Original Sin. What does it mean to you?

[pogi]

I take a less orthodox view of this subject and think that the popular Mormon take on this story is a bit convoluted.  It contradicts scripture which states that God does not give commandments except he first prepares a way to fulfill his commandments (as taught in the Book of Mormon, D&C, and New Testament).     I personally believe that Adam and Eve were being prepared to partake of the fruit.  What information, direction, and knowledge would have been bestowed upon Adam and Eve in their anticipated future visitations with God had they obeyed and not partaken of the fruit?  I guess we will never know for sure, but here is my theory:  I perceive the fruit as a sort of sacrament, a clear and obvious representation of the light of Christ (knowledge of good and evil), which they were being prepared for.  It was only forbidden in the same sense that any sacrament is forbidden for those who are unprepared.  It was forbidden in the same sense that sex is forbidden before marriage, etc.  There is no wisdom in deception and the scriptures clearly state that Eve was deceived. 

I believe, according to scripture, that Adam and Eve could have obeyed both commandments without thwarting the plan of God.  Being human and tempted of the devil, transgression would have been inevitable either way.

Edited December 28, 2016 by pogi

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, Jeanne said:

If this is not literal...and part of a Temple ritual or whatever...please tell those folks and kids that this...is just a story.  Duh!!  How many times have I felt like a dink or less than because Eve took a bite out of an apple!!

One of my favorite parts of LDS doctrine is that Eve (and therefore, women) was not evil for partaking.  As far as i know, every other Christian tradition treats Eve like the bad guy.  Some (most historically) even believe that women are inferior to men specifically because of what Eve did.

For LDS, Eve is the hero of the story of the Fall and i really like that.

[Jeanne]

Just now, bluebell said:

One of my favorite parts of LDS doctrine is that Eve (and therefore, women) was not evil for partaking.  As far as i know, every other Christian tradition treats Eve like the bad guy.  Some (most historically) even believe that women are inferior to men specifically because of what Eve did.

For LDS, Eve is the hero of the story of the Fall and i really like that.

I didn't know that...I never felt that way.  This is good to know...I think..but was there really an Eve...with an apple???

[pogi]

1 minute ago, bluebell said:

One of my favorite parts of LDS doctrine is that Eve (and therefore, women) was not evil for partaking.  As far as i know, every other Christian tradition treats Eve like the bad guy.  Some (most historically) even believe that women are inferior to men specifically because of what Eve did.

For LDS, Eve is the hero of the story of the Fall and i really like that.

Even though I do believe the scriptures which state that she was indeed deceived, I would not call her "the bad guy" as she had no moral compass or knowledge of good and evil.  She did not sin, but transgressed.  It was not a moral deception, but she was none the less deceived through partial truths.  I still consider Eve a hero but for different reasons.  It is unfortunate and horribly judgmental for anyone to tarnish her eternal image over a decision she made before she could even comprehend the difference between good and evil.

[Jeanne]

9 minutes ago, pogi said:

Even though I do believe the scriptures which state that she was indeed deceived, I would not call her "the bad guy" as she had no moral compass or knowledge of good and evil.  She did not sin, but transgressed.  It was not a moral deception, but she was none the less deceived through partial truths.  I still consider Eve a hero but for different reasons.  It is unfortunate and horribly judgmental for anyone to tarnish her eternal image over a decision she made before she could even comprehend the difference between good and evil.

See..I agree with you there...but I have a biggy question for you and others.  If this was part of the plan for us to have our bodies and journey here on earth...why Eve?  Why not have Adam transgress?   Why is the word punishment connected to Eve?

[Five Solas]

14 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

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.

That's why I think that.  Eve said it was the case that they would never have fulfilled God's command to multiply which would have thwarted his work if they had not fallen. Additionally the premortal choosing of a Savior to redeem us from the fall indicates the fall was the plan all along.  Unless the atonement was a back up plan just in case the fall occurred and Christ wasn't supposed to be needed.

To restate, you believe it because of something Joseph Smith wrote (The Book of Moses).  And it makes Genesis 3:16 into nonsense, into rubbish.  How can God "multiply" pain in childbirth if there is no childbirth possible to begin with?  As the average second grader could tell us--anything multiplied by zero is zero.  The author of the verse must have had a very poor grasp of math or was just plain silly (or both). 

Often LDS will insist there is no contradiction between the Bible and their beliefs.  Well, take this one...

;0)

--Erik

PS.  But I do appreciate your candid & straightforward response.  Not that I didn't smile and enjoy JAHS's "another planet" explanation or Glenn101's explanation that they were too innocent for physical intimacy (Adam's excitement followed by the world's first love song/poem in 2:23, notwithstanding).   

[pogi]

6 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

See..I agree with you there...but I have a biggy question for you and others.  If this was part of the plan for us to have our bodies and journey here on earth...why Eve?  Why not have Adam transgress?   Why is the word punishment connected to Eve?

I obviously don't hold an orthodox view of this toppic, but I don't think that it was "planned" for her to transgress, that just seems terribly convoluted.  They were human, one would eventually fall, Eve just happened to be the first.   

Edited December 28, 2016 by pogi

[stemelbow]

4 minutes ago, Five Solas said:

To restate, you believe it because of something Joseph Smith wrote (The Book of Moses).  And it makes Genesis 3:16 into nonsense, into rubbish.  How can God "multiply" pain in childbirth if there is no childbirth possible to begin with?  As the average second grader could tell us--anything multiplied by zero is zero.  The author of the verse must have had a very poor grasp of math or was just plain silly (or both). 

Often LDS will insist there is no contradiction between the Bible and their beliefs.  Well, take this one...

;0)

--Erik

PS.  But I do appreciate your candid & straightforward response.  Not that I didn't smile and enjoy JAHS's "another planet" explanation or Glenn101's explanation that they were too innocent for physical intimacy (Adam's excitement followed by the world's first love song/poem in 2:23, notwithstanding).   

Much of the bible is nonsense.  Why does it matter if another verse is?  Gen 3:16 was likely written long long after the events purportedly took place.  And the story of the creation is likely allegory anywho.  I find it near impossible to treat the scriptures literally and not be full of contradiction.  But I'm just buttin' in 'cause I'm bored.  Not sure what someone else might say. 

[Five Solas]

5 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

...

But I'm just buttin' in 'cause I'm bored...

I'm doing my online "continuing professional education" to renew my CPA license, getting all my credits complete before the clock strikes midnight on the 31st.  But it's good to take a little break from time to time to contemplate theological matters.  At least that's what I tell myself...

:0)

--Erik

[JLHPROF]

49 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

If this is not literal...and part of a Temple ritual or whatever...please tell those folks and kids that this...is just a story.  Duh!!  How many times have I felt like a dink or less than because Eve took a bite out of an apple!!

We have been told this.

" You believe Adam was made of the dust of this earth. This I do not believe, though it is supposed that it is so written in the Bible; but it is not, to my understanding. You can write that information to the States, if you please—that I have publicly declared that I do not believe that portion of the Bible as the Christian world do. I never did, and I never want to. What is the reason I do not? Because I have come to understanding, and banished from my mind all the baby stories my mother taught me when I was a child."  -  Brigham Young

[Bobbieaware]

3 hours ago, bluebell said:

Perhaps you could share where in the bible original sin is taught, so that we can all discuss the same reference.

A concept not too dissimilar to the historical Christianity's original sin is taught in the Book of Mormon (my commentary in parentheses):

 6 For as death hath passed upon all men, to fulfil the merciful plan of the great Creator, there must needs be a power of resurrection, and the resurrection must needs come unto man by reason of the fall (The fall began with Adam and Eve's expulsion from the presence of God they enjoyed while dwelling in Eden); and the fall came by reason of transgression (This is an obvious reference to the transgression of Adam and Eve in Eden that brought about the fall); and because man became fallen they were cut off from the presence of the Lord (Many members of the Church insist the disobedience of Adam and Eve in Eden was not a weighty sin, and in some manner that may very well be true; nevertheless, they were punished in such a manner that it at least APPEARS as if they had perpetrated a very great wrong, for they were  sentenced to never-ending physical death and permanent spiritual banishment from the presence of God).

 7 Wherefore, it must needs be an infinite atonement—save it should be an infinite atonement this corruption could not put on incorruption. Wherefore, the first judgment which came upon man must needs have remained to an endless duration (Even though some Latter-day Saints often insist the transgression of Adam and Eve was a minor infraction, the fact is that if it weren't for the infinite and eternal atoning sacrifice of Christ the transgression in the garden was apparently serious enough in the eyes of God to merit endless physical death and endless banishment from the presence of God). And if so, this flesh must have laid down to rot and to crumble to its mother earth, to rise no more.

 8 O the wisdom of God, his mercy and grace! For behold, if the flesh should rise no more our spirits must become subject to that angel who fell from before the presence of the Eternal God, and became the devil, to rise no more (The consequences of the transgression in the garden were serious enough that only an infinite and eternal sacrifice of God himself could save us from physical death and becoming subjects [slaves] of the devil, who is the polar opposite of our just, righteous and loving God. Seems like the transgression in the garden was very serious business indeed). 

 9 And 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 (Many members of the Church tend to minimize the seriousness of the transgression in the Garden, yet the Nephites prophet Jacob tells us the transgression was serious enough that without the infinitely gracious and sacrificial intervention of God every one of us, including Adam and Eve, would inevitably become satanic beings in which there dwells no divine light at all) ; yea, to that being who beguiled our first parents, who transformeth himself nigh unto an angel of light, and stirreth up the children of men unto secret combinations of murder and all manner of secret works of darkness (Jacob here seems to be saying that devil's deception of Eve in the garden was part of a foul secret combination intended to physically and spiritually destroy the human race forever, which would have actually occurred unless there was an infinite and eternal sacrifice so horrificly difficult to endure that even the mighty Son of God himself pled earnestly with his Father to be spared from having to endure the unfathomally terrifying experience that only could save the human family from endless misery).

The prophets of God treat the transgression in the garden as very solemn, serious and even frightening business. In drawing attention to terrifying aspects of the fall I refere to Jacob likening the effects of the transgression in the garden and the fall to an AWFUL MONSTER -- sounds to me like very solemn and serious business indeed! God may have atoned for the original guilt of our first parents and he may have forgiven them, but each of us still struggles with the fallen nature and the deteriorization and death of the physical body that entered the world through the actions of our first parents.

Finally, I hope some of the more enlightened on this board will forgive me for feeling more disposed to embrace the Book of Mormon's approach to the transgression in the garden and the fall than do those who believe there never was a real transgression in the garden.

Edited December 28, 2016 by Bobbieaware

[pogi]

1 hour ago, Five Solas said:

To restate, you believe it because of something Joseph Smith wrote (The Book of Moses).  And it makes Genesis 3:16 into nonsense, into rubbish.  How can God "multiply" pain in childbirth if there is no childbirth possible to begin with?  As the average second grader could tell us--anything multiplied by zero is zero.  The author of the verse must have had a very poor grasp of math or was just plain silly (or both). 

Often LDS will insist there is no contradiction between the Bible and their beliefs.  Well, take this one...

;0)

--Erik

PS.  But I do appreciate your candid & straightforward response.  Not that I didn't smile and enjoy JAHS's "another planet" explanation or Glenn101's explanation that they were too innocent for physical intimacy (Adam's excitement followed by the world's first love song/poem in 2:23, notwithstanding).   

The King James states:

Quote

Genesis 3:16 - 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.

Other translations render "multiply" as "increase", "sharpen", "intensify" etc.

It is not hard to see how your understanding could simply be a translation error.

http://biblehub.com/genesis/3-16.htm

Edited December 28, 2016 by pogi

[Five Solas]

16 hours ago, Thinking said:

 

I'm 'Thinking' Brigham Young would not have approved of that INXS song, with its blatant theme of miscegenation.  (But the title is undeniably on-topic.)  And I'm gonna guess JLHPROF may not like it much either, as he appears to be much a fan of the late brother Brigham.  But maybe he will surprise us all & tell us this was his favorite song by Michael Hutchence (and "Dogs in Space" his favorite movie).  That would be kind of cool, actually. 

:0)

--Erik

PS.  If had to pick a favorite song by Hutchence/INXS - this would probably be it.  But high school, so long ago! 

[halconero]

The law transgressed in the Garden was not a moral one, but a natural law (laws of physics, biology, chemistry, etc). Nor was it the natural law of a telestial sphere, but a higher one. We abide by the natural laws we are in, and if we do not, we must abide within another sphere. Adam and Eve did no sin in the Garden, but they did transgress its natural laws, which support immortality, and did so purposefully. At least that's how I see it.

Edited December 28, 2016 by halconero

[Five Solas]

6 minutes ago, pogi said:

Where does it say that God will "multiply pain in childbirth" exactly?

Many of the more literal, word-for-word (as opposed to thought-for-thought) contemporary English translations of the Bible render Genesis 3:16 this way (ESV, NASB).  You can refer to the quote I provided previously.  The Catholic NAB uses the word "intensify" instead of "mutilply"--but my point stands.  You can't intensify zero. 

--Erik

[pogi]

6 minutes ago, halconero said:

The law transgressed in the Garden was not a moral one, but a natural law (laws of physics, biology, chemistry, etc). Nor was it the natural law of a telestial sphere, but a higher one. We abide by the natural laws we are in, and if we do not, we must abide within another sphere. Adam and Eve did no sin in the Garden, but they did transgress its natural laws, which support immortality, and did so purposefully. At least that's how I see it.

Even if it was a natural law (which I don't believe it was), when God states "thou shalt not..." it becomes a moral law and commandment, and not simply a natural law.  However, because Adam and Eve had no moral compass, they were morally ignorant and could not be held accountable for any moral sin.  The scriptures state that physical and spiritual death is the consequence of sin, not a consequence of transgression of natural laws.  The fruit "caused" death to come upon Adam and Eve not because it was sinful to partake of it, and not because it was somehow naturally poisonous to immortality, but because it made sin and thus death inevitable through their newly endowed accountability by knowledge of good and evil.

That is my take anyway.

[Five Solas]

pogi - Please don't use the edit feature to rewrite your post after I've already quoted you & made my reply.  It's confusing to our readers and risks making at least one of us look foolish.  Just make any follow-up questions or comments in a subsequent post.  That way everyone can follow the conversation, should they wish. 

--Erik

[waveslider]

3 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

 

Eve was the smartest of the two, and she certainly recalled that God specifically gave her and her partner free choice to decide the issue on their own.  She realized that without knowledge, she and Adam's destiny could not be realized (multiply & replenish, etc.).  And, yes, Adam knew that he had no choice but to follow her.  More importantly, she and Adam followed the script of the ritual which had to take place, as it has on all worlds created for that purpose.  The Garden Story is a temple story, and the events depicted are not historical narrative, but temple ritual.  On that see Tom Wright (former Anglican Bishop of Durham):  https://churchmousec.wordpress.com/2012/04/15/n-t-tom-wright-on-genesis-and-adam/ .

I agree that Eve realized that the fruit needed to be eaten, I still think she was deceived as God hadn't yet told them to do such a thing. I'm not saying that for sure God would have changed that commandment, but it seems highly probable that He would have once they matured to a level where they could handle such responsibility a little better. A controlled fall is always better than an uncontrolled and premature fall.

It is kind of like having kids and telling them that they never can go into the street alone, yet in order to go somewhere, like across the street to a friend's house or something, they eventually will have to do so. Kids eventually grow mature enough to gain that responsibility to go into the street and expand their world, and it is usually then that parents change the rules to allow more growth and responsibility. While they are too young though it is a strict command, coming from a viewpoint of love for the tots. It would still be deception to have a relative, or someone, come over and tell the little kids that it is okay to go into the road right now because they won't ever be able to get the other side of the street to see the people you can't yet go visit on your own. That wouldn't be very loving and responsible for someone to tell toddlers such a thing, but just the exact opposite. Just as in Adam and Eve, some kids won't disobey their parents' advice and some will. It might be an indicator of more intelligence in either child, but it depends upon our understanding of the whole picture as to who is indeed smartest. Just a thought anyway.

[JLHPROF]

54 minutes ago, halconero said:

The law transgressed in the Garden was not a moral one, but a natural law (laws of physics, biology, chemistry, etc). Nor was it the natural law of a telestial sphere, but a higher one. We abide by the natural laws we are in, and if we do not, we must abide within another sphere. Adam and Eve did no sin in the Garden, but they did transgress its natural laws, which support immortality, and did so purposefully. At least that's how I see it.

Exactly.
And anyone who doubts the fall was the plan needs to explain why Christ was chosen in the grand council to redeem us from the fall before it ever happened.
 

[pogi]

37 minutes ago, Five Solas said:

pogi - Please don't use the edit feature to rewrite your post after I've already quoted you & made my reply.  It's confusing to our readers and risks making at least one of us look foolish.  Just make any follow-up questions or comments in a subsequent post.  That way everyone can follow the conversation, should they wish. 

--Erik

Right after I made the original post, I started reviewing different translations on Biblehub and began editing my post.  I didn't read your reply until after I edited it.  It was not my intent to make you look foolish...that is not my style...most of the time.

Either way, you can see how it could easily be a translation error.  

Edited December 28, 2016 by pogi

[JLHPROF]

41 minutes ago, pogi said:

Even if it was a natural law (which I don't believe it was), when God states "thou shalt not..." it becomes a moral law and commandment, and not simply a natural law.  However, because Adam and Eve had no moral compass, they were morally ignorant and could not be held accountable for any moral sin.  The scriptures state that physical and spiritual death is the consequence of sin, not a consequence of transgression of natural laws.  The fruit "caused" death to come upon Adam and Eve not because it was sinful to partake of it, and not because it was somehow naturally poisonous to immortality, but because it made sin and thus death inevitable through their newly endowed accountability by knowledge of good and evil.

That is my take anyway.

You know, the language God uses in Genesis is very interesting.
2:16 And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
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.

3:11 And he said, Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?
3:14 And the Lord God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:
15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.
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;
18 Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;
19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.

Compare God's responses above to Adam to his responses to these sins
Numbers 32:13 And the Lord’s anger was kindled against Israel, and he made them wander in the wilderness forty years, until all the generation, that had done evil in the sight of the Lord, was consumed.
D&C 5:8 Oh, this unbelieving and stiffnecked generation—mine anger is kindled against them.
D&C 19:15 Therefore I command you to repent—repent, lest I smite you by the rod of my mouth, and by my wrath, and by my anger, and your sufferings be sore—how sore you know not, how exquisite you know not, yea, how hard to bear you know not.
Alma 12:35 And whosoever will harden his heart and will do iniquity, behold, I swear in my wrath that he shall not enter into my rest.

But maybe I'm reading into things...his response to Adam's transgression seems much more matter of fact, you did this thing, here is the consequence.
No sign of anger or wrath or fury because of the fall that I can discern.  Just natural consequences.

And your take still doesn't explain how they were to keep God's command to multiply, which Eve stated they couldn't without their transgression.
Did God set contradictory commands for them?

Edited December 28, 2016 by JLHPROF

[waveslider]

1 hour ago, Five Solas said:

Many of the more literal, word-for-word (as opposed to thought-for-thought) contemporary English translations of the Bible render Genesis 3:16 this way (ESV, NASB).  You can refer to the quote I provided previously.  The Catholic NAB uses the word "intensify" instead of "mutilply"--but my point stands.  You can't intensify zero. 

--Erik

Isn't it possible that God was talking about how He would multiply, intensify, etc., how much He planned on making child birth to become, once the plan was finally implemented? Since God first created a plan, and in that plan there was a starting point on which to multiply, that would make it so that there actually was a factor of more than zero upon which to multiply.

Edited December 28, 2016 by waveslider
wrong choice of words

[JLHPROF]

2 hours ago, Five Solas said:

To restate, you believe it because of something Joseph Smith wrote (The Book of Moses).  And it makes Genesis 3:16 into nonsense, into rubbish.

Well, leaving aside your take on Genesis 3:16 which is debatable, I am LDS, and I do believe Joseph Smith to have been a prophet, and I do agree with Brigham Young that the Genesis account contains a lot of "baby stories".
So yes, when Eve says they could not have kept God's command to multiply without the transgression that caused the fall I believe that.

Genesis 3:16 states sorrow, not pain in the KJV.
But even if pain is a more accurate description, to use your logic, if he is multiplying pain that would mean there was pain in the world before the fall.
Is that your understanding of the pre-fall condition of Adam and Eve - that there was pain (which would seem to indicate the possibility of injury, illness, and even death)?

[Five Solas]

14 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Exactly.
And anyone who doubts the fall was the plan needs to explain why Christ was chosen in the grand council to redeem us from the fall before it ever happened.

First things first, JLHPROF:  They will need to explain why they think there was a "grand council" determining such a matter to begin with.  And when the answer is "Joseph Smith"--we'll be right back where we started.

;0)

--Erik

PS. But maybe after a few rounds of this, someone might think to check his premise...

[JLHPROF]

26 minutes ago, Five Solas said:

First things first, JLHPROF:  They will need to explain why they think there was a "grand council" determining such a matter to begin with.  And when the answer is "Joseph Smith"--we'll be right back where we started.

Well if you reject everything revealed by Joseph Smith when discussing doctrine with Mormons, you really are wasting your time.
That's like rejecting the Koran when discussing religion with a Muslim or the Torah when discussing religion with the Jews.

This is a Mormon discussion board.  Rejecting non-biblical doctrines with Mormons is a pointless game to play.  We neither accept nor agree with the idea that only things in the Bible are true.  We aren't trying to be traditional Christians.  We are a different religion, and as a result have different holy writ.

If you want to debate Mormon doctrine you have to use the sources of that doctrine.  I have no obligation to make any belief about Adam and Eve jive with traditional interpretation of the Bible as that is not my religion.  Any more than you would have an obligation to make your beliefs jive with the Book of Mormon.

Oh, and there are biblical evidences that Mormons would state allude to a premortal council, they just don't prove or say it outright.
So we'd end up debating minutia.

Edited December 28, 2016 by JLHPROF