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

[pogi]

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

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

Definitely not.  I hope people don't confuse me for Obeone and his sidekick. 

Edited June 16, 2022 by pogi

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Obehave said:

Hold it right there, where I began to highlight what you said.  No.  I was not saying that.  Someone else might have said that, but I didn't say it or most of the other things you were saying.  

I do believe Adam and Eve could have gone throughout all of eternity without eating from a particular tree in the garden of Eden, the tree our Father named and designated as the tree of knowledge of good and evil.  They could have eaten from every tree but that one, and I believe they also could have learned how to have children WITHOUT eating ANY fruit from that particular tree.  They could have simply asked our Father how to have children, and I believe our Father could have told them how to do it WITHOUT requiring them to eat any fruit from that tree.  Knowledge doesn't grow on trees, in my perspective. Even though the act of eating fruit from that tree could have been a catalyst for our Father choosing to open their spiritual eyes to understand and know what they had discovered after eating some fruit from that tree.

good, you are excused too

Regarding the connection between the two trees, whether figurative or literal (one of knowledge and one of eternal life, including multiplying and replenishing the earth):

Posted 1 hour ago

Posted 1 hour ago

We know that physically consumed substances can prime or contribute to the synthesis other substances which prime mental states (you mentioned a catalyst), and that this in turn impacts reproductive instinct, metaphorically speaking, of course.

[ksfisher]

29 minutes ago, Obehave said:

It works, in my perspective.  Just put a little more effort into trying to understand how it might work.

In your example, I would suggest you explore your own thoughts about how you know your parents are good.  You say you know they are good.  How do you know?  How did you discover that fact, if it is true and good knowledge?

Chase the rabbit down the hole.  Put some more thought into your own questions.

This comes off as very condescending.

[CV75]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

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?  

I think that more fundamentally for living souls, the tree in representation of the light of Christ is more like instinct, though moral conscience does develop from that. Both instinct and conscience require advancing interplay between connected element and spirit. More fundamentally than that, the light of Christ is the power of creation and physical law (D&C 88:7 -10). Given that it is such a spiritual / religious concept, it might as well have had physical properties, miraculous to us, that enabled the power of creation and physical laws for those who ate it (in this case, of human procreation and that of all life over which Adam and Eve had stewardship, and the telestial laws of planetary and interplanetary activity).

[Bernard Gui]

None of us really knows much at all about this.  Does anyone remember Daniel Peterson’s imaginary scene where God overhears the High Priest group in a deep discussion? He says to the angels, “Come over here. The High Priests are doing theology. Aren’t they cute?” I can imagine the amusement of  Adam, Eve, the prophets and apostles, and Gods who might accidentally be listening to this discussion

 

 

Edited June 16, 2022 by Bernard Gui

[pogi]

23 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

This comes off as very condescending.

One is almost tempted to think Ahab has been resurrected.  “Just put a little more effort into understanding…” is classic Ahab.  

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Obehave said:

It works, in my perspective.  Just put a little more effort into trying to understand how it might work.

In your example, I would suggest you explore your own thoughts about how you know your parents are good.  You say you know they are good.  How do you know?  How did you discover that fact, if it is true and good knowledge?

Chase the rabbit down the hole.  Put some more thought into your own questions.

This attitude just rattles my cage big time, oh great Teacher

[Calm]

24 minutes ago, pogi said:

One is almost tempted to think Ahab has been resurrected.  “Just put a little more effort into understanding…” is classic Ahab.  

Too coherent.

[mfbukowski]

30 minutes ago, Obehave said:

My apologies.  Condescension was not intended. I was hoping to help you spark some good thoughts on your own, possibly with help from God.

Ok Ahab, now there can be no doubt.

[pogi]

51 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I think that more fundamentally for living souls, the tree in representation of the light of Christ is more like instinct, though moral conscience does develop from that. Both instinct and conscience require advancing interplay between connected element and spirit. More fundamentally than that, the light of Christ is the power of creation and physical law (D&C 88:7 -10). Given that it is such a spiritual / religious concept, it might as well have had physical properties, miraculous to us, that enabled the power of creation and physical laws for those who ate it (in this case, of human procreation and that of all life over which Adam and Eve had stewardship, and the telestial laws of planetary and interplanetary activity).

If I understand you correctly, you do agree that the tree of life is a representation of the light of Christ. 

I'm not sure how or why you are distinguishing between "instinct" and "moral conscience" though.   For me, "instinct" is a broad term that doesn't necessarily have anything to do with morality and good/evil.  If we are speaking specifically about moral instinct, then I don't see how that is different from moral conscience, or knowledge of good and evil, or light of Christ.   

I do like your connection of the light of Christ with the power of creation and thus the tree of life and the ability to multiply and replenish the earth.  That is a good insight. 

[pogi]

20 minutes ago, Calm said:

Too coherent.

Yes.

19 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Ok Ahab, now there can be no doubt.

And yes.

I am torn...

[CV75]

23 minutes ago, Obehave said:

Is that your subtle way of saying I can leave now? 😄

I know plums can become prunes and grapes can become raisins but I think oysters would work better for what you're suggesting.

Yes, that is my point. The first two are dehydration and oxidation (non-biological, non-living processes); the second, depending on what you're referring to, is a biological process (procreation or nacreous encystation, requiring living beings).

[pogi]

56 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

None of us really knows much at all about this.  Does anyone remember Daniel Peterson’s imaginary scene where God overhears the High Priest group in a deep discussion? He says to the angels, “Come over here. The High Priests are doing theology. Aren’t they cute?” I can imagine the amusement of  Adam, Eve, the prophets and apostles, and Gods who might accidentally be listening to this discussion

 

 

True, but what was the purpose of the story if not to explore meaning and application in our own lives.  Let them be amused, I say! 

[mfbukowski]

15 minutes ago, Obehave said:

It works, in my perspective.  Just put a little more effort into trying to understand how it might work.

In your example, I would suggest you explore your own thoughts about how you know your parents are good.  You say you know they are good.  How do you know?  How did you discover that fact, if it is true and good knowledge?

Chase the rabbit down the hole.  Put some more thought into your own questions.

Fine

Let's take a look at it.

Define "goodness".

Buy yourself a dictionary first. Didn't help? Circular definitions?

How do YOU know what is good, to be able to teach others?

Let's do a little Socrates here...

[ksfisher]

19 minutes ago, Obehave said:

in full context, this is what I said to someone who said he didn't think it would work if one obtained knowledge of what is evil by first learning to know what is good, at which point one would then know what is not good is evil by automatic default.

But you can't.  You can't know what is on both sides of they coin by just looking at one side.  You can't experience a sweet flavor and automatically know what bitter tastes like.  You can't figure out what dark is just because you can see light.  You can't experience joy and then understand what it is to experience misery.  It just doesn't work.

[mfbukowski]

7 minutes ago, pogi said:

Yes.

And yes.

I am torn...

Yeah, that's life

 

[ksfisher]

8 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

But you can't.  You can't know what is on both sides of they coin by just looking at one side.  You can't experience a sweet flavor and automatically know what bitter tastes like.  You can't figure out what dark is just because you can see light.  You can't experience joy and then understand what it is to experience misery.  It just doesn't work.

To follow up (and quote myself) this is why we have to live in a telestial world cut off from God.  Without experiencing His absence we can never fully appreciate His presence.  If we never lived apart from Him would never understand the joy of living with Him.  Without experiencing spiritual death we could never fully comprehend life eternal.

[CV75]

28 minutes ago, pogi said:

If I understand you correctly, you do agree that the tree of life is a representation of the light of Christ. 

I'm not sure how or why you are distinguishing between "instinct" and "moral conscience" though.   For me, "instinct" is a broad term that doesn't necessarily have anything to do with morality and good/evil.  If we are speaking specifically about moral instinct, then I don't see how that is different from moral conscience, or knowledge of good and evil, or light of Christ.   

I do like your connection of the light of Christ with the power of creation and thus the tree of life and the ability to multiply and replenish the earth.  That is a good insight. 

It is the light of Christ in the fuller sense in which I described it.

I am distinguishing between the ways the light of Christ is manifest because D&C 88 shows how it operates between living beings who act and non-living things that do not, and to recognize the developmental physiological and spiritual processes Adam and Eve went through. As with people born into this world, they needed instinct to serve as the substrate for a developed conscience and moral agency. Instinct is a matter of physical/temporal survival, but it is also a factor in distinguishing between impulse and will. Our procreative decisions run along a continuum of instinct and agency and are made more godlike with advancing conscience, and more so with the companionship of the Holy Ghost, and sanctification up to exaltation. The way I’m using the terms, moral instinct would be an oxymoron, moral agency not. The sense of right and wrong or morality is further along the spiritual development line than instinct. But both are vital to our physical and spiritual well-being.

The purpose for distinguishing is to show that the Lord was allowing Adam and Eve to develop at their own pace, according to the intelligence they possessed, and also to fall according to the intelligence they possessed. They needed to become aware of their bodies, minds and spirits through contrast, which is part of having their eyes opened (vision of all kinds requires an awareness of contrasts).

[Lemuel]

How would things in this world be different if there were no devils in this world and no rebellion in heaven?

Do all worlds have rebellions and devils?

[mfbukowski]

7 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

To follow up (and quote myself) this is why we have to live in a telestial world cut off from God.  Without experiencing His absence we can never fully appreciate His presence.  If we never lived apart from Him would never understand the joy of living with Him.  Without experiencing spiritual death we could never fully comprehend life eternal.

Yes, and there's Socrates again, or Joseph "proving contraries" and the "law of opposition" and it all boils down to the "philosophies of men mangled by scripture"

Sigh. 

 

[pogi]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

It is the light of Christ in the fuller sense in which I described it.

I am distinguishing between the ways the light of Christ is manifest because D&C 88 shows how it operates between living beings who act and non-living things that do not, and to recognize the developmental physiological and spiritual processes Adam and Eve went through. As with people born into this world, they needed instinct to serve as the substrate for a developed conscience and moral agency. Instinct is a matter of physical/temporal survival, but it is also a factor in distinguishing between impulse and will. Our procreative decisions run along a continuum of instinct and agency and are made more godlike with advancing conscience, and more so with the companionship of the Holy Ghost, and sanctification up to exaltation. The way I’m using the terms, moral instinct would be an oxymoron, moral agency not. The sense of right and wrong or morality is further along the spiritual development line than instinct. But both are vital to our physical and spiritual well-being.

The purpose for distinguishing is to show that the Lord was allowing Adam and Eve to develop at their own pace, according to the intelligence they possessed, and also to fall according to the intelligence they possessed. They needed to become aware of their bodies, minds and spirits through contrast, which is part of having their eyes opened (vision of all kinds requires an awareness of contrasts).

We seem to have semantical differences a lot and thus difficulty connecting with each other, but I think I understand what you are saying, which really isn't different from what I am saying. 

I agree that the fruit did not bestow upon them a fully developed moral conscience with a developed knowledge of good and evil - what it gave them was the capacity to learn and discern through experience.  Right off the bat, Lucifer was manipulating their undeveloped concept of good and evil, causing them to hide from God.  What the fruit gave them is what the scriptures call "heart", which prophets have called "the battle ground for the soul".  Our concept of good and evil is developed in our spiritual "hearts".  If you win the heart, you win the soul.  Lucifer wanted the first crack at their newly formed hearts, to corrupt it, to be the first to make an inscription of influence - knowing that God was seeking to write his law on their heart.   As a result, Adam and Eve hid from God with the first word  "shame" being engraved on their newly formed hearts.  "God will never accept you like this, you have ruined everything...quick hide!"  Shame, I believe is one of the greatest tools of the adversary.  Once it is instilled in the heart, we pretty much self sabotage on our own.   

A "new heart" was now in order.  

With the light which gave them heart, came a tugging at the soul at the sound of his name "Adam" being called after by God...a longing to reconcile.  And thus heeding the voice of God further developed their moral conscience and had influence on their heart. 

 

Edited June 16, 2022 by pogi

[Calm]

1 hour ago, ksfisher said:

You can't experience joy and then understand what it is to experience misery.  It just doesn't work.

People who have always been mostly healthy can have a very hard time understanding the experience of being chronically ill and are often rotten caregivers. The best caregivers are often the ones suffering the same things. 

[ksfisher]

8 minutes ago, Calm said:

People who have always been mostly healthy can have a very hard time understanding the experience of being chronically ill and are often rotten caregivers. The best caregivers are often the ones suffering the same things. 

Which is why even Christ needed to receive a mortal body.

[Calm]

10 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

Which is why even Christ needed to receive a mortal body.

I do think when resurrected, our ability to communicate will be so much expanded that sharing our experiences will be very close, maybe even identical to actually living them if that is the level of communication we desired. I believe this for a couple of reasons; some are it explains to me how we can become one, an eternity will allow us to get very good at body language as well as other cues, and we can develop a very sophisticated and precise language if we have eons to learn it. 

Edited June 16, 2022 by Calm

[CV75]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

We seem to have semantical differences a lot and thus difficulty connecting with each other, but I think I understand what you are saying, which really isn't different from what I am saying. 

I agree that the fruit did not bestow upon them a fully developed moral conscience with a developed knowledge of good and evil - what it gave them was the capacity to learn and discern through experience.  Right off the bat, Lucifer was manipulating their undeveloped concept of good and evil, causing them to hide from God.  What the fruit gave them is what the scriptures call "heart", which prophets have called "the battle ground for the soul".  Our concept of good and evil is developed in our spiritual "hearts".  If you win the heart, you win the soul.  Lucifer wanted the first crack at their newly formed hearts, to corrupt it, to be the first to make an inscription of influence - knowing that God was seeking to write his law on their heart.   As a result, Adam and Eve hid from God with the first word  "shame" being engraved on their newly formed hearts.  "God will never accept you like this, you have ruined everything...quick hide!"  Shame, I believe is one of the greatest tools of the adversary.  Once it is instilled in the heart, we pretty much self sabotage on our own.   

A "new heart" was now in order.  

With the light which gave them heart, came a tugging at the soul at the sound of his name "Adam" being called after by God...a longing to reconcile.  And thus heeding the voice of God further developed their moral conscience and had influence on their heart. 

 

Yes, it is very much semantic, which I find important. I do agree that the tree of knowledge represents the light of Christ, but I wanted to be sure that I was clear on what that means to me. It isn’t really different in a sweeping sense than what you are indicating on most points, but I think the distinctions between instinct, a mind that can be enlightened (borrowed from D&C 88), “heart” as you pointed out, conscience and moral agency become critical as we examine the steps.

I’m not sure they had any concept of moral good and evil sine hat has to be learned through experience. I think they went about their business, like good soldiers following orders, and in a morally neutral way. Adam’s reticence to not partake of the forbidden fruit was not a moral decision, but one based on comprehension of what he learned; Eve’s inclination to do so was not immoral, but based on her immediate reaction to an enticing proposition.

The forbidden fruit gave them the instinct they needed to live the first commandment, and synthesizing the rest of what they knew, they proceeded to develop a moral conscience, with the “heart”, as you described it, serving as an interim vehicle for experiencing and comparing the feelings of shame and fear the serpent instigated within them with the longing to reclaim feelings they now recognized, by contrast, as inspired by the Lord. And so yes, a new heart gives rise to a new soul, which gives rise to a new heart and so forth. The rest of the story in the Pearl of Great Price and later prophecy in the D&C show their progress to exalted beings.