Recommended Posts

This is the last of the "tough questions" that have been bugging me about the Church, so I figured I'd ask it here before my meetings with the missionaries Wednesday:

Can you explain the LDS position on the Fall of Adam and Eve? I was brought up to believe that they were in paradise in the garden, and God told them they could stay as long as they didn't eat the fruit. Eve was tempted by the devil to eat it, and Adam followed, which led to the invention of sin and all of the problems we have as humans today.

However, from my research, it seems like Mormons view Adam and Eve eating the fruit as a good thing. How could it be good to knowingly obey Heavenly Father's order, and invent sin? I will admit that all I know of is topic is from the Catholic Answers Forum, which has a notoriously anti-LDS spin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is the last of the "tough questions" that have been bugging me about the Church

 

You're questions aren't a bother at all-- we're happy to help.

 

Can you explain the LDS position on the Fall of Adam and Eve?

 

Scripture link which talks about this topic dead on-- https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/2-ne/2?lang=eng

 

Now, on to Jane talking (much more lame-man-style than Nephi).  I can provide scripture references later if you want:

 

To understand the LDS perspective on the Fall, it helps to start with a couple of basic premises:

1)  God is a smart guy.  He knows the beginning from the end and no one is going to out-smart Him. 

2)  God is a loving guy.  He loves all His children and wants them to live with Him and experience the fullness of joy. 

3)  God is respectful.  He will not force a man to heaven or hell. 

4)  We, as frail human beings, cannot know happiness without also knowing what sadness is. 

 

God created the earth and the Garden with the two trees.  As His crowning creation, He created physical bodies for Adam and Eve.  He first commanded them to multiply and replenish the Earth, and then only later commanded them not to eat of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.   Now, Adam and Eve hung around the Garden with God, but they  were yet as children: they didn't know good from evil, they didn't know sadness so they couldn't know joy, they didn't know death, and they could not have children (to do that you need to know about sex).  While God was happy with the Garden, He knew that this was only the first step of man's growth. 

 

Eventually, the devil serpent comes to Eve and tells her that if she eats of the fruit she'll be like God, knowing good from evil.  Satan thinks he's so clever: telling Eve a really good lie (ie one that's 90% truth and 10% false) to get her to disobey God and thwart His plan. 

 

Now, Eve we don't know how long Adam and Eve hung around the garden ignoring the serpent.  But eventually Eve does partake of the fruit, and she and Adam have their eyes open so that they can know good from evil.  Sin now enters the world and Adam and Eve has to leave the Garden.   This is a sad moment, but ultimately a step in the right direction---

 

For God is so much smarter than the devil: God knew that Adam and Eve won't stay innocent forever.  He knows that His children need to experience pain/grief so they can know happiness.  He wants us to experience life, to know joy, to make our own choices--- even if it means some hurt along the way.  Essentially, His children need to leave the nest so they can make their own choices, and eventually choose to return to Him.  The was the plan all along: even before the Garden was created, the Father had paved the plan for Christ come down and redeem the fallen prodigals, so that we all can return to Him with the fullness of joy.

 

Does that make sense?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Along with the above...

- A necessary thing. Without the fall, the rest of our spirits would not have had the chance to come to this world. No learning, no progression, no choosing the path to God. Just 2 people. Birth is painful & full of risk... Just like the fall... But it's necessary for new life. In order for us to use our agency/free will to CHOOSE the Father, we kinda had to get here, first.

- Also a love story. Adam could have rejected Eve, had her fall all on her own. Instead he chose to face the unknown with her. Choosin to face the wrath of God, is no small thing. But be it stepping out into moving traffic for our child, or risking death for those we love in any other circumstance, it's a choice made of love. It's growing up. Accepting the consequences of our actions, whether we know them ahead of time, or not.

All good things.

Not necessarilly fun, happy, or joyous things. But good things.

Q

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The missing doctrine that separates the Catholic viewpoint from the LDS viewpoint on the Garden of Eden is Pre-mortal Existence.

 

Basically, Catholics believe that Adam, and so also Eve, were created from nothing - both body and spirit - at the Garden.  Therefore, it was not Adam nor Eve's choice to be in the Garden but it was their choice that led them out of the Garden.  In LDS teaching, Adam and Eve were eternal spirits whose mortal body was created at the Garden.  Therefore, Adam and Eve made the choice to go through the Plan of Salvation as a step in their Eternal Progression in Pre-Mortal Existence and everything that happened in the Garden was an unfolding of the Plan.

 

In Catholic teaching, therefore, Eve's choice to eat the apple is a thwarting of God's will for man - God intended for man to live as in the Garden - all of us would have been in Paradaisical existence had Eve not eaten the apple...

 

In LDS teaching, Eve's choice to eat the apple is a step in God's plan for man's progression.

 

In both Catholic and LDS teaching - eating the apple is a sin.  But because of that missing doctrine of Pre-Mortal Existence - the import of such a sin is different.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A crucially important scripture for understanding the LDS Fall viewpoint is: "Adam fell that men might be; and men are, that they might have joy"  (2 Nephi 2:27, in the Book of Mormon).   I think this has already been explained.

 

Another verse that no one (including myself) has touched on is the Mormon Second Article of Faith: "We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression."  In other words: I (or anyone else) is not to be blamed and carry no sin for what Adam did.  I am only accountable for my own sins (and everyone else for theirs). 

 

Following that line of logic, in the Mormon faith babies carry no sin, and are incapable of sinning until they are old enough to know right from wrong.  Hence, you need to be at least 8 (age of accountability) to be baptized in the Mormon faith.  If a child were to tragically die before then "are made perfect in Christ" without the need of baptism.   The Book of Mormon talks thoroughly about this: https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/moro/8.8-24?lang=eng#7

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

This is the last of the "tough questions" that have been bugging me about the Church, so I figured I'd ask it here before my meetings with the missionaries Wednesday:

Can you explain the LDS position on the Fall of Adam and Eve? I was brought up to believe that they were in paradise in the garden, and God told them they could stay as long as they didn't eat the fruit. Eve was tempted by the devil to eat it, and Adam followed, which led to the invention of sin and all of the problems we have as humans today.

However, from my research, it seems like Mormons view Adam and Eve eating the fruit as a good thing. How could it be good to knowingly obey Heavenly Father's order, and invent sin? I will admit that all I know of is topic is from the Catholic Answers Forum, which has a notoriously anti-LDS spin.

 

The missing doctrine that separates the Catholic viewpoint from the LDS viewpoint on the Garden of Eden is Pre-mortal Existence.

 

Basically, Catholics believe that Adam, and so also Eve, were created from nothing - both body and spirit - at the Garden.  Therefore, it was not Adam nor Eve's choice to be in the Garden but it was their choice that led them out of the Garden.  In LDS teaching, Adam and Eve were eternal spirits whose mortal body was created at the Garden.  Therefore, Adam and Eve made the choice to go through the Plan of Salvation as a step in their Eternal Progression in Pre-Mortal Existence and everything that happened in the Garden was an unfolding of the Plan.

 

In Catholic teaching, therefore, Eve's choice to eat the apple is a thwarting of God's will for man - God intended for man to live as in the Garden - all of us would have been in Paradaisical existence had Eve not eaten the apple...

 

In LDS teaching, Eve's choice to eat the apple is a step in God's plan for man's progression.

 

In both Catholic and LDS teaching - eating the apple is a sin.  But because of that missing doctrine of Pre-Mortal Existence - the import of such a sin is different.

I think Anatess does a very good job explaining here.

I think i'd also like to add the scriptures do not provide information at how much they understood before they partook of the fruit, and understanding what is right and wrong is necessary to be able to sin. (the scriptures don't even say if they were told to only follow God the father, before taking the fruit for example).

 

Then also compounding the situation further we have a truly unique situation where God has provided all of the things in the Garden, and also called all of it Good (including hte tree of knowledge). He then tells Adam that he may eat of all fruit.. and then says they are allowed to eat the fruit of knowledge, but not to do so because it will kill them.

one of the few instances where God says yes you may but dont do it... which makes it hard to qualify it as a sin, or at least a sin the way all other sins are.

Moses 3

 17 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.

genesis 2

 15 And the Lord God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.

 16 And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:

 17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

 

 

one other thought that jsut came from looking at the OT text.... I notice it was the man who was taken and told by God and it was the woman who was tempted first. Don't know if that is worth noting or not tho.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 months later...

this original sin of mankind is the same sin as Satan's right? 

How you are fallen from heaven,
O Lucifer, son of the morning!
How you are cut down to the ground,
You who weakened the nations!

For you have said in your heart:

‘I will ascend into heaven,
I will exalt my throne above the stars of God;
I will also sit on the mount of the congregation
On the farthest sides of the north;

I will ascend above the heights of the clouds,

I will be like the Most High.’
(Isaiah 14:12-14) 

but God said, 

‘You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree that is in the midst of the garden, neither shall you touch it, lest you die.’

But the serpent said to the woman,

“You will not surely die. For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened,

and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”
(Genesis 3:3-5) 

Satan was cast from heaven because he thought to make himself like God, to be equal with God, to have his own throne in heaven, to be "
like the most High"
Satan tempted Eve saying that eating the fruit - against the command of God - would also make her "
like God
the same sin of pride, the same self-idolatry.

isn't this the case?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Following that line of logic, in the Mormon faith babies carry no sin, and are incapable of sinning until they are old enough to know right from wrong.  

don't you have to reject the Psalms in order to believe this? 

 

Surely I was sinful at birth,

sinful from the time my mother conceived me.

(Psalm 51:5) 

and the apostles? 

For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. 

For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.

(1 Corinthians 15:21-22) 

why did God give laws for atonement for childbirth (Leviticus chapter 12) ?

:confused: 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Moses 3

 17 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.

genesis 2

  17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

how to explain the apparent contradiction -- "thou shalt not, nevertheless thou mayest" 

:confused: 

is there anywhere else that the Lord says "here is my commandment, feel free to break it" ? 

seriously, i'm having a hard time reconciling that  :( 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

how to explain the apparent contradiction -- "thou shalt not, nevertheless thou mayest" 

:confused: 

is there anywhere else that the Lord says "here is my commandment, feel free to break it" ? 

seriously, i'm having a hard time reconciling that  :( 

 

 

Hmm. Has the Lord ever forced you or anyone you know to keep any commandments? Isn't it obvious that we may choose for ourselves in spite of His commandments? So why is is difficult to understand that the Lord might actually have said this obvious truth?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

don't you have to reject the Psalms in order to believe this? 

 

Surely I was sinful at birth,

sinful from the time my mother conceived me.

(Psalm 51:5) 

and the apostles? 

For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. 

For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.

(1 Corinthians 15:21-22) 

why did God give laws for atonement for childbirth (Leviticus chapter 12) ?

:confused: 

 

Corinthians seems generic to me, we say that sort of thing all the time without expliciting stating the exceptions to the rule. The cleansing laid out in leviticus was for the mother, not the child. Psalm's are just songs... I'm not sure I'd give it much weight in terms of doctrine... perhaps more uplifting and soul soothing but, I don't know if David's musician is a fabulous source of doctrine.

Take what I say

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Death is a consequence of the fall. That we have to deal with the consequences, good or bad, or an ancestor's decision is a part of life, and has no bearing on whether or not those actions were sinful.  My ancestors came to the United States.  Because of that I live better than the vast majority of the world.  Now that doesn't mean that I am somehow more virtuous than others, only that I have a much better standard of living. 

 

Adam and Eve made a decision long ago.  That decision had long lasting consequences.  We live with those consequences, but those consequences do not mean that we are held responsible by God for the actions of others. God however can not interfere with free will, or the consequences that come from it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Psalm's are just songs... I'm not sure I'd give it much weight in terms of doctrine... 

Jesus considered the Psalms equally with the Prophets and the Law: 

He said to them, "This is what I told you while I was still with you:

Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms."

(Luke 24:44) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jesus considered the Psalms equally with the Prophets and the Law: 

He said to them, "This is what I told you while I was still with you:

Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms."

(Luke 24:44) 

KJV renders it differently, "This is what I told you while I was still with you:

Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms concerning me." (emphasis added)

I'm not the type of person that understands the nuances of hebrew and why lines are translated the way they are in different places, so I have no idea which is more true to the source.

 

Even so, it seems more of a despairing line than a doctrinal statement that we are accountable for sins even as a newborn, I take it as a dramatic, poetic way of saying, "I'm a really sinful dude".

Edited by jerome1232
Link to comment
Share on other sites

you are right about the Levitical law, thank you. 

perhaps Paul is more explicit here in Romans chapter 5 than in his shorter letter to Corinth though: 

 

Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned— 13 for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law. 14 Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come.

15 But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if many died through one man's trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift by the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many. 16 And the free gift is not like the result of that one man's sin. For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation, but the free gift following many trespasses broughtjustification. 17 For if, because of one man's trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ.

18 Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men. 19 For as by the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man'sobedience the many will be made righteous. 20 Now the law came in to increase the trespass, but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more, 21 so that,as sin reigned in death, grace also might reign through righteousness leading to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.


 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lots of post Intra, I shall try to cover them all (let me know if I miss one of your points).

 

 

this original sin of mankind is the same sin as Satan's right? 
 

Satan was cast from heaven because he thought to make himself like God, to be equal with God, to have his own throne in heaven, to be "like the most High"
Satan tempted Eve saying that eating the fruit - against the command of God - would also make her "
like God
the same sin of pride, the same self-idolatry.

isn't this the case?  

 

No, but I can totally see where'd you get that impression.  Let's break down the Isaiah passage --

 

  [Lucifer says] ‘I will ascend into heaven," .   This is not a sin: we all want to go to Heaven and our Father wants us to too.

 

"I will exalt my throne above the stars of God;"  This is where the sin comes in: Lucifer wants to usurp the God's throne and to be *higher* than God.  This is simple blasphemy, for even after the millennium the Father will still be our God.   

 

 

 

don't you have to reject the Psalms in order to believe this? 
 

Surely I was sinful at birth,

sinful from the time my mother conceived me.
(Psalm 51:5) 

 

 

To me this does not say that babies commit acts of sin, let alone in-uter babies (that just doesn't make sense).  

 

Rather, I read this as the writer saying he is "sinful", which is an additive about how we all have the inclination to sin, and have since birth.  This is the reason we need to be born again the the Lord, like it says in Corinthians.  This idea is stated really well in the Book of Mormon:

     "For the natural man is an enemy to God, and has been from the fall of Adam, and will be, forever and ever, unless he yields to the enticings of the Holy Spirit, and putteth off the natural man and becometh a saint through the atonement of Christ the Lord" (Book of Mormon, Mosiah 3:19)

   

 

 

 

 

how to explain the apparent contradiction -- "thou shalt not, nevertheless thou mayest" 
 

 

The Folk Prophet covered this one really well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

how to explain the apparent contradiction -- "thou shalt not, nevertheless thou mayest" 

:confused: 

is there anywhere else that the Lord says "here is my commandment, feel free to break it" ? 

seriously, i'm having a hard time reconciling that  :( 

 

I don't know. How about: Every time God gives any commandment to us. it's called "agency"; there are things to act and things to be acted upon, and we are designed to be things to act. And if we transgress God's commandments, there are always -- always -- consequences. Just like with Adam and Eve.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

KJV renders it differently, "This is what I told you while I was still with you:

Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms concerning me." (emphasis added)

I'm not the type of person that understands the nuances of hebrew and why lines are translated the way they are in different places, so I have no idea which is more true to the source.

 

Even so, it seems more of a despairing line than a doctrinal statement that we are accountable for sins even as a newborn, I take it as a dramatic, poetic way of saying, "I'm a really sinful dude".

the difference in translation is just re-arranging the word order, and that would be Greek, not Hebrew :) 

the emphasis you make though, of course Jesus isn't implying that *only* the things written about Him in the Psalms, Prophets and Law are God-breathed scripture. the point i meant to make was that He looked also to the Psalms, not just the Prophets and the Law, as an equal, legitimate source of truth. He quoted directly from them, and many are clear, direct prophecies about Him. His apostles quoted from them also, treating them equally with the Prophets and the Law, as scripture. 

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness

(2 timothy 3:16) 

Here the apostle doesn't distinguish 'scripture OK for doctrine' and 'scripture not useful for doctrine' - i doubt we should do that either. 

also in the Psalms is this: 

 

Even from birth the wicked go astray;

from the womb they are wayward, spreading lies.

(Psalm 58:3) 

it may be that this only applies to 'the wicked' -- but we know 'no one is good, save God alone' (Mark 10:18) and  'there is no one who does not sin' (2 Chronicles 6:36), so who is wicked, and who is not? i don't think that is the same question as 'who sins and who doesn't' -- surely everyone sins. 

i think i can agree that an infant has not known sin, but i know that we are all born with a nature of sin. whether God holds us accountable for this is God's to say. but we were all in Adam when he sinned, and so we all die in him, and all have the condemnation of that sin in us, whether we have sinned ourselves or not -- isn't this what Paul is saying in Romans 5? and so this is why 'it is appointed to man once to die' (Hebrews 9:27) ? 

also in Hebrews - this is how i say we were all in Adam: 

 

And, so to speak, through Abraham even Levi, who received tithes, paid tithes,

 for he was still in the loins of his father when Melchizedek met him.

(Hebrews 7:9-10) 

i know "original sin" is a primarily Catholic doctrine, and i know Jews don't believe this, but with Protestants, it's a mixed bag. i'm still trying to understand it. here is more, so you know that i'm not picking at Mormonism, because this is scripture also for the Jews and for every Christian: 

i know this is true, and seems to be the basis for the LDS statement of faith (if it's not repeated elsewhere that i don't know of): 

The one who sins is the one who will die. The child will not share the guilt of the parent, nor will the parent share the guilt of the child. The righteousness of the righteous will be credited to them, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against them.

(Ezekiel 18:20) 

but i know this is also true: 

You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing love to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep my commandments.

(Exodus 20:5-6)

i notice that in Ezekiel, God says the children don't "bear the guilt" of the fathers, but in Exodus He says He "punishes" generations for the sins of their ancestors. maybe here is the difference: though we may not share specifically in Adam's guilt, we certainly share the same punishment :) and we certainly all sin and deserve it.

man, whatever the ultimate truth of all this is ---  thank God for His grace!! 

There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

(Romans 8:1) 

all this sin talk, *shudder* 

thank you for your patience with me. i hope i do not give a disrespectful impression; anyone who loves Jesus is my brother and sister, no matter whether we disagree on anything else. 

i'll try to read more and get back to some of the other replies tomorrow. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

The one who sins is the one who will die. The child will not share the guilt of the parent, nor will the parent share the guilt of the child. The righteousness of the righteous will be credited to them, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against them.
(Ezekiel 18:20) 

 

 

In addition to this, a good Mormon reference is one of our Articles of Faith:

2 We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression.

 

In other words: I am punished for my sins, not for Adam’s.  

 


 

i notice that in Ezekiel, God says the children don't "bear the guilt" of the fathers, but in Exodus He says He "punishes" generations for the sins of their ancestors. maybe here is the difference: though we may not share specifically in Adam's guilt, we certainly share the same punishment  :) and we certainly all sin and deserve it.
 

 

 

You got the idea down.  A simple modern day example would be: I’m not responsible for my mom being a meth addict, but I still have to deal with the consequences.  (Sorry for the extreme example, I couldn’t think of anything more mellow).

 


 

man, whatever the ultimate truth of all this is ---  thank God for His grace!! 
 

 

 

 

Amen!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

this original sin of mankind is the same sin as Satan's right? 

How you are fallen from heaven,

O Lucifer, son of the morning!

How you are cut down to the ground,

You who weakened the nations!

For you have said in your heart:

‘I will ascend into heaven,

I will exalt my throne above the stars of God;

I will also sit on the mount of the congregation

On the farthest sides of the north;

I will ascend above the heights of the clouds,

I will be like the Most High.’

(Isaiah 14:12-14) 

but God said, 

‘You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree that is in the midst of the garden, neither shall you touch it, lest you die.’

But the serpent said to the woman,

“You will not surely die. For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened,

and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”

(Genesis 3:3-5) 

Satan was cast from heaven because he thought to make himself like God, to be equal with God, to have his own throne in heaven, to be "like the most High"

Satan tempted Eve saying that eating the fruit - against the command of God - would also make her "like God

the same sin of pride, the same self-idolatry.

isn't this the case?  

no. adam and eve did not have the knowledge nor understanding that satan did. furthermore God gave them permission to eat of every tree... including the the tree of knowledge(see genesis 2:16), but then tells that he doesn't want them to do it because it will kill them.

And it did make them like God- furthermore if you look at verse 22 you'll see that God is saying that htey have become as one of them (the Gods), to know good and evil.

IF there is any sin involved at all it would be that of who they hearkened unto.... however the scriptures do not say if they were commanded only to hearken unto god or not, and furthermore it issaid that they were like children and did not have understanding (and did not know good and evil).- and Justice cannot give the same punishment to such as it can to one who is otherwise capable of all those things.

They had to fall because God had said that if they were topartake of the tree of life they would die. Had they remained inthe garden they would have eventually would have partaken of the tree of life and forever remain in that state and would have countered what God had decreed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

how to explain the apparent contradiction -- "thou shalt not, nevertheless thou mayest" 

:confused: 

is there anywhere else that the Lord says "here is my commandment, feel free to break it" ? 

seriously, i'm having a hard time reconciling that  :( 

 

 

Here is the part you may be missing:  Free will is a law of heaven and earth, and God cannot break it.  God worked within this law of agency, to allow us to "kick start" our own environment, because he cannot choose for Adam and Eve to do this, because it required their agency to create it, so they could learn from it.

 

Also, commandments are not setup as punishment traps, where if we disobey we get "punished" for breaking laws.  Man has on their own, using this same agency (especially in "religous" settings throughout history - and the LDS church is not culturally immune), treated breaking of Gods laws in a punative fashion, however this behavior misses the point and purpose behind all commandments.

 

Commandments provide a path to follow for the attainment of higher levels of spiritual growth, which come from Repentance and refining ourselves. Repentance is changing our heart (and the behavior that follows) and moving "up" and perfecting our person through the experiences of life and our agency as we choose to learn through our own experiences and the experiences of others.  In many ways, Eve and Adam's choice to become imperfect, was a method that started the environment for this to take place.

 

The "thou shalt not" aspect of it is God saying "here is a law", which if you break it will come consequences tied to that law that cannot be removed... but "thou mayest" choose to obey it or not with this agency to choose all things.

 

The event in the garden of Eden was simply Eve's violation of a law to consume a food that likely trigger a biological effect on her spiritually perfect body, that resulted in her and Adam to become subject to all things temporal., including aging, disease etc.   I'm not sure how that works, but its the natural consequence is a result of a law put in place here in this story of "that shalt not eat".

 

I suppose one might suggest why did God even place a "Tree" of knowledge of good and evil there who's natural consequence was the initiation of this process. I don't know the answer to that, however, it feels right to me that God created not only that Tree, but the entire plane of existence as a class room for us to learn, with consequence laden rules and natural commandments that would be the guiding aspects of the human species learning experience.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Felix Culpa!

 

I think just about everything's been covered in other people's excellent responses, but I figure I'll throw in my two cents as well :)

 

There is a tradition of viewing the fall as a "good" thing in branches of Christianity other than Mormonism. In Catholicism for example, there's a prayer normally recited during the Easter Vigil which "O happy fault, O necessary sin of Adam, which gained for us so great a Redeemer!" (Felix Culpa is latin for happy fault). 

 

Adam's sin was definitely, well, a sin. That being said, there is certainly a long tradition (dating to at least St. Augustine in the fourth century) where the Church has recognized that the good won through Christ redeeming us surpasses the good found in the pre-fallen state of Adam and Eve. 

 

Anyway, I hope that helps!

 

-Claire

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

There is a tradition of viewing the fall as a "good" thing in branches of Christianity other than Mormonism. In Catholicism for example, there's a prayer normally recited during the Easter Vigil which "O happy fault, O necessary sin of Adam, which gained for us so great a Redeemer!" (Felix Culpa is latin for happy fault). 

 

 

 

I did not know that!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share