Original Sin. What does it mean to you?

[pogi]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

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.

If there was no anger or wrath, it was because there was no sin.  The consequences of transgressing the law was a premature knowledge of good and evil, which brought toxic shame as heaped upon them by Lucifer as they heeded his counsel to hide from God.  The fruit brought moral accountability which brought inevitable death from sin.  Death is brought about by sin, without it there could be no death - physical or spiritual.

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

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?

A way would have been prepared to fulfill both commands had they been patient and obedient.

Eve never learned that the fruit may have been offered to them after being prepared through sacramental covenant.  She kind of jumped the gun before receiving any further light and knowledge in that respect.  Satan told partial truths in that eating of the fruit was necessary, but the deception was in saying "there is no other way" except to eat of the fruit right here, right now, and from my hand.   The scriptures make it clear that God always provides a way to fulfill his commandments.  The fruit was necessary to procreate just as sex is necessary to procreate; the fruit was forbidden without preparation and covenant, just as sex is forbidden without preparation and covenant.  There are so many parallels between sex and the forbidden fruit, it is no wonder why people erroneously interpret it in such a way (my take makes the parallels even greater).  They are both symbolic of oneness through knowledge - surely God would have given them this gift of knowledge (the light of Christ) eventually as predicated upon their obedience.

Instead of being endowed first with knowledge of good from the hand of God, their deception and premature partaking instead endowed them with the knowledge of evil from the hand of Lucifer.  Satan wanted to leave the first mark on the impressionable tablets of their moral hearts which only became accessible through their newly opened eyes.  He succeeded. 

Edited December 28, 2016 by pogi

[Jeanne]

2 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

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

Oh yeah...I have never seen this.

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, waveslider said:

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.

Possibly you are overthinking it, waveslider.  You are scripting it for real life, and that is not what a ritual is for -- not even in the nature of a ritual.  Adam & Eve were in stasis and were never going to mature in that state, as Lehi himself pointed out.  If you want to compare real life, then ask yourself whether it is the obedient children who are smartest and achieve the most:  Not on your life.  Only the truly inquistive and incurably curious child learns the most quickly.  The smartest are also the boldest.  Children have indomitable energy and bounce, which stands them in good stead every day, despite the owees they get en route.

In any case, I see no reason for God to have expected anything else of his children.  We are here to gain experience, and we are expected to fail -- probably frequently.  That's what the brilliant Plan of Salvation is for.  It covers all of us, despite our failures.  And we eventually return home, just like our Father, all the better for it.  Seems like chaos, but it isn't.

[bluebell]

3 hours ago, Bobbieaware said:

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.

Original sin is the belief that we are all born sinful, even babies.  I don't believe that is taught anywhere in the BOM.

[JLHPROF]

8 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Original sin is the belief that we are all born sinful, even babies.  I don't believe that is taught anywhere in the BOM.

Agreed.
Which lends itself to the idea that being mortal (and therefore subject to the fall and death) is partaking in sin.

That goes against so many teachings.  Christ was born into mortality yet was called sinless.  Clearly there is no sin in being subject to the fall.  He even died, showing he was subject to the same penalty for this  undoctrinal original sin.
And as I've shown several times already, the fall was the plan.  How can God's will and plan be a sin?

[Five Solas]

28 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Original sin is the belief that we are all born sinful, even babies.

Perhaps a better way to say it is that we are all born with a disposition to rebel against God, to sin.  A "sin nature" as Christian theologians have termed it.  And we choose to follow our disposition, our inclination to put ourselves first--from our earliest moments as the Psalmist tells us (Psalm 51:5, 58:3).  Fallen parents yield fallen children.  How could it be otherwise?

--Erik

[LittleNipper]

6 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 totally disagree on all points. First we do not know how big Eve was.They may have been equally matched. God could have created another mate for Adam. Adam in fact doesn't even open his mouth until his is pointing a finger at Eve. Adam must have been listening to the discourse between the Serpent and Eve, yet never interceded --- telling the snake where to go... The temple was not even built ---- Moses eventually set up a tabernacle. The Adam and Eve Story is historic fact --- former Anglican Bishop or not.

[bluebell]

4 minutes ago, Five Solas said:

Perhaps a better way to say it is that we are all born with a disposition to rebel against God, to sin.  A "sin nature" as Christian theologians have termed it.  And we choose to follow our disposition, our inclination to put ourselves first--from our earliest moments as the Psalmist tells us (Psalm 51:5, 58:3).  Fallen parents yield fallen children.  How could it be otherwise?

--Erik

Catholics and many other Christian denominations believe that we are born sinful. This is why so many have had or still have the doctrine that unbaptized babies won't go to heaven. 

But, I completely agree with you about the effects of the fall and being born with a sinful nature. What you have said is exactly LDS doctrine on the subject.  

 

[Bobbieaware]

40 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Original sin is the belief that we are all born sinful, even babies.  I don't believe that is taught anywhere in the BOM.

Even little babies wouldn't be able to enjoy the blessings of the resurrection, and be saved from the terrible fate of becoming like unto the devil, if it weren't for the atonement of Christ. Hence without the atonement even little babies would be eternally lost. That's why Mormon tells us even little children are made whole IN CHRIST, not through any merit of their own. It is only the atonement that saves us from the dire consequences of original guilt and the resultant fall from grace. The Book of Mormon makes this very clear.

[Bobbieaware]

56 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Original sin is the belief that we are all born sinful, even babies.  I don't believe that is taught anywhere in the BOM.

Even little babies wouldn't be able to enjoy the blessings of the resurrection, and be saved from the terrible fate of becoming like unto the devil, if it weren't for the atonement of Christ. Hence without the atonement even little babies would be eternally lost. That's why Mormon tells us even little children are made whole IN CHRIST, not through any merit of their own. It is only the atonement that saves us from the dire consequences of original guilt and the resultant fall from grace. The Book of Mormon makes this very clear.

[Five Solas]

2 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

...
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.

That's weak sauce, JLHPROF.  Do not enter that sauce in the county fair, because it is weak.

;0)

--Erik

PS.  Apologies to any & all fans of "American Dad" out there.

Edited December 29, 2016 by Five Solas
link

[Five Solas]

20 minutes ago, bluebell said:

...

But, I completely agree with you about the effects of the fall and being born with a sinful nature. What you have said is exactly LDS doctrine on the subject.  

Funny, but in my 3+ decades as a highly active (if not fully believing) LDS, I never heard anyone speak about being born with a sin nature.  I did hear a lot about not liking/not believing in "original sin"--but it appears LDS aren't altogether clear on what Christians even mean by that phrase. 

--Erik

[waveslider]

2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Possibly you are overthinking it, waveslider.  You are scripting it for real life, and that is not what a ritual is for -- not even in the nature of a ritual.  Adam & Eve were in stasis and were never going to mature in that state, as Lehi himself pointed out.  If you want to compare real life, then ask yourself whether it is the obedient children who are smartest and achieve the most:  Not on your life.  Only the truly inquistive and incurably curious child learns the most quickly.  The smartest are also the boldest.  Children have indomitable energy and bounce, which stands them in good stead every day, despite the owees they get en route.

In any case, I see no reason for God to have expected anything else of his children.  We are here to gain experience, and we are expected to fail -- probably frequently.  That's what the brilliant Plan of Salvation is for.  It covers all of us, despite our failures.  And we eventually return home, just like our Father, all the better for it.  Seems like chaos, but it isn't.

Possibly I am overthinking it, but then so is anyone who pretends to understand that situation perfectly anyway.

I am not debating whether Adam or Eve were the smarter of the two. I am only suggesting that the smarter of the two is relative to the lens in which you view things as being smart. This is why I said:

2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

it depends upon our understanding of the whole picture as to who is indeed smartest.

----

2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Only the truly inquistive and incurably curious child learns the most quickly.

One would think so, but when it comes to people getting accredited in higher education (And it starts in the early education as well, at a very young age) it seems that the student who memorizes and repeats what he/she has been taught in the best and quickest fashion is the smartest... at least in the Western world anyway. Anyone who bucks the system too much ends up shunned by their peers and discounted as a quack.

-----

That all said, I was only trying to explain that there are things that we haven't taken into account when it comes to these, "rituals," as you put them, and as to what parts are symbolic and what parts are literal. If eating of the fruit was done on other planets, why would Satan seem so shocked when he was punished by God, for initiating it? You don't think that there is a possibility that Satan sped up the process in an effort to sabotage God's plan? Even though Adam and Eve would never mature to a full understanding of things in that innocent and immortal state, wouldn't they at least be progressing a little bit at a time until they were ready to progress further and do things the same way as on other planets? Or was Eden really only damnation, where eternal progression is a false concept if you want to obey God and never eat of that fruit, ever?

I personally don't know the answers to these questions. I was just saying perhaps we should be a little more open to the fact that we don't understand hardly anything when it comes to this part of the Plan of Happiness (Or any part of the plan for that matter). Perhaps you are right and there is nothing at all literal within the Adam and Eve story. I will personally remain open to the idea that it all can, and will, make perfect sense with a complete understanding.

 

[JLHPROF]

2 hours ago, Five Solas said:

That's weak sauce, JLHPROF.  Do not enter that sauce in the county fair, because it is weak.

You are welcome to that opinion.
There is no point in arguing the same old debates until we get into the weeds trading minor points till one gets tired and concedes.
I see biblical references to premortality.  You are already familiar with them and probably don't agree.  Why waste the time.

And my main point remains.  If your go to is "when the answer is "Joseph Smith"--we'll be right back where we started" debating Mormonism and its doctrines with you reaches an immediate dead end.
 

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, LittleNipper said:

I totally disagree on all points. First we do not know how big Eve was.They may have been equally matched. God could have created another mate for Adam. Adam in fact doesn't even open his mouth until his is pointing a finger at Eve. Adam must have been listening to the discourse between the Serpent and Eve, yet never interceded --- telling the snake where to go... The temple was not even built ---- Moses eventually set up a tabernacle. The Adam and Eve Story is historic fact --- former Anglican Bishop or not.

Tom Wright is one of the greatest biblical scholars in the world.  I cite him only because he is non-Mormon (all Mormon opinions are automatically suspect, especially on temple-related matters), and his opinion is quite normal among non-Mormon scholars.  If you don't see the Creation and Garden stories as temple stories that may be because you don't understand the symbolism and the context, and they are so important.  For example, another well-known Creation story is the Enuma elish, recited each New Year's Day at temples in Babylon and in Asshur, and it is a dead ringer for the Genesis Creation Story -- with the pre-existing elements organized in the same order as in Genesis.  And it is an explicit ritual, not a fairy tale.

Moreover, temples had been around for thousands of years before Moses set up his Egyptian-style tabernacle in the desert, or before Solomon built a Syro-Phoenician style temple in Jerusalem.  Temples can be opulent and huge, but they can also be quite small and undistinguished.  It may not register with you, but Beth-El means "House of God, Temple," the place in which Jacob-Israel "wrestled" with God and angels (Gen 28:11-22, 35:1-15).  After the time of Moses, the Ark of the Covenant rested there (Judges 20:18-28).  It is modern Beitin, at which archeological excavation shows a stone sanctuary (Holy Place).  Understanding the general purpose and structure of temples -- including gardens and griffin-cherubim guardians -- is important for those wishing to comprehend the debate.  You can find good coverage in Hugh Nibley, "What is a Temple? The Idea of the Temple in History," 1958, online at https://rsc.byu.edu/archived/selected-articles/what-temple , and at http://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1104&index=9 . 

Edited December 29, 2016 by Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

13 hours ago, waveslider said:

.............................................................

One would think so, but when it comes to people getting accredited in higher education (And it starts in the early education as well, at a very young age) it seems that the student who memorizes and repeats what he/she has been taught in the best and quickest fashion is the smartest... at least in the Western world anyway. Anyone who bucks the system too much ends up shunned by their peers and discounted as a quack.

Most professors search desperately for students who actually learn the subject-matter, rather than memorizing and regurgitating it.  Researchers attempting to discover the most creative and successful scientists found that the obedient regurgitators were not among the best.  Rather it was the B-students with all their outside interests and dynamism who later excelled in scientific discovery.  As Einstein (himself a slow learner) said:  "Imagination is more important than knowledge."  Einstein bucked the system and succeeded wildly well.  We need to appreciate that, and to respect the different learning abilities of our children.

Quote

That all said, I was only trying to explain that there are things that we haven't taken into account when it comes to these, "rituals," as you put them, and as to what parts are symbolic and what parts are literal. If eating of the fruit was done on other planets, why would Satan seem so shocked when he was punished by God, for initiating it? You don't think that there is a possibility that Satan sped up the process in an effort to sabotage God's plan? Even though Adam and Eve would never mature to a full understanding of things in that innocent and immortal state, wouldn't they at least be progressing a little bit at a time until they were ready to progress further and do things the same way as on other planets? Or was Eden really only damnation, where eternal progression is a false concept if you want to obey God and never eat of that fruit, ever?

A ritual is just a ritual, even when it literally takes place.  I have literally taken part in the LDS endowment many times.  Each time I was literally there in the Garden, and literally taking oaths and making covenants.  So too Adam and Eve literally took part in a similar temple ritual, upon which our own ritual is based. Everyone including Lucifer took his part and reenacted it yet again, even including the histrionics.  A ritual is a ritual.  The fruit need not be actual fruit growing on a tree, and the Brethren tell us explicitly that Adam's rib is purely figurative.  But we all participate in that very ritual just the same.  Literally. And the ritual has cosmic significance.  Again literally.

Quote

I personally don't know the answers to these questions. I was just saying perhaps we should be a little more open to the fact that we don't understand hardly anything when it comes to this part of the Plan of Happiness (Or any part of the plan for that matter). Perhaps you are right and there is nothing at all literal within the Adam and Eve story. I will personally remain open to the idea that it all can, and will, make perfect sense with a complete understanding.

I did not say or suggest that "there is nothing at all literal within the Adam and Eve story," but it is not a story:  It is rather a sacred rite of passage, and it does literally take place in real time and space.  Always has and always will.  Literally, even if the fruit is only pretend fruit symbolizing a source of fundamental knowledge, and even if Eve is not in fact made from Adam's rib.  It is a ritual, and we must go through those cosmic motions or gestures repeatedly on behalf of ourselves and others.  Otherwise all would be lost.

Edited December 29, 2016 by Robert F. Smith

[bluebell]

3 hours ago, Bobbieaware said:

Even little babies wouldn't be able to enjoy the blessings of the resurrection, and be saved from the terrible fate of becoming like unto the devil, if it weren't for the atonement of Christ. Hence without the atonement even little babies would be eternally lost. That's why Mormon tells us even little children are made whole IN CHRIST, not through any merit of their own. It is only the atonement that saves us from the dire consequences of original guilt and the resultant fall from grace. The Book of Mormon makes this very clear.

Yes, but not because babies are born sinful. They are subject to the effects of the Fall, but they do not inherit sin from Adam and Eve. 

[RevTestament]

9 hours 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!!

Edited to add:...This story takes some of the joy of birth away...because at the same time of delivery and the process thereof...I am thinking..this is my punishment Eve...thank you.

It is not so literal Jeanne... Remember in Revelation 12 the woman was pained to be delivered? Eve is representative of the church. 

[halconero]

Duplicate

Edited December 29, 2016 by halconero

[halconero]

8 hours 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.

And that's a fair take. I'm not sure I agree with the "thou shalt not" turning it into a moral law. The caveat is that the consequence is not one of damnation, but mortality. There is an express If, then statement without (what I perceive to be) moral necessary or sufficient clause to it. It would be akin to me saying, "you shall not mix bleach or ammonia together, or you shall surely die. Nevertheless, you can choose for yourself, but remember that I forbid it." Why do I forbid it? Because, not because it's moral or immoral, but because it's result will change will contravene the natural laws necessary for you to live (you make chlorine gas and you'll die).

Elohim forbids it in the sense that to remain an immortal being the natural laws of an immortal being must be kept. Michael/Adam had the choice to keep these laws and remain in his state. Nevertheless he possessed the agency to transgress that natural law, knowing that it was necessary if he wanted mortal man to be. It was forbidden for the Elohim to partake, and by so doing he gave up that status, Fell, and became mortal. In a way, just as we talk of miracles being the manifestation of higher laws of physics/biology/chemistry being present on a lower sphere, the Fall was an operation of lower laws on a higher sphere and being.

Perhaps we're not so far off. Mormon theology is unique in the sense that natural and moral law are often the same thing. The covenants, laws, and obligations described as being necessary for exaltation in places like sections 76 and 132 of the D&C are given the same qualities of natural laws/laws of the universe even if they're moral laws. It's partially why social issues and my feelings towards them have become less complicated over time. God isn't being more or less harsh than He needs to be in his demands on His children. He's trying to guide them on a narrow but necessary path towards becoming like He is. There is no other way. No other natural laws whereby humanity may be elevated.

I hate to use science fiction references, but if anyone has read the Dune series, it's much like the "Golden Path" forseen by the God-Emperor in that series.

[waveslider]

3 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Most professors search desperately for students who actually learn the subject-matter, rather than memorizing and regurgitating it.  Researchers attempting to discover the most creative and successful scientists found that the obedient regurgitators were not among the best.  Rather it was the B-students with all their outside interests and dynamism who later excelled in scientific discovery.  As Einstein (himself a slow learner) said:  "Imagination is more important than knowledge."  Einstein bucked the system and succeeded wildly well.  We need to appreciate that, and to respect the different learning abilities of our children.

You can keep telling yourself that, but I often find the opposite to be true in the modern, secular world. The definition of peer reviewed is basically the same as putting out the same old information to be checked by a consensus against the same old knowledge, if you ask me; A "Believe this stuff or get lost!" type of mentality. Your example of Einstein isn't a very good one. He was almost never even accepted at all. He almost starved to death just trying to get anyone, at all, to even read one of his papers, let alone get it published in order to be peer reviewed. He wasn't very good at math, in the secular setting, perhaps due to laziness and lack of interest, but that was almost the ruin of him as well. Einstein was only good in theoretical physics, due to his imagination and thought experiments, which he conducted the majority of, while working as a patent clerk since he couldn't find any backing in the scientific community for so long. I do agree that imagination is more important than knowledge, but the very system of our educational facilities rewards more towards the accumulation of knowledge than rewarding imaginative thought that bucks the system, especially now days, IMO.

Look at what happened to Nicola Tesla. He was the one who lights up our world with electricity.... even to this day, yet he was still shoved into an ignominious ending when it came to who is who of the secular world, with the most imaginative innovations that we have ever seen.  Meanwhile Einstein who created nothing tangible that we use in our own lives, unless you discount the effects of Electromagnetic Retardation (EM Retardation) and instead think that gravity isn't part of the electromagnetic field and that it instead is bending space time, like all the good secularists learn and regurgitate as being the end all and be all of what is happening to make us have to adjust our timing on GPS satellite systems, in order to keep them accurate. I like Nicola's quote, which rings even truer today than it did when he said this: "The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.” It looks more and more like our entire universe really is connected electromagnetically as more and more data keeps coming in, putting holes into Einstein's theories, at least enough to the point that perhaps another theory like the new EU theory should be taught along side of Einstein's theories. Yet it is relativity or nothing in the peer reviewed world of today, while I watch people get rejected time and again when they try to get imaginative theories, which are predicting things better than the standard, "real science," is capable of predicting accurately, to be published for peer review. Many accredited scientists who read what it was that isn't getting published were too scared to put their careers on the line by letting it get published, have all of a sudden become avid followers of the person trying to get papers published and peer reviewed, unsuccessfully. It looks like since it isn't regurgitation of the same old knowledge, it isn't worthy of being published and peer reviewed, yet it is worthy of these unimaginative scientists, in power, to want to learn all they can about it still. Apparently imagination isn't more important than knowledge in the practical world of secular science. It's a good thought though that science embraces imagination so much..... I wish it was truer though.

5 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

A ritual is just a ritual, even when it literally takes place.  I have literally taken part in the LDS endowment many times.  Each time I was literally there in the Garden, and literally taking oaths and making covenants.  So too Adam and Even literally took part in a similar temple ritual, upon which our own ritual is based. Everyone including Lucifer took his part and reenacted it yet again, even including the histrionics.  A ritual is a ritual.  The fruit need not be actual fruit growing on a tree, and the Brethren tell us explicitly that Adam's rib is purely figurative.  But we all participate in that very ritual just the same.  Literally. And the ritual has cosmic significance.  Again literally.

Huh? I too, "have literally taken part in the LDS endowment many times." This doesn't in anyway make me fully understand what, and how deep, the symbolism of things are. It doesn't doesn't automatically make anyone fully understanding of exactly what is going on with it all, and what the true implications are of all of it. I never was, "literally," in the Garden of Eden, while literally making covenants and taking oaths, I was only symbolically there. Is that a mistake when you wrote, "Each time I was literally there in the Garden," or do you think that there never really was a real physical Garden of Eden somewhere before the fall, making it possible that a symbolic garden is what is literal?

3 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I did not say or suggest that "there is nothing at all literal within the Adam and Eve story," but it is not a story:  It is rather a sacred rite of passage, and it does literally take place in real time and space.  Always has and always will.  Literally, even if the fruit is only pretend fruit symbolizing a source of fundamental knowledge, and even if Eve is not in fact made from Adam's rib.  It is a ritual, and we must go through those cosmic motions or gestures repeatedly on behalf of ourselves and others.  Otherwise all would be lost.

I don't pretend to know everything about this, "sacred rite of passage," since you don't think I should call it a, "story," as you seem to claim absolute knowledge about. I will gladly agree to disagree with you. I don't believe that we, in our mortal and fallen state, will ever fully understand this part of the the Plan of Happiness, or any part of the Plan of Happiness for that matter.

[LittleNipper]

8 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Tom Wright is one of the greatest biblical scholars in the world.  I cite him only because he is non-Mormon (all Mormon opinions are automatically suspect, especially on temple-related matters), and his opinion is quite normal among non-Mormon scholars.  If you don't see the Creation and Garden stories as temple stories that may be because you don't understand the symbolism and the context, and they are so important.  For example, another well-known Creation story is the Enuma elish, recited each New Year's Day at temples in Babylon and in Asshur, and it is a dead ringer for the Genesis Creation Story -- with the pre-existing elements organized in the same order as in Genesis.  And it is an explicit ritual, not a fairy tale.

Moreover, temples had been around for thousands of years before Moses set up his Egyptian-style tabernacle in the desert, or before Solomon built a Syro-Phoenician style temple in Jerusalem.  Temples can be opulent and huge, but they can also be quite small and undistinguished.  It may not register with you, but Beth-El means "House of God, Temple," the place in which Jacob-Israel "wrestled" with God and angels (Gen 28:11-22, 35:1-15).  After the time of Moses, the Ark of the Covenant rested there (Judges 20:18-28).  It is modern Beitin, at which archeological excavation shows a stone sanctuary (Holy Place).  Understanding the general purpose and structure of temples -- including gardens and griffin-cherubim guardians -- is important for those wishing to comprehend the debate.  You can find good coverage in Hugh Nibley, "What is a Temple? The Idea of the Temple in History," 1958, online at https://rsc.byu.edu/archived/selected-articles/what-temple , and at http://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1104&index=9 . 

I'm sorry; however, this former Anglican Bishop represents LIBERAL thought. I'm sure he doesn't hold to the Flood either or an actual parting of the sea or Hebrews in Egypt. He represents secularism and not Christian inerrancy of the Bible. Those among the Born-again Bible believing groups would label him a modernist and a reason many denominations split in the 1930's. The temple is now the body of any Saved individual ---- "No you not that your body is the temple of God?" It NOW isn't presently a building. As for pagan beliefs prior to Moses, they may or may not represent distortions and totally made up fabrications. The Babylonian Flood Epic is a prime example. The true oral story was distorted through pagan mythology and then later truthfully revealed to Moses by God.  The Bible Flood does in no way represent an updated version of the Babylonian tale (Though the Babylonian tale is base on the Epic Flood of Noah). The Bible version is correct but not derived from any former Flood.

I Corinthians 3:19 NIV For the wisdom of this world is foolishness in God's sight. As it is written: "He catches the wise in their craftiness";

Edited December 29, 2016 by LittleNipper

[Bobbieaware]

10 hours ago, bluebell said:

Yes, but not because babies are born sinful. They are subject to the effects of the Fall, but they do not inherit sin from Adam and Eve. 

The reason why babies are not born sinful is because of the atonement. If there were no atonement everyone, including babies, would be born sinful as a consequence of our first parents original guilt and the resultant fall. Without the atonement, the first decree -- which is permanent physical death and permanent and total spiritual death -- would have remained in effect forever without even the slightest degree of mitigation. In LDS soteriological theory, a state of existence very much like historical Christianity's condition of original sin would have existed (actually, things would have been even worse) without the atonement. In 2 Nephi 9, the prophet Jacob testifies without the atonement divine justice would not permit the Spirit of Christ to influence any fallen human to even the slightest degree, and that's why without the tempering effects of the atonement each and every human spirit would unavoidably descend into hell and become beings of total darkness like the devil. After the fall, a state of total depravity would have indeed existed without the atonement. I reiterate, the prophet Mormon makes it clear little children become "whole" through the atonement; they cannot be whole outside of the influence of the atonement.

Edited December 29, 2016 by Bobbieaware

[bcuzbcuz]

On 12/27/2016 at 9:22 PM, theplains said:

By original sin, I usually use the term "first sin."  I would agree with the 2008 Ensign 
Magazine (https://www.lds.org/ensign/2008/03/the-atonement-of-jesus-christ?lang=eng).

"These include His ransom for Adam’s original transgression so that no member of the human 
family is held responsible for that sin."

"For example, while all members of the human family are freely given a reprieve from Adam’s 
sin through no effort of their own, they are not given a reprieve from their own sins ..."

This is repeated several times in other LDS teachings.  See attached.

If you disagree with these teachings, why?

Thanks,
Jim

lds_sin_of_adam.pdf

Take one step back from your discussion. If Adam and Eve were the first humans, then their children and the population could only increase by incest. That's the only logical outcome if the first generation are all brothers and sisters. Then Cain killed Abel, then goes to the land of Nod and takes a wife. Gen 4:17 What? where did she come from? 

The whole story of Adam and Eve is just that; a story. It's not meant to be an actual record of actual events. There was no "original sin".

[bluebell]

3 hours ago, Bobbieaware said:

The reason why babies are not born sinful is because of the atonement. If there were no atonement everyone, including babies, would be born sinful as a consequence of our first parents original guilt and the resultant fall. Without the atonement, the first decree -- which is permanent physical death and permanent and total spiritual death -- would have remained in effect forever without even the slightest degree of mitigation. In LDS soteriological theory, a state of existence very much like historical Christianity's condition of original sin would have existed (actually, things would have been even worse) without the atonement. In 2 Nephi 9, the prophet Jacob testifies without the atonement divine justice would not permit the Spirit of Christ to influence any fallen human to even the slightest degree, and that's why without the tempering effects of the atonement each and every human spirit would unavoidably descend into hell and become beings of total darkness like the devil. After the fall, a state of total depravity would have indeed existed without the atonement. I reiterate, the prophet Mormon makes it clear little children become "whole" through the atonement; they cannot be whole outside of the influence of the atonement.

To say that little children are not born sinful is not to say they are born outside of the influence of the atonement.  I'll quote Robert Millet because I think he says it well-

"JS wrote to John Wentworth:  "We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam's transgression".  This proclamation is in effect affirmed in the Lord's statement to Adam: "I have forgiven thee thy transgression in the garden of eden."  This declaration has, unfortunately, been misunderstood.  Even though God forgave our first parents their transgression; even though there is no "original sin" entailed upon Adam and Eve's children; even though "the Son of God hath atoned for original guilt, wherein the sins of the parents cannot be answered upon the heads of the children (Moses 6:54)--despite this clear absence of guilt for our first parents transgression, we must not conclude that all is well, that the Fall has no effect on us.

"To say that man is not under sin is not to say that man is untainted or unaffected.  Jehovah explained to Adam:  "Inasmuch as thy children are conceived in sin, even so when they begin to grow up, sin conceiveth in their hearts, and they taste the bitter, that they may know to prize the good" (Moses 6:55).  No, of course we do not believe, with Calvin, in the moral depravity of men and women.  No, we do not believe, with Luther, that man, because of his carnality and depravity, does not even have the power to choose good over evil.  And we do not believe that children are born in sin, that they they inherit the so-called sin of Adam either through sexual union or by birth.  Rather, children are conceived in sin:  meaning first, that they are conceived into a world of sin, and second, that conception is the vehicle by which the effects of the Fall (not the original transgression, which God has forgiven) are transmitted to Adam's posterity.

"To say we are not punished for their transgression is not to say we are unaffected by it.... Sin is implanted in man's nature at conception, just as death is implanted at the same time.  Both of these--death and sin--are present only in seed form at conception, and therefore, a child is neither dead nor sinful when born.  Death and sin do, however, come to pass as a result of man's nature as he grows up.  Sin comes naturally, just as death does."