"   Clearly it had some connection to being naked with the opposite sex and doing......   Well I was young, but I knew how babies were made, and it suddenly did not seem yucky at all.   I wanted to get to work on it as soon as I could!

Quote

 

1) You must go through door A.  2) Don't go through door B.  3) The only way to door A is through door B.  Good luck!   By the way, if you go through door B, you're dead buddy!     Even as an allegory, the traditional interpretation doesn't make sense and has no application in real life. 

 I fail to see any parallel scenario or application of this interpretation in my life.  It makes no sense.  There is no equivalent scenario.

 

Agree about the interpretation of the original story and therefore of "original sin" as well.

I can see pretty clearly at least one "real application" here.  I almost saw it as Eve saw it in the story- maybe- nobody knows.  Maybe Eve was thinking this way:

1.  We have to multiply.  That is a commandment.

2. But I as Eve have to see Adam in quite a different way than my friend that I liked to talk to in the garden, and do whatever they did together in total innocence.   Suddenly there was something- a temptation as they matured- that made them realize they needed more "knowledge" (including the Hebrew connotations of "to know") to get this going.

So there's this other tree- the tree of KNOWLEDGE of good and evil.   We don't have the knowledge of how making babies works, but suddenly Adam is looking better by the day, so maybe that is part of the puzzle.   

And then there is Satan, who is a pretty convincing salesman that "there is no other way" than to eat the fruit.  What if this is all a test, and God wants us to figure out how to get the knowledge on our own-from the "Tree of Knowledge?"   MAYBE dying when we get old has to be a part of making babies?  It maybe is like a sacrifice- but maybe we can get a reward after we die?

She partakes and the rest is his-story  

 

[Calm]

47 minutes ago, Obehave said:

I think it's a bit strange because on one hand we have God telling us (through Adam and Eve) to NOT eat of his body... if he is that tree... only because we would die if we did WHILE ON THE OTHER HAND he is telling us (through Jesus) to eat him.

Death is not much of a big deal so why would he let that stand in our way of becoming like him? 

I also think it's a bit strange to think of our Father as the source for our knowledge of evil.  I think of Satan as the one who represents evil to us, while God represents everything good.

When we tell two year olds not to touch plugs, we don’t usually add ‘until you are older and know what you are doing, then you will be able to touch it’ because it will only confuse them and they may interpret that as they can touch it after all.  We wait until kids are a lot older to tell them they can get their driver’s license when they are 16, while really young it’s don’t touch those keys, don’t pull on the brake.

 Maybe God was keeping it simple because Adam and Eve were new at the garden stuff, having all their experience and wisdom muted by the veil and therefore had other stuff to learn before God was going to get into the nuanced stuff.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

God often reserves, even forbids partaking of certain of his blessings until his children are properly prepared and covenanted (sex, baptism, Holly Ghost, sacrament, marriage, etc. etc. etc.).  It is not the fruit that killed them, was is the transgression.  

This is a representation of my spirit, eat it and you will become like me, like the God's.  Makes perfect sense actually.  

Yep- I wrote the whole thing above without seeing this post and we come to almost the same conclusion.  Eve figures it out and goes for it, once she was properly prepared and understood the feelings she was having toward Adam.

But of course that is still "fake science".   But it works for me pragmatically.

[Calm]

Just now, Calm said:

also think it's a bit strange to think of our Father as the source for our knowledge of evil….

God represents everything good

Being able to recognize evil for what it is, that’s a very, very good thing.

[mfbukowski]

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

 Maybe God was keeping it simple because Adam and Eve were new at the garden stuff, having all their experience and wisdom muted by the veil and therefore had other stuff to learn before God was going to get into the nuanced stuff.

Which is why we don't teach kids about sex until they are ready for it.

[pogi]

23 minutes ago, Obehave said:

God commanded Adam and Eve to NOT eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, which you think represents God. 

Until they were properly prepared for this very specific fruit of Christ, yes.

As I have said:

Quote

 the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil was forbidden it is true, but I believe that it was forbidden in the same way that baptism is forbidden before repentance; much like the temple endowment is forbidden before obedience, faithfulness, and preparedness; much like sex is forbidden before marriage. One cannot conclude that because the fruit was forbidden that it was inherently bad or that it could not have been acceptable at a later time.  There are many blessings in this life which the Lord forbids for a time, until the receiver is prepared and willing to make certain covenants.  One of these blessings I already mentioned is sexual relations.  This is forbidden until we are mature enough to be taught and able to understand the responsibilities and consequences in the partaking of such blessings. The responsibilities and consequences of partaking of the fruit were similar to those of sexual relations.  One of the consequences and responsibilities inherent in both was that of bearing and raising children.  That’s why I think comparing the forbidding of the fruit to the forbidding of sexual relations is a fair comparison; the results of both are the sacred responsibility of children. One must first be prepared to a degree and be willing to enter certain covenants before the partaking of such a blessing and great responsibility.  

35 minutes ago, Obehave said:

And then later after they fell (and we through them) Jesus tells us to eat him. 

Again, you are losing me here...

 They taste of the fruit and say it is "delicious to the taste and very desirable".   Lucifer takes this sweet fruit and makes it bitter.  He uses the opportunity to have first exposure to their newly impressionable moral conscience and confuses good for evil.  He tries to take the place of God.  He makes them afraid of God and causes them to hide from him, even while feeling safe in the presence of Lucifer.  Their newly formed moral conscience was not prepared for any of this!  That is why it was forbidden until they were prepared.  They didn't know what it really was or how to use it. They fell. They repented.  It allowed them to procreate.  More potential symbolism there as Christ is "the life" (procreation), "the way" (the only way to exaltation was through this fruit), and the "truth" (knowledge of good and evil).  It all points back to the tree in the garden.   

They have children.  Their offspring were born into the spirit of Christ that they partook of  (like being born in the covenant).  The consequences of their actions have lasting consequences for good and evil for generations to follow.  Just like our actions have lasting potential consequences. 

47 minutes ago, Obehave said:

Right?  And you don't think that is even a little bit strange?

 No, not strange at all.

What is more strange is that God would plant a benign apple tree in Eden and forbid it.  There are plenty of other ways he could have tested them.  That just seems so...inconsequential and silly. 

[Calm]

6 minutes ago, Obehave said:

what do you think Adam and Eve needed to focus on before they got into the more nuanced stuff regarding good and evil?  How to Garden 101?  Seriously, what would be more important or more basic than a need to know how to distinguish between good and evil?  

We don’t tell toddlers what we tell college students not because we can’t tell them, but because they won’t understand. Of course, prime importan e would be how to distinguish between good and evil, but maybe they needed more experience of some sort in order to have the context to even understand the question they were being asked.  With the veil of forgetfulness on them, their memories were likely full of lovely things.  Maybe they needed at least a few stubbed toes and a sunburn or upset stomach from eating too much fruit in order to begin to grasp what evil/wrong might be.

However, whatever eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge symbolizes provided a shortcut to that knowledge with a hefty price tag attached.

[Calm]

5 minutes ago, Obehave said:

But evil, no, I would rather they not learn much about that at all, aside from it being good to avoid anything that is evil, as much as possible.

Do you see God as knowing evil or Christ having been sinless, does he know evil?

I personally think it is a very good thing to understand what evil is.  We can’t avoid it if we don’t know what it is.  This does not mean we need to be intimate with it anymore than a doctor needs to have cancer in order to recognize and diagnose a patient with it.  No does knowing the consequences of evil mean we have to act evilly first.

Edited June 15, 2022 by Calm

[Calm]

7 minutes ago, Obehave said:

Do you know the best way to know what counterfeit is?  The best way is by learning and knowing what the real or true thing is and is like.  Anything then that is not the real or true thing is the counterfeit of it.

If you are suggesting the tree of knowledge of good and evil made Adam and Eve think like serial killers as opposed to being able to understand the purpose behind a commandment like “thou shalt not kill”, I think we have different views on what the knowledge of good and evil entailed and entails. 

[CV75]

@pogi@Obeone@Obehave

Let’s see if I have this straight: you propose that Adam and Eve could have remained immortal in Eden and had immortal posterity, with generation after generation being born in the covenant. The pre-embodied Christ would reign upon the Edenic earth, eventually be born with an immortal body, be raised by reliable prophets who temporarily conduct the affairs of His kingdom until He grows up to resume His reign. Everyone consistently obeys and progresses in godliness, grace for grace, until they are celestialized and exalted (instead of dying, being translated or changed in the twinkling of an eye). At some endpoint everyone and Edenic earth become an exalted kingdom. Is that correct?

Or is His embodied presence unnecessary, in which case: Adam and Eve could have remained immortal in Eden and had immortal posterity, with generation after generation being born in the covenant. The pre-embodied, or embodied-elsewhere Christ reigns upon the Edenic earth, personally or by delegation. Everyone consistently obeys and progresses to a fulness of godliness, grace for grace, auntil they are celestialized and exalted (instead of dying, being translated or changed in the twinkling of an eye). At some endpoint everyone and Edenic earth become an exalted kingdom. Is that correct?

Or, is there room for sin in your proposal: you propose that Adam and Eve could have remained immortal in Eden and had immortal posterity, with generation after generation being born in the covenant. Some sin, disrupting this chain and bringing mortality to themselves and their posterity. The pre-embodied Christ still reigns upon the Edenic earth retained by the “Edenites”, but for the telestial earth created by the sinners He reigns only through repentant sinners who become prophets. He is eventually born either in the covenant (with an immortal body in Eden) or out of the covenant (with a mortal body in the telestial world) with an atoning mission to be carried out one way with an immortal body, and in another way with a mortal body as His foreordained advent may be. Only the offspring of sinners require His atonement and so the same gospel principles and ordinances (including temple work) we see here commences in the telestial part of the world. Once celestialized (if immortal) or resurrected (if mortal), He continues His reign. The immortals (the “sons of God”) are celestialized and exalted (instead of dying, being translated or changed in the twinkling of an eye), and the mortals (the children of men) follow the course we are accustomed to. At some endpoint we have the customary plan of salvation including a spirit world teaching, final judgement and kingdoms of glory. Is that correct?

ETA: Or is your proposal just a matter of the Lord easing Adam and Eve into mortality by giving them the forbidden fruit of knowledge and the attendant / consequential mortality (meaning the fruit was no longer forbidden)?

Edited June 16, 2022 by CV75

[pogi]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

@pogi@Obeone@Obehave

Let’s see if I have this straight: you propose that Adam and Eve could have remained immortal in Eden and had immortal posterity, with generation after generation being born in the covenant. The pre-embodied Christ would reign upon the Edenic earth, eventually be born with an immortal body, be raised by reliable prophets who temporarily conduct the affairs of His kingdom until He grows up to resume His reign. Everyone consistently obeys and progresses in godliness, grace for grace, until they are celestialized and exalted (instead of dying, being translated or changed in the twinkling of an eye). At some endpoint everyone and Edenic earth become an exalted kingdom. Is that correct?

Or is His embodied presence unnecessary, in which case: Adam and Eve could have remained immortal in Eden and had immortal posterity, with generation after generation being born in the covenant. The pre-embodied, or embodied-elsewhere Christ reigns upon the Edenic earth, personally or by delegation. Everyone consistently obeys and progresses to a fulness of godliness, grace for grace, auntil they are celestialized and exalted (instead of dying, being translated or changed in the twinkling of an eye). At some endpoint everyone and Edenic earth become an exalted kingdom. Is that correct?

Or, is there room for sin in your proposal: you propose that Adam and Eve could have remained immortal in Eden and had immortal posterity, with generation after generation being born in the covenant. Some sin, disrupting this chain and bringing mortality to themselves and their posterity. The pre-embodied Christ still reigns upon the Edenic earth retained by the “Edenites”, but for the telestial earth created by the sinners He reigns only through repentant sinners who become prophets. He is eventually born either in the covenant (with an immortal body in Eden) or out of the covenant (with a mortal body in the telestial world) with an atoning mission to be carried out one way with an immortal body, and in another way with a mortal body as His foreordained advent may be. Only the offspring of sinners require His atonement and so the same gospel principles and ordinances (including temple work) we see here commences in the telestial part of the world. Once celestialized (if immortal) or resurrected (if mortal), He continues His reign. The immortals (the “sons of God”) are celestialized and exalted (instead of dying, being translated or changed in the twinkling of an eye), and the mortals (the children of men) follow the course we are accustomed to. At some endpoint we have the customary plan of salvation including a spirit world teaching, final judgement and kingdoms of glory. Is that correct?

ETA: Or is your proposal just a matter of the Lord easing Adam and Eve into mortality by giving them the forbidden fruit of knowledge and the attendant / consequential mortality (meaning the fruit was no longer forbidden)?

You lost me on the first sentence. It is clear that my beliefs are very different from theirs.  I don’t believe that they could have or would have remained immortal. I believe they would have fallen eventually. I just don’t think that the fruit was the only way to fall, nor was it necessary to fall by the forbidden fruit.

[CV75]

10 hours ago, pogi said:

You lost me on the first sentence. It is clear that my beliefs are very different from theirs.  I don’t believe that they could have or would have remained immortal. I believe they would have fallen eventually. I just don’t think that the fruit was the only way to fall, nor was it necessary to fall by the forbidden fruit.

OK you're excused!

[pogi]

17 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

First off, for me, my paradigm is that it COULD be allegorical or not- it depends on what paradigm works best for each individual, but is NEVER a question of "It actually happened THIS way" because there are so many possible explanations and besides the idea that any ONE interpretation is "correct" is unknowable.   So for me it doesn't matter if it happened that way or not- we cannot know that in a fake-science - this-gizmo is -a-better-gizmo- way..  What IS important , I think, is that the spirit HAS confirmed to us, the story and lessons therein, or even NOT.   Each of us have our own path from our front door to any destination because we all live in "different places".  The central tenet of the church, as I think Pres Nelson is clearly teaching is "get your own testimony" no matter what that means for you!

As I see it, what is important is that God has confimed for each of us personally the way we see our paradigm as "reasonable".   He is our tutor and teaches us our path individually.   

I am convinced that if I was raised in this church, I would not be in it today.   I had to learn a lot of "False Doctrine" from other faith directions to find out what "worked" for me and what would not.   I think if I had been born "here" I would not have searched and found what I needed to believe.

Now another story.  As a child, among other places, I lived in San Diego CA in the early '60's.   It was about 16 freeway miles from my house to the border with Tijuana Mexico.   We were tourists when we first moved there, and relatives would visit us all the time and one of the places they wanted to go was "Tj".   It was a lot safer then and in many ways Tj was like a suburb of San Diego.   And there were good deals on stuff, so between the relatives and the prices, it was a fun place to go.  We would stroll down "Avenidea Revolucion"  - Tj's "main drag" https://www.tripadvisor.com/Attraction_Review-g150776-d152722-Reviews-Avenida_Revolucion-Tijuana_Baja_California.html and see the sights sounds and smells, and to us THAT was "Mexico".

So this started when I was about 10, and continued for several years until all the relatives had been to Tj and we San Diegans were "been there, done that"

But now the importance of the story for me.   

At first we would march down the Avenida looking at the guitar shops - I was into those-  and the tchotchkes, the glass ware, the and this and that and hear the music coming from the bars, and see pictures of the dancing girls who wore too much makeup and looked kind of mean to me, and we could hear the music- mostly rock n roll which reverberated down the street.

Then one day we did the same old thing with a new tourist relative, but it was drastically different.   I found those "mean" dancing girl pictures making funny faces VERY fascinating.   I could not figure how they had changed, but the more we walked, the more interested I became in the pictures of the dancing girls.  Suddenly now I noticed that many of them did not have much clothes on, and that made them MORE interesting.

I couldn't get them out of my head!   We would go home but those pictures stuck in my brain, and I wanted to see more!

Well this was now the mid-'60's and thank God there was no internet OR porn on it yet, but let me tell you that change was highly noticible, and having been raised as a good Catholic Altar boy, I felt guilty for my "impure thoughts" - words that made no sense to me before!   How could a thought be "impure"?

It must be about going to the bathroom but who thought about that?   What could be "lmpure" about a thought?

Well I learned.   And I could not get it out of my mind!!

I felt as though I was "fallen" so I had no problem now understanding what I understood to be "Original Sin"   Clearly it had some connection to being naked with the opposite sex and doing......   Well I was young, but I knew how babies were made, and it suddenly did not seem yucky at all.   I wanted to get to work on it as soon as I could!

Agree about the interpretation of the original story and therefore of "original sin" as well.

I can see pretty clearly at least one "real application" here.  I almost saw it as Eve saw it in the story- maybe- nobody knows.  Maybe Eve was thinking this way:

1.  We have to multiply.  That is a commandment.

2. But I as Eve have to see Adam in quite a different way than my friend that I liked to talk to in the garden, and do whatever they did together in total innocence.   Suddenly there was something- a temptation as they matured- that made them realize they needed more "knowledge" (including the Hebrew connotations of "to know") to get this going.

So there's this other tree- the tree of KNOWLEDGE of good and evil.   We don't have the knowledge of how making babies works, but suddenly Adam is looking better by the day, so maybe that is part of the puzzle.   

And then there is Satan, who is a pretty convincing salesman that "there is no other way" than to eat the fruit.  What if this is all a test, and God wants us to figure out how to get the knowledge on our own-from the "Tree of Knowledge?"   MAYBE dying when we get old has to be a part of making babies?  It maybe is like a sacrifice- but maybe we can get a reward after we die?

She partakes and the rest is his-story  

 

I think we are pretty close.   I see things a little different though that makes the paradigm work better for me.  The forbidden fruit being as being allegorical for sex is a very popular interpretation (not necessarily in our church).  I think what it lacks is our understanding of the light of Christ - what it is and what it does.  I see the fruit as a representation of that light.  The tree is literally translated "the tree of conscience" in many Bibles.  That was the result of the fruit - knowledge of good and evil.  We are taught in the BoM that Adam and Eve were in a state of emotional/spiritual amoral numbness without knowledge of good or evil - incapable of sinning without moral conscience.  No joy nor sorrow, pleasure or pain, etc. etc. Those things were unknown to them without moral awareness and consciousness of good and evil.  Imagine how hard it would be to fulfill the command to multiply and replenish the earth when there is literally no such thing as desire for pleasure - would such an act even be possible for the male?  Not to be too graphic, but how can one get aroused in numbness or absence of pleasure and desire for pleasure.  I think children were an indirect result of the fruit which opened their eyes to explore different avenues of joy and sorrow, pleasure and pain, etc. 

One potential glitch with your interpretation is that you are saying that Eve's eyes were opened to see Adam in a different way, even before partaking of the fruit.  I don't see how that is possible in the state that they were described to be in.   Her eyes were only opened to desire for pleasure, and even understanding what pleasure is, after partaking of the fruit.   I agree that Eve did figure it out though.  She figured out that the fruit was the "only way" (very symbolic, no?).  She knew there was no other way and that it was the only way to fulfill the plan of salvation and eventual exaltation.  Deep down she knew the fruit was good and necessary for progression.  What she didn't know is that they were being prepared for it.  In that, I think she was "beguiled" and transgressed in taking it prematurely.   

It doesn't make sense to me that sex alone would open their eyes to moral awareness and conscience, which we are taught is through the light of Christ.   I can't dissect the tree of knowledge of good and evil from the light of Christ.  In the fruit was the way, the truth, and the life.  It all points to Christ.    

 

Edited June 16, 2022 by pogi

[pogi]

16 hours ago, Obehave said:

Knowledge of good and evil is a distinct form of knowledge.  It is a thing in itself, a form of knowledge, regarding what is good and what is evil.  Is it a good thing?  I think so, at least part of it is, the good part.  The evil part, though, no, not really good.

If knowledge of evil is "not really good", then God is "not really" all good.  They became "as the Gods knowing good and evil".   Knowledge of good and evil is only possible via the light of Christ - that is a good thing.  

16 hours ago, Obehave said:

Consider that while realizing God told Adam and Eve to NOT eat fruit from the tree of knowledge of good AND evil and then tell me why you think God thought they were not ready for that fruit when he told them to NOT eat any of it.

The fruit was of the most significant spiritual/moral consequence and weight - an endowment of great power to know, and therefore do evil or good.  They needed to be educated on how to use it for good and not abuse it like a drug.   Because they weren't prepared, just like a child is not prepared for children - which was one result of the fruit.  Because they were not prepared and educated about the adversary and how he might influence their conscience and try to confuse good for evil and evil for good - which he did quickly take advantage of their being fully unprepared.  Instead of having their eyes opened to goodness by the hand of Christ, their eyes were first opened to evil by the hand of Lucifer, who was attempting to take the place of Christ - for that, they were fully unprepared.  The Gods told them that they would return with further 'instruction", aka preparation.      

Edited June 16, 2022 by pogi

[teddyaware]

On 6/15/2022 at 8:16 AM, Obeone said:

Sure. I'd be glad to.

The devil tempted Adam and Eve IN the Garden BEFORE the fall, which means that children born in the garden would have been tested in similar fashion. 

So, far from joyless, clueless existence, their lives would have been exactly like in the Millennium; and instead of treading through a lone a dreary world, they would have been building intergalactic spaceships (just like millions of worlds have done before). 

But if Adam and Eve did (theoretically speaking) have children in the garden before the fall, the one and only test those children would face is whether or not to partake of the fruit of the tree on knowledge, which would then put them in the exact same position  of their parents were in. Do you really think living forever in childlike innocence in the garden, with one lone moral test to make, (whether or not to partake of the fruit of the tree of knowledge) is anything at all like the all encompassing mortal probation we’re now experiencing? You haven’t thought this through.

22 And now, behold, if Adam had not transgressed he would not have fallen, but he would have remained in the garden of Eden (which means any children also would have also forever remained in the garden). And all things which were created must have remained in the same state in which they were after they were created; and they must have remained forever, and had no end.
23 ……… wherefore they would have remained in a state of innocence, having no joy, for they knew no misery; doing no good, for they knew no sin (which obviously means having one lone moral test — whether or not to partake of the fruit of knowledge — does not constitute any kind of a test to determine whether or not one is worthy to obtain salvation. Why? Because as they chose to not partake of the fruit of knowledge they, just like their parents,  would have remained in a state of innocence without joy.

Guite frankly, I’m astonished at how poorly thought out this concept of yours really is. Be honest, do you really think that living in a state of innocence without joy forever, with one lone moral choice to make, somehow constitutes anything like our present extremely challenging mortal probation? The whole concept is untenable and ridiculous.

By the way, the people of the millennium get to that blessed state of existence by overcoming their fallen sinful natures through their faith in the atoning Saviour, Jesus Christ, not by remaining in a joyless state of innocence.

Edited June 16, 2022 by teddyaware

[Calm]

16 hours ago, Obehave said:

 

Consider that while realizing God told Adam and Eve to NOT eat fruit from the tree of knowledge of good AND evil and then tell me why you think God thought they were not ready for that fruit when he told them to NOT eat any of it.

Consuming the fruit does not appeared to have caused any long term damage, rather short term due to confusion over meaning and what they were then supposed to do…because they lacked the framework to absorb and process the knowledge smoothly.  
 

The choice to partake caused the longterm change. The disobedience.  

Instead the bit of knowledge that first came to them was only a partial bit, likely because they were like elementary school kids who could understand the basic math facts given in a mind download of an encyclopedia of math concepts, but the stuff about calculus and higher math just confused them and made them feel vulnerable, inadequate….this feeling was played upon by Satan, who pushed that feeling of inadequacy into shame and had them run and hide.
 

Do the scriptures ever talk about needing to purge the fruit/knowledge from our minds/souls?  We get to keep the knowledge we gain by partaking and use it as we progress. Nothing in the Atonement speaks to me of purging us of this knowledge, only of the consequences if we use the knowledge we gain for sinful purposes. I look on the tree’s fruit of knowledge as similar to the Liahona, the main purpose is pointing out whether we should move towards something that is good (progress) or avoid that which is evil (prevent regress). And it may provide some info when needed to help us in this effort to move forward, to seek God for further light and knowledge.  Except the fruit to us as an internal rather than external guide. 

Given this circumstance, it does make sense to view the fruit as not something half evil in itself, but all good, but as with most blessings, they don’t just fall in our lap while sitting under a tree, we need to prepare the soil to receive them so the gifts of spirit and truth can take root and grow.  
 

My guess if this scenario is accurate is that Adam and Eve hadn’t had enough time to till and compost their soul soil, so to speak; their acceptance of the blessing of the knowledge of good and evil was therefore shallow and it would take much longer and with suffering now for the knowledge to fully take root, bloom and grow into a new tree in the hearts of Adam and Eve.  If they had taken the time, then when they ate of it, it would have simply added to their competency rather than overwhelmed them with too much and too unreachable for now all at once.

Edited June 16, 2022 by Calm

[pogi]

29 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

But if Adam and Eve did (theoretically speaking) have children in the garden before the fall, the one and only test those children would face is whether or not to partake of the fruit of the tree on knowledge, which would then put them in the exact same position  of their parents were in. Do you really think living forever in childlike innocence in the garden, with one lone moral test to make, (whether or not to partake of the fruit of the tree of knowledge) is anything at all like the all encompassing mortal probation we’re now experiencing? You haven’t thought this through.

22 And now, behold, if Adam had not transgressed he would not have fallen, but he would have remained in the garden of Eden (which means any children also would have also forever remained in the garden). And all things which were created must have remained in the same state in which they were after they were created; and they must have remained forever, and had no end.
23 ……… wherefore they would have remained in a state of innocence, having no joy, for they knew no misery; doing no good, for they knew no sin (which obviously means having one lone moral test — whether or not to partake of the fruit of knowledge — does not constitute any kind of a test to determine whether or not one is worthy to obtain salvation. Why? Because as they chose to not partake of the fruit of knowledge they, just like their parents,  would have remained in a state of innocence without joy.

Guite frankly, I’m astonished at how poorly thought out this concept of yours really is. Be honest, do you really think that living in a state of innocence without joy forever, with one lone moral choice to make, somehow constitutes anything like our present extremely challenging mortal probation? The whole concept is untenable and ridiculous.

I don't know if I fully understand his interpretation and beliefs on this, but as far as I am concerned, those verses are true - without transgression and a fall, they would have remained forever in a state of innocence.  I just don't believe that transgression and fall necessarily had to be by the fruit.  

[CV75]

40 minutes ago, pogi said:

I don't know if I fully understand his interpretation and beliefs on this, but as far as I am concerned, those verses are true - without transgression and a fall, they would have remained forever in a state of innocence.  I just don't believe that transgression and fall necessarily had to be by the fruit.  

I think we need to drill a bit deeper into the relationship between “the knowledge of good and evil” and “multiplying and replenishing the earth.”

Most fundamentally, the knowledge of good and evil is our life instinct, which develops into an intrinsic sense of right and wrong. Adam and Eve lacked this knowledge sufficiently to multiply and replenish the earth. Depending on the version of the story, Eve seemed to connect the two when contemplating eating the forbidden fruit, convincing Adam, and then after the fall with some heavenly instruction. The principles and ordinances of the gospel are ultimately designed to multiply and replenish the earth in the Lord’s way, part of which involves mastering our instincts.

So, why were they specifically told not to do what was required to obtain this knowledge and fulfil their divine destiny – wouldn’t that be a good thing? I’m suggesting they had to come to a point of reaching their maximal capacity agency (according to their intelligence) by making the best choice they could possibly muster given their relative standing to God per Abraham 3:19. The Lord knew it would come to this point, and they knew it would also, prior to the Veil. This is the best way to demonstrate and teach the infinite level of advancement that Christ had attained, gain (or regain) an appreciation of how far we have to go, and realize that we can only accomplish that by faith in and the grace of Christ.

Where the fruit is / represents this knowledge, this knowledge could come by no other way. Multiplying and replenishing of the earth could not proceed without this knowledge. The role of mortality as a consequence of this knowledge of good and evil is part of the principle of opposition in all things, that the eternal form is understood and appreciated in contrast to the telestial form.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

I think we are pretty close.   I see things a little different though that makes the paradigm work better for me.  The forbidden fruit being as being allegorical for sex is a very popular interpretation (not necessarily in our church).  I think what it lacks is our understanding of the light of Christ - what it is and what it does.  I see the fruit as a representation of that light.  The tree is literally translated "the tree of conscience" in many Bibles.  That was the result of the fruit - knowledge of good and evil.  We are taught in the BoM that Adam and Eve were in a state of emotional/spiritual amoral numbness without knowledge of good or evil - incapable of sinning without moral conscience.  No joy nor sorrow, pleasure or pain, etc. etc. Those things were unknown to them without moral awareness and consciousness of good and evil.  Imagine how hard it would be to fulfill the command to multiply and replenish the earth when there is literally no such thing as desire for pleasure - would such an act even be possible for the male?  Not to be too graphic, but how can one get aroused in numbness or absence of pleasure and desire for pleasure.  I think children were an indirect result of the fruit which opened their eyes to explore different avenues of joy and sorrow, pleasure and pain, etc. 

One potential glitch with your interpretation is that you are saying that Eve's eyes were opened to see Adam in a different way, even before partaking of the fruit.  I don't see how that is possible in the state that they were described to be in.   Her eyes were only opened to desire for pleasure, and even understanding what pleasure is, after partaking of the fruit.   I agree that Eve did figure it out though.  She figured out that the fruit was the "only way" (very symbolic, no?).  She knew there was no other way and that it was the only way to fulfill the plan of salvation and eventual exaltation.  Deep down she knew the fruit was good and necessary for progression.  What she didn't know is that they were being prepared for it.  In that, I think she was "beguiled" and transgressed in taking it prematurely.   

It doesn't make sense to me that sex alone would open their eyes to moral awareness and conscience, which we are taught is through the light of Christ.   I can't dissect the tree of knowledge of good and evil from the light of Christ.  In the fruit was the way, the truth, and the life.  It all points to Christ.    

 

Excellent points, the most crucial for me is connecting conscience with the fruit.

Great stuff, thanks!

[Bernard Gui]

44 minutes ago, pogi said:

I don't know if I fully understand his interpretation and beliefs on this, but as far as I am concerned, those verses are true - without transgression and a fall, they would have remained forever in a state of innocence.  I just don't believe that transgression and fall necessarily had to be by the fruit.  

Do you agree that all the prophets including Adam and Joseph Smith are liars and must apologize or be damned?

[mfbukowski]

5 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I think we need to drill a bit deeper into the relationship between “the knowledge of good and evil” and “multiplying and replenishing the earth.”

Most fundamentally, the knowledge of good and evil is our life instinct, which develops into an intrinsic sense of right and wrong. Adam and Eve lacked this knowledge sufficiently to multiply and replenish the earth. Depending on the version of the story, Eve seemed to connect the two when contemplating eating the forbidden fruit, convincing Adam, and then after the fall with some heavenly instruction. The principles and ordinances of the gospel are ultimately designed to multiply and replenish the earth in the Lord’s way, part of which involves mastering our instincts.

So, why were they specifically told not to do what was required to obtain this knowledge and fulfil their divine destiny – wouldn’t that be a good thing? I’m suggesting they had to come to a point of reaching their maximal capacity agency (according to their intelligence) by making the best choice they could possibly muster given their relative standing to God per Abraham 3:19. The Lord knew it would come to this point, and they knew it would also, prior to the Veil. This is the best way to demonstrate and teach the infinite level of advancement that Christ had attained, gain (or regain) an appreciation of how far we have to go, and realize that we can only accomplish that by faith in and the grace of Christ.

Where the fruit is / represents this knowledge, this knowledge could come by no other way. Multiplying and replenishing of the earth could not proceed without this knowledge. The role of mortality as a consequence of this knowledge of good and evil is part of the principle of opposition in all things, that the eternal form is understood and appreciated in contrast to the telestial form.

Great stuff!! Thanks!

[CV75]

3 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Excellent points, the most crucial for me is connecting conscience with the fruit.

Great stuff, thanks!

Yes, and then connecting the fruit/conscience/life instinct with multiplying and replenishing the earth, and our limited capacity to make the connection work on an exalted level. My thought is that the best Adam and Eve could do was a telestial-level application, despite their being in Eden, for reasons explained here: Posted 3 minutes ago

 

[ksfisher]

1 minute ago, Obehave said:

the best way to know what is evil is by knowing what is good, because once one knows what is good then one knows that anything that is not good is by default automatically evil.

I'm not sure this really works.  If the only two people I know are my parents, and I know them to be good, could I understand what an evil person was?  I don't think so.

Likewise, having a knowledge of what tastes sweet does not automatically convey a knowledge of what something sour tastes like.  You need to experience both tho have a complete understanding.

 

[Calm]

8 minutes ago, Obehave said:

Let's both try to avoid jumping to ridiculous extremes here.  I think we both understand that having knowledge of something doesn't make anyone do anything, not even to act on the knowledge one has.  

No, on the contrary, with my counterfeit analogy I was trying to convey the idea that the best way to know what is evil is by knowing what is good, because once one knows what is good then one knows that anything that is not good is by default automatically evil.

I used extremes to make it clear what I thought you needed to clarify since you hadn’t been precise enough in where you were going as far as I could tell, not because it was what I believed you actually believed…but it seemed an implied possibility of your view.  And the extreme worked to get greater clarity.  Feel free to ignore that comment now, since I understand (I hope).

So the counterfeit you were talking about was evil acting like it was the real thing, good.  Not implying that counterfeits would never be able to provide actual knowledge, whether it was good or evil.

Some people do believe the only way to have full knowledge of something is to experience it, I did not know yet whether you were of that position.

Edited June 16, 2022 by Calm

[pogi]

55 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I think we need to drill a bit deeper into the relationship between “the knowledge of good and evil” and “multiplying and replenishing the earth.”

Most fundamentally, the knowledge of good and evil is our life instinct, which develops into an intrinsic sense of right and wrong. Adam and Eve lacked this knowledge sufficiently to multiply and replenish the earth. Depending on the version of the story, Eve seemed to connect the two when contemplating eating the forbidden fruit, convincing Adam, and then after the fall with some heavenly instruction. The principles and ordinances of the gospel are ultimately designed to multiply and replenish the earth in the Lord’s way, part of which involves mastering our instincts.

So, why were they specifically told not to do what was required to obtain this knowledge and fulfil their divine destiny – wouldn’t that be a good thing? I’m suggesting they had to come to a point of reaching their maximal capacity agency (according to their intelligence) by making the best choice they could possibly muster given their relative standing to God per Abraham 3:19. The Lord knew it would come to this point, and they knew it would also, prior to the Veil. This is the best way to demonstrate and teach the infinite level of advancement that Christ had attained, gain (or regain) an appreciation of how far we have to go, and realize that we can only accomplish that by faith in and the grace of Christ.

Where the fruit is / represents this knowledge, this knowledge could come by no other way. Multiplying and replenishing of the earth could not proceed without this knowledge. The role of mortality as a consequence of this knowledge of good and evil is part of the principle of opposition in all things, that the eternal form is understood and appreciated in contrast to the telestial form.

If I understand you correctly, I don't think we disagree.  The fruit was necessary for them to know how to multiply and replenish.  Do you agree that the tree represented the light of Christ, aka knowledge of good and evil, aka moral conscience?