Dont Know If I Can Believe That Adam And Eve Didnt Sin In The Garden

[Nominee]

Some conference talks:

http://www.lds.org/general-conference/1993/10/the-great-plan-of-happiness?lang=eng&query=eve+transgression

While visiting the British Museum in London one day, I read a most unusual book. It is not scripture. It is an English translation of an ancient Egyptian manuscript. From it, I quote a dialogue between the Father and the Son. Referring to His Father, Jehovah—the premortal Lord—says:

“He took the clay from the hand of the angel, and made Adam according to Our image and likeness, and He left him lying for forty days and forty nights without putting breath into him. And He heaved sighs over him daily, saying, ‘If I put breath into this [man], he must suffer many pains.’ And I said unto My Father, ‘Put breath into him; I will be an advocate for him.’ And My Father said unto Me, ‘If I put breath into him, My beloved Son, Thou wilt be obliged to go down into the world, and to suffer many pains for him before Thou shalt have redeemed him, and made him to come back to his primal state.’ And I said unto My Father, ‘Put breath into him; I will be his advocate, and I will go down into the world, and will fulfil Thy command.’”

^{http://www.lds.org/general-conference/2000/04/the-creation?lang=eng&query=eve+transgression}

http://www.lds.org/general-conference/2004/04/the-atonement-all-for-all?lang=eng&query=eve+transgression

That is beautiful. Thank you for sharing it with us.

~ Naomi

[Nofear]

Now if you are saying that she understand what she was doing, I really can't agree with you there.

I guess what the whole discussion about it being a non-sin type transgression vs. a sin type transgression hinges on whether she knew right from wrong.

"Transgress" simply means "to go beyond the limits imposed by (a law, command, etc.)," so even if Eve was totally oblivious to any difference between right and wrong and was totally childlike in her action, she did go beyond the limits imposed by God, therefore it was a transgression and any transgressor needs the Atonement. I don't think anybody will argue that. Even accidental or unknowingly breaking a commandment is a transgression and an atonement to repair the damage caused by that transgression is required.

But, rather she committed a "sin" or not, I believe can be debated, but I don't see, if the scriptures are right about her not knowing good and evil, how it could have been a sin.

I quite agree with your description of transgression and sin. Indeed, I'm ok with it being a transgression. While I tend to slightly side with the sin side of things ultimately I don't think it matters that much. Yet, I've heard it described, from the pulpit even, that Eve was courageous in doing what needed to be done by partaking of the fruit. She was deceived. She messed up. She may have believed that at some point it was necessary to leave the garden, but Satan led her to act by deception (specifically, he implied that God had selfish motives for witholding the fruit). Note that Adam was not deceived. While they did not have a full awareness of good and evil* he did know enough not to disobey his father.

* It is my opinion that when they partook of the fruit of knowledge of good and evil that they gained active awareness of the light of Christ -- the same as we all do even today -- and that gave rise to a conscience and hence and idea of what is wrong and right.

[CV75]

I personally do not believe that God would give anybody contradictory commandments.

I agree. Superficially they may appear to be contradictory or in opposition to each other, but they are just different—who says that in the long run, both could not have been accomplished?

1. Dress and keep the garden, multiply and replenish the earth and lord over it.

2. Do not partake of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

Note that they were not commanded to disregard Satan, and they were not commanded to obey God. Yet these were fundamentally the most important choices they had to make. In multiplying and replenishing the earth, they obeyed God. In partaking of the fruit, they hearkened to Satan. Note that after the fall, they were commanded to obey only God and not Satan.

Herein is another subtle difference between sin and transgression. Sin is obeying Satan when commanded not to; transgression is hearkening to him when there is no specific direction not to. For their own reasons, the threat of death was insufficient to counter the promise of wisdom.

[Calm]

The two situations are not comparable though. Nephi was commanded to kill Laban. If he hadn't, he would have sinned. Adam was commanded not to partake of the fruit. Partaking of it therefore was a sin.

There were two commandments in place for Nephi, one was "thou shalt not kill", the other was 'you must kill Laban to save your posterity'. Adam and Eve also had two commandments relevant to the situation, "thou shalt not partake" and "multiply and replenish the earth", iow " save your posterity".

[mathonihah]

In conveying the truth of the matter, sometimes the meaning of sin and transgression are used interchangeably and sometimes they are used to distinguish between willful disobedience to God’s command without any redeeming moral purpose and willful disobedience with a redeeming moral purpose.

By whom those words are used that way? Not by the scriptures themselves. If you want to make that distinction between different kinds of sin, I am sure that is possible. The scriptures themselves make a distinction. Some sins are forgiveable and some are not, for example. John makes a distinction between two kinds of sins:

"If any man see his brother sin a sin which is not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life for them that sin not unto death. There is a sin unto death: I do not say that he shall pray for it." (1 John 5:16).

Other scriptures distinguish between more serious sins and less serious ones, carrying different levels of punishment. Jesus talks about those committing more serious sins being beaten with "many stripes," while those committing less serious sins being beaten with fewer stripes. Also, "he that sins against a greater light receives a greater condemnation" etc. If you want argue that the sins of Adam and Eve in the Garden were qualitatively or quantitatively different from other more serious sins like committing murder or denying the Holy Ghost etc., I am open to that suggestion. But trying to achieve it by redefining the word "transgression" to mean something other than what it does is what I am objecting to. The word transgression has a clear meaning defined by the text of the scriptures in which it is used. Trying to force a new definition on it that does not match the scriptural one in order to accomplish that objective is the wrong way of going about it. That is my point. When you try to argue that transgression and sin have two different meanings, you are basically redefining that word for the rest of the scriptures as well, where it is not applicable.

Take a look at these most valuable insights on the matter:

https://www.lds.org/...an-of-happiness

http://www.lds.org/e...stakes?lang=eng

In the first article, Elder Oaks seems to have borrowed that idea from Joseph Fielding Smith. Here is a quote (bold mine):

Elder Joseph Fielding Smith said: “I never speak of the part Eve took in this fall as a sin, nor do I accuse Adam of a sin. … This was

a transgression of the law, but not a sin

… for it was something that Adam and Eve had to do!” (Joseph Fielding Smith,

Doctrines of Salvation,

comp. Bruce R. McConkie, 3 vols., Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1954–56, 1:114–15).

The problem with that is that John describes "sin" precisely as a "transgression of the law" (1 John 3:4. See also James 2:11). It is a teaching that is contrary to the language of the scripture. I don't think we have the right to redefine that language to suite our own ends, however much justifiable to us that might seem to be. Elder Oaks then continues as follows:

This suggested contrast between a

sin

and a

transgression

reminds us of the careful wording in the second article of faith: “We believe that men will be punished for their own

sins,

and not for Adam’s

transgression

” (emphasis added). It also echoes a familiar distinction in the law. Some acts, like murder, are crimes because they are inherently wrong. Other acts, like operating without a license, are crimes only because they are legally prohibited. Under these distinctions, the act that produced the Fall was not a sin—inherently wrong—but a transgression—wrong because it was formally prohibited. These words are not always used to denote something different, but this distinction seems meaningful in the circumstances of the Fall.

In this paragraph he is perpetuation the same mistake. I agree with him that there are different kinds of sins; but trying to redefine the meaning of the word transgression in order to differentiate between them is the wrong way of going about doing it. Interestingly, in the second article you had linked to, Elder Oaks seems to have realized his mistake, and then tries to correct it. Here is a quote (bold mine):

“Inasmuch as they erred it might be made known, …

“And inasmuch as they sinned they might be chastened, that they might repent” (

D&C 1:25, 27

).

In these verses, “transgressing” is different from “being at fault,” and “to err” is different than “to sin.” I believe that in these scriptures

sin

and

transgression

mean the same thing

. Similarly, “to err” and “to be at fault” are also equivalent. In referring to this second category, I will use the more familiar description: “to make a mistake.”

I think it is helpful to distinguish between a sin which turns out to be beneficial to mankind and one which does not. Using the words “sin” and “transgression” helps distinguish between the two. In a very granular sense it could be said that Adam and Eve sinned (they willfully disobeyed); the broader consideration is that they transgressed (opened the way to higher laws). By partaking of the forbidden fruit, they obtained wisdom, seed and exaltation (and so do we).

It could be said that Adam and Eve disobeyed a requirement to remain in a terrestrial world to open up the way to obey the requirements for entering an exalted world.

As I said, I have nothing against differentiating between different kinds of sins; what I think is inappropriate is redefining the dictionary in order to do it. We don't need to do that. Doing it that way creates more problems than it solves.

[bluebell]

By whom those words are used that way? Not by the scriptures themselves. If you want to make that distinction between different kinds of sin, I am sure that is possible. The scriptures themselves make a distinction. Some sins are forgiveable and some are not, for example. John makes a distinction between two kinds of sins:

"If any man see his brother sin a sin which is not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life for them that sin not unto death. There is a sin unto death: I do not say that he shall pray for it." (1 John 5:16).

Other scriptures distinguish between more serious sins and less serious ones, carrying different levels of punishment. Jesus talks about those committing more serious sins being beaten with "many stripes," while those committing less serious sins being beaten with fewer stripes. Also, "he that sins against a greater light receives a greater condemnation" etc. If you want argue that the sins of Adam and Eve in the Garden were qualitatively or quantitatively different from other more serious sins like committing murder or denying the Holy Ghost etc., I am open to that suggestion. But trying to achieve it by redefining the word "transgression" to mean something other than what it does is what I am objecting to. The word transgression has a clear meaning defined by the text of the scriptures in which it is used. Trying to force a new definition on it that does not match the scriptural one in order to accomplish that objective is the wrong way of going about it. That is my point. When you try to argue that transgression and sin have two different meanings, you are basically redefining that word for the rest of the scriptures as well, where it is not applicable.

In the first article, Elder Oaks seems to have borrowed that idea from Joseph Fielding Smith. Here is a quote (bold mine):

Elder Joseph Fielding Smith said: “I never speak of the part Eve took in this fall as a sin, nor do I accuse Adam of a sin. … This was

a transgression of the law, but not a sin

… for it was something that Adam and Eve had to do!” (Joseph Fielding Smith,

Doctrines of Salvation,

comp. Bruce R. McConkie, 3 vols., Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1954–56, 1:114–15).

The problem with that is that John describes "sin" precisely as a "transgression of the law" (1 John 3:4. See also James 2:11). It is a teaching that is contrary to the language of the scripture. I don't think we have the right to redefine that language to suite our own ends, however much justifiable to us that might seem to be. Elder Oaks then continues as follows:

This suggested contrast between a

sin

and a

transgression

reminds us of the careful wording in the second article of faith: “We believe that men will be punished for their own

sins,

and not for Adam’s

transgression

” (emphasis added). It also echoes a familiar distinction in the law. Some acts, like murder, are crimes because they are inherently wrong. Other acts, like operating without a license, are crimes only because they are legally prohibited. Under these distinctions, the act that produced the Fall was not a sin—inherently wrong—but a transgression—wrong because it was formally prohibited. These words are not always used to denote something different, but this distinction seems meaningful in the circumstances of the Fall.

In this paragraph he is perpetuation the same mistake. I agree with him that there are different kinds of sins; but trying to redefine the meaning of the word transgression in order to differentiate between them is the wrong way of going about doing it. Interestingly, in the second article you had linked to, Elder Oaks seems to have realized his mistake, and then tries to correct it. Here is a quote (bold mine):

“Inasmuch as they erred it might be made known, …

“And inasmuch as they sinned they might be chastened, that they might repent” (

D&C 1:25, 27

).

In these verses, “transgressing” is different from “being at fault,” and “to err” is different than “to sin.” I believe that in these scriptures

sin

and

transgression

mean the same thing

. Similarly, “to err” and “to be at fault” are also equivalent. In referring to this second category, I will use the more familiar description: “to make a mistake.”

As I said, I have nothing against differentiating between different kinds of sins; what I think is inappropriate is redefining the dictionary in order to do it. We don't need to do that. Doing it that way creates more problems than it solves.

Maybe it would help, as we try to understand the way the scriptures use the words transgression and sin, to remember that no prophet in any of the standard works ever used either term. They are english words chosen by a translator. As such, we might be putting more significance into each word selection than we should be.

I think the only way to begin to understand what the writers were talking about would be to study the words actually used (as far as we can tell). Unfortunately, i don't speak aramaic, greek, or hebrew though, so i'm definitely not the one for the project.

[Calm]

So, if innocent children, capable of transgression though incapable of sinning need the Atonement in order to return to God, I think that Adam and Eve needed the Atonement to be cleansed of their transgressions.

Now I don't have to make this point.

One only has to look at all the damage and hurt and actual pain kids cause even in their innocence to know that eternal, infinite healing is needed for them as much as for those who sin with full knowledge. Kids below the age of accountability have, for a very extreme example, killed kids unintentionally and even intentionally. Wounds are caused by such acts, both in the victim's family and friends and in the child murderer him/herself, wounds that can only be healed through God's grace and love.

And if Adam and Eve were also innocent in the Garden in the same way kids are said to be innocent, then surely the same thing applies to any of their actions.

Edited December 19, 2012 by calmoriah

[CV75]

By whom those words are used that way? Not by the scriptures themselves.

By those who understand what the scritures mean.

Elder Oaks seems to have realized his mistake, and then tries to correct it.

Really? According to someone who relies on people to decipher what he means when he asks, "By whom those words used that way?"!!!

[Rob Osborn]

There are two kinds of sin-

1.sin in ignorance not knowing specifically the law.

2. Sin in "transgression" having and knowing the law specifically.

That is the correct usage of sin and transgression. Here-

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. (D&C 138:32)

So, did Adam and Eve sin by yielding to the temptations of Satan and partaking of the forbidden fruit? Yes, not only did they sin, but they sinned in transgression knowing the law.

[urroner]

There were two commandments in place for Nephi, one was "thou shalt not kill", the other was 'you must kill Laban to save your posterity'. Adam and Eve also had two commandments relevant to the situation, "thou shalt not partake" and "multiply and replenish the earth", iow " save your posterity".

The commandment of "thou shalt not kill" means what? Is this a Englished version of a commandment that sounds very broad in its spectrum while the original commandment was very much more specific? If the commandment, as recorded in the KJV, was taken very literally, it sounds like we aren't to kill anything anytime. I heard many a pacifist attempt to use this commandment in that manner. I've also heard many a harsh critic of the Church do something similar when it came to Nephi and Laban, though I don't hear it as much as I used to.

I think that this problem is something that is similar when it comes to Adam and Eve and a lot of the Bible and BofM. We can read the text, the words make sense, and we take the concepts we learn from these scriptures and teach them to others and we try to apply them to our lives, but do we understand the context of those scriptures.

Some questions about Adam and Eve:

• Were they what we believe they were?
  
• Did they truly live in a Garden of Eden?
  
• Was there really a tree they were prohibited from eating of?
  
• Were they immortal until they ate the fruit of that tree?
  

There are those who will say yes to all the questions. There are those who will say that the story Adam and Eve, like the rest of the Bible and religions, is just a fairy tale. There are also those who will say, "Gee, I really don't know."

[Calm]

My understanding is that they did die. They experienced a spiritual death and were separated from God and their heavenly home.

The sudden concern about being naked, imo, is not only a sign of lost innocence, but of separation from God, which is spiritual death. They hid from the Lord...what greater sign of separation from Him could there be than their sudden fear of him? Clothing is about covering vulnerability, they gained a sense of vulnerability that would not have existed if they were still one with the Father (as much as they could be in their innocent state).

[urroner]

So, did Adam and Eve sin by yielding to the temptations of Satan and partaking of the forbidden fruit? Yes, not only did they sin, but they sinned in transgression knowing the law.

Did Adam and Eve, according to the scriptures know right from wrong or good from evil?

According to you Rob, is "right from wrong" the same as or different from "good from evil?"

[Calm]

The commandment of "thou shalt not kill" means what? Is this a Englished version of a commandment that sounds very broad in its spectrum while the original commandment was very much more specific?

I agree that the "thou shalt not kill (murder)" is more specific than the KJV makes it. However, it seems to me that Nephi believed that killing Laban fell within that specific limit at least at first and it wasn't until the Spirit showed him the consequences of letting Laban live that he put effort into thinking of it in other terms (and the case can be made that it was a legal execution due to Laban's attempting to kill Nephi and his brothers previously). Nephi had to know that there was another commandment from the Lord in place that he needed to follow to save his posterity before being willing to take action...because imo he saw killing Laban in the context of the first commandment.

[mathonihah]

There were two commandments in place for Nephi, one was "thou shalt not kill", the other was 'you must kill Laban to save your posterity'.

"Thou shalt not kill" is a statute law. "Thou shalt kill" is a direct commandment. The direct commandment overrides the statute law. The Lord gave similar commandments to the Jews to kill the previous occupants of the Holy Land because of their terrible wickedness:

"But of the cities of these people, which the LORD thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth

"But thou shalt utterly destroy them; namely, the Hittites, and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites; as the Lord thy God hath commanded thee:" (Deut. 20:17–16)

There is no conflict between that, and the statute law not to kill. The direct commandment overrides the statute law.

Adam and Eve also had two commandments relevant to the situation, "thou shalt not partake" and "multiply and replenish the earth", iow " save your posterity".

I am not sure they were given contradictory commandments, as it is generally assumed. According to the temple account, Adam partook of the fruit in order that "man might be". In other words, he did it in order that he might remain with his wife, and thus procreate. If he hadn't partaken of the fruit (after Eve has already done), they would have been separated, which would have made it impossible for them to procreate. But we do not know that if they had remained in the garden (without partaking of the fruit), it would have been impossible for them to procreate. God gave them the commandment to procreate before they had partaken of the fruit. I don't think God would have given them that commandment, when it would have been impossible for them to fulfil it without partaking the forbidden fruit. And in any case, what is the connection between the forbidden fruit and procreation? I don't see a connection. The fruit was to enable them to know the difference between good and evil. How could that have stopped (or enable) them procreating? I don't see a connection between the two. I don't think that there was a direct connection. There is a missing piece of the puzzle here, without which speculation is likely to lead us astray.

[mathonihah]

Maybe it would help, as we try to understand the way the scriptures use the words transgression and sin, to remember that no prophet in any of the standard works ever used either term. They are english words chosen by a translator. As such, we might be putting more significance into each word selection than we should be.

I think the only way to begin to understand what the writers were talking about would be to study the words actually used (as far as we can tell). Unfortunately, i don't speak aramaic, greek, or hebrew though, so i'm definitely not the one for the project.

There are two answers to that. Firstly, I don't think that not having access to the original languages is necessarily a hinderment to conducting that kind of verbal analysis within the translated text. Since we are using the translated text to obtain all our understanding of the subject from completely, not having access to the original manuscript is not a hinderment to conducting that kind of analysis, otherwise you are casting doubt on our ability to get any useful meaning out of the translated text at all. Consider the Book of Mormon for example, where we have absolutely no access to the original manuscript. Does that mean that we are totally helpless in analysing the text verbally in its translated form? I don't think so, without casting doubt on our ability to get correct meaning out of the text at all.

Secondly, my understanding of the KJV translation is that it tries to match (as far as possible) the original Hebrew (or Greek) words with an equivalent English one; in other words, "sin" and "transgression" in the English version represent actually two different words in the original tongues. And there are tools online (such as Strong's Concordance) where you can actually find out what the original words were, and learn more about them.

[CV75]

There is a missing piece of the puzzle here, without which speculation is likely to lead us astray.

The connection between a knowledge of good and evil (or wisdom – Genesis 3:6) and procreation is mature, first-hand experience with life and death. Procreation cannot occur without the death of the gametes involved (the same principle as John 12:24). Adam and Eve had to have first-hand knowledge and experience with life and death to be able to generate gametes that would be able to die as single entities in order to fulfill the higher purpose of creating a new human life that could be tested in a mortal environment. So this wisdom is essential for bringing element and spirit together by means of procreation as well as by means of resurrection.

[Rob Osborn]

Did Adam and Eve, according to the scriptures know right from wrong or good from evil?

According to you Rob, is "right from wrong" the same as or different from "good from evil?"

Adam and Eve obviously knew right from wrong. Evilness is the end product of choosing wrong.

[mathonihah]

The connection between a knowledge of good and evil (or wisdom – Genesis 3:6) and procreation is mature, first-hand experience with life and death. Procreation cannot occur without the death of the gametes involved (the same principle as John 12:24). Adam and Eve had to have first-hand knowledge and experience with life and death to be able to generate gametes that would be able to die as single entities in order to fulfill the higher purpose of creating a new human life that could be tested in a mortal environment. So this wisdom is essential for bringing element and spirit together by means of procreation as well as by means of resurrection.

Nice theory, but that is all it is. It does not ring true to me. What you are saying is basically that without death procreation would not have been possible. But death was not an inevitable consequence of partaking of the forbidden fruit. Death came about as a punishment for transgressing the commandment of God, which was not to partake of the fruit. If God had not decreed that punishment for that transgression, they wouldn't have died as a result of partaking of the forbidden fruit. Death was necessary in order to create a probationary state (Alma 12:24), not a "procreatory" state.

It is not at all clear to me that death is a necessary condition for procreation to exist. If God had wanted to he could have done it differently, and for all we know he may have done. After Adam and Eve had transgressed, God told Eve (as a punishment for her transgression) that "I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee." (Genesis 3:16) In other words, her childbearing was made a painful experience for her. This suggests that before it was not so. Before the Fall her childbearing was not (or would not have been) a painful experience. Adam's punishment was that "... in sorrow shalt thou eat of it [the earth] all the days of thy life;" (Gen. 3:17), the implication of it being that before the Fall he eat of it without that "sorrow". Similarly, the implication of the previous verse is that before the Fall, her childbearing was not (or would not have been) a painful experience. So your theory that death was a necessary prerequisite to procreation falls to the ground.

D&C 45 suggests that in the Millennium, resurrected beings will be able to procreate, and that "... their children shall grow up without sin unto salvation." (D&C 45:58) This suggests that neither death nor sin is a necessary requirement for procreation. Adam and Eve should have been able to procreate in their sinless condition in the Garden of Eden without needing to sin, or experiencing death (which death came as a consequence of sin).

[CV75]

Nice theory, but that is all it is. It does not ring true to me.

***

D&C 45 suggests that in the Millennium, resurrected beings will be able to procreate, and that "... their children shall grow up without sin unto salvation." (D&C 45:58) This suggests that neither death nor sin is a necessary requirement for procreation. Adam and Eve should have been able to procreate in their sinless condition in the Garden of Eden without needing to sin, or experiencing death (which death came as a consequence of sin).

You fail to recognize that “good” and “evil” also refer to “life” and “death.” Anyone born into this life gais this type of wisdom. Resurrected beings have obviously alreday obtained this wisdom. Their gametes do indeed “die” as single entities as they combine to create a new life--if indeed they have physical children in the resurrcetion -- you misconstrue D& 45: 54, 57 and 58: while verse 54 can apply to those who are resurrected at the Lord’s Second Coming, the “wise” in verse 57 (the mortal virgins who are ready at His coming—these are not resurrected at His coming) “abide the day” as mortals. Their children grow up without sin, but still with the wisdom gained by mortality and death in their bodies, for they will die (D&C 63:51).

Remember, good and evil also apply to physical life and death.

[Alan]

I don't believe they were contradictory. Just a matter of timing.

Abraham 3:25

#25 And we will prove them herewith, to see if they will do all things whatsoever the Lord their God shall command them.

Satan tried to short circuit the process by tempting A&E to partake without command from God. To use an earthly example. If directed by a police officer you can legally drive through a stop light. When normally doing so that could result in fines and/or an accident.

Good analogy. However, sometimes going through a red light is justified even without direction from a police officer. Getting out of the way of an ambulance for example.

Sometimes we just have to weigh up the options and make a decision, just as Adam and Eve did.

[Alan]

This has been one of the most riveting discussions on here for some time in my view.

I think we have to face the fact that Adam and Eve did sin - calling it a transgression is just splitting hairs. But they sinned for a reason. What they did was wrong but they didn't know how wrong at the time. They didn't have sufficient understanding to make a fully informed decision. Just as we believe that children under the age of 8 are not fully accountable for their sins (and are therefore partakers of "free" forgiveness), Adam and Eve must have been in a similar situation. They sinned, but they didn't really know they had until afterwards.

According to God's foreknowledge the fall was predictable and so a plan B was in place and ready to go should it be needed. I also believe plan A would have worked too, but we are not concerned with that because that is not our reality.

I would still like to know what we did to warrant ending up in a telestial kingdom. A lot of the time this life seems like a punishment to me.

[pogi]

I would still like to know what we did to warrant ending up in a telestial kingdom. A lot of the time this life seems like a punishment to me.

Suffering can either be viewed as the best teacher or the worst punisher, it's all perspective. I think we are in a telestial kingdom to grow and learn the way we need to. It is a blessing to be endured.

Edited December 19, 2012 by pogi

[Freedom]

Sin is a type of transgression. Not all transgressions are sins. Any disobedience, be it in ignorance or not, is a sin. Transgression is simply passing over the law. A trans-continental freeway for example. The police transgress the law when they speed to an emergency. They are not sinning in that this transgression is not punishable. We have a rule that we do not wear shoes inside the house. We must transgress this law, however, every time we come in because we must first come inside the house with our shoes on. So, transgressing is passing over the law in order to obey a higher law. Eve was not punished but rather rejoiced after her transgression making it very clear that she did not sin. So I disagree with the notion that transgression is sinning in ignorance. Any time a law is disobeyed it is a transgression. When it serves no higher purpose it is a sin. We are not to work on the Sabbath however doctors transgress this law for a higher purpose. A law had to be broken in order for the plan to begin just as we have to wear our shoes inside the house in order to get inside.

The garden can be looked up in two ways. One is that it is an analogy of the facts of life. Eating of the fruit is puberty - prior to eating the fruit, they were ignorant. Eve ate first and once they both reached accountability God taught them the facts of life and sent them out to live their lives as responsible adults. the second way to look at is is that Eve has stewardship over the tree of knowledge of good and evil, and Adam had stewardship over the tree of life. It is significant that A woman accessed the tree of knowledge that brought death and a woman was present when the savior was resurrected Likewise a man had access to the tree of life and the apostles were present when the Savior suffered in the garden.

http://www.fairlds.org/fair-conferences/2010-fair-conference/2010-the-two-trees

[mathonihah]

By whom those words are used that way? Not by the scriptures themselves.

By those who understand what the scritures mean.

Ummm! I think that James and John understood their own scriptures better than anybody else does:

“For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet

if thou kill,

thou art become a

transgressor of the law

.” (James 2:11)

“Whosoever committeth sin

transgresseth also the law:

for sin is the

transgression of the law

.” (1 John 3:4)

Elder Oaks seems to have realized his mistake, and then tries to correct it.

Really? According to someone who relies on people to decipher what he means when he asks, "By whom those words used that way?"!!!

Yes, really. See above.

[Tacenda]

This has been one of the most riveting discussions on here for some time in my view.

I think we have to face the fact that Adam and Eve did sin - calling it a transgression is just splitting hairs. But they sinned for a reason. What they did was wrong but they didn't know how wrong at the time. They didn't have sufficient understanding to make a fully informed decision. Just as we believe that children under the age of 8 are not fully accountable for their sins (and are therefore partakers of "free" forgiveness), Adam and Eve must have been in a similar situation. They sinned, but they didn't really know they had until afterwards.

According to God's foreknowledge the fall was predictable and so a plan B was in place and ready to go should it be needed. I also believe plan A would have worked too, but we are not concerned with that because that is not our reality.

I would still like to know what we did to warrant ending up in a telestial kingdom. A lot of the time this life seems like a punishment to me.

I think Eve knew it was wrong to partake but was beguiled. And I agree, life does seem like punishment. Makes one look forward to the next life, but hopefully not too much.