2 Nephi 2 - the opposition in all things

[telnetd]

In 2 Nephi 2:11, I can see how Adam and Eve were both alive (they possessed life when
God created them) and dead (the were unable have children), but how were they in a 
state of not being in either of the other states (corruption nor incorruption, 
happiness nor misery, neither sense nor insensibility)?

"For it must needs be, that there is an opposition in all things. If not so, my 
firstborn in the wilderness, righteousness could not be brought to pass, neither 
wickedness, neither holiness nor misery, neither good nor bad. Wherefore, all things 
must needs be a compound in one; wherefore, if it should be one body it must needs 
remain as dead, having no life neither death, nor corruption nor incorruption, 
happiness nor misery, neither sense nor insensibility".

2 Nephi 2:15-16 says "And to bring about his eternal purposes in the end of man, ... 
it must needs be that there was an opposition; even the forbidden fruit in 
opposition to the tree of life; the one being sweet and the other bitter. Wherefore, 
the Lord God gave unto man that he should act for himself. Wherefore, man could not 
act for himself save it should be that he was enticed by the one or the other".

Does the ordering of this phrase give you the impression the forbidden fruit was 
sweet and the tree of life was bitter because disobedience enabled them to begin 
their progression and the tree of life was bitter because they were prevented from 
eating its fruit?

The Bible says, "And out of the ground made the Lord God to grow every tree that is 
pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the 
garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil".

Were all the other permissible trees in the garden of Eden considered sweet, bitter, 
or neither?  

Were all the permissible trees in opposition to the forbidden tree because God had
given a choice between eating or not eating, obedience or disobedience?

[Tacenda]

3 hours ago, telnetd said:

In 2 Nephi 2:11, I can see how Adam and Eve were both alive (they possessed life when
God created them) and dead (the were unable have children), but how were they in a 
state of not being in either of the other states (corruption nor incorruption, 
happiness nor misery, neither sense nor insensibility)?

"For it must needs be, that there is an opposition in all things. If not so, my 
firstborn in the wilderness, righteousness could not be brought to pass, neither 
wickedness, neither holiness nor misery, neither good nor bad. Wherefore, all things 
must needs be a compound in one; wherefore, if it should be one body it must needs 
remain as dead, having no life neither death, nor corruption nor incorruption, 
happiness nor misery, neither sense nor insensibility".

2 Nephi 2:15-16 says "And to bring about his eternal purposes in the end of man, ... 
it must needs be that there was an opposition; even the forbidden fruit in 
opposition to the tree of life; the one being sweet and the other bitter. Wherefore, 
the Lord God gave unto man that he should act for himself. Wherefore, man could not 
act for himself save it should be that he was enticed by the one or the other".

Does the ordering of this phrase give you the impression the forbidden fruit was 
sweet and the tree of life was bitter because disobedience enabled them to begin 
their progression and the tree of life was bitter because they were prevented from 
eating its fruit?

The Bible says, "And out of the ground made the Lord God to grow every tree that is 
pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the 
garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil".

Were all the other permissible trees in the garden of Eden considered sweet, bitter, 
or neither?  

Were all the permissible trees in opposition to the forbidden tree because God had
given a choice between eating or not eating, obedience or disobedience?

Very good question!

[teddyaware]

4 hours ago, telnetd said:

In 2 Nephi 2:11, I can see how Adam and Eve were both alive (they possessed life when
God created them) and dead (the were unable have children), but how were they in a 
state of not being in either of the other states (corruption nor incorruption, 
happiness nor misery, neither sense nor insensibility)?

"For it must needs be, that there is an opposition in all things. If not so, my 
firstborn in the wilderness, righteousness could not be brought to pass, neither 
wickedness, neither holiness nor misery, neither good nor bad. Wherefore, all things 
must needs be a compound in one; wherefore, if it should be one body it must needs 
remain as dead, having no life neither death, nor corruption nor incorruption, 
happiness nor misery, neither sense nor insensibility".

2 Nephi 2:15-16 says "And to bring about his eternal purposes in the end of man, ... 
it must needs be that there was an opposition; even the forbidden fruit in 
opposition to the tree of life; the one being sweet and the other bitter. Wherefore, 
the Lord God gave unto man that he should act for himself. Wherefore, man could not 
act for himself save it should be that he was enticed by the one or the other".

Does the ordering of this phrase give you the impression the forbidden fruit was 
sweet and the tree of life was bitter because disobedience enabled them to begin 
their progression and the tree of life was bitter because they were prevented from 
eating its fruit?

The Bible says, "And out of the ground made the Lord God to grow every tree that is 
pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the 
garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil".

Were all the other permissible trees in the garden of Eden considered sweet, bitter, 
or neither?  

Were all the permissible trees in opposition to the forbidden tree because God had
given a choice between eating or not eating, obedience or disobedience?

I’ve heard some, including church leaders and church scholars, speculate that the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was sweet and fruit of the tree of life was bitter, so this is not a new idea. The only problem is that in light of the following description of the tree of life and its fruit the notion seems highly unlikely.

9 And it came to pass after I had prayed unto the Lord I beheld a large and spacious field.

10 And it came to pass that I beheld a tree, whose fruit was desirable to make one happy.

11 And it came to pass that I did go forth and partake of the fruit thereof; and I beheld that it was most sweet, above all that I ever before tasted. Yea, and I beheld that the fruit thereof was white, to exceed all the whiteness that I had ever seen.

12 And as I partook of the fruit thereof it filled my soul with exceedingly great joy; wherefore, I began to be desirous that my family should partake of it also; for I knew that it was desirable above all other fruit. (1 Nephi eight)

(Edited to Add) Another reason why the fruit of the tree of knowledge was likely bitter is because, unlike the inexpressible happiness that filled Lehi’s soul after partaking  of the very delicious and sweet fruit of the tree of life, the consequences that followed the partaking of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil were falling from the presence of God into a condition of everlasting physical and spiritual death that would endure forever without an infinite and eternal atoning sacrifice of suffering made by the Son of God. But on the positive side, thanks to the atoning sacrifice of Christ the bitterness of the fall is transformed to the most delicious of all sweetness for those who avail themselves of the blessings of the gospel of Jesus Christ!

Edited July 8 by teddyaware

[bluebell]

4 hours ago, telnetd said:

In 2 Nephi 2:11, I can see how Adam and Eve were both alive (they possessed life when
God created them) and dead (the were unable have children), but how were they in a 
state of not being in either of the other states (corruption nor incorruption, 
happiness nor misery, neither sense nor insensibility)?

"For it must needs be, that there is an opposition in all things. If not so, my 
firstborn in the wilderness, righteousness could not be brought to pass, neither 
wickedness, neither holiness nor misery, neither good nor bad. Wherefore, all things 
must needs be a compound in one; wherefore, if it should be one body it must needs 
remain as dead, having no life neither death, nor corruption nor incorruption, 
happiness nor misery, neither sense nor insensibility".

2 Nephi 2:15-16 says "And to bring about his eternal purposes in the end of man, ... 
it must needs be that there was an opposition; even the forbidden fruit in 
opposition to the tree of life; the one being sweet and the other bitter. Wherefore, 
the Lord God gave unto man that he should act for himself. Wherefore, man could not 
act for himself save it should be that he was enticed by the one or the other".

Does the ordering of this phrase give you the impression the forbidden fruit was 
sweet and the tree of life was bitter because disobedience enabled them to begin 
their progression and the tree of life was bitter because they were prevented from 
eating its fruit?

The Bible says, "And out of the ground made the Lord God to grow every tree that is 
pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the 
garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil".

Were all the other permissible trees in the garden of Eden considered sweet, bitter, 
or neither?  

Were all the permissible trees in opposition to the forbidden tree because God had
given a choice between eating or not eating, obedience or disobedience?

I've always read those verses as teaching that the experience of both is needed for a person to recognize the true nature of a thing.

For example, if you only ever eat bitter, then you will have no concept of bitter.  You need to experience the opposite in order to know what bitter actually is.  The same with life.  If death did not exist, then life doesn't "exist" for the living because the concept is meaningless.  You have to compare life to death before you can experience life in it's true form.  If you've never seen light, then darkness has no meaning.  It is just the thing that is.  Once you see light then darkness is understandable.  It is not understandable without light though.

No one appreciates being able to breath through their nose like someone who just got over a long sinus infection. 

 

Edited July 8 by bluebell

[teddyaware]

4 hours ago, telnetd said:

In 2 Nephi 2:11, I can see how Adam and Eve were both alive (they possessed life when
God created them) and dead (the were unable have children), but how were they in a 
state of not being in either of the other states (corruption nor incorruption, 
happiness nor misery, neither sense nor insensibility)?

"For it must needs be, that there is an opposition in all things. If not so, my 
firstborn in the wilderness, righteousness could not be brought to pass, neither 
wickedness, neither holiness nor misery, neither good nor bad. Wherefore, all things 
must needs be a compound in one; wherefore, if it should be one body it must needs 
remain as dead, having no life neither death, nor corruption nor incorruption, 
happiness nor misery, neither sense nor insensibility".

2 Nephi 2:15-16 says "And to bring about his eternal purposes in the end of man, ... 
it must needs be that there was an opposition; even the forbidden fruit in 
opposition to the tree of life; the one being sweet and the other bitter. Wherefore, 
the Lord God gave unto man that he should act for himself. Wherefore, man could not 
act for himself save it should be that he was enticed by the one or the other".

Does the ordering of this phrase give you the impression the forbidden fruit was 
sweet and the tree of life was bitter because disobedience enabled them to begin 
their progression and the tree of life was bitter because they were prevented from 
eating its fruit?

The Bible says, "And out of the ground made the Lord God to grow every tree that is 
pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the 
garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil".

Were all the other permissible trees in the garden of Eden considered sweet, bitter, 
or neither?  

Were all the permissible trees in opposition to the forbidden tree because God had
given a choice between eating or not eating, obedience or disobedience?

Another input from scripture, this time from the Book of Revelation, opens up the possibility of another wrinkle in the narrative.

8 And the voice which I heard from heaven spake unto me again, and said, Go and take the little book which is open in the hand of the angel which standeth upon the sea and upon the earth.

9 And I went unto the angel, and said unto him, Give me the little book. And he said unto me, Take it, and eat it up; and it shall make thy belly bitter, but it shall be in thy mouth sweet as honey. (Revelation 10)

[CV75]

6 hours ago, telnetd said:

In 2 Nephi 2:11, I can see how Adam and Eve were both alive (they possessed life when
God created them) and dead (the were unable have children), but how were they in a 
state of not being in either of the other states (corruption nor incorruption, 
happiness nor misery, neither sense nor insensibility)?

"For it must needs be, that there is an opposition in all things. If not so, my 
firstborn in the wilderness, righteousness could not be brought to pass, neither 
wickedness, neither holiness nor misery, neither good nor bad. Wherefore, all things 
must needs be a compound in one; wherefore, if it should be one body it must needs 
remain as dead, having no life neither death, nor corruption nor incorruption, 
happiness nor misery, neither sense nor insensibility".

2 Nephi 2:15-16 says "And to bring about his eternal purposes in the end of man, ... 
it must needs be that there was an opposition; even the forbidden fruit in 
opposition to the tree of life; the one being sweet and the other bitter. Wherefore, 
the Lord God gave unto man that he should act for himself. Wherefore, man could not 
act for himself save it should be that he was enticed by the one or the other".

Does the ordering of this phrase give you the impression the forbidden fruit was 
sweet and the tree of life was bitter because disobedience enabled them to begin 
their progression and the tree of life was bitter because they were prevented from 
eating its fruit?

The Bible says, "And out of the ground made the Lord God to grow every tree that is 
pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the 
garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil".

Were all the other permissible trees in the garden of Eden considered sweet, bitter, 
or neither?  

Were all the permissible trees in opposition to the forbidden tree because God had
given a choice between eating or not eating, obedience or disobedience?

Adam and Eve were not “compounds in one” as long as they could be enticed. That condition could eventually “be brought to pass” in Eden, given a prolonged stagnated existence, but they partook of the forbidden fruit and prevented that from occurring. Corruption and incorruption, happiness and misery, sense and insensibility were “brought to pass” as we know them in mortality through the Fall, but they existed in Eden in very rudimentary, easily digestible and processed, paradisiacal forms as long as Adam and Eve could differentiate between the opposites that did exist there. For example, corruption/hungry and incorruption/satisfied; happiness/walking with the Lord and misery/running across the serpent; sense/discerning the time and climate of the day and insensibility/sleep.

I think the sweetness of one fruit and the bitterness of the other were a matter of perception and may have alternated over time in the garden. At some point Eve found the forbidden fruit sweet and succumbed to beguilement; Adam at the same time found it “bitter” – not something to partake of – but concluded after their discussion, and I’m sure with some trepidation, to proceed and partake. And I'm sure he (perhaps secretly) liked it!

They were prevented from partaking of the tree of life after their Fall not by any unappealing properties of its fruit, but by an impenetrable barrier (cherubim and a flaming sword that turned every way) preventing them from falling into a permanently bitter consequence. God grants us agency according to our estate, sphere, capacity, and so forth; some consequences we are ready for (such as mortality with repentance), and others we are not prepared for (immortality without repentance).

I consider the phrase, “pleasant to the sight, and good for food,” as generally “sweet,” but I’m sure there was a good deal of variation and personal preferences involved in Adam and Eve’s culinary exploits.

I would say that the principle of opposition at a paradisaical level is reflected in your suggestion that “all the permissible trees [were] in opposition to the forbidden tree because God had given a choice between eating or not eating, obedience or disobedience.” We can find many layers of meaning in the scriptural accounts of Adam and Eve.

Edited July 8 by CV75

[telnetd]

On 7/8/2024 at 5:55 PM, CV75 said:

but they existed in Eden in very rudimentary, easily digestible and processed, paradisiacal forms as long as Adam and Eve could differentiate between the opposites that did exist there.

What opposites could they differentiate in the Garden before the Fall?

[teddyaware]

21 minutes ago, telnetd said:

What opposites could they differentiate in the Garden before the Fall?

Most obviously, when in Eden Adam and Eve lived in the immediate presence of God, while they were simultaneously being exposed to and tempted by the devil himself. This is surely the most extreme example of differentiable opposition one can imagine.

[CV75]

15 minutes ago, telnetd said:

What opposites could they differentiate in the Garden before the Fall?

Anything discerned by the five senses of course such as:  alone/not alone; their gender; two people in a marriage; differences in direction, landscapes and animals, etc. Day/night, asleep/awake, then/now, yesterday/today/tomorrow, run/sit, light/dark, types of color, etc. (dd I mention some of this already?). The distinctions between them, God and the serpent and how they communicated, the content of messages, and how they related interpersonally; "forbidden" and permitted food; procreating and not procreating, tending by feeding and ending by pruning... I could go on forever (it was Eden!  )... any difference and distinction can be conceptualized in terms of opposites. Some were more conceptual and involved more mental states than others.

[telnetd]

On 7/11/2024 at 11:16 AM, CV75 said:

Anything discerned by the five senses of course such as:  alone/not alone; their gender; two people in a marriage; differences in direction, landscapes and animals, etc. Day/night, asleep/awake, then/now, yesterday/today/tomorrow, run/sit, light/dark, types of color, etc. (dd I mention some of this already?). The distinctions between them, God and the serpent and how they communicated, the content of messages, and how they related interpersonally; "forbidden" and permitted food; procreating and not procreating, tending by feeding and ending by pruning... I could go on forever (it was Eden!  )... any difference and distinction can be conceptualized in terms of opposites. Some were more conceptual and involved more mental states than others.

Would their lacking in the sense of happiness or misery mean they were dead based
on 2 Nephi 2:11?

[CV75]

1 hour ago, telnetd said:

Would their lacking in the sense of happiness or misery mean they were dead based
on 2 Nephi 2:11?

Figuratively and to a degree, yes. But they were still physically alive, immortal and experiencing and doing things (often in God's presence), and were glad with some things and less glad with others in the sense; I'm sure they had personal preferences (for example, see Genesis 3:6). They seemed to have had a bit of latitude about their dressing and keeping the garden since no specifics are mentioned; they divided and shared the labor and what to do in what order, etc. Adam had latitude in naming the animals, and even Eve.

So I would say they were dead to exaltation, but after the Fall, they became alive to it. since Christ could descend below all things and ascend above all things, Adam and Eve could now progress past an immortal paradisaical estate by passing though a mortal telestial estate to be raised into an eternal exalted estate. Eden was neither mortal/telestial nor eternal/exalted; it was just immortal/terrestrial -- so relatively speaking, a compound in one.

[teddyaware]

4 hours ago, telnetd said:

Would their lacking in the sense of happiness or misery mean they were dead based
on 2 Nephi 2:11?

I believe the easiest and best way to understand the kind of existence of Adam and Eve experienced in the Garden of Eden is to realize that they were in a state that’s much like the state little children are in before reaching the age of accountability. During the endowment each male participant to is instructed to think of himself as being Father Adam, and each woman is instructed to think of herself as being Mother Eve, and I believe the reason why this ideation is apropos is because each of us experience our own Edenic state during childhood, prior to reaching the age of accountability. Therefore each of us begin life with an innocent “Edenic” experience.

For example, prior to reaching the age of accountability young children are taught that they are under the commandment to marry and have the family, and this instruction is given to them before they are physically able to have children, just as Adam and Eve were commanded to multiply even before they were physically able to have children. In addition, young children are also capable of having pleasant life experiences with little to no responsibilities if they are properly nurtured by their parents, but because they are largely naive and and haven't yet experienced the full intensity of life’s trials tribulations, difficulties that can only be fully experienced and understood after passing into the age of mature accountability, the deeper satisfactions and joys of life that are only possible with maturity, righteous living and fully informed discipleship cannot be fully experienced and realized.

Therefore, the childlike state that Adam and Eve existed in prior to the fall likely had its comforts, pleasantries and fun, just as young earthly children experience, but the fullness of human joy, satisfaction and happiness can only be obtained by experiencing the fall, growing to maturity and becoming fully accountable before God. ‘There is no other way.” The mysteries of life in Eden are largely dispelled when it’s understood that Adam and Eve were simply in an innocent, childlike state — a condition in which it would have been impossible for them to obtain a fullness of joy and intelligence without necessarily exiting from what would otherwise have been a life of permanent childlike innocence devoid of the opportunity of obtaining salvation through Christ.

Edited July 13 by teddyaware

[telnetd]

22 hours ago, CV75 said:

But they were still physically alive, immortal and experiencing and doing things (often in God's presence), and were glad with some things and less glad with others in the sense;

What do you mean by glad?

 

[Dario_M]

On 7/8/2024 at 5:44 PM, telnetd said:

In 2 Nephi 2:11, I can see how Adam and Eve were both alive (they possessed life when
God created them) and dead (the were unable have children), but how were they in a 
state of not being in either of the other states (corruption nor incorruption, 
happiness nor misery, neither sense nor insensibility)?

"For it must needs be, that there is an opposition in all things. If not so, my 
firstborn in the wilderness, righteousness could not be brought to pass, neither 
wickedness, neither holiness nor misery, neither good nor bad. Wherefore, all things 
must needs be a compound in one; wherefore, if it should be one body it must needs 
remain as dead, having no life neither death, nor corruption nor incorruption, 
happiness nor misery, neither sense nor insensibility".

2 Nephi 2:15-16 says "And to bring about his eternal purposes in the end of man, ... 
it must needs be that there was an opposition; even the forbidden fruit in 
opposition to the tree of life; the one being sweet and the other bitter. Wherefore, 
the Lord God gave unto man that he should act for himself. Wherefore, man could not 
act for himself save it should be that he was enticed by the one or the other".

Does the ordering of this phrase give you the impression the forbidden fruit was 
sweet and the tree of life was bitter because disobedience enabled them to begin 
their progression and the tree of life was bitter because they were prevented from 
eating its fruit?

The Bible says, "And out of the ground made the Lord God to grow every tree that is 
pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the 
garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil".

Were all the other permissible trees in the garden of Eden considered sweet, bitter, 
or neither?  

Were all the permissible trees in opposition to the forbidden tree because God had
given a choice between eating or not eating, obedience or disobedience?

Good question.

[telnetd]

20 hours ago, teddyaware said:

I believe the easiest and best way to understand the kind of existence of Adam and Eve experienced in the Garden of Eden is to realize that they were in a state that’s much like the state little children are in before reaching the age of accountability.

In a previous post, you mentioned The reason why life in the lower kingdoms of 
glory is referred to as "the deaths" is because the reproductive systems of those 
in the lower kingdoms of glory are "dead" and no longer able to function as originally 
designed by the Almighty.

This would be applicable to the view of Adam and Eve being unable to function ("dead" 
in a sense) because they could not reproduce before the Fall, as some former LDS 
leaders taught was how God originally designed them.
 

20 hours ago, teddyaware said:

Therefore, the childlike state that Adam and Eve existed in prior to the fall likely had its comforts, pleasantries and fun, just as young earthly children experience, but the fullness of human joy, satisfaction and happiness can only be obtained by experiencing the fall, growing to maturity and becoming fully accountable before God. 

How did Adam and Eve have pleasantries and fun before the Fall when the Book of
Mormon said they were "having no joy, for they knew no misery"?

[CV75]

3 hours ago, telnetd said:

What do you mean by glad?

 

The mental state resulting from anything they found pleasant and good which God created (See Genesis 2:9; the same as I shared with 3:6). D&C 59: 16 - 20 touches on this as well. The opposite of the feeling, for a time, they got from observing that which is forbidden (despite its enticement), and certainly opposite to the feeling they got after they partook of it. There are physical and mental or spiritual forms of gladness.

Adam and Eve were not inert objects. They were spirits connected with element who exercised agency based on all the combined processes of all their physical and mental states. Eden was a much softened environment (neither telestial nor celestial), and by comparison a compound in one, but it was not a completely inert environment.

Adam became less inert once Eve was introduced to him (and I assumed the same was so for her), his being asleep for a time as she was coming about may be an allusion to this. This does not mean they were inert objects before they became a couple, but just perhaps relatively so. This is how progress ensues.

[CV75]

3 hours ago, telnetd said:

In a previous post, you mentioned The reason why life in the lower kingdoms of 
glory is referred to as "the deaths" is because the reproductive systems of those 
in the lower kingdoms of glory are "dead" and no longer able to function as originally 
designed by the Almighty.

This would be applicable to the view of Adam and Eve being unable to function ("dead" 
in a sense) because they could not reproduce before the Fall, as some former LDS 
leaders taught was how God originally designed them.
 

How did Adam and Eve have pleasantries and fun before the Fall when the Book of
Mormon said they were "having no joy, for they knew no misery"?

Pleasantry and fun are not joy, and especially not a fulness of joy.

[teddyaware]

4 hours ago, telnetd said:

In a previous post, you mentioned The reason why life in the lower kingdoms of 
glory is referred to as "the deaths" is because the reproductive systems of those 
in the lower kingdoms of glory are "dead" and no longer able to function as originally 
designed by the Almighty.

This would be applicable to the view of Adam and Eve being unable to function ("dead" 
in a sense) because they could not reproduce before the Fall, as some former LDS 
leaders taught was how God originally designed them.
 

How did Adam and Eve have pleasantries and fun before the Fall when the Book of
Mormon said they were "having no joy, for they knew no misery"?

The happy moments experienced by young, naive children cannot be compared with the profound joy and deep eternal gratitude that can only be experienced through a fully informed, redemptive relationship with Jesus Christ.  Adam and Eve actually answer your question in most perfect way. Apparently, the joy of redemption far exceeds the joy experienced by innocent children.

10 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 (I.e. a joy far beyond that experienced by innocent young children), and again in the flesh I shall see God.

11 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. (Moses 5)

Edited July 14 by teddyaware

[telnetd]

20 hours ago, CV75 said:

Pleasantry and fun are not joy, and especially not a fulness of joy.

Can you have fun without having joy or happiness?

[telnetd]

20 hours ago, CV75 said:

The mental state resulting from anything they found pleasant and good which God created

What brings you pleasure without joy trailing with it?

[CV75]

1 hour ago, telnetd said:

Can you have fun without having joy or happiness?

I can, can you? Think about how the words you use have different levels of meaning, and which words best describe your experience and meaning. The semantics can be useful in reflecting upon this question. For example, when have you had a "guilty pleasure"? Or had fun doing something you knew was wrong? Sometimes it helps to have an eternal perspective in answering these questions.

1 hour ago, telnetd said:

What brings you pleasure without joy trailing with it?

Anything that an be construed as wicked, which I try my best (and ask for God's grace) to avoid! "...wickedness never was happiness." -- Alma 41:10.

[ZealouslyStriving]

23 hours ago, teddyaware said:

The happy moments experienced by young, naive children cannot be compared with the profound joy and deep eternal gratitude that can only be experienced through a fully informed, redemptive relationship with Jesus Christ.  Adam and Eve actually answer your question in most perfect way. Apparently, the joy of redemption far exceeds the joy experienced by innocent children.

10 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 (I.e. a joy far beyond that experienced by innocent young children), and again in the flesh I shall see God.

11 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. (Moses 5)

Thanks for this. I guess I have never really understood the "having no joy because they knew misery thing"- but the fun of innocent childhood versus the joy after experience makes sense.

Edited July 15 by ZealouslyStriving

[Calm]

4 hours ago, telnetd said:

Can you have fun without having joy or happiness?

Yes.  Think of addicting games, for example.

[ksfisher]

4 hours ago, telnetd said:

Can you have fun without having joy or happiness?

Some people find it fun to tormenting, putting down, or demeaning others.  Some have fun vandalizing others property.  For some getting drunk or using drugs is fun.

Etc, etc, etc.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

6 hours ago, telnetd said:

Can you have fun without having joy or happiness?

 

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Yes.  Think of addicting games, for example.

I always think of Daniel Kahneman’s “experiencing self” and “ remembering self” and the tension between the two. A full day of nothing but video games can bring enjoyment while you are doing it, but regret depression and anxiety afterwards when the reality of life kicks in. On the other hand, the “experiencing self’s” morning sickness, bed rest, back pain, body changes, and horrible pain associated with pregnancy and child birth can bring the “remembering self” satisfaction and joy. 

Edited July 15 by SeekingUnderstanding