Original Sin. What does it mean to you?

[JLHPROF]

12 minutes ago, theplains said:

How do you believe Heavenly Father attained his 'mortal' body?

Thanks,
Jim

The same way we did.
Being born into mortality on a previous earth.

[Five Solas]

6 hours ago, bluebell said:

To be fair, Christians aren't even clear on what other Christians mean by the phrase, as your definition of original sin compared to certain baptists' and Catholics' definition of original sin illustrates.  

I'm not sure how you were able to be highly active and not understand that LDS believe that we are born with a nature that is an enemy to God (Mosiah 3:19) and that "because of the Fall our natures have become evil continually" (Ether 3:2).

To be fair, you greatly exaggerate differences among Christians, bluebell.  (Appreciate boblloyd91 having my back on that second part.)  You could read the section from Catechism of the Catholic Church Original Sin - an essential truth of the faith and you could bring up contemporary Reformed Baptist preacher & theologian John Piper writings on the same topic and you would see remarkable similarity & coherence.  Yes, there are real differences among Christians (e.g., believer vs. infant baptism), but there's no material dispute over our sin nature, stemming from Adam.  

But now let's talk about something that makes caricature of this Christian doctrine, something that's been a disservice for a long time--the LDS Second Article of Faith:

That men will be punished only for their own sins and not for Adam’s transgression.

What does that mean?  It's pure straw man.  It leads the reader to infer other churches teach people are punished for Adam's transgression.  Well, how about a little CFR on that?  Let's put an end to the confusion (for LDS) wrought by Joseph Smith's creed once and for all. 

:0)

--Erik

_______________________________________

So let them say we won't do better
Lay out the rules that we can't break
They wanna sit and watch you wither
Their legacy's too hard to take

--Santigold "Disparate Youth"

[bluebell]

22 minutes ago, Five Solas said:

To be fair, you greatly exaggerate differences among Christians, bluebell.  (Appreciate boblloyd91 having my back on that second part.)  You could read the section from Catechism of the Catholic Church Original Sin - an essential truth of the faith and you could bring up contemporary Reformed Baptist preacher & theologian John Piper writings on the same topic and you would see remarkable similarity & coherence.  Yes, there are real differences among Christians (e.g., believer vs. infant baptism), but there's no material dispute over our sin nature, stemming from Adam.  

But now let's talk about something that makes caricature of this Christian doctrine, something that's been a disservice for a long time--the LDS Second Article of Faith:

That men will be punished only for their own sins and not for Adam’s transgression.

What does that mean?  It's pure straw man.  It leads the reader to infer other churches teach people are punished for Adam's transgression.  Well, how about a little CFR on that?  Let's put an end to the confusion (for LDS) wrought by Joseph Smith's creed once and for all. 

:0)

--Erik

_______________________________________

So let them say we won't do better
Lay out the rules that we can't break
They wanna sit and watch you wither
Their legacy's too hard to take

--Santigold "Disparate Youth"

Are you trying to argue that other Christian religions don't teach original sin?  That they don't teach that because of Adam's transgression, babies are born sinful?  That some churches didn't in the past (and some still) teach that babies who died before baptism were damned because they died still guilty of the sin they inherited from Adam?

I don't think i'm understanding your correctly so maybe you could clarify.

 

[pogi]

31 minutes ago, Five Solas said:

To be fair, you greatly exaggerate differences among Christians, bluebell.  (Appreciate boblloyd91 having my back on that second part.)  You could read the section from Catechism of the Catholic Church Original Sin - an essential truth of the faith and you could bring up contemporary Reformed Baptist preacher & theologian John Piper writings on the same topic and you would see remarkable similarity & coherence.  Yes, there are real differences among Christians (e.g., believer vs. infant baptism), but there's no material dispute over our sin nature, stemming from Adam.  

But now let's talk about something that makes caricature of this Christian doctrine, something that's been a disservice for a long time--the LDS Second Article of Faith:

That men will be punished only for their own sins and not for Adam’s transgression.

What does that mean?  It's pure straw man.  It leads the reader to infer other churches teach people are punished for Adam's transgression.  Well, how about a little CFR on that?  Let's put an end to the confusion (for LDS) wrought by Joseph Smith's creed once and for all. 

:0)

--Erik

_______________________________________

So let them say we won't do better
Lay out the rules that we can't break
They wanna sit and watch you wither
Their legacy's too hard to take

--Santigold "Disparate Youth"

Is it not true that some Christian faiths believe that baptism is required to remove the original sin of Adam, which is often used as justification for infant baptism?  Without such baptism, the sin of Adam remains and the otherwise innocent child will be held accountable for Adam's transgression.

No straw man.

Edit: you beat me to it bluebell 

Edited December 30, 2016 by pogi

[LittleNipper]

8 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

There is no such thing as "liberal thought."  This is a term used as a cop-out by those who don't understand reality.  Which is to say that a scholar is unconcerned with partisanship, but is really concerned with accuracy and precision.  Tom Wright understands the Hebrew and Greek of the Bible and reads it carefully.  He also understands religion and religious history.  Moreover, he brings his understanding into exchange with other scholars and believers.  He himself is a sincere believer.

Rather than attributing your own false notions of what Tom Wright thinks, you might want to hear him speak for himself -- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YpQHGPGejKs .  Your comments here are also indicative of lack of familiarity with biblical scholarship in general, which leads you to make assertions about it which are formulaic and false.  You might find some aid through reading David Bokovoy, Authoring the Old Testament, volume 1 (SLC: Kofford, 2014), http://gregkofford.com/products/authoring-the-old-testament-1 .

Of course there liberal and conservative thought. And it does depend on the topic. A conservative Christian (for instance) is one who holds to inerrancy of Scripture in the original tongue and that Salvation is only possible by faith in Christ only --- nothing more or nothing less.  A liberal view would be that there are many ways to heaven and through Christ is but one of many possible alternatives and that scripture is but stories to present a moral theme. 

I do apologize because Mr. Wright does seem to present a case for philosophical debate. You have to understand that because I hold to Biblical inerrancy doesn't make me unfamiliar with biblical scholarship. I hold to the opinions of Dallas Theological Seminary, Liberty University, Philadelphia Biblical University, and  Bob Jones University. They are hardly without scholarship.

Edited December 30, 2016 by LittleNipper

[Bobbieaware]

44 minutes ago, Five Solas said:

To be fair, you greatly exaggerate differences among Christians, bluebell.  (Appreciate boblloyd91 having my back on that second part.)  You could read the section from Catechism of the Catholic Church Original Sin - an essential truth of the faith and you could bring up contemporary Reformed Baptist preacher & theologian John Piper writings on the same topic and you would see remarkable similarity & coherence.  Yes, there are real differences among Christians (e.g., believer vs. infant baptism), but there's no material dispute over our sin nature, stemming from Adam.  

But now let's talk about something that makes caricature of this Christian doctrine, something that's been a disservice for a long time--the LDS Second Article of Faith:

That men will be punished only for their own sins and not for Adam’s transgression.

What does that mean?  It's pure straw man.  It leads the reader to infer other churches teach people are punished for Adam's transgression.  Well, how about a little CFR on that?  Let's put an end to the confusion (for LDS) wrought by Joseph Smith's creed once and for all. 

:0)

--Erik

_______________________________________

So let them say we won't do better
Lay out the rules that we can't break
They wanna sit and watch you wither
Their legacy's too hard to take

--Santigold "Disparate Youth"

Although most Latter-Day Saints don't seem to realize it, there is a concept of original sin in LDS theology and soteriology, but it's just that in Mormonism several of the negative effects of the original sin (in the Book of Moses it is called original guilt) were neutralized right from the start by the atonement of Christ. For instance, 1) by means of the atonement all will be redeemed from physical death, regardless of their response to Christ; 2) no member of the human family will be held personally responsible for the transgression of our first parents as if they had committed the transgression themselves; 3) all who are born into this world are blessed right from infancy with the light of Christ that lights the minds and hearts of every man, woman and child who comes into the world with divine illumination. Without the atonement, none of these blessings that mitigate the consequences of original sin would be available, but because Christ is the Lamb of God who was slain from the foundation of the world some of the effects of original sin are somewhat neutralized so that the human family has at least a fighting chance of appreciating and then receiving salvation through the sacrifice of the Son of God. How do you differ from what I have set forth?

 

Edited December 30, 2016 by Bobbieaware

[Okrahomer]

37 minutes ago, Five Solas said:

To be fair, you greatly exaggerate differences among Christians, bluebell.  (Appreciate boblloyd91 having my back on that second part.)  You could read the section from Catechism of the Catholic Church Original Sin - an essential truth of the faith and you could bring up contemporary Reformed Baptist preacher & theologian John Piper writings on the same topic and you would see remarkable similarity & coherence.  Yes, there are real differences among Christians (e.g., believer vs. infant baptism), but there's no material dispute over our sin nature, stemming from Adam.  

But now let's talk about something that makes caricature of this Christian doctrine, something that's been a disservice for a long time--the LDS Second Article of Faith:

That men will be punished only for their own sins and not for Adam’s transgression.

What does that mean?  It's pure straw man.  It leads the reader to infer other churches teach people are punished for Adam's transgression.  Well, how about a little CFR on that?  Let's put an end to the confusion (for LDS) wrought by Joseph Smith's creed once and for all. 

:0)

--Erik

_______________________________________

So let them say we won't do better
Lay out the rules that we can't break
They wanna sit and watch you wither
Their legacy's too hard to take

--Santigold "Disparate Youth

From John Piper:

"Second, the guilt of Adam's sin is credited not just to Adam himself, but to us all. We are regarded as having sinned in Adam,and hence as deserving of the same punishment. This is imputed sin. Thus, we not only receive polluted and sinful natures because of Adam's sin (original sin), but we are also regarded as having sinned in Adam such that we are guilty of his act as well (imputed sin). Imputed sin is the ruin of our standing before God and is thus not an internal quality but an objective reckoning of guilt, whereas original sin is the ruin of our character and thus is a reference to internal qualities. Both original sin and imputed sin place us under the judgment of God."

http://www.desiringgod.org/articles/what-is-the-difference-between-original-sin-and-imputed-sin

[bluebell]

5 minutes ago, Okrahomer said:

From John Piper:

"Second, the guilt of Adam's sin is credited not just to Adam himself, but to us all. We are regarded as having sinned in Adam,and hence as deserving of the same punishment. This is imputed sin. Thus, we not only receive polluted and sinful natures because of Adam's sin (original sin), but we are also regarded as having sinned in Adam such that we are guilty of his act as well (imputed sin). Imputed sin is the ruin of our standing before God and is thus not an internal quality but an objective reckoning of guilt, whereas original sin is the ruin of our character and thus is a reference to internal qualities. Both original sin and imputed sin place us under the judgment of God."

http://www.desiringgod.org/articles/what-is-the-difference-between-original-sin-and-imputed-sin

This is very helpful, because it looks like some Christians have different names for original sin and imputed sin (though obviously, the quote shows that the idea that other Christians believe men are punished for Adam's transgression is most definitely not a straw man).  That's interesting to know, because i've never had one (when this topic comes up) make a distinction between the two.  Good information to have.

[Glenn101]

7 hours ago, pogi said:

When God says "thou shalt not...", or "I forbid it", it does indeed become a moral law on the grounds of obedience.  Disobedience to God's word is immoral and sinful. I give the Word of Wisdom as an example - a natural law with natural consequences became a moral law with moral consequences when God forbade certain foods. 

Pogi, this brings up again a point I asked of Erik A.K.A. Five Solas. I have a developmentally retarded son. He does not understand right from wrong. He is a five year old mentally for this mortal life. He does understand when adults disapprove of some of his actions, but he does not understand why. Do you believe that he can sin when an adult tells him "thous shalt not steal" your room mate's cookies?

When William came of normal age for baptism a member of the bishopric approached me about having him baptized. I explained my belief that William was not one who would need baptism because of his limited mental faculties. The counselor later came back and told me that he had found out that I was correct.

(William did become baptized at a later date because he felt it was something that he should do after watching several of his brothers and sisters become baptized. But to me, this was not for a remission of sins, but "to fulfill all righteousness.")

Yes, without the atonement of Christ, he would still have been doomed never to be resurrected and thus would spend an eternity without a body, just as would an infant child who died without the atonement. But that is something we do not have to worry about, because the Atonement did happen.

I believe that Adam and Eve were in such a state of not knowing good from evil. (And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: Genesis 3:22) I have not found a reference in the scriptures that talk about the sin of Adam in the fall, but all refer to it as a transgression. My son transgressed a law, many times, when he took another person's cookies or drink, or the like. Is he a sinner because of that? 

But that point is really moot, because whatever the case, Adam was forgiven and whether he sinned when he transgressed the commandment or whether it was a sinless transgression with enormous consequences, we do know that those consequences, the physical death part, have been overcome by the Atonement and the spiritual death part have been mitigated on the condition of faith, repentance, and baptism.

Lehi's discourse on the fall clears up lot, to me, at least. According to Lehi, in his famous "opposition in all things" sermon, it was necessary for God to give them conflicting commandments. One commandment they were transgressing because they were not procreating. They were not multiplying and filling up the earth. And, if Lehi is to be believed, that would have never happened, had they not transgressed that commandment to not "to eat the apple."

I did see a conjecture that the Lord was preparing them to partake of the fruit but that is not supported by any scripture that of which I am aware. In 2 Nephi, chapter 2 verses 22 and 23, Lehi tells us that if Adam and Eve had not partaken of that fruit they would have remained in their Garden of Eden state forever and would have had no children. Earlier, in verse 16, Lehi said "Wherefore, the Lord God gave unto man that he should act for himself. Wherefore, man could not act for himself save it should be that he was enticed by the one or the other."

That, in part, is what I base my understanding of the fall upon.

 

Glenn

 

[Okrahomer]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

This is very helpful, because it looks like some Christians have different names for original sin and imputed sin (though obviously, the quote shows that the idea that other Christians believe men are punished for Adam's transgression is most definitely not a straw man).  That's interesting to know, because i've never had one (when this topic comes up) make a distinction between the two.  Good information to have.

Erik can correct me--and I'm sure he will--but it seems clear that this idea (Imputed Sin) has caused many Christians to conclude that infants must be baptized in order to be saved:

"Naturally, the Reformed model of original sin, with its vigorous doctrine of imputed guilt, paints a different portrait of infant sinners. According to the Reformed model, infants and children are sinners from birth, sinful from conception, and therefore under the judgment of God. Consequently, they stand in need of redemption as fully as adults do, for they are estranged from God and at enmity with him. They are corrupt and guilty, sinfully warped and accountable for their sin-and-sinfulness in Adam."  http://www.midamerica.edu/uploads/files/pdf/journal/12-beach.pdf

And this from the Westminster Confession on "Why We Baptize Infants":

"Children do not become sinful after they grow up or in the process of growing up. They are sinful from the very outset. They are conceived in sin and brought forth in iniquity. They go astray from the very womb."

http://www.westminsterconfession.org/worship/why-we-baptize-infants.php

 

[boblloyd91]

48 minutes ago, Okrahomer said:

Erik can correct me--and I'm sure he will--but it seems clear that this idea (Imputed Sin) has caused many Christians to conclude that infants must be baptized in order to be saved:

"Naturally, the Reformed model of original sin, with its vigorous doctrine of imputed guilt, paints a different portrait of infant sinners. According to the Reformed model, infants and children are sinners from birth, sinful from conception, and therefore under the judgment of God. Consequently, they stand in need of redemption as fully as adults do, for they are estranged from God and at enmity with him. They are corrupt and guilty, sinfully warped and accountable for their sin-and-sinfulness in Adam."  http://www.midamerica.edu/uploads/files/pdf/journal/12-beach.pdf

And this from the Westminster Confession on "Why We Baptize Infants":

"Children do not become sinful after they grow up or in the process of growing up. They are sinful from the very outset. They are conceived in sin and brought forth in iniquity. They go astray from the very womb."

http://www.westminsterconfession.org/worship/why-we-baptize-infants.php

 

Interesting, thanks for sharing. This is part of the doctrine of "Total Depravity" found in the "T" in TULIP that Reformed folk adhere to theologically. One way I personally think LDS are misinformed is thinking infant damnation is a Catholic thing, when in reality I think one who adheres to Calvinism is more likely to espouse this. I'm not saying all Reformed believe this but I've seen several people who adhere to Calvinism openly state that babies may go to hell.

[CV75]

On 12/27/2016 at 3:22 PM, theplains said:

By original sin, I usually use the term "first sin."

King Benjamin said it best: “And finally, I cannot tell you all the things whereby ye may commit sin; for there are divers ways and means, even so many that I cannot number them.” Original sin would be a surprising one he hadn’t thought of, that would make him exclaim, “Now that’s original!”

[bluebell]

10 hours ago, Okrahomer said:

Erik can correct me--and I'm sure he will--but it seems clear that this idea (Imputed Sin) has caused many Christians to conclude that infants must be baptized in order to be saved:

"Naturally, the Reformed model of original sin, with its vigorous doctrine of imputed guilt, paints a different portrait of infant sinners. According to the Reformed model, infants and children are sinners from birth, sinful from conception, and therefore under the judgment of God. Consequently, they stand in need of redemption as fully as adults do, for they are estranged from God and at enmity with him. They are corrupt and guilty, sinfully warped and accountable for their sin-and-sinfulness in Adam."  http://www.midamerica.edu/uploads/files/pdf/journal/12-beach.pdf

And this from the Westminster Confession on "Why We Baptize Infants":

"Children do not become sinful after they grow up or in the process of growing up. They are sinful from the very outset. They are conceived in sin and brought forth in iniquity. They go astray from the very womb."

http://www.westminsterconfession.org/worship/why-we-baptize-infants.php

 

Yes, in these quotes they are saying that original sin includes the doctrine of imputed sin, and that's how it's been described to me as well by some non LDS Christians. 

I'm interested in Erik explaining why he claimed article of faith two was a straw man when it's clearly not (as the quotes show). 

[boblloyd91]

16 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Yes, in these quotes they are saying that original sin includes the doctrine of imputed sin, and that's how it's been described to me as well by some non LDS Christians. 

I'm interested in Erik explaining why he claimed article of faith two was a straw man when it's clearly not (as the quotes show). 

Now this is purely anecdotal, but I recall following a discussion between Catholic and Reformed folk about a year ago, and they were arguing over the semantics of some doctrine (I forget which one) when a Catholic poster talked about some problematic aspects of Reformed theology, which led to a Reformed poster telling him that basically Adam's sin was his fault too because he was born (?) Never quite got that.

 

[pogi]

17 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

Pogi, this brings up again a point I asked of Erik A.K.A. Five Solas. I have a developmentally retarded son. He does not understand right from wrong. He is a five year old mentally for this mortal life. He does understand when adults disapprove of some of his actions, but he does not understand why. Do you believe that he can sin when an adult tells him "thous shalt not steal" your room mate's cookies?

When William came of normal age for baptism a member of the bishopric approached me about having him baptized. I explained my belief that William was not one who would need baptism because of his limited mental faculties. The counselor later came back and told me that he had found out that I was correct.

(William did become baptized at a later date because he felt it was something that he should do after watching several of his brothers and sisters become baptized. But to me, this was not for a remission of sins, but "to fulfill all righteousness.")

Yes, without the atonement of Christ, he would still have been doomed never to be resurrected and thus would spend an eternity without a body, just as would an infant child who died without the atonement. But that is something we do not have to worry about, because the Atonement did happen.

I believe that Adam and Eve were in such a state of not knowing good from evil. (And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: Genesis 3:22) I have not found a reference in the scriptures that talk about the sin of Adam in the fall, but all refer to it as a transgression. My son transgressed a law, many times, when he took another person's cookies or drink, or the like. Is he a sinner because of that? 

But that point is really moot, because whatever the case, Adam was forgiven and whether he sinned when he transgressed the commandment or whether it was a sinless transgression with enormous consequences, we do know that those consequences, the physical death part, have been overcome by the Atonement and the spiritual death part have been mitigated on the condition of faith, repentance, and baptism.

Lehi's discourse on the fall clears up lot, to me, at least. According to Lehi, in his famous "opposition in all things" sermon, it was necessary for God to give them conflicting commandments. One commandment they were transgressing because they were not procreating. They were not multiplying and filling up the earth. And, if Lehi is to be believed, that would have never happened, had they not transgressed that commandment to not "to eat the apple."

I did see a conjecture that the Lord was preparing them to partake of the fruit but that is not supported by any scripture that of which I am aware. In 2 Nephi, chapter 2 verses 22 and 23, Lehi tells us that if Adam and Eve had not partaken of that fruit they would have remained in their Garden of Eden state forever and would have had no children. Earlier, in verse 16, Lehi said "Wherefore, the Lord God gave unto man that he should act for himself. Wherefore, man could not act for himself save it should be that he was enticed by the one or the other."

That, in part, is what I base my understanding of the fall upon.

 

Glenn

 

Hi Glenn, thanks for your response.  About the transgression, I agree with you that there was no sin involved as they lacked any moral knowledge and thus moral accountability. 

Because "conflicting commandments", goes contrary to every eternal law and every scripture that I know, I have a hard time accepting that it was necessary.  It would force me to accept that God is not constant and unchanging, but does indeed vary from what he has said - and he has said in 3 different scriptures (3 testaments in 1 Nephi 3:7, D&C 5:34, 1 Corinth 10:13) that he does not give commandments that cannot be obeyed - he will provide a way.  The scriptures state that the Lord provided for "opposition", there is a huge difference between opposition and conflicting commandments.  The opposition as presented in the garden, and represented in the tree of knowledge of good and evil, was Lucifer and Christ.  The one being good and the other being evil.  Adam could have first known good from the tree as it was offered to him from Jesus Christ, but instead they chose to know the evil through disobedience as offered to them by the hand of Lucifer.  Same fruit, different outcome based on who was offering it, or how it was being used as an enticement - not unlike sex or any other sacrament.

It is true that the scriptures do not explicitly state that they were being prepared to eat of the fruit, but the scriptures and temple both illustrate that they would have received further instruction and light and knowledge (we don't know what that might have been had they obeyed, but you know my suspicions), and that the Lord would have provided a way.  

Quote

I give unto you these sayings that you may understand and know how to worship, and know what you worship, that you may come unto the Father in my name, and in due time receive of his fulness. For if you keep my commandments you shall receive of his fulness, and be glorified in me as I am in the Father; therefore, I say unto you, you shall receive grace for grace.

He that keepeth his commandments receiveth truth and light, until he is glorified in truth and knoweth all things [knowledge of good & evil]…Behold here is the agency of man, and here is the condemnation of man; because that which was from the beginning is plainly manifest unto them, and they receive not the light. And every man whose spirit receiveth not the light is under condemnation. (D&C 93: 19-20, 29,31-32)

I admit that 2 Nephi 2:22-23 is difficult to reconcile with my theory.  I am not entirely satisfied with any explanations of that passage yet, but I have some ideas that I need to develop, so hold out for that.  Either way, I still feel more comfortable with a theory that only has one or two challenging scriptures.  I don't have to entirely uproot the eternal, unchanging, and non-contradictory nature of God, and dismiss an unspeakable amount of scripture in regards to obedience.  

Edited December 30, 2016 by pogi

[Robert F. Smith]

On 12/29/2016 at 11:10 AM, pogi said:

No doubt the Lord is pleased with those who show initiative and are inquisitive, and one can be and do all of those things without being disobedient to God.  Nephi and other scriptural passages assure us of this.  You will notice that none of the stories that you mention suggest or condone disobedience to God in any way.  They are in fact explicit on the point of obedience, the consequences of disobedience (pillar of salt), and the moral of not just being obedient, but anxiously engaged.  No such scripture exists which condones disobedience to God, and any interpretation in such a way should be questioned.  Disobedience is the spirit of enmity, it is the spirit of my will and not thine be done.  Initiative and inquiry are not the same as disobedience.

I do concede on the point that there are many scriptural conflicts, but these conflicts should not be understood to be the result of faulty or conflicting revelations, but rather they are the result of faulty and conflicting interpretations and translations.  God's word, as it comes from his mouth, is not contradictory.  If we see a conflict in scripture, instead of coming up with contrived and impossible notions to justify such conflicts, we should assume that there is a mistranslation or misinterpretation somewhere.  The conflict will be on the side of man and not on the side of God.  Joseph Smith sought to resolve such conflicts but never finished his work.

Well, yes.  I have to agree generally, with the proviso that it is precisely the rigid and stridently obedient people who are the most likely to apostatize.  They have been fed a false gospel of narrow and impossible demands, while not being told about the love and grace which God has to give them.  So they break rather than bend.  This is not unique to Mormons, but also happens to evangelicals, Jews, Muslims, and others who have been led down that garden path to radicalism and apostasy.  

I like the inquisitive Joseph Smith who was willing to ask hard questions and to bear with harsh criticism and persecution on behalf of the truth, and I love to see that among my fellow Mormons.  When a Mormon bishop goes off the rails, somebody needs to say a powerful "no."  I love that Orson Pratt disagreed so strongly with Brigham on some key issues (and today it is Pratt's view which dominates).  I honor my ancestors who did not go along with the mainstream program, but stood for something worthy and true.  You are correct:  Interpretations of what is true and must be obeyed differ widely, and rampant denominationalism is proof enough of that.  However, it is also true in general that creative people and geniuses are frequently outside the mainstream.  How would a creative genius or Joseph Smith have been treated by the Puritans?  Too many of us go along to get along, intimidated by the suggestion that we might not be obeying God.  WWJD?

[boblloyd91]

12 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Well, yes.  I have to agree generally, with the proviso that it is precisely the rigid and stridently obedient people who are the most likely to apostatize.  They have been fed a false gospel of narrow and impossible demands, while not being told about the love and grace which God has to give them.  So they break rather than bend.  This is not unique to Mormons, but also happens to evangelicals, Jews, Muslims, and others who have been led down that garden path to radicalism and apostasy.  

I like the inquisitive Joseph Smith who was willing to ask hard questions and to bear with harsh criticism and persecution on behalf of the truth, and I love to see that among my fellow Mormons.  When a Mormon bishop goes off the rails, somebody needs to say a powerful "no."  I love that Orson Pratt disagreed so strongly with Brigham on some key issues (and today it is Pratt's view which dominates).  I honor my ancestors who did not go along with the mainstream program, but stood for something worthy and true.  You are correct:  Interpretations of what is true and must be obeyed differ widely, and rampant denominationalism is proof enough of that.  However, it is also true in general that creative people and geniuses are frequently outside the mainstream.  How would a creative genius or Joseph Smith have been treated by the Puritans?  Too many of us go along to get along, intimidated by the suggestion that we might not be obeying God.  WWJD?

Good insights! In regards to how the Puritans would have treated, I would say based on their treatment of the Quakers and other people with dissenting views he would not have been long on the earth!

[Robert F. Smith]

22 hours ago, waveslider said:

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

No I guess I wasn't clear enough. I was literally taking oaths and making covenants, in a symbolic Garden of Eden.

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

Everyone of us is an adam & eve in that literal garden, just as Adam & Eve were merely bearing those same archetypal titles meaning "man" and "mother of all living."  Those were not in fact their names, and they were participating just as we do in the same ritual and for the same reasons that we do.  It is hard not to objectify it (and therefore miss the point).  It is always symbolic and figurative, as it was in Genesis 2-3.

[Robert F. Smith]

10 minutes ago, boblloyd91 said:

Good insights! In regards to how the Puritans would have treated, I would say based on their treatment of the Quakers and other people with dissenting views he would not have been long on the earth!

Yes, and Joseph even had ancestors in Salem during the Puritan witchcraft trials and executions.  Indeed, over a century later, he went to stay with his Uncle Jesse in Salem at age 7 or 8.  He may even have played with Nathaniel Hawthorne there that summer -- one of Hawthorne's ancestors was a hanging judge in Salem.

[pogi]

10 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Well, yes.  I have to agree generally, with the proviso that it is precisely the rigid and stridently obedient people who are the most likely to apostatize.  They have been fed a false gospel of narrow and impossible demands, while not being told about the love and grace which God has to give them.  So they break rather than bend.  This is not unique to Mormons, but also happens to evangelicals, Jews, Muslims, and others who have been led down that garden path to radicalism and apostasy.  

I like the inquisitive Joseph Smith who was willing to ask hard questions and to bear with harsh criticism and persecution on behalf of the truth, and I love to see that among my fellow Mormons.  When a Mormon bishop goes off the rails, somebody needs to say a powerful "no."  I love that Orson Pratt disagreed so strongly with Brigham on some key issues (and today it is Pratt's view which dominates).  I honor my ancestors who did not go along with the mainstream program, but stood for something worthy and true.  You are correct:  Interpretations of what is true and must be obeyed differ widely, and rampant denominationalism is proof enough of that.  However, it is also true in general that creative people and geniuses are frequently outside the mainstream.  How would a creative genius or Joseph Smith have been treated by the Puritans?  Too many of us go along to get along, intimidated by the suggestion that we might not be obeying God.  WWJD?

I agree with all of your points.  My very proposition of this theory should be proof enough that I am not one who is afraid to challenge predominant views in Mormonism or think outside of traditional thought.  I am pretty far out of the mainstream on this one.  Creative? Genius?  I'm blushing! 

I think the difference between the obedience that I am talking about and the obedience that you are talking about is obedience to God vs. obedience to "denominationalism" and men's interpretation of God and scripture.  We shouldn't be intimidated by the later, but should always be diligent with the former.  In the example of the garden of Eden, this was a direct command from the mouth of God to Adam.  I hold firmly to the position that God expects obedience to His commandments, and that he will always prepare a way to obey and bless us for doing so.

[waveslider]

7 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Everyone of us is an adam & eve in that literal garden, just as Adam & Eve were merely bearing those same archetypal titles meaning "man" and "mother of all living."  Those were not in fact their names, and they were participating just as we do in the same ritual and for the same reasons that we do.  It is hard not to objectify it (and therefore miss the point).  It is always symbolic and figurative, as it was in Genesis 2-3.

I was always taught that Adam was literally Michael the archangel, and I always felt that we symbolically were Adam, and women were symbolically Eve, in a symbolic garden of Eden, within the temple walls, which is literally built in our fallen world, when we do our temple rites.

[JLHPROF]

22 minutes ago, waveslider said:

I was always taught that Adam was literally Michael the archangel, and I always felt that we symbolically were Adam, and women were symbolically Eve, in a symbolic garden of Eden, within the temple walls, which is literally built in our fallen world, when we do our temple rites.

Adam is literally Michael the archangel.
We symbolically AND literally become Adams and Eves in the temple.

After all, after viewing the creation of the earth and the plan of salvation, do we not then literally leave the Celestial environment, cast off our "glory", carry with us a veil, literally descend from the presence of the Lord into the lone and dreary world, and proceed to literally multiply and replenish the earth as commanded by the Lord in the Celestial environment.
Do we not then literally offer sacrifice and prayer to the Lord and work with our posterity to literally return into his presence for eternity?

Oh we are indeed Adams and Eves, both symbolically (not the first ones) and literally (following the same course they did on the same planet they did).

[waveslider]

28 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Oh we are indeed Adams and Eves, both symbolically (not the first ones) and literally (following the same course they did on the same planet they did).

Thanks. That clarifies things up for me a lot.

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

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

I think the difference between the obedience that I am talking about and the obedience that you are talking about is obedience to God vs. obedience to "denominationalism" and men's interpretation of God and scripture.  We shouldn't be intimidated by the later, but should always be diligent with the former.  In the example of the garden of Eden, this was a direct command from the mouth of God to Adam.  I hold firmly to the position that God expects obedience to His commandments, and that he will always prepare a way to obey and bless us for doing so.

Well, you know what Bukowski would say, and he would be correct:  Everything is an interpretation or social construction.  Perception really is everything.  So, when I read the text of the Garden Story in its various versions, I get a message which is not so clear on just what is being commanded.  Don't eat the "fruit" (even if that is only a metaphor for something else), but multiply and replenish.  Can't do both. Yet both God and Lucifer speak the truth, the difference being the sort of "death," physical or spiritual, as though these are consequences of different kinds, both guaranteed, but already a part of the Plan from the outset.  It may not be a riddle wrapped in an enigma, but it is a problem.  Is Eve really disobedient?  Depends on your point of view.  I see her as enormously clever, and (as with many women) wise enough to save her man from missing the main point.  God is quite happy to see things resolved in this way, because (after all) it is the ritual plan put into effect as expected.  "No other way" is not just a hackneyed expression, and Lucifer is always there (right on cue) to do the work he is assigned, willy nilly, same as in the book of Job and in the Gospels.  Where would we be without him?  Lehi's Law of Opposition reigns supreme.

As foremost archeologist Larry Stager puts it:

Quote

Paradisiacal scenes depicting Levantine-style buildings located on or beside a high hill, probably representing the sacred mountain in the midst of a formal garden, convey powerful mythopoeic reality. A mid-seventh-century B.C.E. text from Aššur describes the “performance of the holy akitu festival outside the city in the Garden of Plenty.” The “Garden of Plenty” (kiriÆ nuhésûi) is the semantic equivalent of the “Garden of Eden” (gan eden). Near the city of Aššur, archaeologists have discovered a garden temple associated with the akitu festival. Row after row of tree pits filled the courtyards of the sanctuary.
    
Ancient Israel no doubt also participated in such cultic realizations. Live palm trees, cedars of Lebanon, cypress, olive and plane trees flourished in the courtyards of the Jerusalem Temple, making it a veritable garden sanctuary (Psalm 52:8, 92:13–14; Ezekiel 31:8–9).

Stager, “Jerusalem as Eden,” Biblical Archaeology Review, 26/3 (May-Jun 2000):36-47,66; adapted from his 1999 Eretz-Israel article.  Online at http://cojs.org/cojswiki/Jerusalem_as_Eden,_Lawrence_E._Stager,_BAR_26:03,_May/Jun_2000 .

 

[pogi]

58 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Oh we are indeed Adams and Eves, both symbolically (not the first ones) and literally (following the same course they did on the same planet they did).

I agree with this, except that I can't find the literal and relatable "same course" of having to decide between two conflicting and paradoxical commandments in this life.  It offers an obscure and distorted view of God and the simplicity, constancy, and purity of his word.  It offers a false scenario for real life.

Our innocence is not lost because God did not prepare a way for us to obey.  It is not a rigged system and a forced fall, where we have no choice but to be disobedient one way or the other.  God does not present himself in opposition to himself.  I feel like much of the meaning of the ritual and symbolism is lost with such an interpretation.  We were born innocent like Adam and Eve.  The tree is symbolic in so many ways.  It represents the much more relatable choice and opposition between patience and obedience vs. instant gratification.  It also represents the gift of knowledge of good as we choose obedience, vs. the knowledge of evil as we choose disobedience.  Through disobedience, Adam (and all of us) came to know evil as he hid himself from the Lord, and only later came to know the good as he sought reconciliation in answering the call of God by presenting himself before the Lord.  

It is the story of our lives and much more relatable to our personal falls.  This interpretation preserves the dignity of God's word.