a thought

[Traveler]

1 hour ago, prisonchaplain said:

I presume God's love, kindness, justice and intelligence. Then I interpret the scripture I read. If a literal interpretation seems difficult, I may dig deeper, look at related passages, and even seek wise counsel from learned teachers. However, I am very slow to jettison the literal understanding. More often than not the difficulty is with my understanding, not with the facts and events of the text.

Using a literal interpretation - and conventional wisdom - why does G-d now guard the Tree of life and did not guard the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil?

 

I would submit that G-d does take the blame for the fall of man.  Not just part of the blame but all of it and paid for it – completely and in full through Jesus Christ.  The conventional wisdom Adam being guilty makes no sense and a mockery of justice – that all are punished for something Adam did.  The symbolism of the title of Adam is the symbolism of all mankind.  At the heart and core of the enmity of the Pharisees for Christ was over the Pharisees interpretation of scripture and Christ’s use of symbolism – as per the example of the Parable of The Good Samaritan.

 

The Traveler

[zil]

6 minutes ago, Traveler said:

Using a literal interpretation - and conventional wisdom - why does G-d now guard the Tree of life and did not guard the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil?

It doesn't say "guard" it says "keep".

Quote

Alma 42:3 Now, we see that the man had become as God, knowing good and evil; and lest he should put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat and live forever, the Lord God placed cherubim and the flaming sword, that he should not partake of the fruit—

...implicit there, and explicit somewhere is the addition: "in his sins" (see also the entire chapter).  Had Adam partaken at that time, without a chance for repentance while in mortality, it would have been the same for him as resurrection without receiving any glory (or so I believe).

Now for us, the way is indeed Christ, and that way is protected (not from us, from evil) and kept open for us through appropriate channels.

As for why God didn't protect the Tree of Knowledge - because that wasn't part of the plan - part of the plan was to let us have knowledge if we so choose.  But once we've done that, mortality is a necessity, hence the temporary prevention for Adam, until he could be taught more...

(All my thought, not necessarily doctrine - except the scripture part.)

[prisonchaplain]

20 minutes ago, Traveler said:

Using a literal interpretation - and conventional wisdom - why does G-d now guard the Tree of life and did not guard the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil?

 

I would submit that G-d does take the blame for the fall of man.  Not just part of the blame but all of it and paid for it – completely and in full through Jesus Christ.  The conventional wisdom Adam being guilty makes no sense and a mockery of justice – that all are punished for something Adam did.  The symbolism of the title of Adam is the symbolism of all mankind.  At the heart and core of the enmity of the Pharisees for Christ was over the Pharisees interpretation of scripture and Christ’s use of symbolism – as per the example of the Parable of The Good Samaritan.

 

The Traveler

Adam & Eve chose the knowledge of good and evil. If God guarded it, after saying they could choose it (at the cost of death and disobedience), that would make him deceptive.  They paid for that knowledge--a steep price indeed. Do we not remember that price when we take communion/sacrament?  Also, is there not a prophesy about how the end times would be a time of knowledge growing exponentially?

As for God taking the blame--we all take the blame for our own sins (I believe I'm in line with LDS teaching on this one):  John 3: 19And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. 

[Blackmarch]

On 9/13/2016 at 9:44 AM, prisonchaplain said:

Outsider question time.  If I have understood explanations given to me here, then Eve WAS a heroine while in the pre-existence, for agreeing to enter mortality, and disobey God, by taking the fruit, so that humanity would have free agency.  Nevertheless, WHILE IN THE GARDEN, she did not remember her choice.  The decision to take the fruit (whether Adam was right with her silently agreeing or not--I believe the former), was sin.  She did disobey God.

Have I got this right?

The gospel according to the understanding of Blackmarch (which is quite heavily influenced by what has been learned from LDS)-

first sentence is essentially correct, however i doubt that anyone chose to enter into mortality with the goal to disobey God in mind, and yes she could not remember her premortal life or the choices therein.
however after that things get complicated-
God first told them that they are free to partake of every fruit, period end of story.- right there they have God's permission to take of the fruit of the tree of knowledge, which brings doing so out of the status of being a sin at this point (as we understand sin is knowingly disobeying God). however right after that God says to not take the fruit of knowledge because that will kill them. if this second part is a direct command then God just contradicted himself, however if it is not a direct command but something else then there is wiggle room (and it can be read both ways with how it is given in the KJV, and if i recall right the account in Moses tends to lean to the latter). So right at the first there is possibly a route where it wasn't sin but perhaps something else.

however the other part of Sin is knowingly doing so... which means adam and eve had to be taught that not following God's command is a sin, as well as understanding it before they partook it. There is nothing I have found that says they were taught this, and we have been taught that before the taking of the fruit they were like children...... however how childlike they were we don't know, but it does suggest some level not understanding or naivete. this state does put a bind on justice.

however i think Eve is considered a heroine for starting the human race in mortality, more than any other aspect of the fall. And also in general it seems to me that that the general acceptance of what happened when she partook of the fruit was that she was alone when she did it.

 

[Rhoades]

19 hours ago, prisonchaplain said:

Still, I do not believe it harms the larger LDS view to say that, whatever their decisions before mortality, in the garden what Adam & Eve did was direct  and simple disobedience. 

I think it would be better to say "what Adam & Eve did was disobedience".  Romans 5:19 supports this.  I have a hard time calling it "simple" as evidenced by this thread.   How much did they know?  What was going through their minds?  Is it better to call it a "transgression"?  And so on.  I suppose it's a good reminder why we aren't to judge others.

There's a good lesson for spouses in the story of the fall.  After they ate the forbidden fruit when the Lord called them on it, Adam said "The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat." (Gen 3:11)   This was worded through Joseph Smith as "The woman thou gavest me, and commandest  that she should remain with me,..." (Moses 4:18)  Adam was supposed to be with Eve ("It is not good that the man should be alone" -- Gen. 2:18)  After Eve partook (and would therefore be cast out), he seemed to have a dilemma.  Should he let her go and disobey commandments to cleave (Gen 2:24), remain (Moses 4:18), be one (Gen 2:24), multiply (Gen 1:28), etc.?  Or should he disobey the commandment about not eating the fruit?  Maybe he should have asked God the next time he came around ... I don't know.  But, there's a lesson about marriage in there.  If a spouse is faced with difficulty and trial (whether brought on by their own choices or not), we could wish them well and abandon them or we could try to stick with them and work through it together.  Another lesson is that sometimes our spouse may make what we think is a terrible choice, yet things turn out for the better in the long run.

[prisonchaplain]

28 minutes ago, Blackmarch said:

The gospel according to the understanding of Blackmarch (which is quite heavily influenced by what has been learned from LDS)-


God first told them that they are free to partake of every fruit, period end of story.- right there they have God's permission to take of the fruit of the tree of knowledge, which brings doing so out of the status of being a sin at this point (as we understand sin is knowingly disobeying God). however right after that God says to not take the fruit of knowledge because that will kill them. if this second part is a direct command then God just contradicted himself, however if it is not a direct command but something else then there is wiggle room (and it can be read both ways with how it is given in the KJV, and if i recall right the account in Moses tends to lean to the latter). So right at the first there is possibly a route where it wasn't sin but perhaps something else.

 

I'm having difficulty with this.  Here's the text that shows us Eve's understanding:  Gen 3: 2And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden: 3But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die. 

 

So, it is not as if God said they could eat from all of the trees, and then at some point later amended/contradicted his command, and told them the Tree of Knowledge was dangerous, so be careful.  RATHER, God said they could eat from all of the trees--EXCEPT the Tree of Knowledge.  It was not two separate commands.  It was a single command, starting with a general invitation to eat, but then restricting them from one tree.  So, why is it so difficult to say that Adam and Eve understood that they weren't suppose to eat from that one tree, but decided to believe the Serpent instead?  They disobeyed God, because the lure of the fruit itself, as well as the gaining of wisdom (and autonomy) seemed so attractive it was worth the risk.

As an aside, I would never hazard to judge Adam & Eve's soul.  I speculate that they are reconciled to God.  However, we are to judge sin, and to my reading of Genesis 3, what they did was sin.  BTW, "transgression" is a 3-syllable word for sin, and "iniquity" is a 4-syllable one, in my book (can you tell I don't like gray much).

[zil]

9 minutes ago, prisonchaplain said:

can you tell I don't like gray much

So, you're not gonna go for any of these, huh?  Personally, I'm a little partial to Diamine Silver Fox, and Pilot Iroshizuku Fuyu-syogun is growing on me as I type the below.  (But I have to confess, grey doesn't appeal much to me either.)

Meanwhile, regarding tree-handling instructions...

1. In Genesis 1:29 (in verse 28, we see "them"), God tells Adam and Eve the fruit of trees are food ("meat") for them.
2. In Genesis 2:16-17, God tells "the man" (no mention of Eve in this scene*) that he can freely eat of "every tree", and then I can see how v17 could be read as, "but fair warning, dude, the fruit of that one will kill you".  Which isn't exactly the same as, "but I command you not to eat of that one".
3. In Genesis 3:2-3, Eve* recounts the instruction they've been given about tree-handling.  And in v11 & 17, God himself says that in the past he commanded them not to eat of that tree.

Leaving aside the Book of Moses and other sources of revelation, based on what I learned growing up, yes, we (Mormons) believe Adam and Eve eating the fruit of this tree was contrary to the commandments of God.  Current thinking might vary on that, hard to say for sure.  Either way, we also believe it was a good thing that they did, cuz none of us would be here if they hadn't.

Personally, I think, the commandment not to eat has one of two origins: either it was intended as "don't eat for now" and further instruction would follow, and / or it was simply that there would be negative consequences to the action and God cannot allow negative consequences without a law, so he explained the law to them and let them choose whether to suffer the negative consequences of acting contrary to that law.

Now, when you're done looking at the grays, let me know whether you want to see the browns (trunk), greens (leaves), or maybe some bright fruity color next.

[Rhoades]

17 minutes ago, prisonchaplain said:

I'm having difficulty with this.  Here's the text that shows us Eve's understanding:  Gen 3: 2And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden: 3But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die. 

 

So, it is not as if God said they could eat from all of the trees, and then at some point later amended/contradicted his command, and told them the Tree of Knowledge was dangerous, so be careful.  RATHER, God said they could eat from all of the trees--EXCEPT the Tree of Knowledge.  It was not two separate commands.  It was a single command, starting with a general invitation to eat, but then restricting them from one tree.  So, why is it so difficult to say that Adam and Eve understood that they weren't suppose to eat from that one tree, but decided to believe the Serpent instead?  They disobeyed God, because the lure of the fruit itself, as well as the gaining of wisdom (and autonomy) seemed so attractive it was worth the risk.

I've heard the two separate command argument before and don't really see it that way either.  I think it's a part of the same set of instructions.

Quote

So, why is it so difficult to say that Adam and Eve understood that they weren't suppose to eat from that one tree

Eve's statement shows that she understood at least to a degree. However, it's difficult to know how much she understood.

Quote

but decided to believe the Serpent instead

Eve says she was "beguiled", but I don't know why.  I don't know what was going through her head.  Did she think God was against it, but wanted to do it anyway in a rebellious sort of way?  Did Satan trick her in to convincing herself that God would be OK with it?  We do this sometimes.

And what about Adam?  They are two different people and could have had two different sets of reasons for their behavior.  I don't see anything to indicate he believed the serpent.   I don't know whether he was "beguiled".  He "hearkened" to the voice of his wife, but I don't know why.  Perhaps he took the fruit so he could be with Eve as I stated in another post. 

Quote

They disobeyed God, because the lure of the fruit itself, as well as the gaining of wisdom (and autonomy) seemed so attractive it was worth the risk.

That seems to be the case for Eve, but I don't think the Bible is clear on why Adam took the fruit.

[zil]

19 minutes ago, zil said:

(no mention of Eve in this scene*)

I forgot my footnote:

*This would be terribly interesting (the idea that Adam was told not to eat, but Eve never got those instructions) were it not for all the places which make it clear that Eve got word.  (Drat, terribly interesting down the drain.)

[Rhoades]

46 minutes ago, prisonchaplain said:

So, why is it so difficult to say that Adam and Eve understood...

Something else of note is that we know their level of understanding was different before the fall.  In Gen 3:5 Satan says "in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil."  Then after they took the fruit in Gen 3:7 it says "the eyes of them both were opened".

It's difficult to say they "understood" because there are various levels of understanding.  Anyone with children knows this.  We know Eve understood at least some before the fall.  But, the Bible teaches they were capable of a greater understanding after taking the fruit.

[Traveler]

3 hours ago, prisonchaplain said:

Adam & Eve chose the knowledge of good and evil. If God guarded it, after saying they could choose it (at the cost of death and disobedience), that would make him deceptive.  They paid for that knowledge--a steep price indeed. Do we not remember that price when we take communion/sacrament?  Also, is there not a prophesy about how the end times would be a time of knowledge growing exponentially?

As for God taking the blame--we all take the blame for our own sins (I believe I'm in line with LDS teaching on this one):  John 3: 19And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. 

 

If we take a literal interpretation of the Eden epoch in Genesis we are left with Adam and Eve given a commandment not to partake of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.  This commandment is not given to anyone else.  The question is – why is everybody else punished for what Adam and Eve did?  The arguments that Adam and Eve knew better because they were commanded and thus were punished for being disobedient and choosing contrary to the commandment of G-d.  As I have said the literal interpretation has so many problems.  Including that G-d is just but the punishment given to Adam and Eve is also laid before every man on earth created by G-d.  How is it just and how is G-d merciful to do such a thing?  I understand all the excuses – I am saying that a merciful and just judge would not punish anyone for a choice they did not make.  In short the excuses are not consistent with the nature of G-d.  Even if we consider only Adam and Eve – the justification is impossible to make logical sense of and still believe G-d is merciful and forgiving.  There is no allowance for Adam and Eve to realize their “sin” and repent.  If Adam and Eve could not repent of their sin and avoid the consequence – how is it that anyone else can? 

The only justification that makes sense to me is that the reason we and everybody else suffers the same consequence of death as did Adam and Eve is that we made the same choice and justly will receive the same consequence.  Your responses may justify the punishment of Adam and Eve but it is impossible to come to such a conclusion unless we understand the scriptures to be symbolic.

 

The Traveler

[prisonchaplain]

25 minutes ago, zil said:

So, you're not gonna go for any of these, huh? 

I don't get it. They appear to be a bunch of light black pens.  Then again, I'm morally color blind (physically too, though I'm not sure which colors).

On the matter of Adam & Eve's guilt, my reading convinces me that they knew they were disobeying God rather directly, and did so because they wanted to know good and evil, so they could decide for themselves.  BTW, if I were LDS, would that not fit with the idea that they agreed to do so in the pre-existence, to win us our freedom?

[prisonchaplain]

27 minutes ago, Rhoades said:

Something else of note is that we know their level of understanding was different before the fall.  In Gen 3:5 Satan says "in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil."  Then after they took the fruit in Gen 3:7 it says "the eyes of them both were opened".

It's difficult to say they "understood" because there are various levels of understanding.  Anyone with children knows this.  We know Eve understood at least some before the fall.  But, the Bible teaches they were capable of a greater understanding after taking the fruit.

It is always the case that we understand the gravity of our sins after we make them, much more so than before. Hindsight really is 20/20. However, God does not play unjust games with his children--such as giving humanity-changing orders not to eat a given fruit, if the recipients of that command only have the understanding of a 4-5 year old innocent.  Our church traditions both teach an "age of accountability." If God was serious about his command, and the issuance of consequences, then Adam and Eve must have had sufficient knowledge of the meaning and weight of God's command before it was given.

[prisonchaplain]

21 minutes ago, Traveler said:

 

If we take a literal interpretation of the Eden epoch in Genesis we are left with Adam and Eve given a commandment not to partake of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.  This commandment is not given to anyone else.  The question is – why is everybody else punished for what Adam and Eve did?  The arguments that Adam and Eve knew better because they were commanded and thus were punished for being disobedient and choosing contrary to the commandment of G-d.  As I have said the literal interpretation has so many problems.  Including that G-d is just but the punishment given to Adam and Eve is also laid before every man on earth created by G-d. 

The Traveler

Neither of our churches teach "original sin." As I quoted above, individuals are condemned because their deeds are evil--not because Adam & Eve sinned.

[NightSG]

21 minutes ago, prisonchaplain said:

(physically too, though I'm not sure which colors).

Is that why you always wear those hideous plaid suits?

[zil]

26 minutes ago, prisonchaplain said:

I don't get it. They appear to be a bunch of light black pens.  Then again, I'm morally color blind (physically too, though I'm not sure which colors).

Those were fountain pen inks in various shades of gray.

27 minutes ago, prisonchaplain said:

On the matter of Adam & Eve's guilt, my reading convinces me that they knew they were disobeying God rather directly, and did so because they wanted to know good and evil, so they could decide for themselves.  BTW, if I were LDS, would that not fit with the idea that they agreed to do so in the pre-existence, to win us our freedom?

Yes, I agree, and I think most Mormons would agree - Adam and Eve knew that they had been told not to eat from that tree, and expected negative consequences for so doing.

Please note that although what I learned in church implies that Adam and Eve agreed to be our first parents, I was never taught that they knew any of the details before-hand.  Whether they did doesn't matter to me either way.  I'm just saying I don't recall ever being taught that they did know.

[prisonchaplain]

That's the other chaplain you are recalling @NightSG.  My wife coordinates my colors quite well.

[NightSG]

8 minutes ago, prisonchaplain said:

That's the other chaplain you are recalling @NightSG.  My wife coordinates my colors quite well.

Or so she tells you  

[Rhoades]

4 minutes ago, prisonchaplain said:

It is always the case that we understand the gravity of our sins after we make them, much more so than before. Hindsight really is 20/20. However, God does not play unjust games with his children--such as giving humanity-changing orders not to eat a given fruit, if the recipients of that command only have the understanding of a 4-5 year old innocent.  Our church traditions both teach an "age of accountability." If God was serious about his command, and the issuance of consequences, then Adam and Eve must have had sufficient knowledge of the meaning and weight of God's command before it was given.

I don't mean to imply that Adam and Eve didn't sufficiently know the fruit was forbidden, nor that God's command with its consequences was unjust.  I think whatever God told them was appropriate for their level of understanding.  I just don't know what that level was.  You can tell a 6 year old or even an 11 year old something and have reasonable expectations that they will comply even if their understanding isn't the same as an adult.  I do NOT think this was like telling a 1 year old not to eat a piece of fruit.

Also, the change in their capability to understand was more significant than realization of the gravity of sin.  Before the fruit they didn't know they were naked.  Afterward, they did.  God tied their change in knowledge to the fruit (Gen 3:11).  God later said that "man is become as one of us, to know good and evil" (Gen 3:22).  In addition to the physical and spiritual changes from the fall, there was something else changed with their ability to know and understand things.

[NightSG]

24 minutes ago, Rhoades said:

Before the fruit they didn't know they were naked.

Demerol can do that too.  Sort of flattered that the neighbor who dropped by to see how I was doing didn't want an apology, though.

[Traveler]

16 hours ago, prisonchaplain said:

Neither of our churches teach "original sin." As I quoted above, individuals are condemned because their deeds are evil--not because Adam & Eve sinned.

 

Thank you for your efforts and patience on this forum.  I love to ask questions so I can better understand both your personal thinking and understanding as well as what it is Evangelicals teach and believe to be doctrine.  I believe you stated that Adam and Eve were “Punished” for disobedience to G-d’s command.  It is this concept of punishment that has me bewildered and confused.  As I understand the punishments (as you called them) metered out and explained by G-d are consequences suffered by every human borne to mortality on earth.

As I understand there is a doctrine of “original sin” that as a doctrine has specifics that neither you nor I hold as true.  But it seems to me this doctrine of original sin tries to explain why mankind suffers the punishments G-d described for Adam and Eve.  I know why I do not believe we (mankind) are punished for something we did not do – because I believe we all made the choice to partake of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil and we are experiencing the unavoidable consequences.

What I do not understand is what you believe.  You say you believe Adam and Eve were punished.  I can understand that – you explanations are clear.  What I do not understand is why you believe G-d would punish everybody else.  You do not believe in original sin – for what sin is everybody else condemned to death (punished) as was Adam and Eve?  Including unborn infants that suffer so in the womb?  Why are they (we – everybody other than Adam and Eve) not born and created to Eden and allowed our own choice to partake of the fruit before being condemned and punished as was Adam and Eve.

I understand that the LDS doctrine is different than what you believe.  I also understand that I think differently than some of my LDS friends but I am trying to understand not just what you believe but why you interpret and believe points that are so different from what I believe and understand.

Thanks

 

The Traveler

[Rhoades]

2 hours ago, Traveler said:

 

Thank you for your efforts and patience on this forum.  I love to ask questions so I can better understand both your personal thinking and understanding as well as what it is Evangelicals teach and believe to be doctrine.  I believe you stated that Adam and Eve were “Punished” for disobedience to G-d’s command.  It is this concept of punishment that has me bewildered and confused.  As I understand the punishments (as you called them) metered out and explained by G-d are consequences suffered by every human borne to mortality on earth.

As I understand there is a doctrine of “original sin” that as a doctrine has specifics that neither you nor I hold as true.  But it seems to me this doctrine of original sin tries to explain why mankind suffers the punishments G-d described for Adam and Eve.  I know why I do not believe we (mankind) are punished for something we did not do – because I believe we all made the choice to partake of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil and we are experiencing the unavoidable consequences.

What I do not understand is what you believe.  You say you believe Adam and Eve were punished.  I can understand that – you explanations are clear.  What I do not understand is why you believe G-d would punish everybody else.  You do not believe in original sin – for what sin is everybody else condemned to death (punished) as was Adam and Eve?  Including unborn infants that suffer so in the womb?  Why are they (we – everybody other than Adam and Eve) not born and created to Eden and allowed our own choice to partake of the fruit before being condemned and punished as was Adam and Eve.

I understand that the LDS doctrine is different than what you believe.  I also understand that I think differently than some of my LDS friends but I am trying to understand not just what you believe but why you interpret and believe points that are so different from what I believe and understand.

Thanks

 

The Traveler

 

Sorry to high jack your questions to the chaplain.  I hope he shares his own thoughts.  But, what do you mean by "I believe we all made the choice to partake of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil and we are experiencing the unavoidable consequences."?  

[Traveler]

18 minutes ago, Rhoades said:

 

Sorry to high jack your questions to the chaplain.  I hope he shares his own thoughts.  But, what do you mean by "I believe we all made the choice to partake of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil and we are experiencing the unavoidable consequences."?  

 

I believe the epoch story of Eden to be symbolic - that the knowledge of evil is death – that by becoming mortal and passing through death that we obtain knowledge of evil (something every mortal experiences).  I believe the knowledge of good is to experience the redemption of the atonement of Christ (also something all mortals will experience) – that partaking or tasting the fruit is symbolic of passing through death and being redeemed by the atonement.  I believe that in the pre-existence we, with full knowledge, exercised our agency to participate in this plan of G-d.  Thus desiring the knowledge of good and evil was not a sin but a consequence of our agency to partake.   What many take as a command was a warning from G-d concerning the consequences and risks should we continue with his Plan of Salvation.  

LDS doctrine is the only doctrine I know of that supports my understanding.

The Traveler

[Rhoades]

5 minutes ago, Traveler said:

 

I believe the epoch story of Eden to be symbolic - that the knowledge of evil is death – that by becoming mortal and passing through death that we obtain knowledge of evil (something every mortal experiences).  I believe the knowledge of good is to experience the redemption of the atonement of Christ (also something all mortals will experience) – that partaking or tasting the fruit is symbolic of passing through death and being redeemed by the atonement.  I believe that in the pre-existence we, with full knowledge, exercised our agency to participate in this plan of G-d.  Thus desiring the knowledge of good and evil was not a sin but a consequence of our agency to partake.   What many take as a command was a warning from G-d concerning the consequences and risks should we continue with his Plan of Salvation.  

LDS doctrine is the only doctrine I know of that supports my understanding.

The Traveler

I'm trying to understand your thinking.  Does that mean you think we don't know good and evil in this life?  We'll only know evil after we die and good after we're resurrected and given glory ??  

[Traveler]

30 minutes ago, Rhoades said:

I'm trying to understand your thinking.  Does that mean you think we don't know good and evil in this life?  We'll only know evil after we die and good after we're resurrected and given glory ??  

 

I do not believe we have knowledge (truth) of evil (or good) and the consequences of evil until we understand and experience death or the consequences of good until we experience redemption.  Joseph Smith said that truth is the knowledge of things as they were, as they are and as they will become.  Since knowledge is truth we must have the truth which is knowledge not just that evil exist but that it brings death. --- Both the first and second death.  And that good bring life

As we live in mortality we live by faith and not knowledge.  When we are resurrected we will stand before G-d – in his presents and complete or agency to receive eternal life or eternal death -- a choice of agency that we will exercise with full knowledge of good and evil.   Those that do not repent because they love darkness more than light will have eternal darkness or if we desire eternal light according to our desire and thus use our agency.  But I do not believe we have knowledge of good or evil in this life – rather we choose our path in this life by faith – either faith in Christ or faith in something else (example fame, money, pleasure or power all of which are elements of Satan or his lies and temptations).

Thanks for asking – hope this give insight to my thinking and understanding.

The Traveler