What Gospel Principles teaches about salvation

[LeSellers]

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

You have conflated a couple of things that need to remain separate.

"Sin" is a subset of "transgression". We know, for instance, that the unaccountable cannot "sin" precisely because they are unaccountable. They can, nonetheless, commit heinous acts, and they may be committed on purpose; these acts are transgressions.

Adam and Eve did not know good from evil when they were in the Garden of Eden. Had they known, they would have had no need to partake of the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil.

The question then arises, "Can anyone without a knowledge of good and evil actually 'sin'?" I believe the answer is "No".

The people of Limhi's father (later the Anti-Nephi-Lehies and the Ammonites) repented of the murders they had committed. Yet they had, at the time of those commissions, not received the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Had they sinned? I believe not. Yet they repented, and their repentance was because they had committed "transgressions", not "sins".

Lehi

[zerinus]

Without attempting in any way to justify Rob Osborn, whom I do not agree with at all:

So, to summarize,

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

Partaking of the fruit was the first sin.

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

They had enough knowledge to know that it was wrong to do so, because they were commanded by God not to.

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.

The scriptures suggest that they did understand the consequences of eating 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.

In the scriptures the words

[Vance]

Partaking of the fruit was the first sin.

No, it wasn't. Partaking of the fruit is NEVER referred to as a sin but ONLY as a transgression. Your assertion is without basis.

They had enough knowledge to know that it was wrong to do so, because they were commanded by God not to.

Another bald assertion.

The scriptures suggest that they did understand the consequences of eating of the fruit.

Another bald assertion.

In the scriptures the words

[zerinus]

No, it wasn't. Partaking of the fruit is NEVER referred to as a sin but ONLY as a transgression. Your assertion is without basis.

Another bald assertion.

Another bald assertion.

Because all "sin" is "trangression". Sin is a subset of transgression.

Adam and Eve transgressed as the scriptures say. The scriptures NEVER call partaking of the fruit a sin, but ONLY a transgression.

Is "see" a subset of "behold"?

Is "behold" a subset of "see"?

Just another bald assertion.

Now, you guys can dance around the facts all you want, but you can't change them.

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".

I call that burying your head in the sand. Repeating the same thing over and over isn't going to make it true.

[Vance]

I call that burying your head in the sand. Repeating the same thing over and over isn't going to make it true.

Pot, meet kettle.

Or you could provide a scriptural reference where it clearly and unmistakably calls partaking of the fruit a sin. But you can't because there isn't one. And your refusal to admit it is burying your head in the sand. Making bald assertions over and over isn't going to make them true either.

So, now can we get back to the real topic.

[LeSellers]

I call that burying your head in the sand. Repeating the same thing over and over isn't going to make it true.

Ignoring the same thing over and over will not make the facts go away, either.

I ask you if one can sin in ignorance of the law? I believe the doctrine of the Church is that, no, you cannot. Since Adam and Eve, our first father and mother (whom we are commanded to honor, see Ex 20) were wholly ignorant of good and evil until after (or coincidentally with) the eating of the very fruit they were commanded not to eat, they were, ispo facto, unaccountable and therefor could not "sin".

Furthermore, it is also my belief that the threat God put before them was meaningless in their eyes: "... in the day thou eastest thereof, thou shalt surely die." With no death in their world (whether this world was exclusively in Eden or the entirety of the globe), what could this have possibly meant to them? A meaningless punishment is an empty punishment in the eyes of those threatened.

Lehi

[Rob Osborn]

Just to add to what was already posted-

Sins can be broken down into two categories-

1. Transgressions. This is the type of sin where a person knowingly disobeys a commandment.

2. Sin in ignorance. This is the type of sin that one does more in ignorance not fully understanding or knowing the commandments or truth.

32 Thus was the gospel preached to those who had died in their sins, without a knowledge of the truth, or in transgression, having rejected the prophets.

(Doctrine and Covenants | Section 138:32)

Here is what the dictionary has on transgression-

Transgression:

1. a breach of a law, etc; sin or crime

Now, as to whether Adam and Eve had a knowledge of what they were doing. Of course they had a knowledge of what they were doing. They were not the purely innocent characters we make them out to be in their decision to eat the fruit. They chose "evil". They were accountable for their actions and as such were disciplined by law and thus extracted from God's presence because of the choice they made to choose evil over good. They thus did know good and evil. It was just that they had not experienced evil until they made the choice to choose the fruit by yeilding to temptation. Father warned them not to yiled to it but they disobeyed anyway. Thus they sinned.

[Nathair/|\]

Just to add to what was already posted-

Sins can be broken down into two categories-

1. Transgressions. This is the type of sin where a person knowingly disobeys a commandment.

2. Sin in ignorance. This is the type of sin that one does more in ignorance not fully understanding or knowing the commandments or truth.

32 Thus was the gospel preached to those who had died in their sins, without a knowledge of the truth, or in transgression, having rejected the prophets.

(Doctrine and Covenants | Section 138:32)

Here is what the dictionary has on transgression-

Transgression:

1. a breach of a law, etc; sin or crime

Now, as to whether Adam and Eve had a knowledge of what they were doing. Of course they had a knowledge of what they were doing. They were not the purely innocent characters we make them out to be in their decision to eat the fruit. They chose "evil". They were accountable for their actions and as such were disciplined by law and thus extracted from God's presence because of the choice they made to choose evil over good. They thus did know good and evil. It was just that they had not experienced evil until they made the choice to choose the fruit by yeilding to temptation. Father warned them not to yiled to it but they disobeyed anyway. Thus they sinned.

Elder Joseph Fielding Smith said:

[zerinus]

Pot, meet kettle.

Or you could provide a scriptural reference where it clearly and unmistakably calls partaking of the fruit a sin. But you can't because there isn't one. And your refusal to admit it is burying your head in the sand. Making bald assertions over and over isn't going to make them true either.

So, now can we get back to the real topic.

I have given you 27 verses from the Bible, the Book of Mormon, and the Doctrine and Covenants every one of which proves that throughout the standard works "transgression" and "sin" are used as synonyms. If you do not know what a synonym is, look it up in the dictionary. In reality your argument is not any better than Rob Osborn's. He is burying his head in the sand one way, you are burying your head in the sand another way.

[zerinus]

Ignoring the same thing over and over will not make the facts go away, either.

I ask you if one can sin in ignorance of the law? I believe the doctrine of the Church is that, no, you cannot. Since Adam and Eve, our first father and mother (whom we are commanded to honor, see Ex 20) were wholly ignorant of good and evil until after (or coincidentally with) the eating of the very fruit they were commanded not to eat, they were, ispo facto, unaccountable and therefor could not "sin".

Furthermore, it is also my belief that the threat God put before them was meaningless in their eyes: "... in the day thou eastest thereof, thou shalt surely die." With no death in their world (whether this world was exclusively in Eden or the entirety of the globe), what could this have possibly meant to them? A meaningless punishment is an empty punishment in the eyes of those threatened.

Lehi

The scriptural account suggests otherwise:

Genesis 3

:

2 And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:

3 But 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.

4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:

Moses 4

:

8 And the woman said unto the serpent: We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden;

9 But of the fruit of the tree which thou beholdest in the midst of the garden, God hath said

[Vance]

Just to add to what was already posted-

Sins Transgression can be broken down into two categories-

1. TransgressionsSin. This is the type of sin transgression where a person knowingly disobeys a commandment.

2. SinTransgression in ignorance. This is the type of sintransgression that one does more in ignorance not fully understanding or knowing the commandments or truth.

There, fixed it for you.

1 Jn. 3:4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

Like we said, sin is a subset of transgression. Not the other way around.

. . . . . .

Shall we do a little numerical analysis?

A quick computer search of the scriptures indicates that the word "sin" in all of its forms is used 482 times. The word "transgression in all of its forms is used 166 times.

If you assume that they mean the same thing then we can say that "sin" is used 482/(482+166)= 74.4% of the time and "transgression" is used 25.6%

Now, let's find the number of incidents in scripture where the partaking of the fruit by Adam or Eve are mentioned with the words "sin" or "transgression". I find 10 and here they are.

1. Job 31:33 If I covered my transgressions as Adam, by hiding mine iniquity in my bosom:

2. Rom. 5:14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam

[Vance]

That implies that they did understand the meaning of the threat and its implications.

So, simply mimicking back what was told to you is proof positive that you understand it? Yeah, right.

If they didn

[Rob Osborn]

I am gonna make this real simple, hopefully, eh eh.

It is impossible to repent if there is no sin. Here is a scripture stating this principle-

17 Now, how could a man repent except he should sin? How could he sin if there was no law? How could there be a law save there was a punishment?

(Book of Mormon | Alma 42:17)

So, If Adam and Eve needed to repent from their eating of the fruit then it was most definately a "sin".-

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)

Its a no-brainer then- Adam and Eve needed to repent from yielding unto the devil and his temptation. Now, how could a man repent except he should sin?

[Vance]

Well, you have one, I have more.

Ezek. 18:30 Therefore I will judge you, O house of Israel, every one according to his ways, saith the Lord God. Repent, and turn yourselves from all your transgressions; so iniquity shall not be your ruin.

D&C 109:21 And when thy people transgress, any of them, they may speedily repent and return unto thee, and find favor in thy sight, and be restored to the blessings which thou hast ordained to be poured out upon those who shall reverence thee in thy house.

Moses 6:52 And he also said unto him: If thou wilt turn unto me, and hearken unto my voice, and believe, and repent of all thy transgressions, and be baptized, even in water, in the name of mine Only Begotten Son, who is full of grace and truth, which is Jesus Christ, the only name which shall be given under heaven, whereby salvation shall come unto the children of men, ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost, asking all things in his name, and whatsoever ye shall ask, it shall be given you.

It is obvious that "transgressions" need to be repented of, all of them, even the sin ones.

And here we have another "Adam and Eve" and "transgression

2 Nephi 2:19 And after Adam and Eve had partaken of the forbidden fruit they were driven out of the garden of Eden, to till the earth.

20 And they have brought forth children; yea, even the family of all the earth.

21 And the days of the children of men were prolonged, according to the will of God, that they might repent while in the flesh; wherefore, their state became a state of probation, and their time was lengthened, according to the commandments which the Lord God gave unto the children of men. For he gave commandment that all men must repent; for he showed unto all men that they were lost, because of the transgression of their parents.

That makes 11.

And the odds of 11 out of 11 uses of "transgression" is, (.256^11= 0.0000003) or 3 out of 10 Million.

Explain that away if you can.

[Rob Osborn]

I have made a solid case that Adam needed to repent and that one cannot repent if there is no sin. I therefore rest my case. Let the jury decide.

[zerinus]

Did Abraham understand the commandment to sacrifice his son?

I don't know; but he did understand that if he refused he would be disobeying God, and sinning.

Did Adam understand the commandment to make sacrifice?

Maybe not; but he did understand that if he refused he would be disobeying God, and therefore sinning.

Did Nephi understand the commandment to make a second set of plates?

I wouldn't know; but he did understand that if he refused, he would be disobeying God, and therefore sinning.

[zerinus]

Well, you have one, I have more.

Ezek. 18:30 Therefore I will judge you, O house of Israel, every one according to his ways, saith the Lord God. Repent, and turn yourselves from all your transgressions; so iniquity shall not be your ruin.

D&C 109:21 And when thy people transgress, any of them, they may speedily repent and return unto thee, and find favor in thy sight, and be restored to the blessings which thou hast ordained to be poured out upon those who shall reverence thee in thy house.

Moses 6:52 And he also said unto him: If thou wilt turn unto me, and hearken unto my voice, and believe, and repent of all thy transgressions, and be baptized, even in water, in the name of mine Only Begotten Son, who is full of grace and truth, which is Jesus Christ, the only name which shall be given under heaven, whereby salvation shall come unto the children of men, ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost, asking all things in his name, and whatsoever ye shall ask, it shall be given you.

It is obvious that "transgressions" need to be repented of, all of them, even the sin ones.

And here we have another "Adam and Eve" and "transgression

2 Nephi 2:19 And after Adam and Eve had partaken of the forbidden fruit they were driven out of the garden of Eden, to till the earth.

20 And they have brought forth children; yea, even the family of all the earth.

21 And the days of the children of men were prolonged, according to the will of God, that they might repent while in the flesh; wherefore, their state became a state of probation, and their time was lengthened, according to the commandments which the Lord God gave unto the children of men. For he gave commandment that all men must repent; for he showed unto all men that they were lost, because of the transgression of their parents.

That makes 11.

And the odds of 11 out of 11 uses of "transgression" is, (.256^11= 0.0000003) or 3 out of 10 Million.

Explain that away if you can.

I have proved to you by quoting many scriptures that sin = transgression. What reason do you have to turn a blind eye to that obvious conclusion?

[Vance]

I have proved to you by quoting many scriptures that sin = transgression. What reason do you have to turn a blind eye to that obvious conclusion?

Well, duh,

"Sin" is a subset of "transgression" so OBVIOUSLY a sin = a transgression.

The problem is "transgression" does NOT necessarily = "sin".

If there was no difference between them, then why the distinctions in the following verses?

Ex. 34:7 Keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, and that will by no means clear the guilty; visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

Regarding my observation that in Romans 5:16 Adam's transgression is described as sin, you wrote:

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

It's there, all right, but your theological preunderstanding prevents you from seeing it or at least from admitting it. The evidence of theological blinders is overwhelming, as I shall show.

Regarding verse 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"), you commented:

(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.)

The Great and Powerful Vance has spoken! Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!

Paul did not say that sin entered the world "after" the partaking of the fruit. "Sin entered the world through one man"; that is the statement in question. This doesn't say anything about sin entering "after" something, but rather it says that sin entered the world THROUGH one man, namely Adam. How did Adam become the instrument of sin's entrance into the world? He got the ball rolling by committing the first sin! If that isn't Paul's point, then we would be left with the very odd claim that Adam did something wonderfully noble and sacrificial (as the LDS typically see it) but that this noble act started a chain reaction that led AFTERWARD (according to your novel exegesis) to sin making its first appearance.

Regarding verse 16 ("And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification"), you commented:

Notice that it doesn't specify that partaking of the fruit was THE "sin" "by the one that sinned".

Notice that Romans 5 says nothing about the fruit at all. Oh, so does that mean Paul does not anywhere in Romans 5 refer to that act of eating of the forbidden tree?

Had Paul written, "By his sin of eating the fruit...," no doubt you would be arguing that Paul did not say from which tree this fruit came!

In the passage in question (Romans 5:12-21), Paul refers to "the transgression of Adam" (v. 14), "one man's trespass" (v. 15), "one man's sinning" (v. 16), "the transgression of the one" (v. 17), "one transgression" (v. 18), and "the one man's disobedience" (v. 19). Throughout these references to Adam, Paul contrasts Adam's one act through which all people in Adam became mortal sinners with Christ's one act of righteousness (dying on the cross) through which all those in Christ receive the free gift of life. Apparently, you would have us believe that the transgression, trespass, and disobedience of the one man Adam in verses 14, 15, 17, 18, and 19 refer to the eating of the forbidden fruit, but the sinning of the one man in verse 16 does not.

No chance.

Paul's use of various synonyms to describe Adam's one act consistently use language of disapproval. Adam transgressed, trespassed, sinned, and disobeyed. There is no room here for the LDS claim that Adam nobly stepped across the line to make it possible for his brothers and sisters to have their chance at exaltation. Adam disobeyed God. His was the original act of un-righteousness.

Genesis 2:16-17 says: "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." You asked rhetorically:

Was it a commandment not to eat of it, or was it a warning?

Hmm. Verse 16 begins, "And the Lord God COMMANDED the man, saying...." If Genesis says that the Lord God was commanding the man, then it was...a commandment!

Since the answer to your question was staring you right in the face and you missed it, that would seem to be good evidence that your theology blinds you to what the text explicitly says.

You wrote:

And you still have to explain how Adam and Eve could have known the evilness of their actions when they didn't have "knowledge of good and evil".

Uh, do you suppose the fact that God, their Creator, told them not to do it would have been a little clue that it was a bad idea??

The expression "the knowledge of good and evil" does not mean "the cognitive, intellectual recognition that some things are good and some things are evil." Adam and Eve weren't imbeciles or infants. They knew that God was their Creator and they understood his words to them. When God told them not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, this was not nonsense syllables in their ears. The expression "the knowledge of good and evil" refers either to experiential knowledge or to the "knowledge" of choosing. On the first view, eating of the tree resulted in Adam and Eve experiencing firsthand the difference between good and evil and the consequences of choosing one over the other. On the second view, eating of the tree was an act of claiming the prerogative of determining for oneself what is good and what is evil. The act of eating the fruit was an assertion of autonomy -- that they were able to make such a determination for themselves rather than depending on the word of their Creator. I favor this second view as I think it fits better both the context and the use of similar expressions elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible.

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

You wrote:

That statement is BS!!

You're out of line, dude.

You asked:

Did Abraham understand the commandment to sacrifice his son?

Of course. He took his son up the mountain, bound him on an altar, and held up the knife to slay his son. Sounds to me like he understood the commandment perfectly.

What you mean is did Abraham understand WHY God gave that commandment, what the larger purpose was that God had in mind. I agree; he probably didn't understand what God was going to do. But that isn't the issue in Genesis 2-3. Adam understood that he was not supposed to eat of the tree, and he understood what the stated consequence would be if he disobeyed.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Vance,

Regarding my observation that in Romans 5:16 Adam's transgression is described as sin, you wrote:

It's there, all right, but your theological preunderstanding prevents you from seeing it or at least from admitting it. The evidence of theological blinders is overwhelming, as I shall show.

Regarding verse 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"

Interesting. Were in that scripture does it say that eating the fruit was a sin? It only states that by one man sin entetered into the world. That is a far cry from Adam ate the fruit and that action was a sin.

How I interpret that verse is that because of the actions of Adam, sin came into the world. But that act alone was not that of a sin.

I know you will disagree with me but I thought I would throw it out there. Take care Rob.

[Rob Bowman]

Mola,

Perhaps you didn't read the rest of my post. I explain where Paul refers to it as a sin.

Interesting. Were in that scripture does it say that eating the fruit was a sin? It only states that by one man sin entetered into the world. That is a far cry from Adam ate the fruit and that action was a sin.

How I interpret that verse is that because of the actions of Adam, sin came into the world. But that act alone was not that of a sin.

I know you will disagree with me but I thought I would throw it out there. Take care Rob.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Mola,

Perhaps you didn't read the rest of my post. I explain where Paul refers to it as a sin.

I simply disagree that Paul is teaching that Adam's trangression is a sin. He states repeatedly that by Adam came sin into the world. There is not a single statement that equates eating of the fruit to a sin. Only that the act of eating the fruit brought about the fall and sin then entered the world.

I will of course let you have the last word.

[Vance]

Vance,

Regarding my observation that in Romans 5:16 Adam's transgression is described as sin, you wrote:

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

It's there, all right, but your theological preunderstanding prevents you from seeing it or at least from admitting it. The evidence of theological blinders is overwhelming, as I shall show.

Actually it is NOT there and it is "your theological preunderstanding" that prevents you from seeing clearly.

Regarding verse 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"), you commented:

Yes, sure enough, by one man, that is Adam, sin entered into the world, and it was because of his non-sin transgression.

The Great and Powerful Vance has spoken!

Well, I do have more authority than you.

Paul did not say that sin entered the world "after" the partaking of the fruit. "Sin entered the world through one man"; that is the statement in question. This doesn't say anything about sin entering "after" something, but rather it says that sin entered the world THROUGH one man, namely Adam. How did Adam become the instrument of sin's entrance into the world?

I already addressed this.

He got the ball rolling by committing the first sin!

That might be true, but it wasn't partaking of the forbidden fruit. It is possible that Eve committed the first sin.

If that isn't Paul's point, then we would be left with the very odd claim that Adam did something wonderfully noble and sacrificial (as the LDS typically see it)

Yes, when put in a position where he couldn't obey both of the commandments of God, he nobly and wonderfully chose the better path.

but that this noble act started a chain reaction that led AFTERWARD (according to your novel exegesis) to sin making its first appearance.

Yup.

Regarding verse 16 ("And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification"), you commented:

Notice that it doesn't specify that partaking of the fruit was THE "sin" "by the one that sinned".

Notice that Romans 5 says nothing about the fruit at all.

Very true, so to claim that partaking of the fruit was a sin has no foundation in scripture. Nice admission on your part.

Oh, so does that mean Paul does not anywhere in Romans 5 refer to that act of eating of the forbidden tree?

No. It is well understood, at least by Mormons, that "Adam's transgression" is referring to the partaking of the fruit. I would think that Job 31:33, Rom. 5:14, 1 Tim. 2:14, would verify that for all Bible believers.

Had Paul written, "By his sin of eating the fruit...," no doubt you would be arguing that Paul did not say from which tree this fruit came!

Oh please, I am not as bad as you are in that department.

In the passage in question (Romans 5:12-21), Paul refers to "the transgression of Adam" (v. 14), "one man's trespass" (v. 15), "one man's sinning" (v. 16), "the transgression of the one" (v. 17), "one transgression" (v. 18), and "the one man's disobedience" (v. 19). Throughout these references to Adam, Paul contrasts Adam's one act through which all people in Adam became mortal sinners with Christ's one act of righteousness (dying on the cross) through which all those in Christ receive the free gift of life.

Again, your are letting "your theological preunderstanding" cloud your eyes. Nowhere does Paul specify a single act. Are you going to claim that Adam committed only one transgression?

[Vance]

Apparently, you would have us believe that the transgression, trespass, and disobedience of the one man Adam in verses 14, 15, 17, 18, and 19 refer to the eating of the forbidden fruit, but the sinning of the one man in verse 16 does not.

A reasonable conclusion, unless, again, you are going to claim that Adam had no other transgressions beside partaking of the fruit.

No chance.

Paul's use of various synonyms to describe Adam's one act consistently use language of disapproval.

There you go again, reading into it something that isn't there. Nowhere does Paul say he is describing "one act".

Adam transgressed, trespassed, sinned, and disobeyed.

Yup. That he did. First he transgressed. Then he was given knowledge of good and evil. And then with that knowledge, sin entered the world. And then it is reasonable to assume that at some point after that, he sinned.

There is no room here for the LDS claim that Adam nobly stepped across the line to make it possible for his brothers and sisters to have their chance at exaltation.

Oh, there's room alright. Room enough to pass the world through.

Adam disobeyed God.

That is not in debate.

His was the original act of un-righteousness.

Well, I suppose that after he partook of the fruit and sin entered the world it is possible that Eve committed the "original act of un-righteousness" and not Adam.

You asked rhetorically:

Yes, it was a rhetorical question. The answer to which is irrelevant to the topic at hand. I was simply pointing out, that in context, it isn't obvious that it was a commandment.

Only by going to other sources do we know that it indeed was a commandment.

Uh, do you suppose the fact that God, their Creator, told them not to do it would have been a little clue that it was a bad idea??

Well, duh, how could they know the badness of it if they had no knowledge of good and evil?

In their state of innocence (like a child) they couldn't know whether it was a good or a bad idea.

The expression "the knowledge of good and evil" does not mean "the cognitive, intellectual recognition that some things are good and some things are evil."

Oh so now The Great and Powerful Rob has spoken! Pay no attention to the words used in scripture!

So, when it says "knowledge of good and evil" it doesn't really really mean that?

Adam and Eve weren't imbeciles or infants.

Nope, they were highly educated individuals with lots of degrees and ages of experience.

They didn't even know they were naked! Again, "your theological preunderstanding" clouds your eyes.

They knew that God was their Creator and they understood his words to them.

They didn't even know they were naked! Again, "your theological preunderstanding" clouds your eyes.

They were in a state of innocence, like children. They had no knowledge or experience from which to draw. Partaking of the fruit was a transgression of God's commandment, but it wasn't a sin.