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

[Rob Osborn]

Lehi states, "And [Adam and Eve] would have had no children; wherefore they would have remained in a state of innocence," innocence has been defined by the propehts, etc. as not being accountable, not knowing good from evil, not knowing right from wrong.

In Moses, Eve states, "Were it not for our transgression we never should have had seed, and never should have known good and evil, and the joy of our redemption, and the eternal life which God giveth unto all the obedient“ (Moses 5:10-11)" If they didn't know "good and evil" how would they have known right and wrong?

Also Alma 29: 5 Yea, and I know that good and evil have come before all men; he that knoweth not good from evil is blameless; but he that knoweth good and evil, to him it is given according to his desires, whether he desireth good or evil, life or death, joy or remorse of conscience.

The tree gave the knowledge of good and evil, Adam and Eve did not know good and evil or right and wrong and therefore were blameless even though they had to suffer the natural (the laws that God has placed on the earth as well as throughout the universe as well as any eternal law) consequences of their actions.

Genesis 3:5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

So, God cast them off from his presence, they became spiritually dead, needed repentance and baptism, etc, all because they committed an act that they were unaccountable for? That makes no sense.

We know that innocent children cannot be tempted by Satan yet we know Adam and Eve were tempted by Satan. Big difference there being Adam and Eve were very much accountable for their choice to either choose good or bad. Adam yielded unto temptation and began at that time to be disobedient to God.

[Calm]

So, God cast them off from his presence, they became spiritually dead, needed repentance and baptism, etc, all because they committed an act that they were unaccountable for? That makes no sense.

We know that innocent children cannot be tempted by Satan yet we know Adam and Eve were tempted by Satan. Big difference there being Adam and Eve were very much accountable for their choice to either choose good or bad. Adam yielded unto temptation and began at that time to be disobedient to God.

They, like all of us, knew what they were getting into prior to coming to earth. That the veil was then drawn does not counteract the fairness of God's laws.

[Rob Osborn]

Adam and Eve became fallen man spiritually and physically because of transgression- disobedience to the light of truth they had.

[Freedom]

Section 88 of the D&C is referred to as the 'olive leaf... plucked from the Tree of Paradise'. The olive tree is the central tree of hebrew literature and when ever a tree is represented it is invariably the olive tree. The olive has a deep symbolism. It serves for

1) nourishment

2) medicinal ointment

3) light

4) royal vestiture

5) Antiseptic

6) fuel

Also, the method of extraction is profoundly symbolic of the atonement from the oil press to the curing with vinegar (recall Jesus on the cross).

The Olive tree is significant because:

1) it lives for thousands of years

2) it takes 10-15 years to cultivate

3) It will not produce fruit without intervention

4) After much preparation the fruit is still bitter and useless

5) as noted, the fruit has numerous applications.

Olive oil used in the lamps of many jewish rituals bring wisdom, understanding and knowledge. These virtues allow for the three garments of thought, speech and action. It is interesting in the Book of Mormon we find similar vocabulary of thoughts, words, and deeds. These garments, of course, are made possible because of the tree of knowledge. So the tree gave us knowledge and the opportunity to learn to become like god but of course we now have the opportunity to use our knowledge for evil.

The atonement has two book ends. On the one end is the fall that is credited to Adam but is really thanks to Eve. On the other end we have the Atonement. Both bookends are rich in the symbolism of the olive tree and olive oil. Another point is that, just at the atonement works for all who came before and after, so could the fall have worked for all who came before and after.

There are numerous non biblical sources that confirm this comparison such as Baruch 4:7 "When God made the garden and commanded Michael to gather two hundred thousand and three angels so that they could plant the garden, Michael planted the olive and Gabriel, the apple..."

[Calm]

I will ask one more time and if I am not answered again, I will just have to drawn the appropriate conclusions: Rob, are the apostles and prophets and scriptures that say otherwise, that they did not know right from wrong before choosing the tree of good and evil and it was the partaking of the fruit that gave them that ability wrong?

[Freedom]

Adam yielded unto temptation and began at that time to be disobedient to God.

And after this sin he went and rejoiced. Sorry, that does not make sense. He did not sin, he saw that, without partaking of the fruit he would not be able to follow all of Gods commandments.

[Rob Osborn]

I will ask one more time and if I am not answered again, I will just have to drawn the appropriate conclusions: Rob, are the apostles and prophets and scriptures that say otherwise, that they did not know right from wrong before choosing the tree of good and evil and it was the partaking of the fruit that gave them that ability wrong?

3 For they are carnal and devilish, and the devil has power over them; yea, even that old serpent that did beguile our first parents, which was the cause of their fall; which was the cause of all mankind becoming carnal, sensual, devilish, knowing evil from good, subjecting themselves to the devil.

4 Thus all mankind were lost; and behold, they would have been endlessly lost were it not that God redeemed his people from their lost and fallen state.

5 But remember that he that persists in his own carnal nature, and goes on in the ways of sin and rebellion against God, remaineth in his fallen state and the devil hath all power over him. Therefore he is as though there was no redemption made, being an enemy to God; and also is the devil an enemy to God.

Adam and Eve yielded themselves over to temptation which subjected themselves to the devil. These scriptures clearly point out that the very thing that caused Adam and Eve to fall is the same thing each of us also do to fall spiritually. Its called "sin".

[Rob Osborn]

And after this sin he went and rejoiced. Sorry, that does not make sense. He did not sin, he saw that, without partaking of the fruit he would not be able to follow all of Gods commandments.

He went and rejoiced after he repented of his sin and was forgiven and baptized.

[mathonihah]

A child is a natural consequence of out of wedlock sexual intercourse....those involved in such still have to be forgiven even if they become parents, perhaps even more so. Not praying constantly has the natural consequence of creating a greater distance between us and the Lord, we need to be forgiven of refusing or forgetting to pray.

Not all things that have natural consequences separate us from God, those that do must be forgiven.

How does that contradict what I said? If you sin, you need to repent, and you need to be forgiven. If Adam had not sinned, he neither needed to repent, nor did he need to to be forgiven. As it turns out, he needed both.

[mathonihah]

I will ask one more time and if I am not answered again, I will just have to drawn the appropriate conclusions: Rob, are the apostles and prophets and scriptures that say otherwise, that they did not know right from wrong before choosing the tree of good and evil and it was the partaking of the fruit that gave them that ability wrong?

Don't you think people have the right to ask you the same question relative scriptures that suggest other than your conclusions? Only your own quoted scriptures are valid, not other people's?

"For behold, if Adam had put forth his hand immediately, and apartaken of the btree of life, he would have lived forever, according to the word of God, having no space for repentance; yea, and also the word of God would have been void, and the great plan of salvation would have been frustrated." (Alma 42:5)

"Wherefore, it came to pass that the devil tempted Adam, and he partook of the forbidden fruit and transgressed the commandment, wherein he became subject to the will of the devil, because he yielded unto temptation." (D&C 29:40)

"And our father Adam spake unto the Lord, and said: Why is it that men must repent and be baptized in water? And the Lord said unto Adam: Behold I have forgiven thee thy transgression in the Garden of Eden." (Moses 6:53)

What is your answer to these?

1. Adam yielded to temptation.

2. Adam transgressed a commandment.

3. Adam needed to repent.

4. Adam needed to be forgiven.

And he still did not sin? It was all a "natural consequence"?

[mathonihah]

I am sorry to disappoint you Calmoriah, but the quotations you have given from Church leaders and/or publications either do not address the issues at hand, or they interpret the scriptures incorrectly. I realise that you trust those sources more than what I say, which is OK; but the object of the exercise is to present valid arguments, not blindly follow long held beliefs or teachings. Let us briefly examine some of the quotations you had given (bold mine):

President Joseph Fielding Smith showed how the book of Moses helps us understand why the Lord commanded Adam to not partake of the fruit: “Just why the Lord would say to Adam that he forbade him to partake of the fruit of that tree is not made clear in the Bible account, but in the original as it comes to us in the Book of Moses it is made definitely clear.

It is that the Lord said to Adam that if he wished to remain as he was in the garden, then he was not to eat the fruit, but if he desired to eat it and partake of death he was at liberty to do so

”

http://www.lds.org/manual/book-of-mormon-student-manual/chapter-7-2-nephi-1-3?lang=eng

I don't see where he gets that out of the book of Moses. Nothing like that is suggested in the book of Moses. In the temple account there is an added phrase not found in the book of Moses, where he may be getting that interpretation from; but even there it is followed by the strict command: "I forbid it". It doesn't allow room for that kind of interpretation. I think his interpretation is incorrect—especially in the light of other scriptures previously cited, which make it clear that Adam disobeyed a commandment, needed to repent, and to be forgiven. I can understand you trusting his interpretation more than mine, but that is how I see it. Here is another quote (bold mine):

“… The Fall of Adam (and Eve) constituted the mortal creation and brought about the required changes in their bodies,

including the circulation of blood and other modifications as well. They were now able to have children.

They and their posterity also became subject to injury, disease, and death” (in Conference Report, Oct. 1996, 44–45; or Ensign, Nov. 1996, 33).

That is totally unsupported by scripture. It is pure speculation. It has not been revealed what physiological changes were involved in the Fall, and what changes (if any) were required for procreation. This is the product of somebody's fertile imagination. It is neither scripture nor revelation. It cannot be assumed that it correctly describes the nature of the Fall. Here is another:

“Adam did only what he had to do. He partook of that fruit for one good reason, and that was to open the door to bring you and me and everyone else into this world. …

“… If it hadn’t been for Adam, I wouldn’t be here; you wouldn’t be here; we would be waiting in the heavens as spirits” (Joseph Fielding Smith, in Conference Report, Oct. 1967, 121–22).

I don't have a disagreement with this interpretation, only that it does not address the issues at hand. According to the temple account, Adam transgressed the commandment in order to remain with his wife (and procreate). He considered the commandment to "multiply and replenish the earth" the more important commandment of the two. But it does not follow that the first commandment (to not partake of the fruit) was not important, or that breaking it was not a sin, or that if neither of them had broken that commandment, it would have been impossible for them to procreate. It does not prove that partaking of the fruit was a necessary prerequisite to procreation, or that disobeying the commandment of God not to partake of it was not a sin.

[CV75]

I think you are taking the story way too literally in my opinion.

Then you are obviously taking my remarks way too literally. Whether the trees or their fruit are symbolic or literal or both, how Adam and Eve got wisdom is immaterial; they obviously eventually got it and needed it to procreate.

[CV75]

To mathonihah’s last 3 posts:

We can repent of transgression by changing course, just as we can repent of sin by changing course—this does not mean that sin and transgression are identical (depending on one’s understanding). If some people see them as identical, that is their level of understanding. If some people note differences, that is another level of understanding.

Remember, the scriptures say that God repented on occasion, too. I wouldn’t say He sinned, but I would say that He transgressed the law once in a while (give people original, then lesser. and then greater commandments and knowledge).

Just because someone doesn’t understand things in the same way as another does not mean that person is wrong. What one charges as unsupported by scripture or especially of all things “the” temple account is well-supported from another perspective.

You said, “It does not prove that partaking of the fruit was a necessary prerequisite to procreation, or that disobeying the commandment of God not to partake of it was not a sin.” From one perspective, “partaking of the fruit” is symbolic of gaining knowledge and wisdom, which is necessary for procreation (what god procreates without wisdom, and what mortal procreates without death?) From one perspective, disobeying the commandment of God not to partake of it (for the time being, since God also repents) is only a transgression.

[teddyaware]

I don't have a disagreement with this interpretation, only that it does not address the issues at hand. According to the temple account, Adam transgressed the commandment in order to remain with his wife (and procreate). He considered the commandment to "multiply and replenish the earth" the more important commandment of the two. But it does not follow that the first commandment (to not partake of the fruit) was not important, or that breaking it was not a sin, or that if neither of them had broken that commandment, it would have been impossible for them to procreate. It does not prove that partaking of the fruit was a necessary prerequisite to procreation, or that disobeying the commandment of God not to partake of it was not a sin.

I believe much of the emphasis Church leaders have placed on Adam's transgression not being an actual sin -- as per the usual meaning of that word -- stems from the LDS denial of the validity of Historical Christianity's doctrine of "original sin" and the additional doctrine of "total depravity" that grows out of the same.

As for myself, I find it difficult to imagine that Adam's partaking of the forbidden fruit wasn't some sort of actual sin. After all, in all of sacred history can anyone think of another transgression of God's laws that had such dire, overwhelming, all-encompassing consequenses? A partial list of said consequense would include: Expulsion of Adam and Eve from the glorious, immediate presence of God, to live in a lone and dreary world; eviction from the ease of the Garden of Eden, to struggle mightily just to survive; exposure of Adam and his posterity to all the physical and emotional agonies of the fallen state; physical and spiritual death inficted not just on Adam and Eve, but on all their innocent posterity as well; the devil and his angels being given near unfettered access to the minds and hearts of the children of men, setting the stage for enormous acts of wickedness such as the Nazi and Communist holocausts; the absolute requirement for an innocent Saviour to have to make an infinite and eternal sacrifice of untold suffering to "atone(d) for original guilt, wherein the sins of the parents cannot be answered upon the heads of the children." (Moses 6)

While it cannot be denied that the fall of Adam and Eve is a great blessing in disguise, nevertheless, I do not believe the monumental and dire consequenses of their decision to violate God's law should be morally minimized. What Adam and Eve did is a most serious, solemn and consequential thing. Just think of all the enormous grieving that's taking place in Newtown, Connecticuit this holiday weekend! This and other such soul-damaging atrocities like it were made possible by Adam's fateful decision to partake of the forbidden fruit, against God's most solemn warning. Because Lucifer knew such horrors would regularly occor on a fallen world such as ours, as a natuaral consquense of Adam's transgression in the garden, he espoused an alternate plan of salvation that he claimed would prevent such terrible crimes from ever taking place, and his arguments against God's most danger-frought plan were so persuasive that he drew 1/3 of the children of God after him.

Read the following from Moses 6 to see just how seriously God himself viewed the first transgression of His law:

53 "And our father Adam spake unto the Lord, and said: Why is it that men must repent and be baptized in water? And the Lord said unto Adam: Behold I have forgiven thee thy transgression in the Garden of Eden.

54 Hence came the saying abroad among the people, that the ^aSon of God hath atoned for original guilt, wherein the sins of the parents cannot be answered upon the heads of the children"

And so we see from the above that Adam's supposedly "innocent transgression" was serious enough in God's eyes that:

1. Adam had to be repent and be baptized in water in order to reap the blessing of being forgiven for his transgression in Eden.

2. It was big news "spread abroad" that the forgiveness Adam received for his transgression (original guilt) in the Garden of Eden was only made possible by the infinite and eternal atoning sufferings of the Son of God.

3. If not for the atoning sacrifice of Christ, the "original guilt" of Adam would have been passed on to the children (Most interestingly, then, if it weren't for the successful atonement of Christ, the traditional Christian doctrine of "original sin" would have been realized. As Jacob, son of Lehi, explained it in 2 Nephi 9:9

(if it weren't for the atonement) "our spirits must have become like unto him, and we become devils, angels to a devil, to be shut out from the presence of our God, and to remain with the father of lies, in misery, like unto himself; yea, to that being who beguiled our first parents."

So in light of the above, we can see that if it weren't for the atonement of the Saviour, Adam's transgression was of such overriding import that all of mankind's expulsion from the presense of God, including little children, would have been permanent -- pretty serious business I'd say. The only thing that mitigates the most deadly and serious consequenses of Adam's partaking of the forbidden fruit is the atonement of Christ, without which, as the scripture unambiguously says, we'd all become doomed to hell as devils forever.

Also take note that Jacob says "our first parents" were "beguiled." The fact that our first parents were beguiled (deceived) indicates they must have had a some degree of discernment and a capacity for some measure of critical thought processes in order to be tricked by the adversary. There must have been a certain degree of culpability for the partaking of the forbidden fruit on our first parents part -- else why would that first act of disobedience be referred to as "original guilt," for which there needed to be sincere repentance and an atonement made by one who was sinless before things could be set aright.

As to the speculation that procreation might have been possible prior to the fall? For what it's worth, I quote Mother Eve:

"And Eve, his wife, heard all these things and was glad, saying: Were it not for our transgression we never should have had seed," (Moses 5:11)

Edited December 21, 2012 by teddyaware

[Freedom]

He went and rejoiced after he repented of his sin and was forgiven and baptized.

Unfortunately there is no doctrinal foundation for this claim. And this is hardly the words of a soul who sinned and had to repent: Blessed be the name of God, for because of my transgression my eyes are opened, and in this life I shall have joy, and again in the flesh I shall see God`` So Adam is rejoicing that he transgressed. When is the last time you went to church and rejoiced because of serious sins you committed? Are you suggesting that it is sin, not righteousness that brings us joy?

[urroner]

teddyaware, so what would the consequences of A&E not partaking of the fruit been? Would it have been paradise for one and all?

[teddyaware]

teddyaware, so what would the consequences of A&E not partaking of the fruit been? Would it have been paradise for one and all?

We would have been cursed in a world without dynamic growth, expanding wisdom and deeper happiness. My views on the transgression of Adam in the garden are orthodox LDS and in harmony with the General Authorities. My only point is that, until I'm persuaded otherwise, I believe the partaking of the forbidden fruit was not done in total innocence. Else why was there shame felt in the aftermath of the transgression, and why was there the need for Adam to repent of his transgression and receive forgiveness for the same through the atonement.

All the best, Ted

Edited December 21, 2012 by teddyaware

[CV75]

I believe much of the emphasis Church leaders have placed on Adam's transgression not being an actual sin -- as per the usual meaning of that word -- stems from the LDS denial of the validity of Historical Christianity's doctrine of "original sin" and the additional doctrine of "total depravity" that grows out of the same.

I think the serious, eternally irreversible choice was made in the pre-mortal life, where we chose or rejected the plan of redemption. After that, anything Adam and Eve did was only reflective of what any one of us would have done under similar circumstances. As long as we come into this second estate, we bring with us traits that require redemption, even if it is only that our spirit and element are separable (such as infants). But in retrospect, we knew that coming into it. From this perspective, the net effect of the Fall is positive in that we gain a body, since all will be resurrected even if we gladly sell out to the devil, and we knew this beforehand as well (which might explain why some are bound to commit atrocities in this world). None of can ever sink as low as the devil, which is why someone like Cain can rule over him.

Granted, if there were no redemption, we would remain as devils, but it there never was a plan that required no redemption.

If we learn the whole plan of salvation from the beginning, the Grand Council becomes the most serious decision point. If we only learn it from the Garden of Eden onward, the partaking of the forbidden fruit becomes the most serious decision point.

[urroner]

Again, and not trying to a a stickler for definitions and practicing the delicate art of pilpul, the definition of "transgress" is "to go beyond the limits imposed by (a law, command, etc.); violate; infringe:" "trans" comes from a Latin word which means "across" and "gress" is from a Latin word meaning "to walk."

"Transgress" doesn't not carry, in and of itself, any indication of intent. Within the gospel, it simply means to step beyond or across the boundaries imposed upon us by God, intentionally or unintentionally.

"Sin" is defined as "a willful or deliberate violation of those boundaries." Some people are attempting to conflate sin type transgressions with non-sin type transgressions and declaring them all sin. On my part, I reject that conflation.

Even if we unintentionally step across those boundaries, in sheer ignorance or out of lack of thinking, there are consequences that are going to occur and there is a price that has to be paid either in this life and/or in the next. Even little children commit transgressions and there has to be a price paid for these transgressions.

The Israelites, during the First Temple era, distinguished the two different types of transgression in their sacrifices during the Day of Atonement ceremony IIRC. I might be wrong here.

The A&E story comes from ancient Israel, so it's important to put the text into it's proper context. The early Israelites viewed the consequences of sin very differently from how we view them. In their world, all transgressions affected the "eternal convenant" and what was this "eternal convenant?" According to Margaret Barker, it was "The eternal covenant was the system of bonds which established and maintained the creation, ordering and binding the forces of chaos."

God created the world out of chaos and it was through righteousness that chaos was bound and order was maintained. Any transgression, intentional or unintentional, weakened those bonds preventing chaos from taking over. An atonement was required to fix or repair those bonds once they had been weakened.

Again from Margaret Barker:

That creation rituals should be performed by the Lord is hardly surprising. If the Lord had bound the creation at the beginning with the great covenant which kept the forces of chaos in their place and gave security to his people, any covenant renewal ceremony must have involved the Lord performing these acts. Atonement rituals repaired the damage to the created order caused by sin through which ‘wrath’ could have broken in with such disastrous consequences. Again the Jewish Encyclopaedia makes an interesting observation: ‘But while, according to Scripture, the high priest made atonement, tradition transferred the atoning power to God

Freedom, I agree that one doesn't rejoice because of their sins, or, at least, they shouldn't, but if one has sinned, one should rejoice in the ability to be able to repent of those sins because of the Atonement. It is also in the law of opposition Freedom, where one can only learn joy only if one knows misery. I truly understand what the lack of depression is because I truly understand what having depression is. Those who do not suffer from depression cannot truly appreciate what not having it is.

If I live a perfect life and never suffer the pain for having sinned, can I truly understand the joy of being forgiven. No. Now, Christ, never having sin, did know the joy of having being "forgiven" because he suffered the Atonement.

I seriously doubt that A&E rejoiced in the act of committing the transgression, but they rejoiced in the affects of the Atonement. Besides, one of the consequences of having transgressed those bounds that God had set in place was too be able to have children and I will go through Hell for my children (and I do) and I rejoice in being able to have them.

Moses 5:10-11

10 And in that day Adam blessed God and was filled, and began to prophesy concerning all the families of the earth, saying: Blessed be the name of God, for because of my transgression my eyes are opened, and in this life I shall have joy, and again in the flesh I shall see God.

11 And Eve, his wife, heard all these things and was glad, saying: Were it not for our transgression we never should have had seed, and never should have known good and evil, and the joy of our redemption, and the eternal life which God giveth unto all the obedient.

It's plain, at least to me, that A&E rejoiced because of parts of the consequences of the transgression in the Garden.

It's like how I feel about my depression. Do I rejoice because of my depression? Hell no, it's terrible. Do I rejoice because of many of the things i have learnt about dealing with other and how to be a better person because my depression. Hell yes, it's awesome. It's that joy that makes me put up with my depression and "enjoy" it.

[CV75]

Else why was there shame felt in the aftermath of the transgression, and why was there the need for Adam to repent of his transgression and receive forgiveness for the same through the atonement.

An innocent’s naiveté can produce unwarranted shame, or shame for transgression (as compared to sin) if the wrong source is being hearkened to. Of course a better course can be taken, and is obtained through repentance. The atonement applies to this kind of imperfection as well as more carnal, sensual and devilish infractions. No one became carnal, sensual and devilish until after the Fall (Mosiah 16:3).

[Mark Beesley]

I have a book (which is pack away so i can't provide the exact quote) where one of the apostles (i believe it was Oaks) says that what Eve did was a transgression and not a sin. He explains the difference by saying that a sin is something that is morally wrong (like murder, for example) and a transgression is doing something that is wrong only because it has been declared against the law (such as jaywalking, for example).

Now, unfortunately, i can't remember what else he ways about the distinction. The book is by Beverly Campbell and is called Eve and the choice made in Eden.

From the Chapter entitled There Was No Other Way,

Elder Dallin H. Oaks explained in a general conference address, "For reasons that have not been revealed, this transition, or 'fall,' could not happen without a transgression—an exercise of moral agency amounting to a willful breaking of a law (see Moses 6:59). This would be a planned offense, a formality to serve an eternal purpose." He further explained how a transgression can be just that and not a sin: "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."

Campbell, Eve and the Choices Made in Eden (2003)

Accepting that as a valid distinction between what constitutes a sin and what is a transgression, how does that fit with the Second Article of Faith, which states, We believe that we will be punished for our own sins but not for Adams transgression?

Can we conclude from Elder Oak's statement and the Second Article of Faith that while we may have to endure the mortal consequences for transgressions, there is no eternal punishment like there is for sin?

Where does that leave us with something like the Word of Wisdom? Clearly it is malum prohibitum and not malum in se. All other things being equal, does violation of the Word of Wisdom result only mortal consequences with no residual eternal consequences?

[urroner]

We would have been cursed in a world without dynamic growth, expanding wisdom and deeper happiness. My views on the transgression of Adam in the garden are orthodox LDS and in harmony with the General Authorities. My only point is that, until I'm persuaded otherwise, I believe the partaking of the forbidden fruit was not done in total innocence. Else why was there shame felt in the aftermath of the transgression, and why was there the need for Adam to repent of his transgression and receive forgiveness for the same through the atonement.

All the best, Ted

I don't have much time, too much to do, too little time. Why was there the need for Adam to repent of his transgression and receive forgiveness for the same through the atonement.

Repent, at its base, means "to feel such sorrow." It has slowly evolved to also include "to be disposed to change one's life for the better and not repeat those actions which caused the sorrow."

For example, in the OT, it says several times that God repented. Did God repent because of transgression?

If I commit some action that hurts somebody else in some way, and I am totally ignorant that this action would have that consequence, and upon finding out that that action was totally messing up that other person, I can repent of having committed those actions. I can feel sorrow for having committed those actions and, in the modern definition of "repent," I can change what I do.

The Atonement part is because of the Atonement, the temporal consequences of the transgression is lessened, but the spiritual or eternal consequences in the long run are done away with.

Edited December 21, 2012 by urroner

[Freedom]

Adam and Eve were ashamed because they were naked, not because they sinned. They became aware of their bodies. This is exactly what happens when we go through puberty. Until that point, we think little of going naked, then all of the sudden we became ashamed of our nakedness. It is not sin, it is an awakening of our sensibilities and our conscience.

[Maidservant]

They were not naturally ashamed even after being naked, were they? It was the serpent who suggested they should be ashamed of their nakedness (and I should mention that in my mind it has not that much to do with bodies, per se, although that is included). Am I remembering correctly?

[teddyaware]

An innocent’s naiveté can produce unwarranted shame, or shame for transgression (as compared to sin) if the wrong source is being hearkened to. Of course a better course can be taken, and is obtained through repentance. The atonement applies to this kind of imperfection as well as more carnal, sensual and devilish infractions. No one became carnal, sensual and devilish until after the Fall (Mosiah 16:3).

Excellent points, all of which I already understood and agreed with.

When my kids were little, before arriving at the age of accountability, there were occasions when, with broken hearts and teary eyes, they apogized for things they did which they knew were wrong; and there were times after they arrived at the age of accountability when they did the same. On the one hand it may be said they transgressed, and on the other it may be said they sinned. But when all is said and done, it's hard to tell the difference between either of the two instances -- don't you think? It's really all the same kind of learning experience in the end, but they just occur at different points of accountability on a common contiuum.

The shame I felt for wrongdoing as a little child differs little, emotionally, from the shame for wrongdoing I feel as an adult. In fact, I think it can truly be said that I was often softer hearted and quicker to feel remorse for wrongdoing when I was a child, than I do now as adult. Maybe this is one of the reasons why Christ said we must become as little children before we can enter the Kingdom of God -- when properly trained, kids often tend to feel more remorse for wrondoing than do the adults.

Even though Adam may have only transgressed and not sinned, nevertheless, theoretically, he may have felt remorse for what he had done more keenly than many adults do when they committ overtly rebellious acts of sin. Joseph Smith felt great remorse for having given Martin Harris the 116 pages, even though, technically. the Lord finally gave him permission to go ahead and do so.

Here's an interesting point to ponder: Could it be that the Lord transgressed (not sinned) when he was growing up? Therefore, he may have had plenty of personal experience as a youth with non-malignant wrongdoing (transgression), and learned from personal experience what it's like to feel shame and remorse, thereby learning how to prize the good after having had ample chance to taste the bitter. Technically, he could have had the normal growing up experiences of a typical kid before he was eight years of age, doing what kids do, and as a result "learned he obedience by the things which he suffered." (Heb 5) He could still be considered sinless as an adult if he only committed transgressions before the age of accountability. Maybe he's more like us than we know...

Edited December 21, 2012 by teddyaware