[quote]
God created an intelligent being with reasoning powers sufficient to evaluate the directives issued by God and choose to obey or not.
[quote]
You realize this is the same thing as saying he knew right from wrong, don’t you?
Fish is piscies. Maybe that’s what you were thinking of? I(It starts with a “p” anyway and it also has a “c” in it)
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Diogenes the Cynic *
[quote]
God created an intelligent being with reasoning powers sufficient to evaluate the directives issued by God and choose to obey or not.
Hardly. If I give you directions to a party and I tell you to turn left at the 7-11, but you turn right, you are wrong. Not evil.
So how does the fruit fit in?
Boy, that didn’t sound right at all.
What I mean is, what role did the fruit play in all this?
No, in fact God is saying that if they eat the fruit they will surely die. It is your opinion based on an interpretation that favors what you already believe that God is talking about some two-fold death, one immediate and spiritual, and the other long range and physical.
NaSultainne, we seem to be talking past each other. While you quoted my plea for elucidation regarding what I regard as something of a biblical paradox, your replying post doesn’t seem to directly address the question at all. Earlier you seemed to indicate that the fruit did in fact have an effect on Adam’s perceptions, but elsewhere you appear to suggest that the opposite is true. It seems to me that if eating the fruit made Adam aware of the sinful nature of his disobedience, then logically he could not have been the concepts of good and evil to begin with. That’s the whole point of my earlier screed regarding color-blindness, etc. If, on the other hand, Adam had the faculty to distinguish between good and evil to begin with, then what did the fruit do?
Opps. “Had the concepts of good and evil,” not “been the concepts,” is what I meant to say.
No, I’m not arguing that at all, **NaSultainne. ** What I am stating, though, is that it is simply human interpretation. It can’t be anything other than human interpretation, because hey, neither you nor I were actually there to hear the conversation. And because we weren’t, we can only guess.
Now, I’m not going to sit here and say that guessing and interpreting is wrong, especially not when it comes to the Bible. It’s a really, really old book, filled with stories passed down orally for hundreds of years before they were written down. All we can do is guess and interpret, and hope we get it right.
However, I will never presume to actually know, for an absolute 100% fact, what God meant when he told Adam that he would die. Whether or not there was any further conversation isn’t stated. It doesn’t say that Adam asked for clarification. It doesn’t say that God offered any. All it says is that God said they’d die on the day they ate the fruit.
It wouldn’t surprise me in the least if Adam took that to mean the same thing that I did, the first time I read the story–immediate physical death. I was a child when I read it, and Adam was very child-like. Like me, he was still learning about the world, and God was this Big Scary Creator Guy. But, like me, he eventually came to realize that sometimes, God can be really, really vague, and it is, in fact, up to us as humans to feebly attempt to figure it out.
And that’s pretty much what I’ve been saying all along. In my KJV, it says that God said X to Adam. And that’s all that we’ve got to go on. The whole spiritual/physical death interpretation, though, is just that–an interpretation. I cannot say that it’s what God meant, because I am not so presumptuous that I will assume to actually know the mind of God.
But taking the whole story into account, and looking at the fact that they did not die, nor did God slay them after they ate, leaves things open to a couple of interpretations. One is yours, of course. And IMHO, it’s not a bad interpretation. It’s probably one of the easiest interpretations one can make about any of the Biblical stories.
Then again, maybe God just said “you’ll die” in an attempt to keep Adam and Eve in line. He said he didn’t want them to eat of the tree, but he was also aware that he created these people, and that there were only two of them, and the only actual knowledge that they had was whatever he told them. And perhaps, because of that, maybe God felt a little bad about the whole thing, so instead of smiting them immediately and starting over, he let them live. He made things tough, of course, but he didn’t kill them. He let them live, and pass on the knowledge of good and evil.
I don’t know for certain, because like I said above, I wasn’t there to overhear the conversation, and I’ll never presume to know the mind of any Deity. So all I can do is guess, and accept that any ideas I may have about the whole thing are nothing more than guesses.
I always somehow assumed that what God meant, when he told Adam that he would ‘surely die’, was that, up until that ‘sin’ Adam would live ‘forever’. But after his ‘sin’ he would have to experience ‘death’.
‘This day you will surely die’ I took to mean, that from that very day forward Adam would no longer be an ‘immortal’.
The serpent’s words ‘you will NOT die’ I took to mean that the ‘knowledge’ gained would be sufficient to let Adam know who and what he REALLY was in all his perfection, (‘he is as one of us’) that he was a creation ‘in the image of God’, and that death itself is an illusion. Unfortunately, toil, and pain and greed and hate and death covered up that knowledge. Man today is still trying to regain it.
I dunno… some of us just see things differently.
As for the apple? It is interesting that this was the secret symbol of Pythagoras and his ‘secret society’. What knowledge might be hidden within the depths of a mere ‘apple’?
lite
Keep in mind, Persephone and litecluster, that God gave Adam all the trees in the Garden to eat from, with the exception of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil.
One of those trees was the Tree of Life (Gen. 2:9).
So, as long as they lived in the Garden, and didn’t eat of the Tree of Knowledge, they could eat from the Tree of Life.
Because they disobeyed and ate of the T of K, they were banished from the Garden and separated from the T of L. Hence, death, whether physical or spiritual, or both, ensued.
Whether more conversation or explanation was forthcoming, we don’t know, as Persephone has pointed out. But Adam was given a clear choice, with clear consequences, and the Tree of Life, which he’d always had access to, was subsequently denied him. Really, it was all right in front of him.
Do you get this from Gen. 2:17? My Bible doesn’t say this, but I get a sense you’re reading from the KJV, and I’m looking at the NIV, which says “you will surely die.” Saying that they will die “on that day” could, of course, be interpreted to mean that from that day forward mankind’s fate would be sealed, but you can see that and accept or reject it if you choose. At any rate, consequences are not always immediately forthcoming. Even a child can appreciate that.
Actually, if a child is told something by an authority figure that turns out not to be true, the child tends not to trust the authority figure as much, causing said authority figure to resort to physical threats.
Parent:“If you smoke marijuana you will go crazy, and eventually you will become addicted to harder drugs and ruin your life!”
Child:“Well, I took a toke, got a little high but didn’t go nuts, and I have no desire to try crack.”
Parent:“If you smoke it again, I will kick you out of the house and never speak to you again!”
Now in the Eden story, God made a threat, Adam and Eve(who were already handicapped by the Almighty himself by not having the mental capacity to tell good from bad) heard the threat, then they heard another side of the story from another authority figure(the serpent) who gave them direct evidence that having said Knowledge didn’t immediately kill you. God himself allowed the serpent to take up residence in Eden, giving lie to his statement about said knowledge causing death. God seems to be the most inept father figure ever presented in literature, IMHO.
What if Adam refused Eve’s offer ? Would he have remained in the garden of Eden without Eve ?
I asked this very question over at the pizza parlor.
It resulted in a long thread.
Once someone asked Pat Robertson this.
He simply laughed and said, “I guess God would’ve made another woman then!”
:dubious:
Well if God is really omniscient, then I would assume he knew exactly what the outcome was going to be.
It was probably all a part of his plan.
And here we are. 
lite
Would anyone actually be interested in a Mormon POV at this point, or has this thread been abandoned?
I’d be willing to work on a response, but it’d be a bit lengthy and the inevitable Mormon-bashing would likely start soon afterward (which I’m also willing to enture). If it’ll be ignored, I’d prefer not to invest the effort.
Well, I’m listening, anyway. Fire when ready, Gridley!
Well, Terrifel if you’re still reading, then it’s worth the effort. Here goes.
The site linked to in the OP commits two of the most egregious errors in Mormon apologetics (IMO):[ul][li]It does not clearly deliniate official LDS doctrine from personal opinion (either that of the author)[*]It attempts to prove too much using the Bible[/ul]As a result of the first point, there is some explanation/interpretation that is not official doctrine (and some points that I simply disagree with). As a result of the second point, many of the interpretations from the Bible look like pretty tortured reading, as if in an attempt to squeeze any meaning from them that might support the LDS position.[/li]
When it comes down to it, the clearest teachings about Adam and Eve are in the exclusively LDS scriptures (Book of Mormon (BoM), Doctrine and Covenants (D&C), Pearl of Great Price (PoGP)).
To me, the two most difficult to understand items in the whole of Christianity are the Fall and the Atonement. Not surprisingly, actually, since they are the focal points of the religion, and are inextricably tied together. I’ve spent a lot of time to understand both, and can’t say I have complete understanding. But I have also long thought about the decision Adam & Eve made, and whether they were (as you put it) framed–or rather, why did God give them conflicting commandments?
First we learn from the Book of Mormon that “if Adam had not transgressed…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”. This can be inferred from the Bible from the verses cited on the original link, but it is made explicitly clear in the BoM.
Second, God gave them two important commandments: to “multiply and replenish [fill] the earth” and to not partake of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil (TKG&E). Additionally, many have interpreted a lot of the A&E story to be allegory–while we LDS accept Adam and Eve as real individuals, the actual events are heavily symbolic rather than entirely literal. One LDS leader refers to the act of partaking of the fruit as (IIRC) “breaking the law upon which their existence inthe Garden was predicated.” Pretty general, but the idea is that it wasn’t necessarily a physical tree or fruit.
Here we arrive at a dilemma: Those two commandments are mutually exclusive (at least in the LDS scriptures–without them it’s not as clear). The commandment to multiply could not be obeyed in the Garden of Eden–but could only be fulfilled as a result of the Fall.
Let’s look at the different accounts of the commandments in the various scriptures. All references to the Bible are from the King James Version (KJV).
The commandment to not eat from the TKG&E:
[quote]
[ul][li]Bible: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.[]Moses(PoGP): But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it, nevertheless, thou mayest choose for thyself, for it is given unto thee; but, remember that I forbid it, for in the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.[]Abraham(PoGP): But of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the time that thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die.[/ul][/li][/quote]
Note that the text in Moses is different (as I emphasized). That account clearly shows that the commandment WRT the TKG&E is different than other commandments–nowhere else does God say, “Thou shalt not…nevertheless, thou mayest choose for thyself, for it is given unto thee; but, remember that I forbid it”.
So what do we conclude?
Partaking of the fruit was forbidden, but not in the same way that other things are prohibited. Official LDS doctrine is that the Fall was necessary (as noted in the quote from the 2 Nephi). The only way for A&E to leave the Garden of Eden was to partake of the fruit. You ask:
Was the Fall punishment? I don’t believe so. Yes, there were consequences, but they are never described as punishment. Indeed, God specifically says that Adam and Eve “have become as one of us, to know good and evil.” Note that it does not say to know of good and evil, but rather to know good and evil. In other words, A&E were faced with good and evil and made their choice and knew the difference because of their choice. There was no other way for them to learn it.
So why then did God forbid them from doing something which was necessary? I’ve seen several lines of speculation, but there’s no clear revelation on the point. The page linked in the OP suggests that God had conflicting desires, but I disagree: God had a single desire, to share His life with us–this mortal life is the only way to become like Him. An idea that I like better is that the prohibition was so that Adam and Eve had to choose for themselves voluntarily to enter mortality. Had there been no prohibition, there would have been no moral agency (free will). The Garden of Eden without the TKG&E and the prohibition would be like a multiple-choice quiz with only one choice–in order to have free will, two things must be present: 1) the ability to choose, and 2) choices to make. The choice had to be there, and not be something God commanded, or there would have been no choice possible.
That’s the best answer I can arrive at–I’m not completely resolved on the issue, but what I’ve concluded makes sense to me. Additionally, we believe that we chose to come to earth before we were born (that is, we existed before mortality as spirits, and agreed to follow the plan God set forth to share His life with us, including mortality). It’s interesting that the idea of preserving our agency runs throughout the entire plan (that’d be another post longer than this one to elaborate).
If I didn’t answer the question to your satisfaction, please let me know.
Additional Points
Q: Did Adam & Eve die the day they ate the fruit?
A: Yes. And no.
See the LDS reference on Death, and you’ll get a good answer for the “two types of death” issue (note: while the LDS Bible Dictionary is informative, it is not normative–that is, it is not official doctrine, but it does provide references in scriptures for what it describes, and those are official). They died spiritually when they were cast out of Eden. And there are a few references to God’s time being one day for a thousand of our years. Since Adam died before 1000 years had passed (barely), he physically died that same day.
An interesting point is that the word “day” in Genesis is from the Hebrew word which doesn’t necessarily mean “day.” It can mean simply “a time” (and indeed, that’s how the text is rendered in Abraham as I quoted above). The “days” of creation could equally be rendered “creative time periods” of unspecified length. And the phrase “in the day that thou eatest thereof” does not necessarily mean that same 24-hour period that they partake of the fruit. In fact, we don’t know what the action represented by partaking of the fruit was–it might have required more than a literal day! In any case, partaking of the fruit precipitated mortality, and hence Adam and Eve began to die right away.
Q: Is dying a bad thing?
A: No. Dying is part of the plan God has given us, which (unconditionally) includes the Resurrection, and (conditionally) the glorification of all those children of God who choose to be with Him, even to be like He is.
Q: Did Adam and Eve know what they were doing?
A: Eve was told by Satan two things: that she wouldn’t die, and that she would know good and evil like the gods. Satan provided a half-truth–they would die. Eve acted on that information, and some LDS commentaries state that she chose to do so even though it would mean she would have to leave Eden. There is a difference (IMO) between “knowing of good and evil” and “knowing good and evil”. Before the Fall, A&E knew of it. After, they knew it through experience. So yes, I believe they knew what they were doing, at least as well as they possibly could know it. And in deciding it, they were ratifying the pre-mortal decision to pass through mortality.
Q: Did Adam (and Eve) sin?
A: As the link said, they are referred to “transgressing” not “sinning”. As innocents, they were unable to sin per se, but they could not avoid the consequences of their actions. Just as a child touching a hot stove may not be sinning, but he’ll still get burned.
emarkp, thank you for your insightful and thought-provoking reply. I’m afraid I’m going to have to visit the library before I can properly appreciate all the nuances; I appreciate the links, which should help a good deal. I have very little familiarity with Mormon scripture, but the passages you’ve cited seem to clearly support your thesis that the Fall was indeed God’s original intent. As one who is only familiar with the Bible version, I find this supplementary material fascinating. The same story is told, but the emphasis is very different. My puzzlement with the Biblical account was always reinforced by the fact that the story itself presents the Fall as just that-- a failing, an unambiguously bad thing. God casts Adam out for the sin of disobedience, end of story. The idea that the scenario could be seen to represent a kind of victory is a startling one.
If I understand you correctly, the essential point of the Fall is God’s desire to give Adam the opportunity to choose mortality over an eternity of stagnation in Eden. How, then, does Mormon scripture address the presence of the other tree, the Tree of Life? Surely Adam and Eve were immortal as originally created? After the Fall, God hustles them out of the Garden to keep them from eating it-- I guess because, once separated from his grace, if they ate the Fruit of Life they could never die and be saved. But did the Tree have a purpose to begin with?
One other quick question (I feel like Columbo here)-- The “two types of death” listed in the LDS Dictionary refers to spiritual death as a separation from righteousness. This seems to agree with the notion that the Fall was, indeed, against the will of God. It’s hard for me to grasp the concept that it should be necessary for mankind to die spiritually, to become alienated from God in order to know God better. Why should the Resurrection be necessary to amend this state, if all God wants from us is to choose righteousness? Shouldn’t the desire of Adam and Eve to remain with God have been enough for this purpose? (Open question, obviously, since it evidently wasn’t.)
Once again, thanks for all your time and effort.
Right.
The Tree of Life is referred to in several different contexts used to symbolize Eternal Life (life like God has). However, when the Tree of Life in the Garden of Eden is referred to, it always appears to be the case that eating from that tree would have prevented them from dying. Lehi specifically states that the trees are in opposition to each other.
Much of the story is (I believe) allegorical. So it is quite possible (even likely) that neither tree actually existed as a physical tree. One possible interpretation is that the Tree of Life (in Eden) represents immortality, or living forever. That seems to be what all the scriptures which refer to the Tree of Life in Eden describe–Alma goes so far as to say that had they partaken of the fruit of the ToL, they would have lived forever in their sins. The ToL might be symbolic of the entire Edenic state–uncorrupted. Thus, the ToL (or what it represented–say God’s grace extended to His creation) preserved the Edenic state. That’s one interpretation of mine, off the top of my head. I haven’t consulted anything other than the scriptures that I know of that refer to the issue. I don’t have my references handy to check what others have commented about it.
“Separation from righteousness” may simply mean being cut off from the direct presence of God–A&E left Eden and left the face-to-face relationship with the Father. Indeed, that’s how I interpret it.
It is necessary to be apart from God for a time so that we may encounter the good and the evil and choose the good. It is necessary to do this without a sure knowledge of God, so that we may develop our character and be proved–yes part of this life is a test.
Note that the Resurrection only overcomes physical death, and is unconditional to all mortals. We are sanctified only if we accept the Lord’s sacrifice and strive to do what He asked of us, and we put off the natural man.
Understand that God is not satisfied with us being like Adam and Eve, or like we are now. His goal is to share everything that He has with us. It’s a lofty goal, and it is a difficult journey. We accepted that plan, and indeed we rejoiced in it.
Oh, and BTW, I don’t think you’re Columbo.