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

[Matthew Andreasen]

Try not to read into things too much.  I was addressing the idea of two contradictory commandments being unfair--nothing more.  The following is the part of the conversion that comes immediately before what I provided earlier and touches on the idea of why have a commandment in the first place.

 

    Bro. A:    God’s plan was to send us to earth where we could be tested, right?  But He couldn’t just arbitrarily send us to a fallen, telestial world with imperfect, mortal bodies.  ***
    But the Garden of Eden apparently shows us what He could do.  He could create a terrestrial paradise, a sort of neutral ground for Adam and Eve.  And He could give them immortal physical bodies—bodies not subject to death, but not fully perfected or glorified either.
    Adam and Eve had a crucial part to play in Heavenly Father’s plan.  They would have to bring about mortality through the fall—an act of their own choosing, without any direct intervention from God.  It apparently had to come through a broken law so the consequences that followed would be just.  There was basically no other way.
    What Adam and Eve would do in Eden was as much a part of the plan as what Jesus would later accomplish on the cross.  They would make mortality possible so we could gain experience, be tested, and progress.  He would bring about immortality so the effects of the fall would not be permanent, and He would make exaltation attainable.

[Nofear]

27 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

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.

Yes. He wanted to make everybody choose the good and so "saved". But the only way to do that was remove our ability to freely choose. I agree with don't have to try and psychoanalyze his motivations. His plan is probably presented fairly simplistically (the winners write history after all). He persuaded a good chunk of our siblings despite the Plan of Salvation being successfully implemented on other worlds and the scriptural account doesn't seem that persuasive (though, all of us here sided against him, so maybe we're biased).

Nonetheless, I don't think it "psychoanalysis" to say that Lucifer was upset at his plan being rejected and it is by no means a far stretch to think that he'd want to sabotage the plan. It is, however, a pretty nonsensical stretch to say that he was upset that his plan got rejected and therefore he choose to be the very implement that got Adam and Eve to partake of the fruit just like they were supposed to. Why? Why in the heck would he further the plan that he opposed? And why would he be punished for doing so? So very much makes absolutely no sense in the basic Catholic and Protestant versions of the story that many Latter-day Saints adopt and riff off of. But, in my not-so-humble-opinion, they have it basically wrong and we need feel no obligation to bend our reason into contortions to make that explanation work.

The simple and straight forward explanation is that Adam and Eve were instructed not to partake initially. They were to be given some time to adjust to their new bodies and learn some things and get further instruction. After that further instruction and they were better prepared for being outside the Garden, then, then God would say, "You two are ready to leave the Garden; eat the Fruit. I won't make you, but it's time. Again, still, it's your choice. Eat the fruit." Satan knew this. He'd seen it done on countless worlds before. And so, he got them kicked out of the Garden prematurely with the intent of just generally messing things up (like kicking your kids out of the house when they are 12 and not after they have finished all of their schooling). For this deliberate act of sabotage, an act contrary to what God intended (and what happened on other worlds) God punished Satan and his followers by revoking their travel privileges (eat the dust of this earth) lest he go and try his shenanigans elsewhere. Nonetheless, God knew that Satan would try to sabotage things and prepared for it (ie Christ).

Anyway that's my take. Fits all the pieces quite nicely. Temple. Check. Scripture. Check. Simplicity. Check. Logic and reason. Check. Protestant/Catholic tradition. Oops, not check. Darn.

[Matthew Andreasen]

Here's part of my view from a book (The Agency Discussions) I wrote:

    Bro. A:    ***
    I don’t think Satan is trying to destroy our agency . . . in fact, he’s partly responsible for our having agency in the first place.  His temptation in the Garden of Eden is what led Adam and Eve to gain the knowledge of good and evil and become agents unto themselves!
    Michael:    Wait. . . .  So why did Satan tempt Adam and Eve?  I mean, if he had just left them alone, he could have stopped God’s plan from going forward.
    Bro. A:    That’s a great question.  Satan actively participated in God’s plan by causing the fall and providing opposition, didn’t he?  I used to think that he didn’t understand God’s plan or that maybe he was so enraged that he just couldn’t help himself, but there could be another reason too.
    What does Satan want most . . . to destroy God’s plan or to destroy His children?
    Michael:    [Thinking about it for a while.]  I don’t know.  It seems like they’re about equal.
    Bro. A:    Okay . . . well, let’s look at his options.  Satan could prevent God’s plan from happening if he just allowed Adam and Eve to live peacefully in the garden forever.  That would trap the remainder of God’s spirit children in the premortal existence.  They would be unable to progress according to God’s plan, but they would also be out of Satan’s reach—he couldn’t destroy any of them.
    The other option Satan had was to allow God’s plan to go forward.  He would become the means of introducing evil into the world, which would bring about the fall and mortality.  God’s children would then be able to progress to their second estate, and Satan would have the opportunity to directly oppose God and damn as many of His children as possible.  [The students are considering the options.]
    Rachel:    Well, I guess he’d do exactly what he did, then.  I mean, I think he’d rather let God’s plan go ahead so he could have the chance to destroy as many of us as he could instead of just sitting back and doing nothing.
    Michael:    Yeah, that’s kind of what I was thinking too.  Maybe he even thought he could stop the Savior’s atonement from happening.  That way, he could destroy everything.
    Bro. A:    I think the decision to tempt Adam and Eve was a conscious choice made by Satan.  He would allow God’s plan to go forward, and even provide the opposition necessary for moral agency to exist, but he would use that plan to oppose God and bring as many of God’s children into captivity as he possibly could.  It was Satan’s chance to actively fight against God and use God’s plan against Him.

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, Nofear said:

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.

I think I amplified it in subsequent posts, above

I think it is all figurative, as told in the intro to the presentation until 1990 iirc,  anyway.

Note the authors of this article:

https://www.ldsliving.com/4-elements-of-the-fall-you-might-not-realize-are-symbolic/s/89532

Edited March 24, 2023 by mfbukowski

[Nofear]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

I think I amplified it in subsequent posts, above

I think it is all figurative, as told in the intro to the presentation until 1990 iirc,  anyway.

Note the authors of this article:

https://www.ldsliving.com/4-elements-of-the-fall-you-might-not-realize-are-symbolic/s/89532

I can respect the symbolic position. I personally suspect some aspects of something we don't fully grasp are literal and what we are left with is a greatly simplified story. But, that's irrelevant. For me the “version” story that speaks of logical coherency and of a kind, rational God carries more spiritual value then one that creates paradox and presents a rather irrational story. Yet, life is messy and often seemingly irrational and so I can see where that can hold value. This said not with sarcasm but genuine recognition. After all, the Adam and Eve story if presented as seemingly paradoxical, would scarcely be the only place in the gospel that occurs. Nevertheless, for this story I take a different approach and adopt telling a version that is rational, not paradoxical. But again, I give space to those who choorse otherwise.

[mfbukowski]

24 minutes ago, Nofear said:

I can respect the symbolic position. I personally suspect some aspects of something we don't fully grasp are literal and what we are left with is a greatly simplified story. But, that's irrelevant. For me the “version” story that speaks of logical coherency and of a kind, rational God carries more spiritual value then one that creates paradox and presents a rather irrational story. Yet, life is messy and often seemingly irrational and so I can see where that can hold value. This said not with sarcasm but genuine recognition. After all, the Adam and Eve story if presented as seemingly paradoxical, would scarcely be the only place in the gospel that occurs. Nevertheless, for this story I take a different approach and adopt telling a version that is rational, not paradoxical. But again, I give space to those who choorse otherwise.

I agree with your criteria, and logic, but since the church itself said that the story was "figurative" for a number of years, at least 10 that I personally experienced, I'll stick with that.  

I am not sure if that makes us in agreement about this or not, but clearly we are too close to call imo. 

Dang ambiguity!

[Mathete]

Why would having children with your wife be a sin? Are you expecting me to believe that making love to your wife is a sin? Do you really think Eve ate a piece of fruit? The problem comes when people don’t rightly divide the Word of Truth 2Tim2:15 15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. If she ate a literal pice of fruit, shouldn’t they have made bibs instead of covering their genitalia??? Then why just after that God said And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel. in Genesis 15? Why then wouldn’t the curse be tooth decay or bad breath in childbirth? 

[Pyreaux]

2 hours ago, Mathete said:

Why would having children with your wife be a sin? Are you expecting me to believe that making love to your wife is a sin? Do you really think Eve ate a piece of fruit? The problem comes when people don’t rightly divide the Word of Truth 2Tim2:15 15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. If she ate a literal pice of fruit, shouldn’t they have made bibs instead of covering their genitalia??? Then why just after that God said And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel. in Genesis 15? Why then wouldn’t the curse be tooth decay or bad breath in childbirth? 

I don't think you understood. He's saying it might be "sin" to not eat the fruit, since carnal knowledge and an awareness of nakedness seemed necessary to "make love" and thus fulfill the commandment to multiply. So, to not eat the fruit would have been a sin of "omission".

Indeed, the narrative speaks of fruit, though there are many theories as to its transcendent meaning; like a poetically clean way to describe sexuality, human's transition from gatherers to farmers, even theories about psychotropic mushrooms. But we'll probably keep calling it fruit until we know for sure it's not about fruit.

Edited March 26, 2023 by Pyreaux

[Mathete]

I meant Genesis 3:15 where I typed 15