Why Satan had access to the Garden of Eden

[pogi]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

The contradictions aren’t in allowing them to wait, but against the absolute that the Lord always provides a way to keep His commandments. If the qualifier is that the Lord always provides a way to keep His commandments according to His timing, His timing, as you pointed out, is contingent upon our readiness, capacity and accountability, just as with Adam and Eve. Then people can exercise agency to obey or not.

No one here is claiming an "absolute" in the sense that there is no agency.  The Lord provides a way - he doesn't force it.  There is no contradiction.  

Quote

I don't think Adam and Eve could or were expected to display patience or any other learned godly virtue that comes by way of knowledge of good and evil.

I disagree.  They could have chosen to intellectually trust in their creator.  The choice to partake of the fruit was an intellectual one, not a moral one.  They were beguiled.  They had agency to choose and in whom to trust, they just had no moral agency.  

The fact is that they were not prepared for the fruit.  Had they trusted in God, they would have been prepared.  

Edited June 22, 2022 by pogi

[pogi]

3 hours ago, Obehave said:

but I also believe Adam and Eve had a conscience even if or when they did not know the difference between good and evil.

That makes no sense.  

Edited June 22, 2022 by pogi

[Calm]

4 hours ago, Obehave said:

How do you suppose they gained the light of Christ by eating from that tree? 

Could be figurative/symbolic language.  Maybe what really happened was Eve sat down and took a lesson in philosophy from Satan.

[CV75]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

No one here is claiming an "absolute" in the sense that there is no agency.  The Lord provides a way - he doesn't force it.  There is no contradiction.  

I disagree.  They could have chosen to intellectually trust in their creator.  The choice to partake of the fruit was an intellectual one, not a moral one.  They were beguiled.  They had agency to choose and in whom to trust, they just had no moral agency.  

The fact is that they were not prepared for the fruit.  Had they trusted in God, they would have been prepared.  

Except that the way He provided for them to not partake of the forbidden fruit could not have been by handing them the fruit.

The trust is interesting in that being innocent, they trusted God and the serpent pretty much equally. They didn’t question or challenge God, but they did question and challenge the serpent. In the end, they trusted themselves more than either of the other two (hence pretty much the same), which I think is the whole point: that is what intelligence does, and intelligence unsuited for paradisaical challenges is better suited for telestial challenges.

[Calm]

3 minutes ago, CV75 said:

that is what intelligence does

I would really like to hear their thought processes at the time, how much they were aware of who God was and what he could do.  And what had been told them about Lucifer…iow, what was used to make that ‘intelligent’ and amoral (if they had no inherent sense of morality) decision.  They would not remember seeing anyone in pain.  Had they at least had stubbed toes, sunburn, or upset stomachs from eating too much or did their immortal bodies remove the ability to feel pain.  Maybe there was a fruit and what it did was switched their bodies into having a different set of senses, including now one that could feel pain and allowed for the physical manifestations of emotions or release of neurochemicals that gave pleasurable and painful experience, which is one thing that can make shame feel so bad and happiness good.  Trust in a child…is that inherent/instinctual or does it come from the lack of physical discomfort and experience of physical pleasure and comfort?

Edited June 22, 2022 by Calm

[Pyreaux]

13 minutes ago, Calm said:

Could be figurative/symbolic language.  Maybe what really happened was Eve sat down and took a lesson in philosophy from Satan.

Like how the 'Leaven of the Pharisees' wasn't about bread?

[Calm]

6 minutes ago, Pyreaux said:

Like how the 'Leaven of the Pharisees' wasn't about bread?

Like the rib in Adam’s wasn’t. 

[CV75]

25 minutes ago, Calm said:

I would really like to hear their thought processes at the time, how much they were aware of who God was and what he could do.  And what had been told them about Lucifer…iow, what was used to make that ‘intelligent’ and amoral (if they had no inherent sense of morality) decision.  They would not remember seeing anyone in pain.  Had they at least had stubbed toes, sunburn, or upset stomachs from eating too much or did their immortal bodies remove the ability to feel pain.  Maybe there was a fruit and what it did was switched their bodies into having a different set of senses, including now one that could feel pain and allowed for the physical manifestations of emotions or release of neurochemicals that gave pleasurable and painful experience, which is one thing that can make shame feel so bad and happiness good.  Trust in a child…is that inherent/instinctual or does it come from the lack of physical discomfort and experience of physical pleasure and comfort?

I think their thought process must be like ours -- and we see through a glass darkly, right?  

Had they not manifest opposition to God until after He had held their hand to guide them through a painless, permissive Fall, they still would have had to have descended, at some point, even further than the Genesis / Peral of Great Price / Temple versions of the story have them do. I wonder, if God were to have given them the forbidden fruit, what their first sin/transgression/failure would have been, for certainly it would have come eventually since their souls, both body and spirit, on their own, were imperfect and fell short of the glory, disrupting the smooth sailing. And God has to leave them/us on their/our own, relatively speaking, sufficiently to test us in a world where He does not plainly and constantly hover.

[pogi]

56 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Except that the way He provided for them to not partake of the forbidden fruit could not have been by handing them the fruit.

Still no contradiction.  Again, it was not eternally forbidden.
When it becomes acceptable it is no longer forbidden.   I have already used the parallel of sex.  For a time it is forbidden because we are not prepared (do not partake), but once we are prepared it is acceptable (partake).  No contradiction in forbidding and later allowing conditionally (providing a way).

Edited June 22, 2022 by pogi

[Calm]

Just now, CV75 said:

think their thought process must be like ours -- and we see through a glass darkly, right

By that I mean what they knew about life, the universe and everything beforehand, not how their brains worked…though whether they worked like the adults they were rather than perhaps someone of the age of 7 would be interesting to know for sure (since we assume they were not accountable, perhaps that was in part because their brains weren’t fully developed).  We assume the veil being placed on them means they were in a state of innocence like children, which in part means they haven’t had much experience, but could mean undeveloped brains as well. But let’s assume fully developed brains because that makes more sense at least to me.

So had God taught them (their veiled selves, not the archangels they were before earth) the complete gospel?  Told them about what came before, the Plan of Salvation and what was expected to happen or was the info they had pretty limited.  Did they have the full information of the rebellion and Atonement, exaltation and just didn’t comprehend the implications or did they have the picture book version?  Could they see and understand what the world was like outside the Garden?  Or did they have nothing at all to work with outside their very, very limited life in the Garden.

[pogi]

4 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Had they not manifest opposition to God until after He had held their hand to guide them through a painless, permissive Fall

No permissive fall - except in the sense that he permitted their agency.   A fall only happens by a violation of law.  The fruit would not have fallen by the fruit had they obeyed.  They would have fallen and transgressed in some other way, and any transgression would have resulted in the equivalent death, requiring equivalent atonement. 

[CV75]

1 minute ago, pogi said:

Still no contradiction.  Again, it was not eternally forbidden.
When it becomes acceptable it is no longer forbidden.   I have already used the parallel of sex.  For a time it is forbidden because we are not prepared (do not partake), but once we are prepared it is acceptable (partake).

No, but it was forbidden in Eden, while acceptable for a telestial kingdom. The change constitutes the transgression, and that had to be a function of their free will and choice, not God's command. At some point they had to separate from Him of their own volition, reflective of their inferior status. Whether they would do that naively as our scriptures show, or with rebellion (as would be inevitable the more knowledge of good and evil they came to possess), might be worthy of discussion. We all knew we would sin before coming here, anyway. This is why I think the more fundamental principle driving this story is intelligence, not alternative ways to come into the telestial world.

[mfbukowski]

5 hours ago, Obehave said:

How do you suppose they gained the light of Christ by eating from that tree? 

As was mentioned earlier, I think by @pogi or @CV75, other translations have it as "The Tree of Conscience"

Google it

https://www.thefreedictionary.com/Tree+of+conscience

Edited June 22, 2022 by mfbukowski

[pogi]

25 minutes ago, CV75 said:

No, but it was forbidden in Eden, while acceptable for a telestial kingdom. 

The tree of knowledge stayed in Eden and they were kicked out.   They were separated from the physical presence of the Gods (tree of life and tree of knowledge) as a result of their transgression. His Spirit was an eternal and generational endowment.  You are mistaken to suggest that they continued to abide the presence of the tree in the telestial world.  They partook once and that’s all it took.

25 minutes ago, CV75 said:

The change constitutes the transgression

The transgression constituted the change - the fall.  There would have been no change to a telestial world without a fall/transgression.  

25 minutes ago, CV75 said:

This is why I think the more fundamental principle driving this story is intelligence, not alternative ways to come into the telestial world.

This part of the story is fundamentally about transgression/fall and need for redemption.  I am not proposing an alternative way into the telestial world.  There is only 1 way to fall, and that is by transgression.  That is how death came into the world.  That is the cause of mortality.  On that, the scriptures are abundantly clear.  Death via transgression, not fruit.  

Edited June 22, 2022 by pogi

[Calm]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

The tree of knowledge stayed in Eden and they were kicked out.

But they carried the tree with them in essence having taken it in by eating it.  As we do with Christ when we partake of the sacrament. 

Edited June 22, 2022 by Calm

[pogi]

5 minutes ago, Calm said:

But they carried the tree with them in essence having taken it in by eating it.  As we do with Christ when we partake of the sacrament. 

Yes, his spirit was forever endowed with them for all generations, but they were separated from His physical presence because of their transgression. 

[mfbukowski]

46 minutes ago, Calm said:

But they carried the tree with them in essence having taken it in by eating it.  As we do with Christ when we partake of the sacrament. 

Wow, very cool!

[CV75]

9 hours ago, Calm said:

By that I mean what they knew about life, the universe and everything beforehand, not how their brains worked…though whether they worked like the adults they were rather than perhaps someone of the age of 7 would be interesting to know for sure (since we assume they were not accountable, perhaps that was in part because their brains weren’t fully developed).  We assume the veil being placed on them means they were in a state of innocence like children, which in part means they haven’t had much experience, but could mean undeveloped brains as well. But let’s assume fully developed brains because that makes more sense at least to me.

So had God taught them (their veiled selves, not the archangels they were before earth) the complete gospel?  Told them about what came before, the Plan of Salvation and what was expected to happen or was the info they had pretty limited.  Did they have the full information of the rebellion and Atonement, exaltation and just didn’t comprehend the implications or did they have the picture book version?  Could they see and understand what the world was like outside the Garden?  Or did they have nothing at all to work with outside their very, very limited life in the Garden.

Yes, I think they had fully developed adult brains, but little experience except for what the Lord had taught them to do to live in Eden. I think their knowledge base could have become quite extensive, except in the areas of discerning between good and evil, exercising faith and repentance, family life, the gospel of Jesus Christ, eternal progress, etc. So, I do not think they had the complete gospel until after the Fall (for example, the timing reflected in Moses 5:5-12, Moses 6:52-68).

[CV75]

9 hours ago, pogi said:

The tree of knowledge stayed in Eden and they were kicked out.   They were separated from the physical presence of the Gods (tree of life and tree of knowledge) as a result of their transgression. His Spirit was an eternal and generational endowment.  You are mistaken to suggest that they continued to abide the presence of the tree in the telestial world.  They partook once and that’s all it took.

Allegorically speaking, we continue to partake of the tree of knowledge of good and evil every day since this is a gospel of life and repentance.

9 hours ago, pogi said:

The transgression constituted the change - the fall.  There would have been no change to a telestial world without a fall/transgression.  

Yes, both are correct: the transgressing action caused the change, and the new condition is a transgressive state where the inhabitants continue to transgress, or a transgression from the previous one that had been transgressed.

9 hours ago, pogi said:

This part of the story is fundamentally about transgression/fall and need for redemption.  I am not proposing an alternative way into the telestial world.  There is only 1 way to fall, and that is by transgression.  That is how death came into the world.  That is the cause of mortality.  On that, the scriptures are abundantly clear.  Death via transgression, not fruit.  

Since death comes by transgression, the Lord would not have ordered a transgressive act by commanding Adam and Eve to partake of the forbidden fruit, or have committed one by giving it them.

Edited June 22, 2022 by CV75

[MiserereNobis]

11 hours ago, Calm said:

Could be figurative/symbolic language.  Maybe what really happened was Eve sat down and took a lesson in philosophy from Satan.

I wonder if he showed her a certain Rorty video…

[pogi]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

Since death comes by transgression, the Lord would not have ordered a transgressive act by commanding Adam and Eve to partake of the forbidden fruit, or have committed one by giving it them.

We are just going in circles now.  But to clarify one last time - it wouldn’t have been transgressive any more than sex is transgressive after the Lord allows it.   The fruit would not have changed them in a transgressive/deadly/telestial way when partaken of worthily.  

[pogi]

3 hours ago, CV75 said:

Allegorically speaking, we continue to partake of the tree of knowledge of good and evil every day since this is a gospel of life and repentance.

Allegorically we partake of the tree of life too, so your argument that the tree of knowledge continued to be ok but the tree of life was no longer ok doesn’t work in allegory.  

Edited June 22, 2022 by pogi

[Calm]

2 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

I wonder if he showed her a certain Rorty video…

Absolutely perfect

[pogi]

4 minutes ago, Obehave said:

I said "I also believe Adam and Eve had a conscience even if or when they did not know the difference between good and evil."

What God said is good and what Satan said was evil.  I know that, even if Adam and Eve didn't know that in the garden of Eden before they ate some fruit from a particular tree.

Do you see the sense in what I said, now?

No it makes no sense.  If they can’t tell the difference then they have no moral conscience. They are morally ignorant.  
They can’t know that what God says is good and what Satan says is evil if they can’t tell the difference.  

[pogi]

39 minutes ago, Obehave said:

But God is good and Satan is evil.  Are you suggesting they didn't know who said what?

And the grass is green and the sky is blue.  That is meaningless to a color blind person who is unable to distinguish the difference in color.  No, they knew who said what, obviously.    But their eyes were not opened to know what good and evil means or how to morally distinguish them.   They could not feel/experience good or evil.  The BoM says they were in a state of moral numbness, leaving them unable to experience joy, sorrow etc.   They were blind to goodness and evil.  Though goodness and evil stood before them, they could not see/experience it for what it is.   They were like color blind people looking at the sky and grass and unable to distinguish green from blue. 

39 minutes ago, Obehave said:

What type of epiphany do you think they had?

I think the metaphor the scriptures use is perfect.  It was like having their eyes opened for the first time to see the colors of morality.  That is what the fruit/Christ does - he causes the blind to see.  That is more symbolism pointing back and testifying that he is the tree of knowledge.    He is the way. He causes blind men to see.  He is the light.  He is the source of knowledge of good and evil.  His spirit gives us conscience.  It is all in the scriptures testifying that the tree is Jesus Christ.  

Edited June 22, 2022 by pogi