Predestination. You Asked For It Here It Is.

[djholmess]

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. 

 

 

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.

 

 

These are a couple of interesting points.  Correct me if I'm wrong but calmoriah, are you basically getting to the idea that whilst Adam trangressed God's command in the garden he didn't sin?  And in LDS theology this distinction is important because it was Gods plan/hope/intention that Adam would use his free agency to eat the fruit and bring about the fall so that a Saviour could be sent?

[Vance]

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

There you guys go again, saying things that are just NOT in the Bible.  Nowhere in the Bible does it call partaking of the fruit a sin.  Why do you constantly throw "sola scriptura" under your anti-Mormon bus?

 

Of course, let's ignore that the main definition of the Hebrew word translated as "multiply" is "be or become great, be or become many, be or become much, be or become numerous".  Let's TOTALLY ignore the "be or become" parts of that definition.  How else can you put an anti-Mormon spin onto it?

 

Let's also ignore that "thy conception" comes from the Hebrew word meaning "physical conception, pregnancy, conception".

 

So basically, the verse in Hebrew could literally mean that Eve could now "be or become" pregnant.  But for now, let's totally disregard that.  We wouldn't want to give any legitimacy AT ALL to the LDS understanding of that verse.  Not even if the Hebrew supports it.

 

Edited to add,

 

I mean just look at that verse.  Eve's "desire shall be to thy husband".  Obviously referring to sexual desire, which she didn't have before.  And He (Adam) would "rule over thee", OBVIOUSLY Adam didn't have testosterone before they partook of the fruit, and Eve didn't have estrogen either. 

 

But hey, ignore all that.

Edited August 20, 2013 by Vance

[Vance]

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

It is true that people misuse words at times.

[bluebell]

And in LDS theology this distinction is important because it was Gods plan/hope/intention that Adam would use his free agency to eat the fruit and bring about the fall so that a Saviour could be sent?

It is LDS theology that God's plan/hope/intention in creating the earth, placing Adam and Eve in the garden, and giving them access to the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, was "to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man." 

 

LDS believe that God wanted to fulfill these purposes because He wanted mankind to have the same joy that He has as a perfected exalted Being. 

 

It is LDS theology that this could not happen in a perfect garden state and without mankind knowing the difference between "good and evil."  This is because, as the Book of Mormon teaches, "For it must needs be, that there is an opposition in all things. If not so, righteousness could not be brought to pass, neither wickedness, neither holiness nor misery, neither good nor bad."

 

Basically, a prophet in the Book of Mormon (Lehi) explains the fall and it's purpose in this way.  I know it's a bit long, but its important to read if you really want to understand the LDS position on this topic.  I bolded the verse that sums up the specific reason for the Fall: 

 

"And to bring about [God's] eternal purposes in the end of man, after he had created our first parents, and the beasts of the field and the fowls of the air, and in fine, all things which are created, it must needs be that there was an opposition; even the forbidden fruit in opposition to the tree of life; the one being sweet and the other bitter.

Wherefore, the Lord God gave unto man that he should act for himself. Wherefore, man could not act for himself save it should be that he was enticed by the one or the other.

And I, Lehi, according to the things which I have read, must needs suppose that an angel of God, according to that which is written, had fallen from heaven; wherefore, he became a devil, having sought that which was evil before God.

And because he had fallen from heaven, and had become miserable forever, he sought also the misery of all mankind. Wherefore, he said unto Eve, yea, even that old serpent, who is the devil, who is the father of all lies, wherefore he said: Partake of the forbidden fruit, and ye shall not die, but ye shall be as God, knowing good and evil.

And after Adam and Eve had partaken of the forbidden fruit they were driven out of the garden of Eden, to till the earth.

And they have brought forth children; yea, even the family of all the earth.

And the days of the children of men were prolonged, according to the will of God, that they might repent while in the flesh; wherefore, their state became a state of probation, and their time was lengthened, according to the commandments which the Lord God gave unto the children of men. For he gave commandment that all men must repent; for he showed unto all men that they were lost, because of the transgression of their parents.

And now, behold, if Adam had not transgressed he would not have fallen, but he would have remained in the garden of Eden. And all things which were created must have remained in the same state in which they were after they were created; and they must have remained forever, and had no end.

And they would have had no children; wherefore they would have remained in a state of innocence, having no joy, for they knew no misery; doing no good, for they knew no sin.

But behold, all things have been done in the wisdom of him who knoweth all things.

Adam fell that men might be; and men are, that they might have joy.

And the Messiah cometh in the fulness of time, that he may redeem the children of men from the fall. And because that they are redeemed from the fall they have become free forever, knowing good from evil; to act for themselves and not to be acted upon, save it be by the punishment of the law at the great and last day, according to the commandments which God hath given.

Wherefore, men are free according to the flesh; and all things are given them which are expedient unto man. And they are free to choose liberty and eternal life, through the great Mediator of all men, or to choose captivity and death, according to the captivity and power of the devil; for he seeketh that all men might be miserable like unto himself."

 

Hope that helps you understand where LDS are coming from on this topic.  Even though you don't agree with it, being able to understand our views will probably help in any future dialogue. 

 

[kassie]

In reference to what "sin" is I have always taught my children there is an easy way to determine whether something is a sin or not.

1) It's wrong.

2) You know it's wrong.

3) You choose to do it anyway.

 

Works for me.   

[boulder257]

In reference to what "sin" is I have always taught my children there is an easy way to determine whether something is a sin or not.

1) It's wrong.

2) You know it's wrong.

3) You choose to do it anyway.

 

Works for me.   

 

I am going to use this in my catechism class. That's an awesome break down for kids! Thanks.

[Stone holm]

There you guys go again, saying things that are just NOT in the Bible.  Nowhere in the Bible does it call partaking of the fruit a sin.  Why do you constantly throw "sola scriptura" under your anti-Mormon bus?

 

Of course, let's ignore that the main definition of the Hebrew word translated as "multiply" is "be or become great, be or become many, be or become much, be or become numerous".  Let's TOTALLY ignore the "be or become" parts of that definition.  How else can you put an anti-Mormon spin onto it?

 

Let's also ignore that "thy conception" comes from the Hebrew word meaning "physical conception, pregnancy, conception".

 

So basically, the verse in Hebrew could literally mean that Eve could now "be or become" pregnant.  But for now, let's totally disregard that.  We wouldn't want to give any legitimacy AT ALL to the LDS understanding of that verse.  Not even if the Hebrew supports it.

 

Edited to add,

 

I mean just look at that verse.  Eve's "desire shall be to thy husband".  Obviously referring to sexual desire, which she didn't have before.  And He (Adam) would "rule over thee", OBVIOUSLY Adam didn't have testosterone before they partook of the fruit, and Eve didn't have estrogen either. 

 

But hey, ignore all that.

Interesting comment about testosterone and estrogen, makes Eden sound pretty boring.

[danielwoods]

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.

 

The question of contention is were they able to have children before the fall? 

 

Points for:

 

1) God created them perfect and fully formed and functional. 

2) God indicated that the pain of child birth would increase. Something that increases must have existed (at least in theory) before, other wise it doesn't make sense.

3) God commanded that they be fruitful and multiply. God doesn't command something that isn't possible. (before the fall)

4) Adam's statement, "bone of my bone, flesh of my flesh" followed by the statement, "They become one flesh..." (before the fall)

 

Points against:

 

1) No children before the fall

2) Seemingly innocent of good and evil

3) No specific mention of consummating their union. 

4) More? 

Edited August 20, 2013 by danielwoods

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

The question of contention is were they able to have children before the fall? 

 

Points for:

 

1) God created them perfect and fully formed and functional. 

2) God indicated that the pain of child birth would increase. Something that increases must have existed (at least in theory) before, other wise it doesn't make sense.

3) God commanded that they be fruitful and multiply. God doesn't command something that isn't possible. (before the fall)

4) Adam's statement, "bone of my bone, flesh of my flesh" followed by the statement, "They become one flesh..." (before the fall)

 

Points against:

 

1) No children before the fall

2) Seemingly innocent of good and evil

3) No specific mention of consummating their union. 

4) More? 

The bible is pretty silent on the matter. I guess one could argue either way from the bible and both would probably be valid. I think a question should be asked. What difference would it make one way or the other. This is a serious question. In the LDS lense I think it helps in understanding what the plan was. In an EV lense I am not sure it would matter much. But maybe. You tell me if it would make a difference.  Not sure that it has beent talked about much.

[Stone holm]

The question of contention is were they able to have children before the fall? 

 

Points for:

 

1) God created them perfect and fully formed and functional. 

2) God indicated that the pain of child birth would increase. Something that increases must have existed (at least in theory) before, other wise it doesn't make sense.

3) God commanded that they be fruitful and multiply. God doesn't command something that isn't possible. (before the fall)

4) Adam's statement, "bone of my bone, flesh of my flesh" followed by the statement, "They become one flesh..." (before the fall)

 

Points against:

 

1) No children before the fall

2) Seemingly innocent of good and evil

3) No specific mention of consummating their union. 

4) More? 

 

Interesting logic about the pain of childbirth being increased,  but have never heard that there were any other potentially mortal beings in the Garden, with the possible exception of Lilith -- but most of Christianity does not accept the story of Lilith as being true.

[danielwoods]

The bible is pretty silent on the matter. I guess one could argue either way from the bible and both would probably be valid. I think a question should be asked. What difference would it make one way or the other. This is a serious question. In the LDS lense I think it helps in understanding what the plan was. In an EV lense I am not sure it would matter much. But maybe. You tell me if it would make a difference.  Not sure that it has beent talked about much.

 

Does it matter? Seems to me that it doesn't matter a whole lot, until someone claims that it was good that Eve transgressed, because she couldn't have children before that. 

 

The idea that transgression or disobeying a command of God is good is probably the weightier issue. 

 

I just wanted to list the pros and cons of both views. For me it doesn't seem like the Bible is silent on the matter. 

[Stone holm]

Does it matter? Seems to me that it doesn't matter a whole lot, until someone claims that it was good that Eve transgressed, because she couldn't have children before that. 

 

The idea that transgression or disobeying a command of God is good is probably the weightier issue. 

 

I just wanted to list the pros and cons of both views. For me it doesn't seem like the Bible is silent on the matter. 

 

Interesting Christian concept that "Seemingly innocent of good and evil" being used to suggest the lack of sex.  What does that say about our views regarding "sex".   If Adam and Eve were innocent then they couldn't have had sex?  How does that follow?

[bluebell]

If Adam and Eve were innocent then they couldn't have had sex?  How does that follow?

I think that when most people think of Adam and Eve as 'innocent', they think of them as having a child-like mentality.  And children, unless an adult has abused them and taken away their innocence, don't typically have a desire to have sex.

 

So maybe it's not that they couldn't have sex, but that they had no sexual desire and therefore no sex occurred. 

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Does it matter? Seems to me that it doesn't matter a whole lot, until someone claims that it was good that Eve transgressed, because she couldn't have children before that. 

 

The idea that transgression or disobeying a command of God is good is probably the weightier issue. 

 

I just wanted to list the pros and cons of both views. For me it doesn't seem like the Bible is silent on the matter. 

Well, in a certain sense I agree. But consider for a moment that the fall was part of the plan. That they needed to fall and God in his wisdom set up 2 conflicting commands to bring about the fall. And through the fall all mankind would have a chance to come to this earth be tested and a Savior would be sent to redeem all mankind so they could live with God.  In that sense I can see that that lone trangression was a good thing. Another alternative is that Satan foiled God's plan and Adam and Eve were supposed to stay in the garden but they messed up. So God devised a new plan. Of course I am open for a 3rd possibilty.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I think that when most people think of Adam and Eve as 'innocent', they think of them as having a child-like mentality.  And children, unless an adult has abused them and taken away their innocence, don't typically have a desire to have sex.

 

So maybe it's not that they couldn't have sex, but that they had no sexual desire and therefore no sex occurred. 

Correct.

[Vance]

The question of contention is were they able to have children before the fall? 

 

Points for:

 

1) God created them perfect and fully formed and functional. 

2) God indicated that the pain of child birth would increase. Something that increases must have existed (at least in theory) before, other wise it doesn't make sense.

3) God commanded that they be fruitful and multiply. God doesn't command something that isn't possible. (before the fall)

4) Adam's statement, "bone of my bone, flesh of my flesh" followed by the statement, "They become one flesh..." (before the fall)

 

 

1)  This is pure assumption.

 

2) Good job ignoring the real definition of the Hebrew word.  Keep it up.

 

3) This from a person who would say that the commandment to "be ye therefore perfect" can not be obeyed.

 

4)Totally ignoring the "and they SHALL BE one flesh". So, did Adam also "leave his father and his mother"? Inquiring minds want to know.

Edited August 21, 2013 by Vance

[Vance]

Interesting comment about testosterone and estrogen, makes Eden sound pretty boring.

Why do you think they eventually partook of the fruit?   

[danielwoods]

Well, in a certain sense I agree. But consider for a moment that the fall was part of the plan. That they needed to fall and God in his wisdom set up 2 conflicting commands to bring about the fall. And through the fall all mankind would have a chance to come to this earth be tested and a Savior would be sent to redeem all mankind so they could live with God.  In that sense I can see that that lone trangression was a good thing. Another alternative is that Satan foiled God's plan and Adam and Eve were supposed to stay in the garden but they messed up. So God devised a new plan. Of course I am open for a 3rd possibilty.

 

Importing ideas not found in the Biblical text isn't persuasive to me. 

 

I don't see 2 conflicting commands. 

I don't see a "need" to disobey God's commands. (a need to sin?)

I don't see a need for all mankind to have a chance to come to this earth and be tested. 

 

 

I do see Satan's attempt at foiling God's plan, which God foresaw (note allusion to thread topic) and already knew what would happen, and what he would do and how it would play out. 

[Vance]

Importing ideas not found in the Biblical text isn't persuasive to me. 

 

I don't see 2 conflicting commands. 

I don't see a "need" to disobey God's commands. (a need to sin?)

I don't see a need for all mankind to have a chance to come to this earth and be tested. 

 

 

I do see Satan's attempt at foiling God's plan, which God foresaw (note allusion to thread topic) and already knew what would happen, and what he would do and how it would play out. 

Importing ideas not found in the Biblical text is what traditional orthodox Christianity is all about.

 

Conflict of some kind is what is required for there to be a choice.

 

It was not a "sin" but rather a "transgression".

 

Not all of "mankind" chose to come to this earth. The third part of the host of heaven chose to not come to earth and be tested.

 

Yes, Satan thought he was going to foil the plan, but rather God used him as a vital part of it.  God wanted Adam and Eve to partake of the fruit (that is why he placed it in the garden in the first place) but being the Gentleman he is, he made it be the result of their CHOICE.  God is all about agency.

 

Even you had the choice to come to this earth and be tested.  It wasn't forced upon you.

Edited August 21, 2013 by Vance

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Importing ideas not found in the Biblical text isn't persuasive to me. 

 

I don't see 2 conflicting commands. 

I don't see a "need" to disobey God's commands. (a need to sin?)

I don't see a need for all mankind to have a chance to come to this earth and be tested. 

 

 

I do see Satan's attempt at foiling God's plan, which God foresaw (note allusion to thread topic) and already knew what would happen, and what he would do and how it would play out. 

So is this an admission that Satan foiled God's plan even though God had a different plan after? See what I am getting at here is how do you interpret what happened in the Garden? Was it foiled by Satan? And God needed a new plan. I mean was Adam and Eve to remain in the Garden and they messed it up? Or was it part of the plan to fall? BTW I have not said anything that was not in the bible. I have merely interpted scripture different than you. I will admit it does not explicitly state what I believe. But it is a logical conclusion based on the events. Just as saying that Satan foiled God's plan and the originial intent was for Adam and Eve to remain in the garden forever. Do you believe that was the original intent for the garden is that Adam and Eve were to be in there forever?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

 

 

Yes, Satan thought he was going to foil the plan, but rather God used him as a vital part of it.  God wanted Adam and Eve to partake of the fruit (that is why he placed it in the garden in the first place) but being the Gentleman he is, he made it be the result of a CHOICE.  God is all about agency.

 

Even you had the choice to come to this earth and be tested.  It wasn't forced upon you.

What is the alternative to the view that the all was part of the plan? This is what I am getting at.

[TrueBlue?]

The bolded portion?

Why would God withhold mercy from those not chosen?

The way I understand it, is it has to do with his foreknowledge. He already knows what choice we will make, though we still exercise free will. Based on this knowledge, he allows those (or withholds mercy) to make that choice.

No. True our natures are the result of their sin (as is the nature of the whole universe). However, fault or guilt or what we will be judged by is according to what we do with what we have, not what Adam did. Some in this life have very little power/abilities etc. They won't be judged according to what they don't have, but what they do with what they have.

So then why are we here to begin with. Why not skip the whole process and be done with it. Why create those who were damned to begin with?

[danielwoods]

So is this an admission that Satan foiled God's plan even though God had a different plan after? See what I am getting at here is how do you interpret what happened in the Garden? Was it foiled by Satan? And God needed a new plan. I mean was Adam and Eve to remain in the Garden and they messed it up? Or was it part of the plan to fall? BTW I have not said anything that was not in the bible. I have merely interpted scripture different than you. I will admit it does not explicitly state what I believe. But it is a logical conclusion based on the events. Just as saying that Satan foiled God's plan and the originial intent was for Adam and Eve to remain in the garden forever. Do you believe that was the original intent for the garden is that Adam and Eve were to be in there forever?

 

 

What is the alternative to the view that the all was part of the plan? This is what I am getting at.

 

Did God intend for Adam and Eve to remain in the Garden forever? I would say yes, however the garden was the Earth, they were to fill it, yes. 

Did Satan foil God's plan? No. Because God knew what was going to happen, God's plan incorporated those choices he knew Man would make. 

 

Was it good that they transgressed/sinned/disobeyed God? Not in the least. From the text alone, it brought a curse on them, not a blessing. 

Edited August 21, 2013 by danielwoods

[danielwoods]

So then why are we here to begin with. Why not skip the whole process and be done with it. Why create those who were damned to begin with?

 

I can't answer for the Calvinist. Who believe that they are damned to begin with (?).

 

However, from an Arminian perspective, why go through all this trouble? Because that's the only way to create a free-will based love relationship. 

[bluebell]

Did God intend for Adam and Eve to remain in the Garden forever? I would say yes, however the garden was the Earth, they were to fill it, yes. 

Did Satan foil God's plan? No. Because God knew what was going to happen, God's plan incorporated those choices he knew Man would make. 

 

Was it good that they transgressed/sinned/disobeyed God? Not in the least. From the text alone, it brought a curse on them, not a blessing.

Well, the text does say, at least to Adam, that the curse was 'for his sake' so that could reasonably be thought of as a blessing I suppose (since curses usually don't benefit people but blessings do).

I'm wondering, from the Arminian perspective, why did God allow Satan into the garden in the first place?