If God doesn't want us to sin . . .

[CV75]

our own nothingness

This is not only the consequence of sin, but the cause of our choosing to sin, and the cause of Adam and Eve's transgression. We are not as developed as Christ from the beginning. Sinning and further sinning only make this condition worse. The atonement offsets it because Christ was "everything" man could be ("Man is spirit" and so pre-mortality is where we begin the course) from the beginning.

[CV75]

We inevitably sin because of the Fall

I would say that we inevitably sin (those who inevitably sin, for some do not) because we are less developed spirits than Christ.

[Nathair/|\]

Here I am (waves wildly!)

It's the right tree! I call it, the tree of life...

Random discordian moment.

[nicolasconnault]

Those who sin less (qualitatively or quantitatively) in their life find it easier to reach eternal life. Sin is therefore not a prerequisite for salvation, but a necessary condition of mortality. It is the overcoming of sin that is required for salvation, not its perpetration.

[mercyngrace]

As far as we can know now, after the events that actually transpired. Adam and Eve were bound to transgress, and we were bound to sin because of imperfectly developed agency. Only Christ had developed such agency, and His atonement and our imperfection were accounted for in the plan. The plan does not require that we sin, but is designed because it is in our undeveloped nature to do so, and in Christ's perfect nature to atone in our behalf. So it works without requiring us to sin, but only in acknowledgment that we do sin (according to our free will). It also works without requiring Christ to atone, but only in acknowledgment that He does (according to His free will).

Again, I refer to Alma.

How can a man repent except he sin?

[mercyngrace]

This is not only the consequence of sin, but the cause of our choosing to sin, and the cause of Adam and Eve's transgression. We are not as developed as Christ from the beginning. Sinning and further sinning only make this condition worse. The atonement offsets it because Christ was "everything" man could be ("Man is spirit" and so pre-mortality is where we begin the course) from the beginning.

So if you had never sinned, would you need a redeemer?

As I read the accounts of the Zoramites, for example, I see a people who believed they were not sinning. They saw their works as justified and so they did not need to repent. Ultimately, that led them to reject Christ altogether for you see, he who does not violate the law and has no need for repentance is not damned. Therefore, he needs no Savior.

Suggesting that the possibiltiy exists that we could pass through life sinless denies our need for redemption. Yet the scriptures repeat the refrain that the only way to salvation is through Christ.

So, if I understand correctly, you are suggesting that it is not required for a man to fall personally, it is simply inevitable because of our nature and current spiritual development.

Why then, did God not design a plan suitable to our present state? One in which we, at least the stronger of us, could overcome without falling? Why did He author a plan which was a no-win situation without the great and terrible last sacrifice?

Maybe an analogy will help explain my position:

You have a son who wants a car. You want him to learn to care for a car not just own a car. He knows nothing about cars except where to insert the keys and the gas but your father is a master mechanic available to help teach your son.

You give your son the keys to a shiny new clunker. He inserts the keys and it fails to start, black smoke billowing out from under the hood. He immediately runs in the house to call grandpa.

The kid only called grandpa because the car didn't start. He didn't call him prior to putting the keys in the ignition because he was under the delusion that following a set of proscribed behaviors (checking his mirrors, putting on his seat belt, inserting the key) he could make the car go on his own. It wasn't until after the setback that he realized he needed help.

The thing is, your son thinks he called grandpa just to help him fix up a mess but you knew all along that it wasn't the car you cared about but the wisdom that would come from spending time with a great mechanic. You wanted your son to become a mechanic in his own right.

In the same way, God cares more about our coming to know Christ (eternal life) than He does about simple absolution (having your mess fixed) but He also realizes that if we have no pressing need, we won't call for help. Sin/ transgression is the pressing need. The law, according to Paul and Lehi, allow us to see that something in our lives is broken and needs repair. We call for Christ and He intercedes. The interaction changes us.

The suggestion that brokenness is incidental implies that the goal is absolution - we just need Christ to fix the mess we've made.

If brokenness is intentional, then the goal is something much more impressive. The goal is about teaching us to become Mechanics.

[blackstrap]

I think it was quite possible to sin in the pre-mortal realm.About a third of spirits were cast out. Is sinning any different in mortality?

[Obiwan]

This subject came up toward the end of a lengthy thread currently ongoing, and I thought I would give it a thread of its own.

We are frequently told that God does not want us to sin. This seems reasonable enough.

On the other hand, God has created a world in which each and every one of us will sin. We can't help it. It is part of our makeup. The way God created us, I might add.

In fact, 1 John 1:10 (?) goes so far as to say if anybody say they don't sin, they are a liar and the truth is not in them.

Paul says all have sinned and come short of the glory of God. (Romans 3:23?)

So, if God really didn't want us to sin, why didn't he create a plan where we didn't have to?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Goodness.... You STILL never cease to amaze me with your "questions". Are you really "sure" you're LDS? Cause this is such an obvious and well known answer.

It's NOT that God doesn't want us to sin, it's that he wants us to "overcome sin", to become masters over the flesh. This is the entire purpose of life, the most fundamental teaching and aspect of the Restored Gospel. Goodness gracious. You're questions are simply amazing to me.

[nicolasconnault]

So if you had never sinned, would you need a redeemer?

As I read the accounts of the Zoramites, for example, I see a people who believed they were not sinning. They saw their works as justified and so they did not need to repent. Ultimately, that led them to reject Christ altogether for you see, he who does not violate the law and has no need for repentance is not damned. Therefore, he needs no Savior.

Suggesting that the possibiltiy exists that we could pass through life sinless denies our need for redemption. Yet the scriptures repeat the refrain that the only way to salvation is through Christ.

So, if I understand correctly, you are suggesting that it is not required for a man to fall personally, it is simply inevitable because of our nature and current spiritual development.

Why then, did God not design a plan suitable to our present state? One in which we, at least the stronger of us, could overcome without falling? Why did He author a plan which was a no-win situation without the great and terrible last sacrifice?

Maybe an analogy will help explain my position:

You have a son who wants a car. You want him to learn to care for a car not just own a car. He knows nothing about cars except where to insert the keys and the gas but your father is a master mechanic available to help teach your son.

You give your son the keys to a shiny new clunker. He inserts the keys and it fails to start, black smoke billowing out from under the hood. He immediately runs in the house to call grandpa.

The kid only called grandpa because the car didn't start. He didn't call him prior to putting the keys in the ignition because he was under the delusion that following a set of proscribed behaviors (checking his mirrors, putting on his seat belt, inserting the key) he could make the car go on his own. It wasn't until after the setback that he realized he needed help.

The thing is, your son thinks he called grandpa just to help him fix up a mess but you knew all along that it wasn't the car you cared about but the wisdom that would come from spending time with a great mechanic. You wanted your son to become a mechanic in his own right.

In the same way, God cares more about our coming to know Christ (eternal life) than He does about simple absolution (having your mess fixed) but He also realizes that if we have no pressing need, we won't call for help. Sin/ transgression is the pressing need. The law, according to Paul and Lehi, allow us to see that something in our lives is broken and needs repair. We call for Christ and He intercedes. The interaction changes us.

The suggestion that brokenness is incidental implies that the goal is absolution - we just need Christ to fix the mess we've made.

If brokenness is intentional, then the goal is something much more impressive. The goal is about teaching us to become Mechanics.

The missing link here is that it is possible to sin out of ignorance (see Gospel Principles Manual). Those who have gone through mortality without receiving the gospel of Christ still need to repent of their actions that are inherently sinful. Otherwise, they would not need to be taught faith, repentance and baptism while in the Spirit World. When the scriptures speak of those who have not the law, I believe it speaks of those who cannot discern between good and evil, between right and wrong, whatever the reason may be (immaturity, mental illness, brain damage etc.).

[thesometimesaint]

Yes, even if you were sinless you'd still The Savior. He is the first fruits of the Resurrection without Him we would not be Resurrected.

[mercyngrace]

Goodness.... You STILL never cease to amaze me with your "questions". Are you really "sure" you're LDS? Cause this is such an obvious and well known answer.

It's NOT that God doesn't want us to sin, it's that he wants us to "overcome sin", to become masters over the flesh. This is the entire purpose of life, the most fundamental teaching and aspect of the Restored Gospel. Goodness gracious. You're questions are simply amazing to me.

God doesn't want us to PERSIST in sin but falling was a requirement in Eden and it is what drives those of us who are accountable to repentance -the only path back to Christ.

[thesometimesaint]

mercyngrace:

Falling was not a requirement in the GoE. Obeying God was.

[zerinus]

God doesn't want us to PERSIST in sin but falling was a requirement in Eden and it is what drives those of us who are accountable to repentance -the only path back to Christ.

That is not Mormon doctrine. God does not want us to sin at all, not even a tiny bit. He cannot look upon sin with the "least degree of allowance":

Alma 45

:

16 And he said: Thus saith the Lord God

[mercyngrace]

mercyngrace:

Falling was not a requirement in the GoE. Obeying God was.

2 Nephi. If they hadn't fallen men would not be.

Let's go back to what Lehi said. If there is no sin there is no righteousness. The plan would have been thwarted without sin as the catalyst. The establishment of the law (eat of all trees but this one) created opposition. The violation of the law, brought the need for redemption and the knowledge of the Gods. Notice also that without sin, there could be no righteousness. So to suggest that the Fall was not a necessary part of the plan is to suggest that God's work and glory were an afterthought - that He really wanted us to remain innocent children rather than to progress in His footsteps.

[mercyngrace]

That is not Mormon doctrine. God does not want us to sin at all, not even a tiny bit. He cannot look upon sin with the "least degree of allowance":

Alma 45

:

16 And he said: Thus saith the Lord God

[ed2276]

Show me one human being who has never sinned and I might believe you.

His point was that we don't have to sin, but we have all chosen to sin. When presented with a temptation, at one time or another, we have all chosen to yield to the temptation and have sinned.

You side-stepped that point in lawyerly fashion. Can you name one sin that we have--that is, are forced-- to commit? I'll throw it back at you: show me one human being who was forced to sin against his will, then I might believe you that we all have to sin.

Even though all have sinned (past tense) that doesn't mean that we were compelled to sin in the past; nor are we compelled to sin in the future. In fact, the Lord tells us not to sin going forward. The Lord told the woman taken in adultery, "go and sin no more". I think He meant it; it was possible for her to actually live her life in the present and into the future without committing adultery again. She was given a command and it was left up to her whether she would or would not cease from adultery.

The Lord set the standard for us, and told us to be perfect, even as our Heavenly Father is perfect. Paul said, we can do all things through Christ, who strengthens us. If we repent and forsake our past sins we are made clean by our faith in the Lord and His sacrifice. Going forward, we should, "go and sin no more". When faced with temptation in the future we have the ability to "resist the Devil" and to choose not to yield to sin again.

It is possible for us to live a holy life, going forward, to never yield to temptation again. Our mindset should be that we are determined in every instance to choose not to yield to temptation, and not take the defeatist position that we will, or have to, sin in the future. But, as Paul notes, if we sin--note:Paul does not say when we sin again, as if it is a predetermined fact that we will sin again, but if, denoting that we have a choice in the matter--we have an advocate with the Father, even Jesus Christ.

[CV75]

Again, I refer to Alma.

How can a man repent except he sin?

An accountable man (a spirit, D&C 93:33) who chooses mortality and continues accountable during mortality will act imperfectly and sin, and need to repent. An accountable spirit cannot repent of its imperfect nature without entering into mortality and inevitably sinning. He did not have to be an imperfect spirit, he could have been as perfect as Christ (presumably those who die without accountability may well be), but agency was paramount and he is what he chose/chooses to be. There are those who enter mortality and do not have to repent.

Another way of looking at the question:

"How can an imperfect spirit child of God progress without entering mortality, and in mortality continue to act, and through imperfect action sin, and because of sin require a Savior, and because of the Savior repent?" OR "How can a spirit progress into exaltation without mortality (and its attendant sin) and the atonement (his repentance)?" OR "How can an imperfect spirit repent, except he become an imperfect mortal and repent in the flesh?"

It seems that perhaps mortality is a step in repenting from spiritual weaknesses we cultivated in the pre-existence. An imperfect spirit cannot repent (or progress) without continuing his imperfection in a mortal state and benefiting from the Atonement. This is very different from being required to sin; this is not how things played out from the beginning (we were never required to sin; we always chose what to do).

[CV75]

So if you had never sinned, would you need a redeemer?

Yes, because as perfect a pre-mortal spirit I might have been, I was never perfect enough to have power over physical death like Christ has. I believe the same is true of those who are not accountable (they lack power over death except through Christ).

[Senator]

If this is what you people actually believe, then you folks are an embarrassment to Mormonism, because that is not what Mormonism teaches.

One of my long standing attractions to Mormonism, is the freedom (and invitation) to check our dogmas at the door.

I'm beginning to wonder if that invitation is fading.

[ed2276]

2 Nephi. If they hadn't fallen men would not be.

True. But, if they had to fall, and God knew that they would fall, why go through the whole don't-eat-of-that-fruit thing? Why not just condemn Adam and Eve without giving them any commandment, and get on with things?

It being the case that Adam and Eve had to yield to temptation and disobey for them to fall and for God's plan to go forward, God still didn't compel them eat in disobedience, and thereby sin; God gave Adam and Eve a choice, the consequences for disobedience, and left it up to them.

When Lehi said that if Adam and Eve had not sinned they wouldn't have fallen he was admitting that, even though the Plan of Salvation coming to pass depended on their fall, there was the possibility that they could have chosen to obey and thus remain in their immortal state.

If they did this, then X; if they didn't do that, then Y, doesn't mean that they were forced to do either X or Y. X and Y merely tell us the consequence of whatever choice they made.

[CV75]

Why then, did God not design a plan suitable to our present state? One in which we, at least the stronger of us, could overcome without falling? Why did He author a plan which was a no-win situation without the great and terrible last sacrifice?

The current plan is not suitable for allowing imperfect spirits to gain a body and continue to develop and advance spiritually (repent) and benefit from immortality and its attendant spiritual glory up to exaltation.

We all chose to participate in the Fall. I do not know what might have happened to any perfect spirits who chose not to Fall (the imperfect ones are part of the third that were cast out). But even Christ all of the effects of the Fall, and unaccountable people chose to enter mortality and suffer at least the physical effect of death.

The plan reflects the reality of what we have chosen to be as spirits: we cannot advance there or here without a Father and/or Savior leading the way. As always, we choose to win or choose to lose according to our receiving the light (whether from God directly as spirits, or from Christ or His servants in this life). With a Father and a Savior, how could it possibly be set up to guarantee our eternal loss? It is designed to be a win-win situation, but we choose whether we follow the design.

I think the crux is that agency is most fundamental as to what we are, what God is, and what comes out of its exercise by the respective parties. Also, the "must" is an observation of things as they are (and were, and will be), or what really is, and not a virtual command from God that His children sin (He does not command the performance of evil but leverages the performance of evil for His purposes; He did not create evil).

[ed2276]

One of my long standing attractions to Mormonism, is the freedom (and invitation) to check our dogmas at the door.

I'm beginning to wonder if that invitation is fading.

When we get to the other side, I suspect that a great many of our present understanding and assumptions about the nature of things, and what real "doctrine" is, will undergo huge revision.

[mercyngrace]

True. But, if they had to fall, and God knew that they would fall, why go through the whole don't-eat-of-that-fruit thing? Why not just condemn Adam and Eve without giving them any commandment, and get on with things?

Because if their act (eating the fruit) was not a violation of His commandments, it would have required no punishment and they would have had no need for redemption, not having violated the law! 2 Ne 2.

It being the case that Adam and Eve had to yield to temptation and disobey for them to fall and for God's plan to go forward, God still didn't compel them eat in disobedience, and thereby sin; God gave Adam and Eve a choice, the consequences for disobedience, and left it up to them.

No, He didn't need to compel them. He simply knew that their fall would be the catalyst. The plan banked on it! 2 Ne 2.

When Lehi said that if Adam and Eve had not sinned they wouldn't have fallen he was admitting that, even though the Plan of Salvation coming to pass depended on their fall, there was the possibility that they could have chosen to obey and thus remain in their immortal state.

If they did this, then X; if they didn't do that, then Y, doesn't mean that they were forced to do either X or Y. X and Y merely tell us the consequence of whatever choice they made.

No one is saying we are forced to sin, simply that sin is a required catalyst for redemption, which is a core part of the plan. The plan is designed such that we are incapable of overcoming without the intervention of a Redeemer.

[consiglieri]

Consider the 3 year old who does something wrong( now don't tell me that they can't) It is my understanding that for the 3 year old it is not accounted to him as sin and yet he can feel sorrow and/or guilt and even conceive of ways to do it again and not get caught. Did Christ pay for that "transgression " ? Under which of the proposals posted in this thread do all the children who die before the age of accountability fall?

Hi, Blackstrap!

Nice to have you on board the thread.

Little children do sin all the time, as you mentioned, and my understanding is that until they reach the age of accountability, Christ's atonement covers their sins as they are not old enough to make the mental and spiritual commitment to choose Christ and enter into a salvific relationship with him through the waters of baptism.

This doctrine is frequently misunderstood (in my opinion) as being that little children don't sin at all.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[consiglieri]

Since when did you become a disciple of Brigham Young?

An ironic question from one who presumably considers himself a disciple of Jesus Christ, Joseph Smith and Thomas Monson.

Regardless, Brigham Young never taught Jesus lived in mortality on a previous world.

But let's not derail the thread on this.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri