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

[CV75]

Lehi attributed our inevitable sins not to our spirit, but to the flesh "and the evil that is therein."

But man is spirit, and the spirit is the thing that is "there in" the flesh and which chooses those things that are not spiritually beneficial. Lehi was talking from the point of view / starting pace of what we do in this world. But we know it started before this world.

[consiglieri]

From an eternal perspective, God does not command us to keep a law we cannot keep, for He provided the way for us to keep it.

We can say this only if we posit that the commandment of God is for us to choose to enter into a saving relationship with Jesus Christ.

That is the great commandment.

This commandment we can keep.

The rest of the commandments we cannot keep are designed to lead us to this one commandment we can keep.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[consiglieri]

Nice try.

Well, at least you learned how to smell "mote."

[LeSellers]

The Plan was for Adam and Eve to gain a body, and to be tried, and tested to see if they would do what so ever the Lord, their God would command them. God did not command them to partake of the fruit, he allowed them their agency to choose.

I believe this to be the accepted Primary lesson on the subject.

While the Primary lesson may be "basic", it is not "false".

We all, each of us, sin, 'tis true, because we are weak, but Father still does not want us to sin, nor is sin mandatory, and, absent sin, neither is repentance. However, since we all sin, we all need repentance.

We would not need to be saved (apart from death, which is one part of the two-part Atonement) if we did not sin. As this is a hypothetical, there is no reason to explore it further except to say that salvation from sin (the second part of the Atonement) would only be needed for those who actually do sin.

The reason for temptation is so we can develop the power to resist it. I resist some better than I do others, and there are people who resist those temptations wherein I am weak, so it is obvious that no particular sin is a requirement for salvation. There are people whose sins are fewer than mine, and, assuming we all repent, we are evidence that there is no minimum number of sins required for salvation, either. In fact, there are people other than Jesus who have not sinned: I give you infants who die without sin, they being wholly unable either to sin or to repent, yet they are saved and probably exalted, too.

By understanding that sin is not requisite for exaltation, and that repentance is only required when sin is present, we see that Jesus needed no repentance, having no sin, and will be (and has been, and always was) exalted. Because Jesus faced all temptations, and descended below all things, and triumphed over them, we see that temptation (not sin) is the requirement we must face on earth. This is because we must develop the ability to resist all temptation to achieve the state Father wants us to gain.

I reject the OP premise, and substitute my own: that sin is not what we must do, but we must face temptations to sin, and more than face them, we must overcome the tendency to succumb to temptation.

God will have an obedient people, but He will also have an obedient person.

Lehi

[CV75]

Nobody became even close to the stature of Christ in the premortal existence because he is on a wholly different level. He was even then an exalted, resurrected God.

Perhaps He was resurrected and exalted in the same way that His atonement has been effective from the very beginning (through the eyes of faith), before He enacted in the flesh throughout His mortal life and in the Garden of Gethsemane. I don't think an exalted resurrected being re-enters a second (or more) mortal condition.

It is an interesting point, though; I suppose it is also conceivable that Jesus could have formed himself an immortal body and not taken the mortal route with the rest of us. Perhaps other gods like Him did just this, and enjoy an exaltation without this probationary test (because like Him, their spirits were more advanced than ours and could pull it off).

In ether case, I don't see our sinning being a requirement no more than it was a requirement for Him.

[consiglieri]

In ether case, I don't see our sinning being a requirement no more than it was a requirement for Him.

My point is that it was a requirement for Jesus, as well. As it was a requirement for his father, Elohim.

Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good from evil.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[CV75]

The rest of the commandments we cannot keep are designed to lead us to this one commandment we can keep.

The thing is, we can keep all of them if we come to earth with a spirit as advanced as Christ's. We not required to beak them. We say we cannot keep them after the fact that we have not prepared ourselves to do so. But the plan is designed to address that problem, and not to require all God's children to have the problem.

[CV75]

My point is that it was a requirement for Jesus, as well. As it was a requirement for his father, Elohim.

Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good from evil.

"...the man is become as one of us to know good and evil..."

One way to know good and evil is to choose only good as Christ did, exposing the evil in contrast. We developed this ability to varying capacities pre-mortally. Carrying this principle into mortality, I think of Jesus in the verse, "Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good." He grew from grace to grace, and never sinned, yet certainly knew good and evil.

[SkepticTheist]

If God didn't want us to sin, why did he send Adam and Eve into the garden where they would unavoidably sin?

Yet that was his plan, and that is why he sent the Savior.

It really is the same question.

It has more to do with the fact that two or more things are unavoidably tied together, and to have the one you must have the other.

It is not a matter of wanting that which is the negative that goes along with that which is the positive. It is the positive thing that you truly want.

But in order to get the one thing, you have to have that which goes along with it. It is the package deal. So he provided a way to overcome the negative part of the deal.

God WANTED Adam and Eve to progress, have children and have eternal life. That is what he wanted.

He knew that for them to get that, what would come along with it would be sin and death.

He provided the way to overcome those negatives so that the net result in the end would be what he truly wanted.

I don't want my kids to grow up because they are just so cute when they are toddlers, but I want more for them to progress and grow to have children.

I know that in order for them to get there, they have to grow and get bumps and bruises and muddle their way through life in order to become polished.

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

[zerinus]

Well, at least you learned how to smell "mote."

And your folly was made manifest.

[LeSellers]

If God didn't want us to sin, why did he send Adam and Eve into the garden where they would unavoidably sin?

Yet that was his plan, and that is why he sent the Savior.

...

God WANTED Adam and Eve to progress, have children and have eternal life. That is what he wanted.

He knew that for them to get that, what would come along with it would be sin and death.

Yes, Adam and Eve had to transgress (not "sin") in order to provide us with the mechanism to become, first, mortal, and then, through the Atonement, immortal (with, potentially, Eternal Life). But theirs was not "sin", it was "transgression", not wholly separate, but there is a difference.

The Plan of Happiness requires a transition to physical existence, and only physical parents can grant that to a spirit being. God's Plan gave us the means to make that transition, but it does not require sin (and, absent sin, it does not require repentance, either, but no one, save Christ, who has attained the age of accountability has managed to abstain) on the part of any specific individual.

Adam and Eve were a "special case".

Lehi

[CV75]

If God didn't want us to sin, why did he send Adam and Eve into the garden where they would unavoidably sin?

Our unavoidably sinning is not the same as God wanting us to sin. It is the result of a series of choices we make despite what He wants us to do, to a degree staring in the pre-existence where none of us developed to the stature of Christ, though I think God might have wanted that very much, or at least have been very pleased with such.

[SkepticTheist]

Adam and Eve were a "special case".

Were they really? Do you suppose that Adam and Eve, AFTER they ate the fruit did not sin more? In those cases where they sinned, were they any less evil or more good than any one of us? Doubtful.

We are all sent to our own gardens. Our childhood is our own garden of eden. We all become accountable. We are all baptized. We all repent.

Does it matter what we want to call it? Transgression, sin, mess ups? Whatever. Different degrees of the same monster that only the atonement can overcome.

[LeSellers]

Adam and Eve were a "special case".

Were they really? Do you suppose that Adam and Eve, AFTER they ate the fruit did not sin more? In those cases where they sinned, were they any less evil or more good than any one of us? Doubtful.

Since I was speaking of the Fall, not their mortal existence in toto, your comment is not germane.

However, one can assume that Adam, like many others, was a "perfect man" in all his generations.

In response to the question you should have asked, Adam and Eve were a "special case" in that they were the only ones of all of God's creations who were required to break even a single one of His commandments, and, in their case it was only in order to obey another, more important one.

We are all sent to our own gardens. Our childhood is our own garden of eden. We all become accountable. We are all baptized. We all repent.

Please show me where I said anything different.

Does it matter what we want to call it? Transgression, sin, mess ups? Whatever. Different degrees of the same monster that only the atonement can overcome.

Yes, there is a significant difference between "sin" and "transgression". A pre-accountable child transgresses, but a man sins. The first is not in rebellion against God, the other is. Sin is the knowing rejection of God's commands, and Adam and Eve did not have the required knowledge of what they were doing to sin: they were merely transgressing.

For instance, the penalty for disobedience was "thou shalt die", but they knew no death

[nicolasconnault]

I understand why you would feel this way, but in actuality, those who sin more find it easier to reach eternal life.

The wicked man is closer to (finding) God than the righteous.

As taught over and over in the scriptures (as ably pointed out by mercyngrace), the wicked are closer to eternal life than those who try to follow all the commandments.

It is just one more irony in a gospel filled with ironies.

What a load of codswallop!

[mercyngrace]

From Alma 42:

(my comments in red)

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?

Repentance requires that we sin. In order for sin to exist, there must be a defined law with a punishment affixed.

18 Now, there was a punishment affixed, and a just law given, which brought remorse of conscience unto man.

God obliged and the just laws He gave us bring about remorse of conscience. How can you feel remorse if you don't violate the law?

19 Now, if there was no law given

[SkepticTheist]

Since I was speaking of the Fall, not their mortal existence in toto, your comment is not germane.

However, one can assume that Adam, like many others, was a "perfect man" in all his generations.

In response to the question you should have asked, Adam and Eve were a "special case" in that they were the only ones of all of God's creations who were required to break even a single one of His commandments, and, in their case it was only in order to obey another, more important one.

Please show me where I said anything different.

Yes, there is a significant difference between "sin" and "transgression". A pre-accountable child transgresses, but a man sins. The first is not in rebellion against God, the other is. Sin is the knowing rejection of God's commands, and Adam and Eve did not have the required knowledge of what they were doing to sin: they were merely transgressing.

For instance, the penalty for disobedience was "thou shalt die", but they knew no death

[LDS Guy 1986]

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

It's that little thing called agency, to remove our choice is the ultimate evil. This is the evil that Lucifer sought, to force us to do what is right every time and never grow. To be slaves instead of free men and women, God isn't evil so he could never do such a terrible and evil thing as to take away our choice.

[CV75]

From Alma 42:

None of this indicates that sin is required, by design, to bring about the plan of salvation. The only requirement of us in the plan of salvation is to exercise our agency. In this way we decide whether the plan delivers our exaltation or damnation. The Creation, the Fall, and the Atonement were designed around what we were commanded to become in light of what we had chosen to be. If we were all like Christ from the beginning, I suppose we would be taking another route.

[mercyngrace]

None of this indicates that sin is required, by design, to bring about the plan of salvation. The only requirement of us in the plan of salvation is to exercise our agency. In this way we decide whether the plan delivers our exaltation or damnation. The Creation, the Fall, and the Atonement were designed around what we were commanded to become in light of what we had chosen to be. If we were all like Christ from the beginning, I suppose we would be taking another route.

Except there is no other route - or to put it in scriptural terms none other way nor means by which man can be saved. And this was the Father's plan from before the foundation of the world - this plan that uses remorse as a means to redemption. This plan wasn't just a remedy for The Fall and it wasn't a mere path to absolution. Desperately needing mercy and grace and being frankly forgiven even though we in no way deserve it, causes a change in our very nature. Christ saw it in the sinful woman who bathed His feet with her tears.

[CV75]

Except there is no other route - or to put it in scriptural terms none other way nor means by which man can be saved. And this was the Father's plan from before the foundation of the world - this plan that uses remorse as a means to redemption. This plan wasn't just a remedy for The Fall and it wasn't a mere path to absolution. Desperately needing mercy and grace and being frankly forgiven even though we in no way deserve it, causes a change in our very nature. Christ saw it in the sinful woman who bathed His feet with her tears.

There is no other way for us as far as we are concerned, in this world, given what we were by the time we came into mortality and given what we do once we

[consiglieri]

The thing is, we can keep all of them if we come to earth with a spirit as advanced as Christ's.

This comment raises a question critical to this discussion, in my opinion:

Do you believe we could save ourselves without Jesus Christ if we kept all the commandments perfectly?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[consiglieri]

Adam and Eve were a "special case".

Lehi

As are we all, I think, being respectively Adam and Eve.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[consiglieri]

Does it matter what we want to call it? Transgression, sin, mess ups? Whatever. Different degrees of the same monster that only the atonement can overcome.

And here we get, I think, to the heart of why it is LDS try to call the violation of the commandment in the Garden of Eden something other than "sin," preferring the term "transgression."

We like to say "transgression" because we believe Adam and Eve had to violate the commandment in order for God's plan to move forward. We want to call it something other than a "sin," which we think is something we don't have to do, but choose to do.

The problem is, as you point out, that it is a distinction without a difference. And I think Elder Oakes mentioned this in a recent conference address.

We have to sin/transgress every bit as much as Adam and Eve if we want God's plan to move forward.

This is why God has ensured that we will all do so, through the flesh, "and the evil which is therein."

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[consiglieri]

In response to the question you should have asked, Adam and Eve were a "special case" in that they were the only ones of all of God's creations who were required to break even a single one of His commandments, and, in their case it was only in order to obey another, more important one.

I believe you have hit the nail on the head with your statement here, and that if we realize that Adam and Eve were not a "special case," but representative of all humankind, we will enter into a fuller understanding of the Garden of Eden story.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri