What Gospel Principles teaches about salvation

[David T]

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

Vance, just going by the biblical record and version of the story, Rob's understanding is the standard, clear, default understanding. I'm confident that without someone having read the Book of Mormon, Book of Moses, and been to the Temple, or are familiar with the modern retellings by modern prophets and apostles, no one would have the same interpretation you do. There is no biblical scripture that praises Adam. In fact, he only shows up once in the Old Testament - in Genesis!. The story as it is presented in Genesis isn't even referred to anywhere else in the old testament (while there are references to earlier versions of the Eden story --in Isaiah and Ezekiel-- but with reference in this version of the story to a fallen king who lost Eden because of pride and rebellion). The New Testament only speaks of the figure of Adam in a condemnatory manner.

It is arrogant and incorrect to assume that all others who disagree with you and do not hold to our additional scriptures are somehow misreading or re-applying the ancient scriptures.

Well, I do have more authority than you.

Not when you're being arrogant in the context of an unofficial non-ecclesiastical debate, you don't.

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.

Again, not a concept in the Biblical version of the story. It makes sense for LDS to have it, but to tell others who don't accept LDS canon that this is the clear reading? Vance, you're wrong.

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...

The KJV isn't a great version of Job there. In context, the hebrew in context is most likely meaning 'man', or 'as mankind', and not the personage named Adam.

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?

Paul is referring to the scriptural story understood and extant. It would be clear to his audience that he was referring to the only act in scripture where Adam does something which is in violation of a commandment of God. It's fine to hold an LDS interpretation, but to read that interpretation back into ancient sources that did not teach that version of the story really doesn't help our case.

[zerinus]

Well, duh,

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

Wrong! That is the invention of your own imagination. The scriptures suggest that sin and transgression are equivalents. They are synonyms. They mean the same thing.

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

Wrong again! Transgression is equivalent to, therefore = 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

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Wrong! That is the invention of your own imagination. The scriptures suggest that sin and transgression are equivalents. They are synonyms. They mean the same thing.

Wrong again! Transgression is equivalent to, therefore = sin.

That is a common literary device found in Hebrew poetic and prophetic literature. The two equivalent words are used side by side for literary elegance. The differences between the two words are purely rhetorical. Many more such examples can be found. That is why I gave you another example for

[zerinus]

You do realise that we are not subject to your private interpretations.

Neither am I subject to yours.

I believe that the gospel principals manual can help us out. I am fairly confident that the church leaders view Adam's transgression as not being a sin. IWO a transgression and a sin are not the same thing.

Thank you for your input; but the scriptures suggest to me otherwise.

[zerinus]

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.

Adam did "nobly step across the line ...". Although I am in agreement that Adam sinned, that does not mean that he did not "nobly step across the line". Paul also writes, "And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression" (1 Timothy 2:14). That verse agrees precisely with Mormon doctrine. Adam's partaking of the fruit did constitute a sin; but it was a deliberate, intentional sin done for a wise purpose in the Lord. My disagreements with Vance does not translate into agreement with you I am afraid.

[Vance]

Wrong! That is the invention of your own imagination. The scriptures suggest that sin and transgression are equivalents. They are synonyms. They mean the same thing.

Well, there are at least three other people's statements on this thread that are in agreement with mine. So the "invention of {my} own imagination" extends beyond me.

[JDave]

Come on, people.

Bottom line: Adam disobeyed God and subsequently the Fall occurred. LDS doctrine on the matter is definitely that Adam didn't commit a serious sin (see page 29 of GP). LDS doctrine on the matter is definitely that the Fall was a necessary step in the plan of salvation (see page 29 of GP).

Can someone explain to me how categorizing Adam and Eve disobedience as a sin or a transgression aids in understanding the Fall? Either way the disobedience led to a separation from God and they required (and later received) forgiveness for their act. How much forgiveness was needed? Apparently not much either way, since it was not a serious sin.

[David T]

The essential take away is that because Adam (mankind) sinned, Adam (mankind) needs a Savior to be reconciled with God.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Neither am I subject to yours.

Thank you for your input; but the scriptures suggest to me otherwise.

YOu can think that but I am not the one with the private interpretation. Mine follows in line with what the prophets think. I also happen to think that a transgression is not a sin among other things as well.

Jdave,

I think you make a great point.

Something else strikes me as I read Rob's comments.

He makes it seems as if Satan threw a wrench into God's plan, when he partook of the fruit.

LDS do beleive that it was part of the plan from the beginning. I would have to ask why Satan was allowed into the garden of eden to temp Adam and Eve if it was not part of the plan?

[Rob Osborn]

Satan is not part of the plan. Only those things that are "required" are a part of the plan from the beginning.

[Rob Osborn]

Come on, people.

Bottom line: Adam disobeyed God and subsequently the Fall occurred. LDS doctrine on the matter is definitely that Adam didn't commit a serious sin (see page 29 of GP). LDS doctrine on the matter is definitely that the Fall was a necessary step in the plan of salvation (see page 29 of GP).

Can someone explain to me how categorizing Adam and Eve disobedience as a sin or a transgression aids in understanding the Fall? Either way the disobedience led to a separation from God and they required (and later received) forgiveness for their act. How much forgiveness was needed? Apparently not much either way, since it was not a serious sin.

I agree with you to a certain point. It drives me crazy to hear people say that partaking of the fruit was somehow "righteous" in a context of bringing to pass God's will. Perhaps it was inevitable, but sin is sin and Adam sinned.

[Bernard Gui]

Satan is not part of the plan. Only those things that are "required" are a part of the plan from the beginning.

He'd been an angel once. He hadn't meant to Fall. He'd just hung

around with the wrong people.

---Terry Pratchett, Good Omens

Bernard

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

Adam probably committed more sins later in his life, but in Romans 5 Paul focuses on a single act; hence his use of singular nouns (transgression, trespass, disobedience) and the sustained contrast between the one man's transgression (Adam's act in the Garden) and the one man's act of righteousness (Christ's submitting to death on the cross).

Whether Adam or Eve chronologically ate first is beside the point; in Paul's understanding, the act resulted in the Fall only when Adam had done it.

Knowledge does mean knowledge, but the question is what connotation of knowledge is meant. Biblical usage of "know" and "knowledge" is wider than is typical in modern English.

Adam and Eve probably didn't think about being naked because it was natural for them. Their realization of nakedness was not new information previously unintelligible to them, but a new perspective brought about by their disobedience to God's commandment--hence the reference to them being ashamed.

According to zerinus, 1 Timothy 2:14 proves that Adam knew quite well what he was doing; he understood that he was disobeying God (and according to zerinus knew that doing so was sin) but did so for a noble purpose. I disagree about the act being noble, but zerinus brings up a valid point -- 1 Timothy 2:14 does indicate that Adam knew what he was doing.

[zerinus]

Satan is not part of the plan. Only those things that are "required" are a part of the plan from the beginning.

I am not sure I understand what that means. Was the tree of the knowledge of good and evil part of the plan?

[zerinus]

According to zerinus, 1 Timothy 2:14 proves that Adam knew quite well what he was doing; he understood that he was disobeying God (and according to zerinus knew that doing so was sin) but did so for a noble purpose. I disagree about the act being noble, but zerinus brings up a valid point -- 1 Timothy 2:14 does indicate that Adam knew what he was doing.

I ask you the same question that I asked Rob Osborn: Why do you think God placed the tree of the knowledge of good and evil in the Garden in the first place? And what is wrong with knowing good and evil anyway? I should have thought any kind of knowledge would be a useful thing to have, but especially a knowledge of good and evil. Would you want to be deprived of your knowledge of good and evil?

[Vance]

Rob,

If partaking of the fruit was a sin by both Adam and Eve, then why did God come afterward and personally visit them? They were physically in His presence and He talked with them. He could have sent an angel, but He didn't. He came personally. Especially when you consider that the punishment for sin is separation from God.

[Vance]

Also,

Eve was deceived by the serpent. The serpent lied to her. Why would anyone expect Eve to understand that it was a lie? She had never been lied to before. She was in the garden God made for them. Why should she have had an expectation that she was going to be lied to?

You guys can force Rom 5 to read as you will. But I have presented several issues and questions that you have not and can not adequately address.

Your whole argument stands on your forcing Rom 5. And the rest is just squirming to maintain your position.

[David T]

Rob,

If partaking of the fruit was a sin by both Adam and Eve, then why did God come afterward and personally visit them? They were physically in His presence and He talked with them. He could have sent an angel, but He didn't. He came personally. Especially when you consider that the punishment for sin is separation from God.

Again: additional information is being inserted into the OT account of the story. In the Genesis account, it's a matter of obedience to God, and thepenalty for not being obedient is death, and the loss of paradise. The advanced concepts of spiritual death have nothing to do with the Genesis version of the story. In fact, Jehovah himself talks to Cain, who is in the cast-off state! the physical personage of Jehovah shows up many times in the Pentateuch. Separation from God is never brought up in such a context. This is a latter doctrine presented in the Modern Current LDS Version of the story.

I think it really does us a disservice when it's insisted that the Gospel Principles version of the story is the same one as in Genesis. It's not. Same characters, many of the same events, but it's a completely different story, prophetically re-told for a completely different reason and a completely different context.

The Genesis text is a very simple story, that doesn't even involve 'Satan', even if that was how it was later interpreted. Most of these motivations and intricacies go far beyond the original version and apparent intention of the story.

I think the modern version is an extraordinarily useful allegory/symbol. I think it's quite beautiful, elegent, and deep. But we shouldn't have to confuse this version with the primitive Genesis version of the story.

In the modern version, there was a stepping over of bounds (transgression) which led to Mortality and Spiritual Death. It was a necessary progression in the plan of Salvation, spoiling the plans of Lucifer. Adam was taught of the Savior, Jesus Christ, repented, was baptized, received the Priesthood, etc.

In Genesis, man, who was created from the dust, was set as a sovereign in a sacred garden, and a woman came from his rib. A snake tricked the woman, who convinced Adam to disobey the LORD's commandment. the LORD was angry, and cast this creation out from the sacred garden and sentenced him to death and exile.

Two stories. One presenting Everyman's journey along the plan of Salvation, one a cautionary tale against Rebellion and Disobedience, contrasted with the loss of the kingship/priesthood/temple in Jerusalem.

The relevent one to latter-day saints is the Plan of Salvation version. There's no need to harmonize the stories. They are different stories. You might call it a 'reboot'

[Rob Bowman]

zerinus,

I have already answered your second question. God was not depriving them of information, but warning them not to seek to "know" for themselves, i.e., to determine autonomously, what was right and wrong.

As to why he put the tree there, I think it was God's kind way of giving Adam and Eve an opportunity to become confirmed in righteousness prior to becoming immortal (by eating of the tree of life). As bad as things are, they would be far worse if human beings were immortal AND fallen in sin. Then we would have immortal evil beings populating the universe for all time. So God created a controlled environment (Eden) in which to put them through the necessary test.

I ask you the same question that I asked Rob Osborn: Why do you think God placed the tree of the knowledge of good and evil in the Garden in the first place? And what is wrong with knowing good and evil anyway? I should have thought any kind of knowledge would be a useful thing to have, but especially a knowledge of good and evil. Would you want to be deprived of your knowledge of good and evil?

[Rob Osborn]

Rob,

If partaking of the fruit was a sin by both Adam and Eve, then why did God come afterward and personally visit them? They were physically in His presence and He talked with them. He could have sent an angel, but He didn't. He came personally. Especially when you consider that the punishment for sin is separation from God.

The same thing could be said of Cain. He slew abel in the field and then the Lord's voice came asking him where he was and why he killed his brother. Then, he caused that Cain should be shut out from his presence.

[zerinus]

I have already answered your second question. God was not depriving them of information, but warning them not to seek to "know" for themselves, i.e., to determine autonomously, what was right and wrong.

I didn

[Vance]

The same thing could be said of Cain. He slew abel in the field and then the Lord's voice came asking him where he was and why he killed his brother. Then, he caused that Cain should be shut out from his presence.

If Adam and Eve were evicted from God's presence, how did Cain get back in?

[Rob Osborn]

If Adam and Eve were evicted from God's presence, how did Cain get back in?

49 Behold Satan hath come among the children of men, and tempteth them to worship him; and men have become carnal, sensual, and devilish, and are shut out from the presence of God.

(Pearl of Great Price | Moses 6:49)

Every man born is born with the presence of God to abide by. As we sin we get shut off from the presence of the Lord.

[Vance]

49 Behold Satan hath come among the children of men, and tempteth them to worship him; and men have become carnal, sensual, and devilish, and are shut out from the presence of God.

(Pearl of Great Price | Moses 6:49)

Every man born is born with the presence of God to abide by. As we sin we get shut off from the presence of the Lord.

So Cain didn't sin until he murdered Able?

[Rob Osborn]

So Cain didn't sin until he murdered Able?

As men become carnal sensual and devilish, they are cut off from the presence of God. This is what is called "spiritual death". As for Cain, I am sure he was sinning before this. Who knows why but the scriptures state that he was shut off from the presence of God because of his murder.