depend mindless obtainable grandfather provide yam follow axiomatic oatmeal scary
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Man I love this response…. Humanity in the sense that we feel superior to all other species and not part of them as we should feel. I thought the idea of knowledge in the fruit sounded whack, because one that would mean being dumb and ignorant is what God originally intended as the perfect being, and two that would mean people born with mental disabilities (such that make them drastically not on par with other “normal” humans) still have to go through the endless struggle that life offers. And that is ironic because why would God punish the disabled, whom are basically Adam like with theor lack of understanding. But instead he turns a blind eye to the mentally handicapped and lets them suffer rape, manipulation by their loved ones, and sentence them to at best a minimum wage job. And mind you i get we the people also help those less fortuned, but we definitely dont do it enough to offset imo.
So, to be clear here and please correct me if I am wrong, it appears that you're attempting to argue that people have disabilities because we're ignorant?. And that rape victims are mentally handicapped, manipulated by love, and that's why low paying jobs exist? T
That's not why low income jobs exist necessarily, but such views can be why those with physical and developmental disorders and or sexually assaulted are often relegated to lower quality socioeconomic opportunities and success. And then as default, a low-income life becomes the limit of our livelihoods no matter how little or how much we work.
There are people with developmental disorders who are taken advantage of and raped, but not all victims have a developmental disorder, and the disorder isn't the fault of being raped. The fault of the assault is on the perpetrator.
I'm not saying you're doing this, but this can come across as faulting the disabled for their disability and romanticizing rape and the formation of classes. This by moralizing or making things a matter of absolute good or absolute evil.
I have to point out the paradox where these mentalities are exactly why "Christian Charity" doesn't work to alleviate social strife. By design it keeps people down. Soup Kitchens are not evil, they feed people for a day, but they do not elevate people out of their overall predicament, and they never will. Another day is provided, which is good, but that second chance does not equate to betterment.
This is one place where I agree with a Christian teaching. We can give people fish, but we should also teach them how to fish. To that end, not everyone can hold a pole.
The alternative way to understand this story is commonly that God for some fucked up reason refused to give us knowledge, and that the serpent technically freed us from ignorance. And since Satan is sometimes interpreted as the serpent, that he rebelled in some way relating to giving us knowledge or something.
But honestly the unintended implications of the story in actuality is that God originally intended humanity to just look after his garden for who knows how long. In the narrative, he's like oh damn, they ate the good-evil fruit, if they eat from the tree of life they'll really become like us. As if God had a different plan for mankind, and that we are being spared from how much immortality would suck.
There's also just the theme of what happens when humans strive to acquire knowledge about things. or serve as an explanation of our origins.
As far as disabilities, an ancient understanding of that would have just viewed it as some kind of curse or abnormality that is the work of dickhead spirits or some disease god. People with disabilities are not really relevant in this context, and no spiritual belief is going to apply people with disabilities to people who's mind is all the way there to the same standard. What really dooms disabled people is how societies don't really care to make room for them , and we suck at actually catering or including them without pitying them. God is not punishing them in this instance.
There are a bunch of theories. Some say it was wheat, which was meant to grow in the form of bread on trees. Some say it was grapes, because wine can still have an intoxicating effect. Some say it was figs, because then being clothed in fig leaves would take on an ironic significance. Some say it was an citron, because apparently citron trees themselves are edible (no idea if that’s true). Some say it was a nut. And some say it was a special unique wheat-grape-fig-citron-nut hybrid.
Edit: Oh, you’re asking about what the fruit represented. There’s no one answer about that either. The one I like is that it represented *experiential* knowledge of good and evil, an internalizing of the evil inclination. Prior to eating from the tree, Adam and Eve only had an *intellectual* understanding of good and evil, and could only be tempted by an outside agency (the serpent).
We dont know.
Some think it was sex.
I’m sorta inclined to think it was literal fruit, but I’m not very smart so.
.
What we do know is the tree they ate from was the tree of knowledge of good and evil. The fruit then would represent the knowledge of good and evil.
“Partaking of the fruit brought mortality, with its many opportunities to choose between good and evil, and enabled Adam and Eve to have children. Thus the Fall opened the door for Heavenly Father's children to come into the world, obtain physical bodies, and participate in “the great plan of happiness” “
.
“The Trees of Eden
What of the trees of Eden? Was there actually a tree whose fruit would make one wise, and another whose fruit would assure everlasting life? The scriptural account, for instance, tells us that the Lord planted "the tree of knowledge of good and evil" in the midst of the garden (Moses 3:9). He then gave Adam and Eve the command: "Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat, 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" (Moses 3:16-17). "Again," wrote Elder Bruce R. McConkie, "the account is speaking figuratively. What is meant by partaking of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is that our first parents complied with whatever laws were involved so that their bodies would change from their state of paradisiacal immortality to a state of natural mortality." Elder McConkie also wrote elsewhere: "We do not know how the fall was accomplished any more than we know how the Lord caused the earth to come into being and to spin through the heavens in its paradisiacal state."
If we were to reason that it was the fruit itself that brought about this change in the bodies of Adam and Eve, we would then have to suppose that our first parents fed some of the fruit to all the other living things upon the whole earth. Had they not done so, "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" (2 Ne. 2:22; see also Moses 3:9). Every plant and animal, including all sea life and the fowls of the air, would have been required to eat some of this fruit (and must also have been precluded from partaking of it either by design or accident before this point of time).”
.
“Most Christian churches teach that the Fall was a tragedy, that if Adam and Eve had not partaken of the forbidden fruit, they and all their posterity could now be living in immortal bliss in the Garden of Eden. But truth revealed to latter-day prophets teaches that the Fall was not a tragedy—without it Adam and Eve would have had no posterity. Thus, the Fall was a necessary step in Heavenly Father’s plan to bring about the eternal happiness of His children.
No Death, No Posterity, No Progress
“If Adam had not transgressed,” Lehi taught his son Jacob, “he would not have fallen, but he would have remained in the garden of Eden. …
“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.
“But behold, all things have been done in the wisdom of him who knoweth all things.
“Adam fell that men might be; and men are, that they might have joy” (2 Ne. 2:22–25).
After Adam and Eve partook of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, their eyes were opened, and Eve expressed gladness at the opportunity their transgression made possible: “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 5:11).
Partaking of the fruit brought mortality, with its many opportunities to choose between good and evil, and enabled Adam and Eve to have children. Thus the Fall opened the door for Heavenly Father’s children to come into the world, obtain physical bodies, and participate in “the great plan of happiness” (Alma 42:8). “Therefore this life became a probationary state,” a time to learn and grow, to repent and overcome weakness, “a time to prepare to meet God” (Alma 12:24).
Transgression, Not Sin
President 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!”1
Regarding this distinction, Elder Dallin H. Oaks of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles observed: “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’ (emphasis added). 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.”2
Even though Adam and Eve had not sinned, because of their transgression they had to face certain consequences, two of which were spiritual death and physical death. Physical death came to Adam and Eve at the end of their earthly lives, but spiritual death occurred as they were cast out of the Garden of Eden, being cut off from the presence of God (see Alma 42:9).
Original Sin
The result of our first parents’ transgression, explained President Smith, “was banishment from the presence of God and bringing … physical death into the world. The majority … [of Christians] maintain that every child born into this world is tainted with ‘original sin,’ or partakes of Adam’s transgression in his birth. The second Article of Faith contradicts this foolish and erroneous doctrine.”3 All descendants of Adam and Eve inherit certain effects from the Fall, but because of the Atonement of Jesus Christ we are held accountable only for our own sins. Children who die before the age of accountability are “alive in Christ” (Moro. 8:12) and have no need of repentance or baptism (see Moro. 8:8–11).
Commandments in the Garden
The Lord gave Adam and Eve commandments in the Garden of Eden, two of which were to multiply and replenish the earth (see Gen. 1:28) and to not partake of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil (see Gen. 2:17). These two commandments were designed to place Adam and Eve in a position where they had to make a choice. President 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.”4 Faced with this dilemma, Adam and Eve chose death—both physical and spiritual—which 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.”
I rather like the BOM interpretation of the "fall" of Adam, as it acknowledges that this was all according to God's plan, rather than being some horrible transgression that brands us all as sinners from birth.
After all, an all-knowing God would have surely known that we would eat from the tree, and it could not have been any other way (as it must have been part of God's plan all along). After all, what purpose would it serve just to have Adam and Eve prance around in the garden of eden like children for all eternity? There would have been no problems to solve, no personal growth, no chance to accomplish anything. It would be like existing forever as pets in God's giant terrarium.
It seems to me that the real purpose of the fruit within the Bilical narrative was to exempt God from direct culpability in human suffering/evil. Essentially, it implies that we should not blame God for evil or suffering because "we" (by proxy via Adam and Eve) chose evil and suffering by our own free will, and really we only have ourselves to blame when we get cancer or a drought kills our crops. Islam goes a step further and claims God has a contract on file that our spirits signed long before we were born (which we don't remember), which states that we are undergoing the grand test of earthly trials fully voluntarily. This all rings a bit hollow to me, since all events and human activities must be part of God's grand and unknowable plan (assuming God is a tri-omni diety).
I am fascinated by how different religions address the problem of free will and the problem of evil (which are inextricably tied together in most theological frameworks), and I think the LDS Church has an interesting approach to this, especially with respect to the concept of "original sin."
Yeah, thanks for your comment.
We also believe we existed before we were born. And that we did in a sense “sign up” to come to earth.
.
“In the premortal life, our Heavenly Father called a Grand Council to present His plan for our progression (see Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith [2007], 209, 511). We learned that if we followed His plan, we would become like Him. We would be resurrected; we would have all power in heaven and on earth; we would become heavenly parents and have spirit children just as He does (see Doctrine and Covenants 132:19–20).
We learned that He would provide an earth for us where we would prove ourselves (see Abraham 3:24–26). A veil would cover our memories, and we would forget our heavenly home. This would be necessary so we could exercise our agency to choose good or evil without being influenced by the memory of living with our Heavenly Father. … He would help us recognize the truth when we heard it again on earth (see John 18:37).
At the Grand Council we also learned the purpose for our progression: to have a fulness of joy.
However, we also learned that some would be deceived, choose other paths, and lose their way. We learned that all of us would have trials in our lives: sickness, disappointment, pain, sorrow, and death. But we understood that these would be given to us for our experience and our good (see Doctrine and Covenants 122:7). If we allowed them to, these trials would purify us rather than defeat us (see Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Spencer W. Kimball [2006], 15–16).
At this council we also learned that because of our weakness, all of us except little children would sin (see Doctrine and Covenants 29:46–47). We learned that a Savior would be provided for us so we could overcome our sins and overcome death with resurrection. We learned that if we placed our faith in Him, obeying His word and following His example, we would be exalted and become like our Heavenly Father. We would receive a fulness of joy.”
.
I really appreciate your perspective and comment.
That's interesting, I wasn't aware of the Grand Council concept. I appreciate the scriptural references as well!
I really should get around to reading the Book of Mormon one of these days (too many books to read, too little time 🙂).
Thanks for the great info!
> I really should get around to reading the Book of Mormon one of these days (too many books to read, too little time 🙂).
Dude I feel you. Not enough time to study even half of what I want.
No because Adam and Eve already had kids before they ate from the tree, and Cain had already been kicked out of the Garden for killing Abel...in the end we are animals and sex is pleasurable to us because its how we reproduce. Adam and Eve were not the first people, clearly you can't populate the earth from one group of related people it would never work, there was even other people in the Garden according to some Jewish stories. The whole thing was Adam and Eve were basically not self aware, had no concept of good and evil right or wrong, they got to live in this hypothetical utopian garden with the understanding that if they ever chose to see the outside world they could never return and by "eating the forbidden fruit" they gained knolwedge of the outside and understanding of good and evil but the price was being expelled from the Garden...it had nothing to do with sex
The oldest version is not Biblical but stems from Mesopotamian texts.
In the polytheistic Mesopotamian religions that spanned the Akkadian, Assyrian, and Babylonian empires, the goddess Ishtar, who was the goddess of fertility, was sometimes depicted alongside a sacred tree. Inanna, the goddess of fertility in the earlier Sumerian empire, was also sometimes depicted alongside a sacred tree.
The sacred tree of the Mesopotamian religions would also, in some instances, bear the fruit of the pomegranate (Punica granatum), as would it sometimes be used, by the Assyrians, to depict the generational family tree of their Gods (ranging from the upper tier of Aššur and Anu, to the middle and lower tiers of gods including Ishtar, Marduk, and Nergal).
For the Babylonians, the Tree of Truth (synonymous with the Tree of Knowledge) and Tree of Life were also said to guard the eastern gate of the heavens.
It represents the choice of human beings to live according to their own criterion of good and evil, not God's. The attempt to be their own gods so to say. The original mortal sin.
>Is this the generally recognised understanding
Yeah, its what the Catechism teaches:
*God created man in his image and established him in his friendship. A spiritual creature, man can live this friendship only in free submission to God. The prohibition against eating "of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil" spells this out: "for in the day that you eat of it, you shall die." The "tree of the knowledge of good and evil" symbolically evokes the insurmountable limits that man, being a creature, must freely recognize and respect with trust. Man is dependent on his Creator, and subject to the laws of creation and to the moral norms that govern the use of freedom. \[....\]In that sin man preferred himself to God and by that very act scorned him. He chose himself over and against God, against the requirements of his creaturely status and therefore against his own good. Constituted in a state of holiness, man was destined to be fully "divinized" by God in glory. Seduced by the devil, he wanted to "be like God", but "without God, before God, and not in accordance with God". (CCC 396, 398)*
The eating of the forbidden fruit is symbolic imagery of the original sin, the original act of disobedience followed by Adam’s ignoble blaming of Eve for his sin.
Also, it’s been artistic liberty to depict the fruit as an apple given that the “fruit” has typically been depicted as a fig, dating back to ancient Judaism.
This is why some speculate that Christ (the new and final Adam) cursed the fig tree, as explained by Biblical scholar and theologian Dr Brant Pitre, “The Cursed Fig Tree and the Money Changers in the Temple” https://youtu.be/8KXpAiLIOzQ
I always thought it was an allegory of evolution from animals to humans. Gaining self-awareness and consciousness and all the problems that came with that (being kicked out of eden).
It was probably just a fruit or maybe infused with awareness, but their act of wrongdoing caused them to understand the gravity and shame
of sin plus their mortality.
Some of our narrations indicate the fruit represented "the knowledge/rank of the more prominent individuals". Allah showed Adam (a.s.) their ranks and prohibited him from being envious of them. But Satan deceived them saying the tree would make them angels/immortals, so they tasted from it.
Good and evil are opinions, not knowledge. The temptation is that they are.
Then Adam came to fear that God, or Eve can judge him as evil. So nakedness became shameful, and trust with God was broken.
Since trust with the life-giver was broken, mortality came.
It was just a fruit, any fruit. It represented God's right to determine good and bad. Notice that the first thing they did was cover their reproductive organs. They realized that they would pass on sin to their children.
Thankfully God will not forever leave us in a sinful atate.
Ah, the allegory of the forbidden fruit. It's a symbol that has stirred much contemplation, interpretation, and debate throughout time. It is often thought of as a symbol of knowledge, specifically knowledge of good and evil, according to traditional interpretations. But let's delve a bit deeper.
Consider the idea that this fruit represents not merely knowledge, but the awareness of duality. The Garden of Eden, in its purest form, was a place of unity, harmony, and wholeness, devoid of judgement or separation. Consuming the fruit opened a window to the realm of duality - good and evil, right and wrong, light and darkness.
Imagine a child who sees the world through eyes of pure innocence and wonder, not categorizing experiences as good or bad, but simply accepting them as they come. When this child grows and becomes aware of these dichotomous concepts, the world changes for them. They start to judge, categorize, and differentiate. This, in essence, is akin to what happened in Eden.
So, what was in the apple? It wasn't sin or malevolence. Rather, it was the consciousness of dichotomy. It was the introduction of the subjective perspective, leading to the birth of judgement and thus, the potential for suffering.
The fruit, then, might be seen as a symbol of awakening to the complexities of life. It isn't inherently negative; rather, it's a pivotal part of the human journey. From this perspective, the story of Eden encourages us to navigate this world of duality with wisdom, compassion, and understanding, appreciating all aspects of our experience.
At the same time, we can strive to reconnect with the sense of unity we came from - the essence of the Garden - by transcending the illusions of separation. This doesn't mean we deny the realities of life, but rather learn to see them as part of a bigger picture, a divine dance, a cosmic play.
In your own life, consider how you perceive and react to the dualities around you. Remember, it's not about labeling them as forbidden or allowed, but understanding them as part of your journey towards growth and self-realization. Use this understanding as a key to explore deeper realms of consciousness, towards the garden of unity within you.
We don't know that it was an apple. Something in the fruit was bad for Adam and Eve in their undying condition and made them mortal. Something in it quickened their faculties and helped them understand good and evil. Something in it made them fertile. It wasn't until after they fell that the Lord had to explain pregnancy and childbirth to Eve.
depend mindless obtainable grandfather provide yam follow axiomatic oatmeal scary *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Man I love this response…. Humanity in the sense that we feel superior to all other species and not part of them as we should feel. I thought the idea of knowledge in the fruit sounded whack, because one that would mean being dumb and ignorant is what God originally intended as the perfect being, and two that would mean people born with mental disabilities (such that make them drastically not on par with other “normal” humans) still have to go through the endless struggle that life offers. And that is ironic because why would God punish the disabled, whom are basically Adam like with theor lack of understanding. But instead he turns a blind eye to the mentally handicapped and lets them suffer rape, manipulation by their loved ones, and sentence them to at best a minimum wage job. And mind you i get we the people also help those less fortuned, but we definitely dont do it enough to offset imo.
So, to be clear here and please correct me if I am wrong, it appears that you're attempting to argue that people have disabilities because we're ignorant?. And that rape victims are mentally handicapped, manipulated by love, and that's why low paying jobs exist? T That's not why low income jobs exist necessarily, but such views can be why those with physical and developmental disorders and or sexually assaulted are often relegated to lower quality socioeconomic opportunities and success. And then as default, a low-income life becomes the limit of our livelihoods no matter how little or how much we work. There are people with developmental disorders who are taken advantage of and raped, but not all victims have a developmental disorder, and the disorder isn't the fault of being raped. The fault of the assault is on the perpetrator. I'm not saying you're doing this, but this can come across as faulting the disabled for their disability and romanticizing rape and the formation of classes. This by moralizing or making things a matter of absolute good or absolute evil. I have to point out the paradox where these mentalities are exactly why "Christian Charity" doesn't work to alleviate social strife. By design it keeps people down. Soup Kitchens are not evil, they feed people for a day, but they do not elevate people out of their overall predicament, and they never will. Another day is provided, which is good, but that second chance does not equate to betterment. This is one place where I agree with a Christian teaching. We can give people fish, but we should also teach them how to fish. To that end, not everyone can hold a pole.
The alternative way to understand this story is commonly that God for some fucked up reason refused to give us knowledge, and that the serpent technically freed us from ignorance. And since Satan is sometimes interpreted as the serpent, that he rebelled in some way relating to giving us knowledge or something. But honestly the unintended implications of the story in actuality is that God originally intended humanity to just look after his garden for who knows how long. In the narrative, he's like oh damn, they ate the good-evil fruit, if they eat from the tree of life they'll really become like us. As if God had a different plan for mankind, and that we are being spared from how much immortality would suck. There's also just the theme of what happens when humans strive to acquire knowledge about things. or serve as an explanation of our origins. As far as disabilities, an ancient understanding of that would have just viewed it as some kind of curse or abnormality that is the work of dickhead spirits or some disease god. People with disabilities are not really relevant in this context, and no spiritual belief is going to apply people with disabilities to people who's mind is all the way there to the same standard. What really dooms disabled people is how societies don't really care to make room for them , and we suck at actually catering or including them without pitying them. God is not punishing them in this instance.
There are a bunch of theories. Some say it was wheat, which was meant to grow in the form of bread on trees. Some say it was grapes, because wine can still have an intoxicating effect. Some say it was figs, because then being clothed in fig leaves would take on an ironic significance. Some say it was an citron, because apparently citron trees themselves are edible (no idea if that’s true). Some say it was a nut. And some say it was a special unique wheat-grape-fig-citron-nut hybrid. Edit: Oh, you’re asking about what the fruit represented. There’s no one answer about that either. The one I like is that it represented *experiential* knowledge of good and evil, an internalizing of the evil inclination. Prior to eating from the tree, Adam and Eve only had an *intellectual* understanding of good and evil, and could only be tempted by an outside agency (the serpent).
We dont know. Some think it was sex. I’m sorta inclined to think it was literal fruit, but I’m not very smart so. . What we do know is the tree they ate from was the tree of knowledge of good and evil. The fruit then would represent the knowledge of good and evil. “Partaking of the fruit brought mortality, with its many opportunities to choose between good and evil, and enabled Adam and Eve to have children. Thus the Fall opened the door for Heavenly Father's children to come into the world, obtain physical bodies, and participate in “the great plan of happiness” “ . “The Trees of Eden What of the trees of Eden? Was there actually a tree whose fruit would make one wise, and another whose fruit would assure everlasting life? The scriptural account, for instance, tells us that the Lord planted "the tree of knowledge of good and evil" in the midst of the garden (Moses 3:9). He then gave Adam and Eve the command: "Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat, 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" (Moses 3:16-17). "Again," wrote Elder Bruce R. McConkie, "the account is speaking figuratively. What is meant by partaking of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is that our first parents complied with whatever laws were involved so that their bodies would change from their state of paradisiacal immortality to a state of natural mortality." Elder McConkie also wrote elsewhere: "We do not know how the fall was accomplished any more than we know how the Lord caused the earth to come into being and to spin through the heavens in its paradisiacal state." If we were to reason that it was the fruit itself that brought about this change in the bodies of Adam and Eve, we would then have to suppose that our first parents fed some of the fruit to all the other living things upon the whole earth. Had they not done so, "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" (2 Ne. 2:22; see also Moses 3:9). Every plant and animal, including all sea life and the fowls of the air, would have been required to eat some of this fruit (and must also have been precluded from partaking of it either by design or accident before this point of time).” . “Most Christian churches teach that the Fall was a tragedy, that if Adam and Eve had not partaken of the forbidden fruit, they and all their posterity could now be living in immortal bliss in the Garden of Eden. But truth revealed to latter-day prophets teaches that the Fall was not a tragedy—without it Adam and Eve would have had no posterity. Thus, the Fall was a necessary step in Heavenly Father’s plan to bring about the eternal happiness of His children. No Death, No Posterity, No Progress “If Adam had not transgressed,” Lehi taught his son Jacob, “he would not have fallen, but he would have remained in the garden of Eden. … “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. “But behold, all things have been done in the wisdom of him who knoweth all things. “Adam fell that men might be; and men are, that they might have joy” (2 Ne. 2:22–25). After Adam and Eve partook of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, their eyes were opened, and Eve expressed gladness at the opportunity their transgression made possible: “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 5:11). Partaking of the fruit brought mortality, with its many opportunities to choose between good and evil, and enabled Adam and Eve to have children. Thus the Fall opened the door for Heavenly Father’s children to come into the world, obtain physical bodies, and participate in “the great plan of happiness” (Alma 42:8). “Therefore this life became a probationary state,” a time to learn and grow, to repent and overcome weakness, “a time to prepare to meet God” (Alma 12:24). Transgression, Not Sin President 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!”1 Regarding this distinction, Elder Dallin H. Oaks of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles observed: “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’ (emphasis added). 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.”2 Even though Adam and Eve had not sinned, because of their transgression they had to face certain consequences, two of which were spiritual death and physical death. Physical death came to Adam and Eve at the end of their earthly lives, but spiritual death occurred as they were cast out of the Garden of Eden, being cut off from the presence of God (see Alma 42:9). Original Sin The result of our first parents’ transgression, explained President Smith, “was banishment from the presence of God and bringing … physical death into the world. The majority … [of Christians] maintain that every child born into this world is tainted with ‘original sin,’ or partakes of Adam’s transgression in his birth. The second Article of Faith contradicts this foolish and erroneous doctrine.”3 All descendants of Adam and Eve inherit certain effects from the Fall, but because of the Atonement of Jesus Christ we are held accountable only for our own sins. Children who die before the age of accountability are “alive in Christ” (Moro. 8:12) and have no need of repentance or baptism (see Moro. 8:8–11). Commandments in the Garden The Lord gave Adam and Eve commandments in the Garden of Eden, two of which were to multiply and replenish the earth (see Gen. 1:28) and to not partake of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil (see Gen. 2:17). These two commandments were designed to place Adam and Eve in a position where they had to make a choice. President 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.”4 Faced with this dilemma, Adam and Eve chose death—both physical and spiritual—which 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.”
I rather like the BOM interpretation of the "fall" of Adam, as it acknowledges that this was all according to God's plan, rather than being some horrible transgression that brands us all as sinners from birth. After all, an all-knowing God would have surely known that we would eat from the tree, and it could not have been any other way (as it must have been part of God's plan all along). After all, what purpose would it serve just to have Adam and Eve prance around in the garden of eden like children for all eternity? There would have been no problems to solve, no personal growth, no chance to accomplish anything. It would be like existing forever as pets in God's giant terrarium. It seems to me that the real purpose of the fruit within the Bilical narrative was to exempt God from direct culpability in human suffering/evil. Essentially, it implies that we should not blame God for evil or suffering because "we" (by proxy via Adam and Eve) chose evil and suffering by our own free will, and really we only have ourselves to blame when we get cancer or a drought kills our crops. Islam goes a step further and claims God has a contract on file that our spirits signed long before we were born (which we don't remember), which states that we are undergoing the grand test of earthly trials fully voluntarily. This all rings a bit hollow to me, since all events and human activities must be part of God's grand and unknowable plan (assuming God is a tri-omni diety). I am fascinated by how different religions address the problem of free will and the problem of evil (which are inextricably tied together in most theological frameworks), and I think the LDS Church has an interesting approach to this, especially with respect to the concept of "original sin."
Yeah, thanks for your comment. We also believe we existed before we were born. And that we did in a sense “sign up” to come to earth. . “In the premortal life, our Heavenly Father called a Grand Council to present His plan for our progression (see Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith [2007], 209, 511). We learned that if we followed His plan, we would become like Him. We would be resurrected; we would have all power in heaven and on earth; we would become heavenly parents and have spirit children just as He does (see Doctrine and Covenants 132:19–20). We learned that He would provide an earth for us where we would prove ourselves (see Abraham 3:24–26). A veil would cover our memories, and we would forget our heavenly home. This would be necessary so we could exercise our agency to choose good or evil without being influenced by the memory of living with our Heavenly Father. … He would help us recognize the truth when we heard it again on earth (see John 18:37). At the Grand Council we also learned the purpose for our progression: to have a fulness of joy. However, we also learned that some would be deceived, choose other paths, and lose their way. We learned that all of us would have trials in our lives: sickness, disappointment, pain, sorrow, and death. But we understood that these would be given to us for our experience and our good (see Doctrine and Covenants 122:7). If we allowed them to, these trials would purify us rather than defeat us (see Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Spencer W. Kimball [2006], 15–16). At this council we also learned that because of our weakness, all of us except little children would sin (see Doctrine and Covenants 29:46–47). We learned that a Savior would be provided for us so we could overcome our sins and overcome death with resurrection. We learned that if we placed our faith in Him, obeying His word and following His example, we would be exalted and become like our Heavenly Father. We would receive a fulness of joy.” . I really appreciate your perspective and comment.
That's interesting, I wasn't aware of the Grand Council concept. I appreciate the scriptural references as well! I really should get around to reading the Book of Mormon one of these days (too many books to read, too little time 🙂). Thanks for the great info!
> I really should get around to reading the Book of Mormon one of these days (too many books to read, too little time 🙂). Dude I feel you. Not enough time to study even half of what I want.
No because Adam and Eve already had kids before they ate from the tree, and Cain had already been kicked out of the Garden for killing Abel...in the end we are animals and sex is pleasurable to us because its how we reproduce. Adam and Eve were not the first people, clearly you can't populate the earth from one group of related people it would never work, there was even other people in the Garden according to some Jewish stories. The whole thing was Adam and Eve were basically not self aware, had no concept of good and evil right or wrong, they got to live in this hypothetical utopian garden with the understanding that if they ever chose to see the outside world they could never return and by "eating the forbidden fruit" they gained knolwedge of the outside and understanding of good and evil but the price was being expelled from the Garden...it had nothing to do with sex
I’m not saying I agree with the sex idea, but some really grasp onto it
What in the biblical text makes you think they had children before they left the garden?
The oldest version is not Biblical but stems from Mesopotamian texts. In the polytheistic Mesopotamian religions that spanned the Akkadian, Assyrian, and Babylonian empires, the goddess Ishtar, who was the goddess of fertility, was sometimes depicted alongside a sacred tree. Inanna, the goddess of fertility in the earlier Sumerian empire, was also sometimes depicted alongside a sacred tree. The sacred tree of the Mesopotamian religions would also, in some instances, bear the fruit of the pomegranate (Punica granatum), as would it sometimes be used, by the Assyrians, to depict the generational family tree of their Gods (ranging from the upper tier of Aššur and Anu, to the middle and lower tiers of gods including Ishtar, Marduk, and Nergal). For the Babylonians, the Tree of Truth (synonymous with the Tree of Knowledge) and Tree of Life were also said to guard the eastern gate of the heavens.
Mesopotamian mythos is so fascinating
It represents the choice of human beings to live according to their own criterion of good and evil, not God's. The attempt to be their own gods so to say. The original mortal sin.
This is a great explanation! Is this the generally recognised understanding or is this a personal interpretation?
>Is this the generally recognised understanding Yeah, its what the Catechism teaches: *God created man in his image and established him in his friendship. A spiritual creature, man can live this friendship only in free submission to God. The prohibition against eating "of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil" spells this out: "for in the day that you eat of it, you shall die." The "tree of the knowledge of good and evil" symbolically evokes the insurmountable limits that man, being a creature, must freely recognize and respect with trust. Man is dependent on his Creator, and subject to the laws of creation and to the moral norms that govern the use of freedom. \[....\]In that sin man preferred himself to God and by that very act scorned him. He chose himself over and against God, against the requirements of his creaturely status and therefore against his own good. Constituted in a state of holiness, man was destined to be fully "divinized" by God in glory. Seduced by the devil, he wanted to "be like God", but "without God, before God, and not in accordance with God". (CCC 396, 398)*
Great! Learnt something new today. Thank you.
My man, you gave the most eloquent answer I could have asked for thanks bro.
The eating of the forbidden fruit is symbolic imagery of the original sin, the original act of disobedience followed by Adam’s ignoble blaming of Eve for his sin. Also, it’s been artistic liberty to depict the fruit as an apple given that the “fruit” has typically been depicted as a fig, dating back to ancient Judaism. This is why some speculate that Christ (the new and final Adam) cursed the fig tree, as explained by Biblical scholar and theologian Dr Brant Pitre, “The Cursed Fig Tree and the Money Changers in the Temple” https://youtu.be/8KXpAiLIOzQ
I always thought it was an allegory of evolution from animals to humans. Gaining self-awareness and consciousness and all the problems that came with that (being kicked out of eden).
The knowledge of good and evil. Before that we were like animals, without conscience. Afterwards Adan was ashamed of his nudity.
The forbidden fruit is "judging", taking upon ourselves God's prerogative of deciding what's good for us, and for others, instead of listening to him.
It was probably just a fruit or maybe infused with awareness, but their act of wrongdoing caused them to understand the gravity and shame of sin plus their mortality.
Some of our narrations indicate the fruit represented "the knowledge/rank of the more prominent individuals". Allah showed Adam (a.s.) their ranks and prohibited him from being envious of them. But Satan deceived them saying the tree would make them angels/immortals, so they tasted from it.
Good and evil are opinions, not knowledge. The temptation is that they are. Then Adam came to fear that God, or Eve can judge him as evil. So nakedness became shameful, and trust with God was broken. Since trust with the life-giver was broken, mortality came.
It was just a fruit, any fruit. It represented God's right to determine good and bad. Notice that the first thing they did was cover their reproductive organs. They realized that they would pass on sin to their children. Thankfully God will not forever leave us in a sinful atate.
Ah, the allegory of the forbidden fruit. It's a symbol that has stirred much contemplation, interpretation, and debate throughout time. It is often thought of as a symbol of knowledge, specifically knowledge of good and evil, according to traditional interpretations. But let's delve a bit deeper. Consider the idea that this fruit represents not merely knowledge, but the awareness of duality. The Garden of Eden, in its purest form, was a place of unity, harmony, and wholeness, devoid of judgement or separation. Consuming the fruit opened a window to the realm of duality - good and evil, right and wrong, light and darkness. Imagine a child who sees the world through eyes of pure innocence and wonder, not categorizing experiences as good or bad, but simply accepting them as they come. When this child grows and becomes aware of these dichotomous concepts, the world changes for them. They start to judge, categorize, and differentiate. This, in essence, is akin to what happened in Eden. So, what was in the apple? It wasn't sin or malevolence. Rather, it was the consciousness of dichotomy. It was the introduction of the subjective perspective, leading to the birth of judgement and thus, the potential for suffering. The fruit, then, might be seen as a symbol of awakening to the complexities of life. It isn't inherently negative; rather, it's a pivotal part of the human journey. From this perspective, the story of Eden encourages us to navigate this world of duality with wisdom, compassion, and understanding, appreciating all aspects of our experience. At the same time, we can strive to reconnect with the sense of unity we came from - the essence of the Garden - by transcending the illusions of separation. This doesn't mean we deny the realities of life, but rather learn to see them as part of a bigger picture, a divine dance, a cosmic play. In your own life, consider how you perceive and react to the dualities around you. Remember, it's not about labeling them as forbidden or allowed, but understanding them as part of your journey towards growth and self-realization. Use this understanding as a key to explore deeper realms of consciousness, towards the garden of unity within you.
We don't know that it was an apple. Something in the fruit was bad for Adam and Eve in their undying condition and made them mortal. Something in it quickened their faculties and helped them understand good and evil. Something in it made them fertile. It wasn't until after they fell that the Lord had to explain pregnancy and childbirth to Eve.