From Beverly Campbell’s book ‘Eve and the Choice Made in the Garden’ (repost of a lost entry)
The Lord commanded Adam and Eve to multiply and replenish the earth while at the same time commanding them not to partake of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. If they obeyed the second commandment, they would not fulfill the first and greater commandment. Then, as He has done in connection with no other commandment, they would not fulfill the first and greater commandment. Then as He has done in connection with no other commandment, He reminded them of their agency: “Nevertheless, thou mayest choose for thyself’ (Moses 3:17).
Conflicting commandments? Ambiguity? How do we resolve this apparent contradiction?
We are taught that unless blood flowed in the veins of Adam and Eve, they would have no children. Yet, with blood flowing in their veins, they could not exist in the Garden atmosphere. This difficult ambiguity had to be worked through. With agency as the preeminent law of the universe, the choice was theirs and theirs alone. The Fall, even in light of its paramount importance to the Father’s plan could not be forced upon Adam and Eve. They had to voluntarily choose the course themselves. Nor could their choice be made in ignorance, for a choice made in such a state would not be a true exercise of agency.
Elder Boyd K. Packer explained that “there was too much at issue to introduce man into mortality by force. That would contravene the very law essential to the plan.”1 Elder John A. Widtsoe elaborated on the agency that had to prevail in the Garden: “The eternal power of choice was respected by the Lord himself. . . . It really converts the command into a warning, as much as if to say, if you do this thing, you’ll bring upon yourself a certain punishment, but do it if you choose. . . .
“The Lord had warned Adam and Eve of the hard battle with earth conditions if they chose to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. He would not subject his son and daughter to hardship and the death of their bodies unless it be of their own choice. They must choose for themselves. They chose wisely, in accord with the heavenly law of love for others.”2
Even so, the reasons for using these seemingly ambiguous means to achieve a greater end are sometimes still hard to grasp. Lehi’s people must have wrestled with this teaching, too. Lehi carefully walked them through the necessity of this action, advising, “If ye shall say there is no law, ye shall also say there is no sin. If ye shall say there is no sin, ye shall also say there is no righteousness. And if there be no righteousness there be no happiness, . . . no punishment nor misery. And if these things are not there is no God” (2 Nephi 2:13). Lehi’s profound words are as relevant today as when he wrote them. The need for such a dialogue hauntingly familiar. The “gospel of relativism” prevails in many places, teaching that there is no absolute right, no absolute wrong. Emanating from many media sources are cautions—do not evaluate, do not make moral judgments. We are told that right or good reflect each individual’s value system. Yet, though it is important to understand another’s motives, to abandon the Lord’s imperatives is sheer folly.
President Brigham Young explained that “it was necessary that sin should enter into the world; no man could ever understand the principle of exaltation without its opposite; no one could ever receive an exaltation without being acquainted with its opposite. How did Adam and Eve sin? Did they come out in direct opposition to God and to His government? No. But they transgressed a command of the Lord, and through that transgression sin came into the world.”3
continued. . .Nevertheless, Thou Mayest choose II
