Predestination. You Asked For It Here It Is.

[MrG]

So what does that have to do with determining if sin is identical to transgression or not?

 

Erm Im not sure I was really worried about that in my response, I was just answering your question, maybe I got mixed up, sorry!

[MrG]

I would agree with this from your point of view.

 

Understood and appreciated, as I often say when I am just sharing my opinion, I dont expect that to be persuasive

[Calm]

Ok, Genesis 2:17  But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

 

Didnt this happen before the fall?

I am wondering if I missed your point on this one....

 

Do you mean God punished them, therefore it must have been a sin?

 

If so, I would disagree.  One has to live with the immediate consequences of our actions whether we know what will happen or not.  Sin is about spiritual/eternal consequences, thus one can transgress and suffer even without sinning.  For example, in LDS view a child below the age of eight is not accountable and thus not sinning, but if she does not love her neighbour, she still will suffer by losing out on the opportunities that come when one does love others.  It is analogous to being burned by a hot stove whether or not one is aware of what the heat will do to one if one touches it.  Someone who does not know it is sinful to have sexual relationship outside of marriage because she was never taught can still get as pregnant as someone who was taught that every day of her life.

 

LDS see death as a "natural consequence" of eating of the tree.  The tree involved certain laws, just as the law of gravity means anyone stepping off a cliff with fall whether or not they know they will fall or even if they are not aware of the cliff in the first place; one of these was eating of it would result in a mortal, fallen existence.

[MrG]

I am wondering if I missed your point on this one....

 

Do you mean God punished them, therefore it must have been a sin?

 

If so, I would disagree.  One has to live with the immediate consequences of our actions whether we know what will happen or not.  Sin is about spiritual/eternal consequences, thus one can transgress and suffer even without sinning.  For example, in LDS view a child below the age of eight is not accountable and thus not sinning, but if she does not love her neighbour, she still will suffer by losing out on the opportunities that come when one does love others.  It is analogous to being burned by a hot stove whether or not one is aware of what the heat will do to one if one touches it.  Someone who does not know it is sinful to have sexual relationship outside of marriage because she was never taught can still get as pregnant as someone who was taught that every day of her life.

 

LDS see death as a "natural consequence" of eating of the tree.  The tree involved certain laws, just as the law of gravity means anyone stepping off a cliff with fall whether or not they know they will fall or even if they are not aware of the cliff in the first place; one of these was eating of it would result in a mortal, fallen existence.

 

No I am saying they disobeyed God, therefore it must have been a sin.

[Calm]

Romans 1:20-23

20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

 

Humanity is left without an excuse, our nature is darkened and we are by nature children of wrath. (Ephesians 2:3) our good works are actually filthy to God in this sinful state (Isaiah 64:6).

 

Romans is a bit more involved than I want to be today....I will try and return to this later if someone else doesn't address it.

[Calm]

Well they say God told them not to do it, you said if you knowingly do something God has told you not too, then its a sin. 

But there is a difference between them and me as there is a difference between me and a 5 year old in the LDS view....I am accountable due to my knowledge of good and evil.  They did not possess such knowledge and thus were not fully accountable, only accountable to the extent that they understood, whatever that was (I don't think that we know enough to determine the level of knowledge beforehand....we are only given information to be able to get to this point).

 

Man's law recognizes the difference between a child's accountability and an adult's.  We believe God is at least as wise as man is (besides believing that such accountability is fully taught in the scriptures...this is not just something we want God to be like, but something that has been revealed about God and his law).

[MrG]

But there is a difference between them and me as there is a difference between me and a 5 year old in the LDS view....I am accountable due to my knowledge of good and evil.  They did not possess such knowledge and thus were not fully accountable, only accountable to the extent that they understood, whatever that was (I don't think that we know enough to determine the level of knowledge beforehand....we are only given information to be able to get to this point).

 

Man's law recognizes the difference between a child's accountability and an adult's.  We believe God is at least as wise as man is (besides believing that such accountability is fully taught in the scriptures...this is not just something we want God to be like, but something that has been revealed about God and his law).

 

Yep we just cant take it on what it says, I get that. The Bible says that God told them not to do it, and that sin and death came into the world as a result.

 

Genesis 3:16-17 16 Unto the woman he said, 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.

17 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;

 

Why didnt God say well done?, or at least pat them on the back and say you did not know any better?

[Calm]

I think Gods standard is set, and whether someone knows it or not they are subject to it

And LDS would agree with you to a certain extent.  When one transgresses without knowledge, one still must deal with the (for want of a better word) "natural" consequences of those actions.  However, God does not hold someone accountable who lacks accountability/knowledge of what their actions mean in terms of good and evil; thus the penalties attached to committing sin are not also invoked.

 

Committing sin in and of itself has consequences.  When one sins, one must suffer both sets of consequences....those attached to committing sin and those attached to breaking the law (transgression).  When one transgresses without accountability, one suffers only the second.

 

It would seem where we differ is that you (and other strong Calvinists) believe that everyone is accountable, even the infant still bloody from her mother's womb, while LDS believe a certain level of spiritual understanding must be achieved and not all are given this level (children below the age of eight and those who are mentally disabled to the point of being at the level of a child's understanding, for example).  That spiritual understanding is defined as the "knowledge of good and evil" that was given to Eve and then Adam when they partook of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

 

I am curious as to what the significance of the tree of knowledge of good and evil means to you.  What did it mean besides breaking God's law if he commanded them not to eat of it?

[Calm]

Yep we just cant take it on what it says, I get that. 

 

Look, I am not playing that game with you.  I assume you are taking the Bible at its word to the best of your understanding.  Please grant me the same the level of commitment to trying to understand the scriptures.

[MrG]

And LDS would agree with you to a certain extent.  When one transgresses without knowledge, one still must deal with the (for want of a better word) "natural" consequences of those actions.  However, God does not hold someone accountable who lacks accountability/knowledge of what their actions mean in terms of good and evil; thus the penalties attached to committing sin are not also invoked.

 

Committing sin in and of itself has consequences.  When one sins, one must suffer both sets of consequences....those attached to committing sin and those attached to breaking the law (transgression).  When one transgresses without accountability, one suffers only the second.

 

It would seem where we differ is that you (and other strong Calvinists) believe that everyone is accountable, even the infant still bloody from her mother's womb, while LDS believe a certain level of spiritual understanding must be achieved and not all are given this level (children below the age of eight and those who are mentally disabled to the point of being at the level of a child's understanding, for example).  That spiritual understanding is defined as the "knowledge of good and evil" that was given to Eve and then Adam when they partook of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

 

I am curious as to what the significance of the tree of knowledge of good and evil means to you.  What did it mean besides breaking God's law if he commanded them not to eat of it?

 

I am heading out for the night now so will come back to further posts later.

 

Regarding the tree I will admit I havent thought about it too much past the fact that God told them not too eat of it, and certainly appeared to expect them to stick with that. So for Him they had enough to go on with regards to knowing not to do it.

[MrG]

Look, I am not playing that game with you.  I assume you are taking the Bible at its word to the best of your understanding.  Please grant me the same the level of commitment to trying to understand the scriptures.

 

Understood, I appreciate your respectfulness to me this far and apologise, this was more for others who have commented on me for that, I will leave that there.

 

Though there is a seriousness to my point as well.

[Calm]

 The Bible says that God told them not to do it, and that sin and death came into the world as a result.....

Why didnt God say well done?, or at least pat them on the back and say you did not know any better?

I don't see anyone here disagreeing with God telling them not to do it and by their doing it sin and death came into the world as a result. LDS fully believe this.

 

What we also believe though (based on our scriptures) was that God gave them a choice between two commandments, "do not eat" and "multiply and replenish the earth" and they choose the greater commandment to obey and by doing so created the conditions in which mankind could come to earth, learn what God wanted them to learn and thus progress, thus be given the opportunity to accept Christ's Atonement and become one with God the Father and the Son and joint-heirs with the Son in all that means....something that would not have been available to man save for Adam and Eve's role.

 

Now perhaps you do not believe there are ever conditions where God's commandments are contradictory and one must choose which to follow.  I can see an assumption like this would negate all that LDS believe....but since we assume the above is possible and is scriptural, we see our understanding as scriptural as well.  

 

An example of commandments that might come into conflict...

 

"Thou shalt honour thy father and mother" and "thou shalt love God". 

 

Christ gave us an example of a potential conflict at work :

 

 

59 And he said unto another, Follow me. But he said, Lord, suffer me first to go and bury my father.

 60 Jesus said unto him, Let the dead bury their dead: but go thou and preach the kingdom of God.

 61 And another also said, Lord, I will follow thee; but let me first go bid them farewell, which are at home at my house.

 62 And Jesus said unto him, No man, having put his hand to theplough, and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God.

 

Edited August 19, 2013 by calmoriah

[Calm]

What we also believe though (based on our scriptures) was that God gave them a choice between two commandments, "do not eat" and "multiply and replenish the earth"

 

For some reason, the board really does not want me to post this...first it wouldn't let me add this to the above post even while allowing me to add other stuff and then when I posted it on its own, it said my post was too short...

 

Hopefully this additional quoting and commentary will overcome the board's reluctance to let me having my say:

 

 

 

The belief in contradicting commandments is based on our scriptures, I understand that many nonLDS believe that they could multiply, etc. in the Garden thus fulfilling both commandments.

 

[Calm]

I am heading out for the night now so will come back to further posts later.

 

Regarding the tree I will admit I havent thought about it too much past the fact that God told them not too eat of it, and certainly appeared to expect them to stick with that. So for Him they had enough to go on with regards to knowing not to do it.

But what was the significance of the tree outside of that.  Why was it even in the Garden?

 

And btw, sorry for the haphazard way I am posting questions...I am going back over past posts and seeing if I missed something plus sometimes I've seen a later response before I've responded to an earlier post and just had to respond immediately...hope it still makes sense.  I really should have used the multiquote function, but am still kind of asleep and planning ahead isn't my strength when half awake.

Edited August 19, 2013 by calmoriah

[djholmess]

 

The belief in contradicting commandments is based on our scriptures, I understand that many nonLDS believe that they could multiply, etc. in the Garden thus fulfilling both commandments.

I don't intend to jump in on your discussion except to say that evangelicals would point to the punishments for Eve's sin as evidence for that. Eve's punishment was that her pain in child birth would greatly increase. It only makes sense to say this if child birth was already something she would have been able to go through if she had not fallen.

Not fallen = childbirth with at least some level of pain

Fallen state = greatly increased pain during childbirth

[Calm]

 It only makes sense to say this if child birth was already something she would have been able to go through if she had not fallen.

 

I had not considered this.  Good point.

 

I have no problem with nonLDS interpretation in this area.  Without additional scriptures, it makes total sense that if God gave them a commandment to multiply, that they could do so at that time and not have to wait for additional conditions to fulfill it.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

 

I don't see anyone here disagreeing with God telling them not to do it and by their doing it sin and death came into the world as a result. LDS fully believe this.

 

What we also believe though (based on our scriptures) was that God gave them a choice between two commandments, "do not eat" and "multiply and replenish the earth" and they choose the greater commandment to obey and by doing so created the conditions in which mankind could come to earth, learn what God wanted them to learn and thus progress, thus be given the opportunity to accept Christ's Atonement and become one with God the Father and the Son and joint-heirs with the Son in all that means....something that would not have been available to man save for Adam and Eve's role.

 

 

 

 

Which I will point out that in LDS theology was the whole point and it was all part of the plan. They were supposed to take the fruit and fall so that a Savior could be sent to atone for the sins of all man kind and Men are that they might have joy. 

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I don't intend to jump in on your discussion except to say that evangelicals would point to the punishments for Eve's sin as evidence for that. Eve's punishment was that her pain in child birth would greatly increase. It only makes sense to say this if child birth was already something she would have been able to go through if she had not fallen.

Not fallen = childbirth with at least some level of pain

Fallen state = greatly increased pain during childbirth

I am sorry but the bible does not say this. It says I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception"

This is talking about coneption and sorrow. Sorrow is not the same as physical pain. It continues.

 

 

"; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; "

What is sorrow? This dictionary defines it as

"a : deep distress, sadness, or regret especially for the loss of someone or something loved

 

b : resultant unhappy or unpleasant state <to their greatsorrow they could not marry>"

So as you see this is not taking about physical pain. I recall my wife going through some sorrow when we found out we were having twins and what a wicked world they were going to be born into.  How ever we were able to look past the bad and see the great good. And of course have come to view our kids as a great blessing.

[Stone holm]

No I am saying they disobeyed God, therefore it must have been a sin.

 

If God actually wants you to disobey Him, how can that possibly be considered a sin?

[MrG]

If God actually wants you to disobey Him, how can that possibly be considered a sin?

 

Who said that?

[danielwoods]

I am sorry but the bible does not say this. It says I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception"

This is talking about coneption and sorrow. Sorrow is not the same as physical pain. It continues.

 

 

"; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; "

What is sorrow? This dictionary defines it as

"a : deep distress, sadness, or regret especially for the loss of someone or something loved

 

b : resultant unhappy or unpleasant state <to their greatsorrow they could not marry>"

So as you see this is not taking about physical pain. I recall my wife going through some sorrow when we found out we were having twins and what a wicked world they were going to be born into.  How ever we were able to look past the bad and see the great good. And of course have come to view our kids as a great blessing.

 

The word used here,

"itstsabon: a pain, toil"  http://biblesuite.com/hebrew/6093.htm

Certainly does seem to indicate a physical pain or toil or labor. 

 

In other words, the curse to Eve was that women would have their pain or toil (physically) increased as a result of the sin. Which indicates that there was already some pain involved in childbirth before the fall. 

[Calm]

I am sorry but the bible does not say this.....This is talking about coneption and sorrow. Sorrow is not the same as physical pain.

 ]

Even so there is a contrast between what might have been and what was to be...is there any difference in his point if it is emotional pain and not physical?

[Calm]

So having refreshed my memory by talking to my friends, the experts in biblical language (experts compared to me and most people that is) it looks like the differentiation between sin and transgression is a modern understanding at least taught by Joseph Fielding Smith and possibly before. This is like the usage of Urim and Thumim and Jehovah and Elohim.

Fine by me, I have no issue with continuing revelation or even just changing language as long as we stay aware of the changes.

This has led to some inconsistencies such as here: http://www.lds.org/scriptures/bd/fear?lang=eng. where the first result of Adam's sin is fear.

President Hunter uses "Adam's sin" here:

http://www.lds.org/general-conference/1994/04/what-manner-of-men-ought-ye-to-be?lang=deu&clang=eng

A search on lds.org for "Adam's sin" yield a number of hits, some supporting the usage, others rejecting it. Check for yourself If you are curious (I would suggest using the google option site:lds.org "Adam's sin" as it pulls up more precise hits with more info than the lds search function).

A collection of rejections may be found here in about the 18th paragraph (I counted and then got distracted so may be wrong):

https://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?locale=0&sourceId=9073c106dac20110VgnVCM100000176f620a____&vgnextoid=32c41b08f338c010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD

[Calm]

I still believe that scripture teaches that sin requires knowledge, or as stated in the Guide to the Scriptures "willful disobedience to God's commandments" with James 4:17 supporting this (at least in my interpretation). To me if one didn't come to the verse with the Calvinist assumptions, one would be much more likely to read it my way....but of course that is my bias.

I think I will look for nonLDS commentary to see if opinions vary on this verse.

[Calm]

Certainly does seem to indicate a physical pain or toil or labor. 

 

In other words, the curse to Eve was that women would have their pain or toil (physically) increased as a result of the sin. Which indicates that there was already some pain involved in childbirth before the fall.

And other translation would agree with you.

http://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/Genesis%203:16

I would like to point out we both agree they had no children in the Garden (right?)...so whatever God was talking about it was something that would take place in the future. And IMO it is possible that he was not comparing to what might have been but making a simple statement contrasting pain during childbirth with the regular hardships that they would have to go through...basically a parallel to Adam's cursing. See for example the NIV translation which seems to point to this version.

However this is just speculation on my part. I will see if I can find something that points in one direction or the other.