Right, then. For the record: LDS theology here, although I'll try to go easy on the BoM quotes (they upset some people for some reason). So.
Adam and Eve lived in the Garden of Eden. This we know. They were innocent, with no knowledge of good or evil (hence the existence of the tree to give them such). They were also immortal, otherwise the line in Genesis 2:17 ('thou shalt not eat of it: for... thou shalt surely die') and Satan's response ('Ye shall not surely die') in 3:4, wouldn't make much sense.
We don't know how long they spent there in Paradise, because Genesis doesn't say. It skips straight from the creation to the serpent's games. We do know that the pair didn't have any children until they left, and that one of the things God told Eve when kicking them out was 'in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children'. Combining this with the fact that Adam and/or God looked for a suitable helper for Adam (Genesis 2:18-20) among the animals, and then made Eve to fill that purpose, it seems we can at least make a case for their being unable, or not having the knowledge required, to have children while in this immortal, perfect state.
And yet. According to the Genesis record, Adam and Eve were given two commandments by God. First, in 1:28, is 'Be fruitful, and multiply'. That doesn't really need too much interpretation. Second, in 2:17, is 'But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it'. (On a side note, it's interesting that he made no such command concerning the tree of life. Wonder why). So, we have God's two instructions -- have kids, and don't eat that fruit. If you accept the conclusion regarding their inability to have children in Eden (which I've taken pains to lay out, because I don't know whether it's a standard 'Orthodox' Christian idea or not), then these two instructions are mutually exclusive. They cannot be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth without first taking the fruit.
But let's examine our assumptions here. 'Be fruitful and multiply' is definitely a commandment, but 'Don't eat it, 'cos you'll die' sounds more like a warning (I know I said I wouldn't, but... this is made clearer in Moses (http://scriptures.lds.org/en/moses/3) 3:17, from the Pearl of Great Price: 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). So what do we have now? One commandment, yes, and one warning or suggestion. God doesn't want them to eat from the tree, because they'll die, but he can't in good conscience order them not to. Why not? Because it's the only way they can fulfil their purpose -- to be fruitful and multiply.
So why not make them that way to begin with, rather than going through the runaround with the trees? Well, he is their father. If you know that your child's going to get hurt somewhere along the line -- especially if the result of that hurt is that they're taken out of your presence, and how much must that pain him? -- then you're not going to rush into it. You're going to put it off as long as you can. In this case, God had to set up the means for them to become mortal, imperfect, and childbearing (otherwise there'd be no point to Earth, with just two people sitting around naked forever), but he apparently couldn't bring himself to actually do it to them. So he gave them a choice of when to leave. With the tree there, they were bound to take the fruit someday, but the when was up to them.
There could, of course, be other explanations -- without the knowledge of good and evil, for example, how could taking the fruit be a sin? How could they know that disobeying the Lord was a bad thing? (Ans: they probably couldn't) -- but I'll only go into the one. And because that took a long time, I'll summarise (in my reply to this comment):
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-09-27 01:53 pm (UTC)Adam and Eve lived in the Garden of Eden. This we know. They were innocent, with no knowledge of good or evil (hence the existence of the tree to give them such). They were also immortal, otherwise the line in Genesis 2:17 ('thou shalt not eat of it: for... thou shalt surely die') and Satan's response ('Ye shall not surely die') in 3:4, wouldn't make much sense.
We don't know how long they spent there in Paradise, because Genesis doesn't say. It skips straight from the creation to the serpent's games. We do know that the pair didn't have any children until they left, and that one of the things God told Eve when kicking them out was 'in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children'. Combining this with the fact that Adam and/or God looked for a suitable helper for Adam (Genesis 2:18-20) among the animals, and then made Eve to fill that purpose, it seems we can at least make a case for their being unable, or not having the knowledge required, to have children while in this immortal, perfect state.
And yet. According to the Genesis record, Adam and Eve were given two commandments by God. First, in 1:28, is 'Be fruitful, and multiply'. That doesn't really need too much interpretation. Second, in 2:17, is 'But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it'. (On a side note, it's interesting that he made no such command concerning the tree of life. Wonder why). So, we have God's two instructions -- have kids, and don't eat that fruit. If you accept the conclusion regarding their inability to have children in Eden (which I've taken pains to lay out, because I don't know whether it's a standard 'Orthodox' Christian idea or not), then these two instructions are mutually exclusive. They cannot be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth without first taking the fruit.
But let's examine our assumptions here. 'Be fruitful and multiply' is definitely a commandment, but 'Don't eat it, 'cos you'll die' sounds more like a warning (I know I said I wouldn't, but... this is made clearer in Moses (http://scriptures.lds.org/en/moses/3) 3:17, from the Pearl of Great Price: 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). So what do we have now? One commandment, yes, and one warning or suggestion. God doesn't want them to eat from the tree, because they'll die, but he can't in good conscience order them not to. Why not? Because it's the only way they can fulfil their purpose -- to be fruitful and multiply.
So why not make them that way to begin with, rather than going through the runaround with the trees? Well, he is their father. If you know that your child's going to get hurt somewhere along the line -- especially if the result of that hurt is that they're taken out of your presence, and how much must that pain him? -- then you're not going to rush into it. You're going to put it off as long as you can. In this case, God had to set up the means for them to become mortal, imperfect, and childbearing (otherwise there'd be no point to Earth, with just two people sitting around naked forever), but he apparently couldn't bring himself to actually do it to them. So he gave them a choice of when to leave. With the tree there, they were bound to take the fruit someday, but the when was up to them.
There could, of course, be other explanations -- without the knowledge of good and evil, for example, how could taking the fruit be a sin? How could they know that disobeying the Lord was a bad thing? (Ans: they probably couldn't) -- but I'll only go into the one. And because that took a long time, I'll summarise (in my reply to this comment):