What Gospel Principles teaches about salvation

[JDave]

Picking up where I left off, you quoted me as follows: ...

Rob, thanks for your response. It clarified the questions I had.

You then quoted some of GP as a summary, which is fine, but I did not see any substantial difference.

No substantial difference, I agree. But in your summary you seemed to put the emphasis on man's works and proving ourselves worthy. That is a valid point, but not the overall summary of the plan of salvation.

Stating the matter this way would be misleading, particularly the use of the expression "in heaven," since LDS doctrine rejects the classic Christian heaven/hell distinction. The statement to which you refer in GP page 99 even is careful to use the expression "the heavens" (plural). However, I think something along these lines could be added to my list of common affirmations.

Yes, I wasn't sure if you could later distinguish between varying views on "heaven". If you have a modified version, that would be great. I think you did pretty good writing up the list of commonalities in terms that applied well to both LDS doctrine and Evangelical doctrine.

[Rob Osborn]

Rob,

Adam and Eve's transgression was "sin" in every literal sense. They thus had disobeyed and had chosen to follow Satan. They thus also had to repent.

[Vance]

One implication of these teachings is that LDS doctrine rejects anything like a doctrine of the total depravity of mankind. All human beings are regarded as noble, potentially divine spirits who already demonstrated worthiness by choosing to live under these circumstances for the greater good of realizing their full potential as divine children of Heavenly Father. This view of human nature fosters the presumption that all people, or virtually all people, will deserve some sort of bright future that is far better than life as we now know it, rather than the presumption that people deserve nothing but condemnation.

I think that is a fair summary.

Those who kept their "first estate" are worthy of a brighter future than those that didn't as in Jude 1:6.

[Vance]

Rob,

Adam and Eve's transgression was "sin" in every literal sense.

I would like to see a scriptural reference that clearly and plainly supports this assertion. In other words, CFR!

[Rob Osborn]

I would like to see a scriptural reference that clearly and plainly supports this assertion. In other words, CFR!

"Sin" requires "repentance", repentance only comes directly from sin. So the question is thus- Did Adam and Eve need to repent after partaking of the fruit? Here-

5 For behold, if Adam had put forth his hand immediately, and partaken of the tree of life, he would have lived forever, according to the word of God, having no space for repentance; yea, and also the word of God would have been void, and the great plan of salvation would have been frustrated.

(Book of Mormon | Alma 42:5)

From the "Guide to the Scriptures"-

SIN. See also Abominable, Abomination; Filth, Filthiness; Offend; Rebellion; Ungodly; Unrighteous, Unrighteousness; Wicked, Wickedness

Willful disobedience to God's commandments.

(Guide to the Scriptures | S Sin.:Entry)

"Sin" comes from disobeying and falling into temptation. God has said ye cannot serve two masters. By yielding unto temptation from Satan, Adam fell spiritually and was cast away from God's presence. At this point he needed to repent and come back to God.-

40 Wherefore, it came to pass that the devil tempted Adam, and he partook of the forbidden fruit and transgressed the commandment, wherein he became subject to the will of the devil, because he yielded unto temptation.

(Doctrine and Covenants | Section 29:40)

Thus we can see that Adam transgressed the commandment and thus fell under the definition of "sin" as LDS doctrine defines it as "willful disobedience to God's commandments".

[David T]

I think it's important to understand that the Gospel Principles text under the Fall uses the modern Garden of Eve narrative, with the additions from the BoM, PoGP, and the Temple, which is not the same as the one presented solely in Genesis. The characters and general events are the same, but the story is significantly different.

In the Biblical account, what Adam and Eve did clearly makes God angry, and brings punishments upon them. It is my understanding that this is an Adaptation of a Temple text to a Mesopotamian-set allegory of the Fallen Israelite Kingship and Priesthood, who lost the Temple.

However, the Current Version of the story is re-tooled to be an Everyman story (now set in Missouri!) teaching the current understanding of the Plan of Salvation. New motives are granted to the characters, and events are re-described and redefined. The punishments are now blessings! The story is reversed.

I am very comfortable with stating that the Gospel Principles and otherwise Modern Church Adam and Eve story is not the Genesis/biblical Adam and Eve story, but has been revised and re-tooled for a modern audience, to teach something specific and relevent, and to create a context for Sacred History (while not necessitating its Literal History).

[Rob Osborn]

I think it's important to understand that the Gospel Principles text under the Fall uses the modern Garden of Eve narrative, with the additions from the BoM, PoGP, and the Temple, which is not the same as the one presented solely in Genesis. The characters and general events are the same, but the story is significantly different.

In the Biblical account, what Adam and Eve did clearly makes God angry, and brings punishments upon them. It is my understanding that this is an Adaptation of a Temple text to a Mesopotamian-set allegory of the Fallen Israelite Kingship and Priesthood, who lost the Temple.

However, the Current Version of the story is re-tooled to be an Everyman story (now set in Missouri!) teaching the current understanding of the Plan of Salvation. New motives are granted to the characters, and events are re-described and redefined. The punishments are now blessings! The story is reversed.

I am very comfortable with stating that the Gospel Principles and otherwise Modern Church Adam and Eve story is not the Genesis/biblical Adam and Eve story, but has been revised and re-tooled for a modern audience, to teach something specific and relevent, and to create a context for Sacred History (while not necessitating its Literal History).

We do a dis-service tot he plan of salvation when we cupcake and frost and sprinkle Adama nd Eve and the fall story. They were real literal people who sinned against God and fell spiritually. Their literal fall necessitated a need for a redeemer and thus brought about the "plan of salvation" from the sin they had brought upon themselves. We are likened with Adam and Eve because we too have sinned as did they and have fallen spiritually from God as did they.

[Rob Bowman]

Rob and Vance,

In addition to the Book of Mormon references that Rob has cited, which imply that Adam sinned, we have the explicit statement of the Bible:

"12 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 brought justification. 17 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's obedience 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." (Romans 5:12-21 ESV; the KJV reads similarly)

In the above passage, Paul refers to Adam's act as a "transgression" (v. 14), as "one man's trespass' (vv. 15, 16, 17, 18), as "one man's sin" (v. 16), and as "one man's disobedience" (v. 19). Note the explicit reference to Adam's act as "sin" (literally, as him "having sinned," hamartesantos, the aorist participle form of the verb for "to sin").

Seems pretty clear to me.

[Rob Bowman]

nackhadlow,

It seems to me that Joseph Smith, the other LDS prophets and apostles, and most of the rank and file members of your religion all take the modern narrative to be historical fact, not a sacred story created to teach something lacking historical (factual) basis. If I may be so bold, what is your authority for swimming against the stream on this one? And if the modern narrative is a useful sacred fiction (as I suppose you view the ancient biblical narrative as well), why not also the Book of Mormon narrative?

I think it's important to understand that the Gospel Principles text under the Fall uses the modern Garden of Eve narrative, with the additions from the BoM, PoGP, and the Temple, which is not the same as the one presented solely in Genesis. The characters and general events are the same, but the story is significantly different.

In the Biblical account, what Adam and Eve did clearly makes God angry, and brings punishments upon them. It is my understanding that this is an Adaptation of a Temple text to a Mesopotamian-set allegory of the Fallen Israelite Kingship and Priesthood, who lost the Temple.

However, the Current Version of the story is re-tooled to be an Everyman story (now set in Missouri!) teaching the current understanding of the Plan of Salvation. New motives are granted to the characters, and events are re-described and redefined. The punishments are now blessings! The story is reversed.

I am very comfortable with stating that the Gospel Principles and otherwise Modern Church Adam and Eve story is not the Genesis/biblical Adam and Eve story, but has been revised and re-tooled for a modern audience, to teach something specific and relevent, and to create a context for Sacred History (while not necessitating its Literal History).

[Vance]

"Sin" requires "repentance",

True

repentance only comes directly from sin.

False.

Repentance is needed for transgression. Not all transgression is sin.

So the question is thus- Did Adam and Eve need to repent after partaking of the fruit? Here-

5 For behold, if Adam had put forth his hand immediately, and partaken of the tree of life, he would have lived forever, according to the word of God, having no space for repentance; yea, and also the word of God would have been void, and the great plan of salvation would have been frustrated.

(Book of Mormon | Alma 42:5)

From the "Guide to the Scriptures"-

This doesn't support your assertion that "Adam and Eve's transgression was "sin" in every literal sense."

Willful disobedience to God's commandments.

Explain how Adam and Eve's transgression was "willful" disobedience when they didn't have "knowledge of good and evil".

40 Wherefore, it came to pass that the devil tempted Adam, and he partook of the forbidden fruit and transgressed the commandment, wherein he became subject to the will of the devil, because he yielded unto temptation.

It says he "TRANSGRESSED", it doesn't say he "SINNED".

Thus we can see that Adam transgressed the commandment

True

. . . and thus fell under the definition of "sin" as LDS doctrine defines it as "willful disobedience to God's commandments".

False!

Sorry, but none of this supports your assertion.

Yes Adam "transgressed", but not all transgression is sin.

Repentance is needed from non sin transgression as well.

I asked for a reference that clearly and plainly showed that 'Adam and Eve's transgression was "sin" in every literal sense.'

You have FAILED to provide it. And the reason is because there isn't one.

EVERY reference in scripture refers to the partaking of the fruit as a "transgression" not one of them refers to it as a "sin".

Your assertion is left without foundation.

[David T]

We do a dis-service tot he plan of salvation when we cupcake and frost and sprinkle Adama nd Eve and the fall story. They were real literal people who sinned against God and fell spiritually. Their literal fall necessitated a need for a redeemer and thus brought about the "plan of salvation" from the sin they had brought upon themselves. We are likened with Adam and Eve because we too have sinned as did they and have fallen spiritually from God as did they.

I believe there are several Adam and Eve stories/allegories that all tell truth, and are all attached to and associated with the historical First Scriptural Man to start off the program. I recognize that Gospel Principles presents what has become the Standardized Version of the story, and is useful for teaching general principles.

However, I think it's unfortunate that even though we are taught, "We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam

[David T]

It seems to me that Joseph Smith, the other LDS prophets and apostles, and most of the rank and file members of your religion all take the modern narrative to be historical fact, not a sacred story created to teach something lacking historical (factual) basis.

I'd agree with that assesment. Although many Prophets, apostles and members easily accept (and have publically stated) that elements of the story, such as the woman being created from the rib, or Adam being formed from the Dust, are symbolic and not literal. I assume if those parts aren't literal, and are taught as being not literal, then it's okay to assume that others aren't as well.

If I may be so bold, what is your authority for swimming against the stream on this one?

History, asking specific questions, and prayerful study and application of the scriptures. Just because I don't think many prophets had a reason or desire, or in some cases ability to devote time to rigorously intellectually question, research, and ponder such things doesn't mean I think there's a problem with their prophetic calling. The only thing that bothers me is when such a firmly held position leads people to take an anti-Science position, or to lose their faith when they see scientific and historical presentations to the contrary. My faith is in Christ and in the principles of the Restoration, including the Plan of Salvation as they affect us all personally. Nothing of which is effected by such things. If it turns out I'm wrong? Fine. I'll change my mind. I've changed my paradigm over bigger things before. But this is how all the pieces come together for me right now.

I don't hold to prophets being infallible or inerrant, nor do I view scripture as presented by prophets as the verbatim transcript of divine communication - but rather as the expression of light and knowledge granted by God transmitted through the limitations, culture, and assumptions of the human mind - which are powerful triggers and anchors that will lead one to seek and receive personal revelation and insight for our own lives and circumstances.

? And if the modern narrative is a useful sacred fiction (as I suppose you view the ancient biblical narrative as well), why not also the Book of Mormon narrative?

Actual physical ancient golden plates viewed by witnesses makes a difference to me. Although I also believe the received Book of Mormon text to include modern expansions and riffs of the ancient source text (which may itself include elements of sacralized history!).

I do believe most of Genesis is not a literal history, and I also believe that that most of the Genesis - 2 Kings history is very politically charged, that Josiah was the Constantine of his day, and the history as we have it is highly effected by that. the Chronicles accounts even more so.

Yet, God has been able to use it in powerful ways.

[Vance]

Rob and Vance,

In addition to the Book of Mormon references that Rob has cited, which imply that Adam sinned, we have the explicit statement of the Bible:

"12 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 brought justification. 17 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's obedience 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." (Romans 5:12-21 ESV; the KJV reads similarly)

In the above passage, Paul refers to Adam's act as a "transgression" (v. 14), as "one man's trespass' (vv. 15, 16, 17, 18), as "one man's sin" (v. 16), and as "one man's disobedience" (v. 19). Note the explicit reference to Adam's act as "sin" (literally, as him "having sinned," hamartesantos, the aorist participle form of the verb for "to sin").

Seems pretty clear to me.

Well, only by reading something into it that isn't there.

KJV Rom 5:

12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

(Notice that sin wasn't in the world until AFTER the partaking of the fruit. And the "all have sinned" does include Adam, but not for eating the fruit.)

13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam

[David T]

Vance:

Somehow I doubt you believe that the Thou Shalts and Thou Shalt Nots given on Mt Sinai would more accurately be called, "The 10 Warnings"...

[Vance]

Vance:

Somehow I doubt you believe that the Thou Shalts and Thou Shalt Nots given on Mt Sinai would more accurately be called, "The 10 Warnings"...

You find no difference in the context between Gen. 2 and Ex. 20?

The statement "Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:" doesn't affect the meaning of the "thou shalt not eat of it"?

The "for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die" doesn't affect the meaning of the "thou shalt not eat of it"?

[David T]

You find no difference in the context between Gen. 2 and Ex. 20?

The statement "Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:" doesn't affect the meaning of the "thou shalt not eat of it"?

The "for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die" doesn't affect the meaning of the "thou shalt not eat of it"?

Gen 2:16 And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, 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: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

It's a clause. A General guideline is given, with a clear exception given, in clear language.

If my boss were to say, "You now have access to all the files on this harddrive, which includes the ability to delete them, and I encourage you to do so...but don't delete this specific one. If you delete that one, you're fired."

...I don't think he'd be happy if I deleted the one he asked me not to, and wouldn't view the firing as being a blessing. I don't think any of the employees would, either, actually. Especially in this economy! In fact, I think anyone who would say they thought otherwise wouldn't be taken seriously. Just sayin'.

As I said before - as presented in Genesis, it's a commandment/warning with Bad Consequences. The New Version of the story, as retold and paraphrased, often changes and softens it in order to fit the new point of the story. Which is perfectly fine, and fits perfectly in the prophetic tradition of adapting stories and legends to teach a modern audience an important practical principle that they need THEN.

[Vance]

Gen 2:16 And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, 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: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

It's a clause. A General guideline is given, with a clear exception given, in clear language.

If my boss were to say, "You now have access to all the files on this harddrive, which includes the ability to delete them...but don't delete this specific one. If you delete that one, you're fired."

I don't think he'd be happy if I deleted the one he asked me not to, and wouldn't view the firing as being a blessing. In fact, I think anyone who would say they thought otherwise wouldn't be taken seriously. Just sayin'.

Are you saying that the "for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die" doesn't affect the meaning?

You know what it means to be fired. You know it is bad. How could Adam and Eve known what it means to die?

Your analogy needs some fixing.

If my boss were to say, "You now have access to every the file on this harddrive, which includes the ability to delete every one of them: but the file "really bad stuff" you shall not delete: for the day you do, you're snorfdimple will be oscimated."

[JDave]

In the context of this thread, the important things to note about Adam and Eve are:

• The Garden narrative does rely on further scripture from the Book of Mormon and the Pearl of Great Price, and is not derived solely from the narrative in Genesis.
• The Fall, specifically eating the fruit, is not seen as a serious sin.

The GP manual does not state it was not a sin at all, though it does state that Adam and Eve were told they "could freely eat of every tree in the garden except one, the tree of knowledge of good and evil."

[zerinus]

In this context, the Fall is ultimately not a bad thing, but a necessary step downward in order to move forward and upward toward our full potential as divine children of God.

True.

Consistent with this perspective, Gospel Principles denies that

[David T]

Are you saying that the "for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die" doesn't affect the meaning?

It states the clear Penalty for violating the commandment.

[Vance]

It states the clear Penalty for violating the commandment.

Or a warning of the consequences. And its as clear as "your snorfdimple will be oscimated".

[David T]

I still don't see anything in Genesis 3 that shows any indication that God was in any way happy with what went down.

But this is tangentializing the thread again. I apologize.

[Vance]

So, to summarize,

1) Sin didn't enter into the world until AFTER the partaking of the fruit.

2) To sin, takes knowledge. Adam and Eve didn't have "knowledge of good and evil" until AFTER the partaking of the fruit.

3) They could not have understood the consequences of eating the fruit because "death" didn't enter the world until AFTER the partaking of the fruit.

4) NOWHERE in scripture does it call partaking of the fruit a "sin", it always calls it a "transgression".

Now, if you want to say there is no difference, then have at it.

[Rob Osborn]

So, to summarize,

1) Sin didn't enter into the world until AFTER the partaking of the fruit.

2) To sin, takes knowledge. Adam and Eve didn't have "knowledge of good and evil" until AFTER the partaking of the fruit.

3) They could not have understood the consequences of eating the fruit because "death" didn't enter the world until AFTER the partaking of the fruit.

4) NOWHERE in scripture does it call partaking of the fruit a "sin", it always calls it a "transgression".

Now, if you want to say there is no difference, then have at it.

Sin is a transgression of the law. Sin is transgression. There can be no repentance if there is no sin.

[Vance]

Sin is a transgression of the law. Sin is transgression.

Yes, all sin is a transgression. But that doesn't mean that all transgression is sin.

There can be no repentance if there is no sin.

You mean you can't repent from non-sin transgression? Who knew?

Still avoiding the real issues.

1) Sin didn't enter into the world until AFTER the partaking of the fruit.

2) To sin, takes knowledge. Adam and Eve didn't have "knowledge of good and evil" until AFTER the partaking of the fruit.

3) They could not have understood the consequences of eating the fruit because "death" didn't enter the world until AFTER the partaking of the fruit.

4) NOWHERE in scripture does it call partaking of the fruit a "sin", it always calls it a "transgression".