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

[mercyngrace]

Its seems this question is generating more debate than is necessary. If sin were required by the plan of salvation, then the command "be ye therefore perfect" would be made void, It would be a contradiction. There is a profound difference between what God, by virtue of his omniscience, foresees or expects will happen, i.e. that all his children except one will sin because of their inherent weaknesses, and what he wants or requires of them. The plan was to allow sin, not to require it. I personally experience plenty of pain and misery that is totally unrelated to sin. When I am puking out my guts over the toilet because of the flu, I'm not thinking "gee, I'm glad I sinned so that I could experience this and gain knowledge." We learn plenty from just living in a fallen world.

tony,

God is no stranger to contradictions. The same God who said thou shalt not kill told Abraham to take the life of his son and Nephi to take the life of a drunken Laban.

The same God who said "In the day thou shalt eat thereof thou shalt surely die" turned right around and provided eternal life.

We do learn plenty from living in a fallen world. But we don't learn the most crucial lessons without being saved. And being saved means falling from grace so that salvation is necessary.

[Earl]

Consig,

This is a sensational thread.

The original question was "So, if God really didn't want us to sin, why didn't he create a plan where we didn't have to?" May I restate this as... "Why did God create a plan where sin was/is necessary?" I hope that this is a fair re-statement. Given that, it appears that most of the posts here have really delt with the re-re-stated question, which is, yes or no: "Did God create a plan where sin was/is necessary?" For many very interesting pages, some say yes and some say no.

What I would like to know is: "Given that God did create a plan where sin was/is necessary, why did he do that?" For this I am not interested in scriptural citations that he did create such a plan, but the theology and reasoning behind why it was necessary to do so.

I realize that the answer(s) are likely spread through the prior 11 to 12 pages, but if any one had some quick thoughts or summary ideas that would be helpful.

Earl

[mercyngrace]

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

Reading in Ether this morning reminded me of the OP and so I wanted to throw this into the mix:

And if men come unto me I will show unto them their weakness. I give unto men weakness that they may be humble; and my grace is sufficient for all men that humble themselves before me; for if they humble themselves before me, and have faith in me, then will I make weak things become strong unto them.

It's fascinated me for some time that the word weakness is singular. To me this indicates that God gave men a condition of weakness rather than particular weaknesses to overcome. IOW, God didn't make you gay, prone to lying, or easily addicted, He made you human. He clothed your spirit in a mortal tabernacle that was innately flawed - whose natural state was at odds with Him (Mos 3:19).

He did this intentionally so that we would be humbled when we inevitably violated His laws (to love each other and to choose Him). That humility allows us to cry out for redemption and experience His grace. That interaction with grace, that undeserved merciful redemption, gives us the strength to overcome the flesh. And the weak things (mortal skins) He gave us become strong unto us.

Jabob makes a similar observation (Jacob 4:7) when he writes:

Nevertheless, the Lord God showeth us our weakness that we may know that it is by his grace, and his great condescensions unto the children of men, that we have power to do these things.

Our power comes through our weakness in that it is through our weakness that we experience the condescensions of God - His grace and power for redemption in our own lives.

Perhaps the following verse from Jacob has some relevance here also:

Behold, great and marvelous are the works of the Lord. How unsearchable are the depths of the mysteries of him; and it is impossible that man should find out all his ways. And no man knoweth of his ways save it be revealed unto him...

[zerinus]

I'll take that wager.

By the way, I'm wondering if we've met IRL. There's something so familiar about you.

I may have dated you in the preexistence.

Are you by any chance a

?

There is a Mormon surgeon (brain or whatever) who participates in CARM. He is almost as good as I am, but not quite. You may be confusing me with him.

[zerinus]

Consig,

This is a sensational thread.

The original question was "So, if God really didn't want us to sin, why didn't he create a plan where we didn't have to?" May I restate this as... "Why did God create a plan where sin was/is necessary?" I hope that this is a fair re-statement. Given that, it appears that most of the posts here have really delt with the re-re-stated question, which is, yes or no: "Did God create a plan where sin was/is necessary?" For many very interesting pages, some say yes and some say no.

What I would like to know is: "Given that God did create a plan where sin was/is necessary, why did he do that?" For this I am not interested in scriptural citations that he did create such a plan, but the theology and reasoning behind why it was necessary to do so.

I realize that the answer(s) are likely spread through the prior 11 to 12 pages, but if any one had some quick thoughts or summary ideas that would be helpful.

Earl

God didn't create a plan where sin was necessary, but was unavoidable. There is a qualitative difference between the two. God created a plan where mankind could be tested, in order to prove our worthiness to have "glory added upon their heads for ever and ever" (Abraham 3:26). "Tested" means being "enticed by one or the other" (2 Nephi 2:16). Being placed in that situation, some will inevitably yield to temptation and sin; but that does not mean that they have to, or need to. The commandment of the Lord has always been not to sin: "you must walk uprightly before me and sin not" (D&C 18:31).

The object of the "test" is to determine who will not sin, not who will sin. The rewards go to those who will not sin, not to those who sin

[mercyngrace]

Consig,

This is a sensational thread.

The original question was "So, if God really didn't want us to sin, why didn't he create a plan where we didn't have to?" May I restate this as... "Why did God create a plan where sin was/is necessary?" I hope that this is a fair re-statement. Given that, it appears that most of the posts here have really delt with the re-re-stated question, which is, yes or no: "Did God create a plan where sin was/is necessary?" For many very interesting pages, some say yes and some say no.

What I would like to know is: "Given that God did create a plan where sin was/is necessary, why did he do that?" For this I am not interested in scriptural citations that he did create such a plan, but the theology and reasoning behind why it was necessary to do so.

I realize that the answer(s) are likely spread through the prior 11 to 12 pages, but if any one had some quick thoughts or summary ideas that would be helpful.

Earl

Earl,

The simplest answer, imo, is that to become like God we have to do what Christ did - show mercy. We have to be able to bestow grace, not just receive it. And we have to be able to bestow it on the completely undeserving, absorbing the injustice in order to save each other.

It interesting that the final instructions before the well-known injunction to be perfect in Matthew 5:48 concern this very topic:

43

[Maidservant]

I know from experience that I am not able to choose good, at least in any effective or resultive way. The farthest I can get on my own is "to want to want" to be good, and even that isn't on my own, it is because I have been given the gift of good teachings from my parents and ancestors. I can only speak for myself in this, but I have never had an example yet in my personal life where I have done good without being carried 99.9 % by my Father in doing any act of good.

While I have thought or agreed in the past with the idea that our spirits had certain weaknesses that required refinement in a mortal experience, now I am not so sure. I know that my body is the one that is making choices, and my spirit suffers, and suffers with my body, compassionately, to help my body repent, refine, and become spiritual. Only, again in the case of my personal life, I am so very harsh and judgmental with my body and its choices and what it has meant to my spirit to be "trapped" here. It's still a reality regarding which I need more humilty, love, patience and forgiveness (etc) . . . towards myself.

I think the divergences between the two (?) viewpoints expressed here might benefit from taking a vantage point of ourselves in the pre-mortal life, rather than the vantage point of already being born into this life.

From the vantage of the pre-mortal life, the entire plan that involved us descending to mortality (a fall) by being born into a mortal body . . . yes, this descent and the plan entire, including its implications for sin . . . was a requirement for further progression (if one desired this further progression). We left a celestial condition that we already enjoyed (as generated for us by our Father), and we forsook that inheritance (seemingly). The reason to descend below all things (sin/separation from God) was knowledge not salvation per se as we are discussing it. Salvation is a local effect from within the testing arena (mortal life), but salvation as we are discussing it was moot from the vantage of the choice we needed to make to come here in the first place.

This knowledge of hazards and sin is required to progress in our journey to becoming like our Father. Because we needed this knowledge, we have to become clean from it and from the damage from it, while retaining the knowledge, thus the necessity of a Savior as an element of the plan also.

We also might benefit from remembering that "sin" is not only to say that we do bad things, or break God's laws or commandments. Sin is to say we are separated from God. So until the moment we re-enter our Father's presence (which does not hinge either way on our mortal death), we know that sin remains with us, or that we remain in sin . . . because we are missing some knowledge. Also, please keep in mind that in the Old Testament, sin, as such, is not much of a concept . . . clean and unclean . . . protected and unprotected . . . obedient and disobedient . . . are.

I do not know if there is so much difference between if we managed to be faithful in a given moment or law, or managed to mess up. The learning is in the struggle, and whether we are faithful or if we learned by making the mistake and repenting, both of those choices require grace to become true in our life (we cannot be faithful under our own power, only by the power of the Holy Ghost).

Also keep in mind that possessing agency does NOT mean having choices. In fact, in this life, our choices are usually limited severely. Agency gives birth to only one choice . . . to be an agent for God and his charity in the world, or to be an agent of death and captivity. This agency can be applied to any situation no matter the choices at hand. I had a friend that used to be so proud of himself for not smoking versus those who smoked, and I told him that he did not make that choice to not smoke, that it had been trained in him so well, it was a gift. But he could not congratulate himself for it. I said the person who doesn't have that foundation you do, and smokes and then later struggles to overcome that chain, is the one who actually chose. In other words, my friend did not exercise any faith to not smoke. But the one who overcame, went through a marvelous and hazardous process of faith to arrive at safety again. But each of us has those things that require the faith journey . . . we don't all have the same sin/struggle/weakness/choice situation . . . but they all serve the same function, which is to require a faith process from us. So it doesn't matter what the particular grain of sand is (for the pearl) . . . it just matters that, yes, there is one (and it may not be "sin" per se, but maybe a health struggle, for example). So I think this is sufficient semantics to say that, yes, sin is a required part of the plan of progression. (sin = separation)

I am not sure how to articulate this in terms of the gospel, but the laws keep changing also. So not only do we have to overcome sin, but I think sometimes we have to overcome the laws themselves to get to THE law. I know I'm probably not expressing myself correctly here. But, for example, it used to be "sinful" to disobey your husband, marry outside of your skin color, to struggle with homosexuality, and it used to be good to spank your children and punish them harshly in other ways. These are all laws of God, we as humans would say (while God was tearing his hair out, I'm sure). God even supported these laws in terms of our mortality, because we weren't really ready for the rest of the explanation or knowledge. It was only until we, as human society, challenged God and said, I can love any skin color, those who are homosexual can participate spiritually, children are to be raised with all gentleness and teaching, and human beings who are of either gender ought to be able to come to an agreement on decisions without one ruling the other. And when we challenged God (or thought we were, we were really challenging ourselves; and this type is in the Adam and Eve story also) . . . and over came these "sins" or "laws" (Which were they? ha ha), God probably has said a few big, "Whew! Finally!"

[CV75]

I realize that the answer(s) are likely spread through the prior 11 to 12 pages, but if any one had some quick thoughts or summary ideas that would be helpful.

Playing the role of devil

[mercyngrace]

But the reason a being would not create such a plan is because the eternal law of agency is not a command to choose all things. A phrase such as,

[consiglieri]

I think she will come to agree with me sooner than you think.

I can think of few things less likely . . .

[consiglieri]

Its seems this question is generating more debate than is necessary. If sin were required by the plan of salvation, then the command "be ye therefore perfect" would be made void, It would be a contradiction.

This is an important point, Tony.

It has often been observed in Mormon circles that Adam and Eve were given "conflicting commandments" in the Garden of Eden, thus necessitating that they choose one or the other, with the result that they were sure to sin and thereby fall.

If this is correct, it helps us understand why God would command us to "be perfect," knowing it is something we cannot accomplish, with the result that we are sure to sin and thereby fall.

Have I mentioned that we are all respectively Adam and Eve?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[consiglieri]

I'll take that wager.

By the way, I'm wondering if we've met IRL. There's something so familiar about you. Are you by any chance a

?

Mercy, that was a funny clip!

I take it you are the rocket scientist?

[consiglieri]

Consig,

This is a sensational thread.

The original question was "So, if God really didn't want us to sin, why didn't he create a plan where we didn't have to?" May I restate this as... "Why did God create a plan where sin was/is necessary?" I hope that this is a fair re-statement. Given that, it appears that most of the posts here have really delt with the re-re-stated question, which is, yes or no: "Did God create a plan where sin was/is necessary?" For many very interesting pages, some say yes and some say no.

What I would like to know is: "Given that God did create a plan where sin was/is necessary, why did he do that?" For this I am not interested in scriptural citations that he did create such a plan, but the theology and reasoning behind why it was necessary to do so.

I realize that the answer(s) are likely spread through the prior 11 to 12 pages, but if any one had some quick thoughts or summary ideas that would be helpful.

Earl

Thanks for your kind words, Earl. I think much of the credit for how sensational this thread is goes to mercyngrace and her more than accomplished foils.

What I would like to know is: "Given that God did create a plan where sin was/is necessary, why did he do that?" For this I am not interested in scriptural citations that he did create such a plan, but the theology and reasoning behind why it was necessary to do so.

Here are my thoughts in answer to your question.

Part of progressing and becoming as gods involves an experiential knowledge of good and evil. It is not a knowledge "about" good and evil we must gain, but a knowledge "of" good and evil. (Similarly it is not a knowledge "about" Jesus that will save us, but a knowledge "of" him.) Knowledge of good and evil cannot come separately but only together. Like Sinatra sings about "love and marriage," you can't have one without the other.

This is the way God gained his knowledge and Adam and Eve became as one of the Gods when they learned good and evil through violating a commandment of God.

The problem is that while sin is necessary to become a God, it simultaneously makes one ineligible for exalation.

Hence the need for a carefully constructed probationary state where God's children can (and indeed must) sin, thereby learning good and evil, but not have to live forever with the consequences of sin.

I believe the entire Plan of Salvation revolves around this necessity, and the Book of Mormon plumbs these unexpected theological depths.

In short then, the purpose of life is not to gain a body. (I really think God could come up with another way of giving us a body if he put his mind to it.) Nor do I think it is to be tempted. (I understand that happened before we even got here.)

Rather, the purpose of life is to sin.

The commandments are not instituted by God with the idea we will obey them all and exalt ourselves.

Instead, the commandments are instituted by God with the idea that we cannot obey them and will therefore of necessity sin, which is the whole purpose for our being here.

I think when we ultimately come to realize that we cannot keep the commandments, we are finally in a position to be saved by recognizing our own weakness and crying unto God for mercy, a pattern repeated throughout the Book of Mormon.

I agree with C.S. Lewis, though, that the only way we can honestly recognize we cannot keep the commandments is by trying our level best to do so. Only after trying as hard as we can and failing (which we all will do) are we in a position to throw in the towel and rely wholly on the merits of him who is mighty to save.

Just my thoughts.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[mercyngrace]

Mercy, that was a funny clip!

I take it you are the rocket scientist?

Nah, I think that's Mudcat... I'm just the blonde passing out drinks.

[consiglieri]

Perhaps the following verse from Jacob has some relevance here also:

Behold, great and marvelous are the works of the Lord. How unsearchable are the depths of the mysteries of him; and it is impossible that man should find out all his ways. And no man knoweth of his ways save it be revealed unto him...

I like your verses, mercy.

It is likewise interesting that the Book of Mormon teaches we have no innate power to do good. Moroni 7 goes into some detail regarding this teaching.

Because we are fallen, and hence classified as "evil" per se, any act we do, no matter how "good" we might think it, is considered "evil."

(This goes far beyond our intentions. Our intentions make no difference in this analysis. It is our fallen nature that makes all our actions "evil.")

It is only when we become born again and infused with the power and Spirit of God that our actions can be considered "good," because it is God in us working through us.

God is the only source of good, not us.

As Jesus responded to somebody calling him "good master," "There is none good but one; that is God."

If Jesus refuses to accept the sobriquet of "good," it is likely we should be similarly reticent.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[consiglieri]

It interesting that the final instructions before the well-known injunction to be perfect in Matthew 5:48 concern this very topic:

It is also interesting that in Luke's version of the same sermon, Jesus says, "Be ye therefore merciful as our Father in Heaven is merciful."

Just my two cents.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Maidservant]

Part of progressing and becoming as gods involves an experiential knowledge of good and evil. It is not a knowledge "about" good and evil we must gain, but a knowledge "of" good and evil. (Similarly it is not a knowledge "about" Jesus that will save us, but a knowledge "of" him.) Knowledge of good and evil cannot come separately but only together.

And, as I read the scriptures, to take this further, it also does not say knowledge OF good AND evil, I read=the knowledge of good from evil.

We read this as the need for a discernment skill, which I would agree with (because it takes a lifetime maybe to develop that discernment, including as I was speaking earlier about "laws" that have turned out to be "sins").

However, lately I have actually READ what it says plainly. Good FROM evil.

How does one receive knowledge or good, from evil?

Everything we have been discussing here. We may not have to do each evil thing ourselves, but we learn collectively as humanity also. Can we get good from being a former (repented) addict? Can we get good from experiencing rape? Many sweet souls learn to do these things . . . we get the good, through the atonement of Christ, from either being one who causes damage to others by our actions or by being damaged by others actions. But it's a process. We can't remain in the sin (as the perpetrator) nor in the shame (as the innocent, harmed). We become transformed by a faith process into a being that generates charity.

[mercyngrace]

Thanks for your kind words, Earl. I think much of the credit for how sensational this thread is goes to mercyngrace and her more than accomplished foils.

You are too kind, sir.

I agree with C.S. Lewis, though, that the only way we can honestly recognize we cannot keep the commandments is by trying our level best to do so. Only after trying as hard as we can and failing (which we all will do) are we in a position to throw in the towel and rely wholly on the merits of him who is mighty to save.

I just want to add here that once you have tried and failed and then been redeemed, your nature changes such that you have no more desire for sin. You actually win by losing!

What I've seen too often are people who try and fail and then refuse to accept redemption. They hold God at arm's length as He tries to clothe them, like the returning prodigal, in the robes and rings of sonship. They say, in effect, wait I want to repay you for what I've done, don't make me a son yet - let me be a hired man and work my way back into your good graces.

In doing so, they end up denying themselves the real blessings of redemption. For when you accept the grace, unmerited though it is and as unworthy as you may feel, and when you let your Father clothe you, the very act changes you into a worthy son (or daughter) and fills you with a desire to be about your Father's business.

This is why sin is necessary. There is a single Elder Brother and unlike the one in the parable, Christ has gone out after each of us and willingly shares His inheritance upon our return. Bringing you back into the family is part of His exaltation. It's how He creates His dominion. We become His seed. If you could make it back on your own, His glory would be diminished.

[CV75]

It doesn't require a command to sin, it just requires creating conditions that don't allow for a sinless option - at least for mere mortals.

Rather, I would say it requires creating conditions where all options along the spectrum of human sin and perfection can be chosen. According to the law of agency (and its offshoot, the law of opposition), conditions that do not allow for sinless options cannot allow for sinful options either. The mortal condition was predicated by our preparedness (in turn the product of choices) to take that step, and so it accommodates the realization of the best and the worst of all God

[consiglieri]

A condition where opportunity for sin is not offset by an opposite choice for perfection is really the same as no condition for either, at all.

We have the same opportunity to choose complete obedience to God's commandments as Adam and Eve had in the Garden.

Have I mentioned that we are all respectively Adam and Eve?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[CV75]

Hence the need for a carefully constructed probationary state where God's children can (and indeed must) sin, thereby learning good and evil, but not have to live forever with the consequences of sin.

The commandments are not instituted by God with the idea we will obey them all and exalt ourselves.

Instead, the commandments are instituted by God with the idea that we cannot obey them and will therefore of necessity sin, which is the whole purpose for our being here.

I think when we ultimately come to realize that we cannot keep the commandments, we are finally in a position to be saved by recognizing our own weakness and crying unto God for mercy, a pattern repeated throughout the Book of Mormon.

I agree with C.S. Lewis, though, that the only way we can honestly recognize we cannot keep the commandments is by trying our level best to do so. Only after trying as hard as we can and failing (which we all will do) are we in a position to throw in the towel and rely wholly on the merits of him who is mighty to save.

One does not have to experience sin to gain a knowledge of good and evil, only empathize with the suffering those who do sin. This kind of empathy (charity, love) is a spiritual trait and is fundamentally stimulated by the Light of Christ (commandments, covenants and other gifts follow as the Gospel is revealed). Because we haven't the capacity to empathize to the degree Christ can, we sin according to the light and commandments that we have. Yes, we are saved and our capacity increased (ultimately to the stature of Christ) when we recognize our fallen condition and turn to God for mercy. Perhaps Adam and Eve sinned because they lacked the capacity to empathize with Satan's suffering. This lack of capacity, like ours, was developed in the pre-mortal state along with the spiritual strengths I understand we bring with us.

[CV75]

We have the same opportunity to choose complete obedience to God's commandments as Adam and Eve had in the Garden.

Yes, but we lack the capacity for complete obedience. This is not the same as being required to disobey. Fundamentally we want to be able to obey. I see the commandments and the probation accommodating our lack of capacity, so that we recognize the problem and turn to God for His solution.

[zerinus]

Part of progressing and becoming as gods involves an experiential knowledge of good and evil.

"Experiential knowledge of good and evil" does not mean that we had to sin to learn good and evil. It means that we had to experience adversity to learn good and evil

[zerinus]

I can think of few things less likely . . .

I think she already knows that I am right, but she is too stubborn to admit it. But if she is as good looking as she used to be when I dated her in the preexistence, I will forgive her stubbornness for the sake of her good looks.

[zerinus]

This is an important point, Tony.

It has often been observed in Mormon circles that Adam and Eve were given "conflicting commandments" in the Garden of Eden, thus necessitating that they choose one or the other, with the result that they were sure to sin and thereby fall.

If this is correct, . . .

I am not sure that is correct. We do not have enough information about the condition of Adam and Eve before the Fall to know why God appears to give them contradictory commandments, or whether they were in fact contradictory commandments.