Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Did Adam and Eve commit a sin of omission before partaking of the forbidden fruit?


Recommended Posts

Two commands, don’t partake of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil and multiply and replenish the earth.

LDS doctrine teaches they couldn’t bear children in their immortal state.  I’m not sure if it was because they lacked blood in their veins or were in a perpetual prepubescent state.  But had Eve not partaken of the fruit would they still have been sinning a sin of omission for not multiplying and replenishing the earth?

If not why not?

Link to comment
1 hour ago, jerryp48 said:

Two commands, don’t partake of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil and multiply and replenish the earth.

LDS doctrine teaches they couldn’t bear children in their immortal state.  I’m not sure if it was because they lacked blood in their veins or were in a perpetual prepubescent state.  But had Eve not partaken of the fruit would they still have been sinning a sin of omission for not multiplying and replenishing the earth?

If not why not?

No; the Lord is very patient. He knew that they would not be mortal and thus able to multiply until they were fully converted by personal experience as to what to teach otehr multiplying and replenishing mortals (Moses 6, notably verses 57 and 58 though the whole chapter is instructive on this point).

Link to comment
1 hour ago, CV75 said:

No; the Lord is very patient. He knew that they would not be mortal and thus able to multiply until they were fully converted by personal experience as to what to teach otehr multiplying and replenishing mortals (Moses 6, notably verses 57 and 58 though the whole chapter is instructive on this point).

Not sure I follow you.  What does “fully converted by personal experience” mean?

Edited by jerryp48
Link to comment

It seems to make more sense to me that the Lord really only gave one commandment, that of not partaking of the forbidden fruit.  The scripture says he blessed them to be fruitful.  Having posterity is a blessing.  Kind of like God saying “Be happy and have joy!”  Well how could they have that when they don’t’ even know what that is?  The one commandment theory also solves the sin of omission issue.

Link to comment
2 hours ago, jerryp48 said:

Two commands, don’t partake of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil and multiply and replenish the earth.

LDS doctrine teaches they couldn’t bear children in their immortal state.  

Yes.

2 hours ago, jerryp48 said:

I’m not sure if it was because they lacked blood in their veins or were in a perpetual prepubescent state.  

Or they were in a state of innocence that did not include sexual impulses, desires, physiological responses, etc.  

2 hours ago, jerryp48 said:

But had Eve not partaken of the fruit would they still have been sinning a sin of omission for not multiplying and replenishing the earth?

If not why not?

I think the tension was there, but not in a condemnatory "sin of omission" sense.  I think Eve came to understand the need for the fall, as it would enable them to multiply and replenish.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
Just now, smac97 said:

Yes.

Or they were in a state of innocence that did not include sexual impulses, desires, physiological responses, etc.  

I think the tension was there, but not in a condemnatory "sin of omission" sense.  I think Eve came to understand the need for the fall, as it would enable them to multiply and replenish.

Thanks,

-Smac

I suppose if God didn’t give them a deadline that makes sense.  Still seems less troublesome if the only really decree was not to partake of the forbidden fruit and then blessed them to be fruitful but not necessarily commanded them.

Link to comment
5 minutes ago, jerryp48 said:

I suppose if God didn’t give them a deadline that makes sense.  Still seems less troublesome if the only really decree was not to partake of the forbidden fruit and then blessed them to be fruitful but not necessarily commanded them.

As I see it, there are a very few conundrums in the Restored Gospel.  The dilemma given to Adam and Eve is one.  Abraham's sacrifice of Isaac is another.

I don't understand them.  I'll probably need to wait to get to the other side before I do.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
1 hour ago, jerryp48 said:

Not sure I follow you.  What does “fully converted by personal experience” mean?

It means that spiritually, they became humble: Conversion, Convert (churchofjesuschrist.org), and temporally, they became mortal (1 Corinthians 15: 45-49). They had to be mortal, with eyes open, knowing good and evil, and having the faith to seek the Lord of their own volition before they could have seed and raise them temporally and spiritually. Multiplying and replenishing he earth requires seed like themselves, mortals with moral agency that continue the cycle.

Once they sought the Lord and followed His commandments in faith (Moses 5: 4-5), an angel taught them the Gospel. "And in that day Adam blessed God and was filled, and began to prophesy concerning all the families of the earth, saying: Blessed be the name of God, for because of my transgression my eyes are opened, and in this life I shall have joy, and again in the flesh I shall see God. And Eve, his wife, heard all these things and was glad, saying: Were it not for our transgression we never should have had seed, and never should have known good and evil, and the joy of our redemption, and the eternal life which God giveth unto all the obedient." (From Moses 5: 10, 11).

Link to comment
1 hour ago, smac97 said:

As I see it, there are a very few conundrums in the Restored Gospel.  The dilemma given to Adam and Eve is one.  Abraham's sacrifice of Isaac is another.

I don't understand them.  I'll probably need to wait to get to the other side before I do.

Thanks,

-Smac

Agreed.  The information we have of the creation and Adam and Eve is so high level that it makes for a lot of “filling in the gaps.”

Link to comment
2 hours ago, jerryp48 said:

I suppose if God didn’t give them a deadline that makes sense.  Still seems less troublesome if the only really decree was not to partake of the forbidden fruit and then blessed them to be fruitful but not necessarily commanded them.

I think the idea was to make the choice as troublesome (irreconcilable) as possible for terrestrial/paradisaical beings, in opposition to the infinite atonement of Christ, which reconciles everything possible for those who are willing. This is the only way the children of God can have a fulness of joy.

The command to be fruitful and multiply was given in the setting of the completed spiritual creation as an eternal commandment (Moses 2: 28-31 and Moses 3: 4-5). The command to not partake of the forbidden fruit was a "formal prohibition" (as Elder Oaks called it in this talk: “The Great Plan of Happiness” (churchofjesuschrist.org), given upon completion of the physical creation; in other words, it was a temporal commandment suited for the terrestrial kingdom.

The troublesome choice was to fulfill the celestial law by breaking the telestial law; or for paradisaical beings to enter mortality so that they can return to immortality as exalted beings.

Link to comment
6 hours ago, jerryp48 said:

But had Eve not partaken of the fruit would they still have been sinning a sin of omission for not multiplying and replenishing the earth?

According to Lehi, the answer is no. Why? Because even though they had been given a command, they didn't have the knowledge necessary to actually make a choice in the matter. And without that knowledge or the agency, they couldn't sin. As Lehi describes it (emphasis added - 2 Nephi 2:22-23):

Quote

And now, behold, if Adam had not transgressed he would not have fallen, but he would have remained in the garden of Eden. 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. And they would have had no children; 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.

Link to comment
7 hours ago, jerryp48 said:

Two commands, don’t partake of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil and multiply and replenish the earth.

LDS doctrine teaches they couldn’t bear children in their immortal state.  I’m not sure if it was because they lacked blood in their veins or were in a perpetual prepubescent state.  But had Eve not partaken of the fruit would they still have been sinning a sin of omission for not multiplying and replenishing the earth?

If not why not?

What is sin to innocent beings? Even sin of commission "Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die" is considered an unintentional sin, in LDS parlance, a "transgression", because they could not sin, they did not know the difference between right and wrong until after the fall. They transgressed against what had been specifically prohibited, least they die.

Joseph Fielding Smith (1876–1972) said: “I never speak of the part Eve took in this fall as a sin, nor do I accuse Adam of a sin. … This was a transgression of the law, but not a sin … for it was something that Adam and Eve had to do!” (Doctrines of Salvation, comp. Bruce R. McConkie, 3 vols. (1954–56), 1:114–15)

The two commandments were designed to place Adam and Eve in a position where they had to make a choice.

Smith taught: “The Lord said to Adam that if he wished to remain as he was in the garden, then he was not to eat the fruit, but if he desired to eat it and partake of death he was at liberty to do so.” (Answers to Gospel Questions, 4:81).

Faced with this dilemma, Adam and Eve chose death - both physical and spiritual - which was also a form of unintended obedience to the other commandment and opened the door for themselves and their posterity to gain knowledge and experience and to participate in the Father’s plan of happiness leading to eternal life.

Regarding Joseph Fielding Smith, Elder Dallin H. Oaks: “This suggested contrast between a sin and a transgression reminds us of the careful wording in the second article of faith: ‘We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression’. It also echoes a familiar distinction in the law. Some acts, like murder, are crimes because they are inherently wrong. Other acts, like operating without a license, are crimes only because they are legally prohibited. Under these distinctions, the act that produced the Fall was not a sin—inherently wrong—but a transgression—wrong because it was formally prohibited. These words are not always used to denote something different, but this distinction seems meaningful in the circumstances of the Fall.” (“The Great Plan of Happiness,” Ensign, Nov. 1993, 72)

Some might say it's a distinction without a difference, like sin, their transgression still had sin-like consequences; physical death came at the end of their extended earthly lives, and a spiritual death when they were cast out of the Garden of Eden, effectively cut off from the presence of God (Alma 42:9).

Oaks says, "For most of us, most of the time, the choice between good and bad is easy. What usually causes us difficulty is determining which uses of our time and influence are merely good, or better, or best. Applying that fact to the question of sins and mistakes, I would say that a deliberately wrong choice in the contest between what is clearly good and what is clearly bad is a sin, but a poor choice among things that are good, better, and best is merely a mistake."

Note Oaks clearly says these statements are his own opinion. Doctrine carries more weight than opinion, even if opinion is true or helpful. This may come from his life as a former attorney and state supreme court judge, with a thorough understanding of the differences between legal and moral wrongs, as well as intentional and unintentional mistakes.

Edited by Pyreaux
Link to comment
23 hours ago, jerryp48 said:

Two commands, don’t partake of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil and multiply and replenish the earth.

LDS doctrine teaches they couldn’t bear children in their immortal state.  I’m not sure if it was because they lacked blood in their veins or were in a perpetual prepubescent state.  But had Eve not partaken of the fruit would they still have been sinning a sin of omission for not multiplying and replenishing the earth?

If not why not?

I believe that the Lord would have prepared a way for them to fulfill all his commandments.  (1 Nephi 3:5)

It is my belief that he was preparing them to partake of the fruit of knowledge. 

Link to comment
2 hours ago, pogi said:

I believe that the Lord would have prepared a way for them to fulfill all his commandments.  (1 Nephi 3:5)

It is my belief that he was preparing them to partake of the fruit of knowledge. 

A position that I have long advocated on this board. :)

God fully wanted them to partake of the fruit, but after they had received further instruction and preparation. Lucifer, now Satan, upset that his approach was rejected sought to disrupt the plan that had worked so very well on other worlds with other Adams and other Eves by prematurely getting them kicked out of the garden before they were properly prepared to do so. That is, his hope was to start this world out on the wrong foot and hope and help all go to crap from then on (and it appears he has been successful to some extent if Enoch's description of us is accurate). This position necessitates that our earth's experience is in at least one crucial aspect the exception and not the rule.

Link to comment
On 3/19/2023 at 11:27 AM, jerryp48 said:

It seems to make more sense to me that the Lord really only gave one commandment, that of not partaking of the forbidden fruit.  The scripture says he blessed them to be fruitful.  Having posterity is a blessing.  Kind of like God saying “Be happy and have joy!”  Well how could they have that when they don’t’ even know what that is?  The one commandment theory also solves the sin of omission issue.

But then they would not be thinking for themselves, but instead Eve figured out it was necessary to break one commandment in order to obey the other.

It was a lesson in "following the spirit" and act as we think is right, rather than blind, contradictory commands.  In a sense it was the first application of Alma 32, thousands of years before it had been written.

It is the prime directive of the gospel as President Nelson teaches today: get your own testimony and follow it!

Their first test taught them the most important principle of the gospel!

Link to comment
On 3/19/2023 at 11:54 AM, smac97 said:

I think Eve came to understand the need for the fall, as it would enable them to multiply and replenish.

DING DING DING DING!

You win the NEW CAR!

Link to comment

    Thomas:    Okay, so I get why they had to eat the forbidden fruit, but what about the two contradictory commandments?  They were still placed in a no-win situation where they couldn’t help but break a law.  To me, that just seems a little . . . manipulative.
    Bro. A:    I actually don’t think they were tricked into making that decision at all.  In fact, I think Adam and Eve voluntarily made a conscientious choice and had sufficient knowledge to understand the consequences of their decision.  I believe they agreed to leave behind the paradisiacal existence they had known and enter into a fallen mortal world full of trials and sorrow . . . but I don’t think they made that choice in Eden.  [After a short pause.]  I think it happened for them (as it did for each of us) in the premortal spirit world.
    Thomas:    [Confused.]  They chose to eat the fruit when they were spirits?
    Bro. A:    In a sense.  See, I believe Adam and Eve accepted the responsibility of being the instruments of the fall while they were in the premortal existence.  If we only look at what happened in the garden, it seems like a no-win situation . . . but we need to remember the big picture.  Adam and Eve likely agreed to all that happened in Eden prior to its occurrence when they agreed to the Father’s plan in premortality.  I doubt they knew the specifics, but I believe they knew in a general sense what they were to accomplish.
    If you think about it, Adam and Eve made a choice that was similar to the one Jesus made.  They essentially volunteered to sacrifice themselves and play an integral part in God’s plan.  I think the real choice they made to partake of the fruit came long before they were placed in the garden.

Link to comment
16 hours ago, Matthew Andreasen said:

    Thomas:    Okay, so I get why they had to eat the forbidden fruit, but what about the two contradictory commandments?  They were still placed in a no-win situation where they couldn’t help but break a law.  To me, that just seems a little . . . manipulative.
    Bro. A:    I actually don’t think they were tricked into making that decision at all.  In fact, I think Adam and Eve voluntarily made a conscientious choice and had sufficient knowledge to understand the consequences of their decision.  I believe they agreed to leave behind the paradisiacal existence they had known and enter into a fallen mortal world full of trials and sorrow . . . but I don’t think they made that choice in Eden.  [After a short pause.]  I think it happened for them (as it did for each of us) in the premortal spirit world.
    Thomas:    [Confused.]  They chose to eat the fruit when they were spirits?
    Bro. A:    In a sense.  See, I believe Adam and Eve accepted the responsibility of being the instruments of the fall while they were in the premortal existence.  If we only look at what happened in the garden, it seems like a no-win situation . . . but we need to remember the big picture.  Adam and Eve likely agreed to all that happened in Eden prior to its occurrence when they agreed to the Father’s plan in premortality.  I doubt they knew the specifics, but I believe they knew in a general sense what they were to accomplish.
    If you think about it, Adam and Eve made a choice that was similar to the one Jesus made.  They essentially volunteered to sacrifice themselves and play an integral part in God’s plan.  I think the real choice they made to partake of the fruit came long before they were placed in the garden.

Why have a commandment to not partake at all? In the scenario you describe there doesn't seem to be any reason. Let's just give a commandment that is by-inherent-design is to be broken. Seems pretty silly, like making a building with the sole intent that it should collapse. But that's a poor analogy--I can think of a reason that might be (e.g. earthquake design) but it makes much less sense to me that a perfect, omniscient, all-loving being would give a commandment whose soul purpose is to be disobeyed. Silliness.

Everything you describe could be better explained by Adam and Eve enter the Garden knowing from pre-mortality that they would voluntarily choose to leave with no commandment to stay needed.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Nofear said:

Why have a commandment to not partake at all? In the scenario you describe there doesn't seem to be any reason. Let's just give a commandment that is by-inherent-design is to be broken. Seems pretty silly, like making a building with the sole intent that it should collapse. But that's a poor analogy--I can think of a reason that might be (e.g. earthquake design) but it makes much less sense to me that a perfect, omniscient, all-loving being would give a commandment whose soul purpose is to be disobeyed. Silliness.

Everything you describe could be better explained by Adam and Eve enter the Garden knowing from pre-mortality that they would voluntarily choose to leave with no commandment to stay needed.

To me, it is semantics. There were no conflicting commandments.

They needed to learn:

1. That they had agency, and could make their own decisions.

2. That they could receive their own direction from the spirit, without the physical presence of the Lord.

3. They learned that religious statements are ambiguous, so the direction of the spirit was essential to find the "Truth".

"Do not partake...surely die...yet it is given unto thee..." is a perfect declaration of the truth, there was no statement saying WHEN! 

It could be 1000 years later that they died, and the story says that it was!  

No contradiction, it was a puzzle they had to figure out using the spirit!  Best educational device ever!

Eve got it! "Yes we will eventually die, but we will have children and agency, yet live possibly a long long time away from the Lord, but can eventually return!."

No contradiction, no lies, simply a puzzle to test their "Perry Scheme" intellectual maturity! (Thanks @Kevin Christensen)

And Eve solved it!

Very simple once you see it!

Edited by mfbukowski
Link to comment
2 hours ago, Nofear said:

Everything you describe could be better explained by Adam and Eve enter the Garden knowing from pre-mortality that they would voluntarily choose to leave with no commandment to stay needed

They didn't even need to know pre-mortally, to me that sounds like they were PRE-ORDAINED

Eve could have just figured out!

Link to comment

So why blame the snake and have God punish it ? Eve didn't seem to want to take responsibility for her intellectual musings and Adam was quick to blame Eve. Personally , I think that eventually God would have rescinded that " no eating the fruit " rule. 

Link to comment
37 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

"Do not partake...surely die...yet it is given unto thee..." is a perfect declaration of the truth, there was no statement saying WHEN! 

It could be 1000 years later that they died, and the story says that it was!  

...

Very simple once you see it!

I see it. I do not believe it a better explanation than mine: "Do not partake (because you aren't ready, later you'll be ready and we'll rescind the commandment and leave it to you to choose)."
This explains why Satan did what he did (he wanted to mess things up). Yours does not. It also works very well with temple verbiage.

Nonetheless, I can see how one holds this rather traditional perspective and don't begrudge it.

Link to comment
25 minutes ago, blackstrap said:

So why blame the snake and have God punish it ? Eve didn't seem to want to take responsibility for her intellectual musings and Adam was quick to blame Eve. Personally , I think that eventually God would have rescinded that " no eating the fruit " rule. 

In the story, the snake had a track record i other worlds of using the ambiguity to give away the correct answer to the test. He was cheating by trying to destroy A&E's agency- as was always his plan- by no allowing them to figure ot out by themselves!

So he got the same punishment  here (I guess) that he got in "other worlds" as well.

IMO.

Link to comment
9 minutes ago, Nofear said:

This explains why Satan did what he did (he wanted to mess things up). Yours does not.

Dunno.

His forever plan was to destroy agency, and make sure everyone returned to Father, allegedly.

But I am not very good or motivated to try and psychoanalyze characters in a parable.

You are probably too young to remember the statement proceeding the endowment  that the "story is strictly figurative insofar the man and woman is concerned".

I'm sorry that went away.

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...