Apostasy And Satan

[theplains]

When sin is called good and good is called sin, what hope is there for righteousness to be cherished or valued?  

 

This reminds me of a teaching by Elder Dallin H. Oaks. He said, "It was Eve who first transgressed

the limits of Eden in order to initiate the conditions of mortality. Her act, whatever its nature, was

formally a transgression but eternally a glorious necessity to open the doorway toward eternal

life. Adam showed his wisdom by doing the same" (Pearl of Great Price Student Manual - Religion

327).

 

This is repeated in Preach My Gospel, chapter 2. "Life on earth is an opportunity and a blessing. 

Latter-day revelation makes clear that the Fall is a blessing and that Adam and Eve should be

honored as the first parents of all mankind".  The training guide gives no honor to Satan though.

 

Thanks,

Jim

[Calm]

The training guide gives no honor to Satan though.

Thanks,

Jim

Because his intent was to cause harm.

We don't give honour to Judas either though his actions contributed to the Ressurection.

Do you?

Edited June 27, 2014 by calmoriah

[Storm Rider]

This reminds me of a teaching by Elder Dallin H. Oaks. He said, "It was Eve who first transgressed

the limits of Eden in order to initiate the conditions of mortality. Her act, whatever its nature, was

formally a transgression but eternally a glorious necessity to open the doorway toward eternal

life. Adam showed his wisdom by doing the same" (Pearl of Great Price Student Manual - Religion

327).

 

This is repeated in Preach My Gospel, chapter 2. "Life on earth is an opportunity and a blessing. 

Latter-day revelation makes clear that the Fall is a blessing and that Adam and Eve should be

honored as the first parents of all mankind".  The training guide gives no honor to Satan though.

 

Thanks,

Jim

 

We teach that transgression and sin are different, no?

[Ahab]

We teach that transgression and sin are different, no?

Yes. A transgression doesn't require having knowledge of good and evil, but just doing something against God's will. Eve eating fruit God had told her not to eat when she didn't have knowledge of good and evil yet, for example.

A sin is when you know something is evil and you do it anyway.

[theplains]

We teach that transgression and sin are different, no?

 

I think so, but I have seen contradictory teaching that Adam did sin in the Garden

of Eden and that he did not (where he and Eve should be honored by what they

did).

 

Thanks,

Jim

[thesometimesaint]

I think so, but I have seen contradictory teaching that Adam did sin in the Garden

of Eden and that he did not (where he and Eve should be honored by what they

did).

 

Thanks,

Jim

 

Adam and Eve didn't sin. They were as young children, not knowing right from wrong. They disobeyed. and they paid the price. What they did brought spiritual and physical death to mankind. They repented of that disobedience.

[longview]

Yes. A transgression doesn't require having knowledge of good and evil, but just doing something against God's will. Eve eating fruit God had told her not to eat when she didn't have knowledge of good and evil yet, for example.

A sin is when you know something is evil and you do it anyway.

 

Actually partaking of the fruit was NOT against God's will.  God presented the Plan of Redemption in the pre-existence (also called the Plan of Happiness).  This act was the necessary "trigger" to put into effect the "FALL" which all of us wanted to happen (notwithstanding Satan's confusion in the process or his ignorance of the big picture).

 

What God had to do was to completely "remove" from Himself the "responsibility" for causing the "FALL".  He set it up by offering two mutually exclusive conditions or choices.  One command for Adam and Eve to "multiply and replenish" the earth.  The other a command to NOT eat of the tree ELSE die (within the "day").  Therefore Eve in her childlike and "conflicted" state (veil of forgetfulness over their minds) thought it over and made the decision to obtain the "benefits" of partaking of the fruit.  One command or the other had to be obeyed but NOT both.  As someone stated, Adam wisely went along with the superior judgment of Eve.

[JLHPROF]

To my mind the difference between sin and transgression isn't knowledge, it's purpose.

I believe with Brigham that Adam and Eve knew exactly what they what they were doing and even though God "warned" them of the eternal law attached there was no sin.

They were always going to cross that law because there was no other option to move Gods plan forward.

[BCSpace]

So we can judge our own actions.

 

 

We often can't take action until we pass judgement on the rightness or wrongness of the words and actions of others.

 

Or if you are a judge in Israel, the actions of only those who you've been appointed to judge.

 

 

Consider ourselves so appointed.

 

Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters?

1 Corinthians 6:2

[BCSpace]

By avoiding Pres. Uchtdorf's talks for sure.... and any self-reflection about our own encounters with Satan's influence.

 

 

Oh Stop it! (pun intended).

 

The context of Uchdorf's talks are unrighteous judgement which the scriptures do speak against. 

 

Now these are the words which Jesus taught his disciples that they should say unto the people. Judge not unrighteously, that ye be not judged; but judge righteous judgment.

JST Matthew 7:1-2

[theplains]

Adam and Eve didn't sin.

 

I posted some teachings in a scribd document showing LDS teachings that they did

sin in the Garden.

 

Thanks,

Jim

[Ahab]

Actually partaking of the fruit was NOT against God's will.

Good grief. Yes it was. It's called a transgression because he told them not to eat that fruit. He said he forbid it. Eating it gave them knowledge of evil and he didn't want them to gain knowledge of evil because evil is not a good thing to know.

Think about it some more.

[JLHPROF]

Good grief. Yes it was. It's called a transgression because he told them not to eat that fruit. He said he forbid it. Eating it gave them knowledge of evil and he didn't want them to gain knowledge of evil because evil is not a good thing to know.

Think about it some more.

 

I don't agree.  God's own plans would never have come to pass if they had not eaten.  To take the scriptures exactly as written there is a big contradiction if you believe God didn't want them to eat.

 

First God commands them to multiply and replenish the earth and then he forbids them to eat of the fruit that will allow them to do that.  Either God is mixed up, or instead of forbidding them to eat he was informing them of the consquences to breaking the eternal law.

 

But the interesting question is "if they HAD to partake of the fruit, why was it against the eternal laws in the first place?"

[Calm]

Good grief. Yes it was. It's called a transgression because he told them not to eat that fruit. He said he forbid it. Eating it gave them knowledge of evil and he didn't want them to gain knowledge of evil because evil is not a good thing to know.

Think about it some more.

Huh?

Why did he create the tree in the first place then?

And the Spirit of Christ gives us knowledge of evil enough to be able to differentiate it...is having the Spirit of Christ a bad thing?

Edited July 1, 2014 by calmoriah

[longview]

Good grief. Yes it was. It's called a transgression because he told them not to eat that fruit. He said he forbid it. Eating it gave them knowledge of evil and he didn't want them to gain knowledge of evil because evil is not a good thing to know.

Think about it some more.

After thinking some more, I think we need to clarify some points:

It is true God told them not to eat of the fruit and emphatically said: "Remember that I forbid it." Yes, it was a transgression but only within the Terrestrial state that encompassed the Garden of Eden.

If you are LDS, then you would understand that in the pre-existence "opposition" was known to be a necessary part of the Plan of Redemption . And "opposition" requires knowledge of "Good and Evil." And the accompanying "Free Agency" to choose. Please re-read my previous post. Thanks.

[BCSpace]

Is it judging her to recognize the spirit of rebellion and pride she carries?

 

 

Yes it is and there is nothing wrong with righteous judgement as the scriptures confirm.

[Ahab]

Huh?

Why did he create the tree in the first place then?

You do realize the tree is symbolic, don't you? The point was that by eating fruit from that tree, whatever kind of tree it was, they would obtain knowledge of good AND EVIL and God did not want to encourage them to do something that was evil or that would give them knowledge of evil, and eating from that tree was evil precisely because he forbid it.

God does want us to be able to differentiate between good and evil, but he wants us to do that by knowing what is good so well that we can see when something is the opposite of what is good. And that starts by knowing WHO is good and who is evil.

And the Spirit of Christ gives us knowledge of evil enough to be able to differentiate it...is having the Spirit of Christ a bad thing?

You know the answer to that question as well as I do. The point I was making is that knowledge of evil is not a good thing, not good knowledge, and our Father forbid Adam and Eve to eat that fruit which would give them knowledge of ____ ___ evil because knowing what is evil is not a good thing and as a loving father he didn't want us to know what is evil.

Some people seem to think that all knowledge is good, but knowledge of evil isn't good and I sometimes wish I had not learned what I know of evil the way that I did. Our Savior didn't do anything evil, and yet he was always able to see the difference and choose to do only the good.

[JLHPROF]

You do realize the tree is symbolic, don't you? The point was that by eating fruit from that tree, whatever kind of tree it was, they would obtain knowledge of good AND EVIL and God did not want to encourage them to do something that was evil or that would give them knowledge of evil, and eating from that tree was evil precisely because he forbid it.

God does want us to be able to differentiate between good and evil, but he wants us to do that by knowing what is good so well that we can see when something is the opposite of what is good. And that starts by knowing WHO is good and who is evil.

You know the answer to that question as well as I do. The point I was making is that knowledge of evil is not a good thing, not good knowledge, and our Father forbid Adam and Eve to eat that fruit which would give them knowledge of ____ ___ evil because knowing what is evil is not a good thing and as a loving father he didn't want us to know what is evil.

Some people seem to think that all knowledge is good, but knowledge of evil isn't good and I sometimes wish I had not learned what I know of evil the way that I did. Our Savior didn't do anything evil, and yet he was always able to see the difference and choose to do only the good.

 

I think you have a definite misunderstanding of what the tree & fruit were.  The tree was mortal/fallen element (whatever kind of tree it was).  By partaking of the tree their bodies shed their immortality and became mortal and subject all things mortal.  This allowed them to fulfill God's earlier commandment to multiply and replenish the earth ("were it not for our transgression we never should have had seed").

 

The point is that God fully intended for the mortal elements to be partaken so his spirit children could gain bodies.  He was simply warning the immortal perfect Adam and Eve what it would mean to be fallen (or to have knowledge AKA exposure to good and evil).  He was explaining the eternal law that life is good and death is bad, and the fall would subject them to death which is why the law existed.  But it was always supposed to be transgressed.

[Ahab]

I think you have a definite misunderstanding of what the tree & fruit were. The tree was mortal/fallen element (whatever kind of tree it was). By partaking of the tree their bodies shed their immortality and became mortal and subject all things mortal. This allowed them to fulfill God's earlier commandment to multiply and replenish the earth ("were it not for our transgression we never should have had seed").

The point is that God fully intended for the mortal elements to be partaken so his spirit children could gain bodies. He was simply warning the immortal perfect Adam and Eve what it would mean to be fallen (or to have knowledge AKA exposure to good and evil). He was explaining the eternal law that life is good and death is bad, and the fall would subject them to death which is why the law existed. But it was always supposed to be transgressed.

You can think what you want but I know that our Father knowing what Adam and Eve were going to do and preparing for it does not equate to God being complicit in what they did which God had forbid them to do.

And I also know that knowledge of evil was not required for Adam and Eve to be able to know how to have children. They got that good knowledge along with getting their knowledge if evil, but they could have simply asked God what they needed to do to have children without knowing what evil is.

[Walden]

Yes they were influenced by Satan, without realizing Satan was the bad guy, and yes they did know what God had told them, without realizing he was the good guy, but they still didn't know or realize the difference between good and evil.

 

Funny, this is the same type of argument I hear evangelicals make when one of their own convert to the LDS faith, or a faith that doesn't align with their doctrine.

 

These types of evangelicals are adamant and devout in their belief that Satan has led their former ally astray by leading that person to the "evil" LDS church. In fact, they use this same argument that these people were led astray from the confines of evangelicalism by Satan without even realizing it, just like your argument.

 

How is the LDS argument any different from theirs?

 

In the end, it always comes down to personal opinions, personal feelings, personal interpretations of events, but no conclusive argument, and nothing close to objective evidence, regarding whom has been led astray by Satan.

[Ahab]

Funny, this is the same type of argument I hear evangelicals make when one of their own convert to the LDS faith, or a faith that doesn't align with their doctrine.

These types of evangelicals are adamant and devout in their belief that Satan has led their former ally astray by leading that person to the "evil" LDS church. In fact, they use this same argument that these people were led astray from the confines of evangelicalism by Satan without even realizing it, just like your argument.

How is the LDS argument any different from theirs?

In the end, it always comes down to personal opinions, personal feelings, personal interpretations of events, but no conclusive argument, and nothing close to objective evidence, regarding whom has been led astray by Satan.

The argument is the same but one side is right while the other is wrong and you just need to know which is right to know that anything contrary is wrong.

[JLHPROF]

You can think what you want but I know that our Father knowing what Adam and Eve were going to do and preparing for it does not equate to God being complicit in what they did which God had forbid them to do.

And I also know that knowledge of evil was not required for Adam and Eve to be able to know how to have children. They got that good knowledge along with getting their knowledge if evil, but they could have simply asked God what they needed to do to have children without knowing what evil is.

 

You are of course entitled to your own doctrinal opinions, but that is not in keeping with scripture.

In Moses God says his work and plan is to get us eternal life and commands Adam and Eve to multiply and replenish the earth.

If you are correct then he set a law that thwarted his own plan and commandments.

Moses, God and Eve fortunately tell us that because of the transgression God's work can move forward - we can receive eternal life and multiply and replenish the earth.

 

The transgression was ALWAYS supposed to happen, and God knew and approved. The plan of redemption/salvation was not God's backup plan in case Adam and Eve broke the law and fell.  He had that plan in place since the pre-existence.  The very existence of a Savior would be pointless if there was no fall and we know that the Savior was chosen long before Adam and Eve fell.  The fall was the plan.  God set the plan.  God planned the fall.

 

 

Moses 1:39

For behold, this is my work and my glory—to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man.

 

Moses 2:27-28

And I, God, created man in mine own image, in the image of mine Only Begotten created I him; male and female created I them.

And I, God, blessed them, and said unto them: Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

 

Moses 4:28

And I, the Lord God, said unto mine Only Begotten: Behold, the man is become as one of us to know good and evil; and now lest he put forth his hand and partake also of the tree of life, and eat and live forever,

 

Moses 5:11

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.

 

 

 

In fact, depending on how you read 5:11, Eve could actually be interpreted as saying that the transgression made them obedient.

Edited July 2, 2014 by JLHPROF

[Walden]

The argument is the same but one side is right while the other is wrong and you just need to know which is right to know that anything contrary is wrong.

 

Spoken like a true Evangelical.

[theplains]

And I also know that knowledge of evil was not required for Adam and Eve to be able to know how to have children.

 

When God told them to be fruitful and multiply, did Adam and Eve already know how to procreate?  

Or did God give them this command while they were yet ignorant?  

 

What of the animals? Were they smart and able, ignorant and able, smart but not able, or just

ignorant and not able?

 

Thanks,

Jim

[Brian 2.0]

You are of course entitled to your own doctrinal opinions, but that is not in keeping with scripture.

In Moses God says his work and plan is to get us eternal life and commands Adam and Eve to multiply and replenish the earth.

If you are correct then he set a law that thwarted his own plan and commandments.

Moses, God and Eve fortunately tell us that because of the transgression God's work can move forward - we can receive eternal life and multiply and replenish the earth.

 

The transgression was ALWAYS supposed to happen, and God knew and approved. The plan of redemption/salvation was not God's backup plan in case Adam and Eve broke the law and fell.  He had that plan in place since the pre-existence.  The very existence of a Savior would be pointless if there was no fall and we know that the Savior was chosen long before Adam and Eve fell.  The fall was the plan.  God set the plan.  God planned the fall.

 

 

 

In fact, depending on how you read 5:11, Eve could actually be interpreted as saying that the transgression made them obedient.

 

So do you believe that when we read God "forbid" them to eat of the fruit it is a slight translation error or misquote and that God actually just explained the consequences of eating the fruit?

 

Or do you believe that God "forbid" something that He actually wanted to happen?

 

The Fall has always been fascinating to me, because it all seems like this weird set up, a long con with a trick question by God in order to get a mortal environment without actually creating anything mortal.  

Edited July 7, 2014 by Brian 2.0