Original Sin. What does it mean to you?

[theplains]

9 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

Spiritual death was a direct consequence of the fall.

There were some other direct consequences: sorrow in childbearing and a change in the relationship
between Adam and Eve (Genesis 3:16).  The ground was also cursed for Adam and he would eat of
its produce in sorrow too. Work would be hard too (verses 18-19). I'm not sure if it is LDS theology that
animals also gained the ability to procreate via the Fall.

Jim 

[Bobbieaware]

17 hours ago, theplains said:

There were some other direct consequences: sorrow in childbearing and a change in the relationship
between Adam and Eve (Genesis 3:16).  The ground was also cursed for Adam and he would eat of
its produce in sorrow too. Work would be hard too (verses 18-19). I'm not sure if it is LDS theology that
animals also gained the ability to procreate via the Fall.

Jim 

The Book of Mormon prophets repeatedly teach that the two primary effects of the fall are everlasting physical death (no resurrection from physical death) and everlasting banishment from the presence of God in hell (total spiritual death). The one and only reason why we're not now suffering this horrendous fate, but are instead enjoying the positive inner influence of the light of Christ -- who is the light that lights every man that comes into the world -- is because of the Savior's infinite and eternal atonement. Without that great atoning sacrifice of God all would be lost and only total darkness would reign. Therefore, if man ever thinks or does anything that is truly good, the ultimate origin of those good thoughts and deeds is by the merciful work of Jesus Christ the Lord. This is why the Book of Mormon testifies  " And all things which are good cometh of Christ; otherwise men were fallen and THERE COULD NO GOOD THING COME UNTO THEM."

 

[pogi]

On 1/7/2017 at 7:58 AM, Glenn101 said:

As to transgression versus sin, the translators of the Old and New Testaments often used the words interchangeably and even today it is evident that many people view them the same.

Right.  When the scriptures state that "sin" is the cause of death, I understand that to mean transgression of God's law.  Even the Book of Mormon uses the word "sin" where Mormons today would use the word transgression.  I used the example of sinning in ignorance.  A Mormon today would argue that you can't sin in ignorance, and that it would be more appropriately termed "transgression".  It is clear that transgression requires atonement, or physical and spiritual death would take hold of the creature eternally. 

On 1/7/2017 at 7:58 AM, Glenn101 said:

 It does seem that any transgression of God's law must be atoned for in some manner though.

That is right.  Adam and Eve would have been lost forever because of their transgression had it not been for the atonement. 

Thus we see that it was not the natural causes of the fruit that brought physical death, and it was not moral sin that brought spiritual death, but it was transgression to God's spiritual law as the scriptures state. 

You asked previously where God promised further instruction.  I too looked over all of the scripture and could not find it.  It then occurred to me where I got that idea from... I bet you can guess.  A sin of ignorance on my part.  There are so many versions of that story, it is hard to remember where certain information comes from.  I assumed it was in the scriptures as most of the story is.  

Edited January 9, 2017 by pogi

[Bobbieaware]

48 minutes ago, pogi said:

Right.  When the scriptures state that "sin" is the cause of death, I understand that to mean transgression of God's law.  Even the Book of Mormon uses the word "sin" where Mormons today would use the word transgression.  I used the example of sinning in ignorance.  A Mormon today would argue that you can't sin in ignorance, and that it would be more appropriately termed "transgression".  It is clear that such a transgression requires atonement or death would take hold of the "creature" eternally. 

That is right.  Adam and Eve would have been lost forever because of their transgression had it not been for the atonement. 

Thus we see that it was not the natural causes of the fruit that brought physical death, and it was not moral sin that brought spiritual death, but it was transgression to God's spiritual law as the scriptures state. 

You asked previously where God promised further instruction.  I too looked over all of the scripture and could not find it.  It then occurred to me where I got that idea from... I bet you can guess.  A sin of ignorance on my part.  There are so many versions of that story, it is hard to remember where certain information comes from. 

I really enjoy your posts pogi! But wouldn't you agree that, at least within the realm of theoretical possibilities, it could be that the primary MORAL justification for the spiritual fall was the sin -- or transgression -- of our first parents but that, simultaneously, the consumption of a real fruit, with a chemical composition designed to bring about PHYSICAL changes in the paradisical bodies of Adam and Eve, made them mortal in the same same way the ingestion of poisonous mushrooms can administer the physical change we know as physical death. In other words, why couldn't both be true? I'm sure there have been plenty of first-time heroine users who experienced something akin to a spiritual fall when they made the choice to stick a syringe full of heroin into their arms for the first time and then physically died soon thereafter because they didn't realize a fatal dose of the drug was being administered. In such an instance, spiritual and physical death come about because of both a choice AND an act.

Edited January 9, 2017 by Bobbieaware

[pogi]

1 hour ago, Bobbieaware said:

I really enjoy your posts pogi! But wouldn't you agree that, at least within the realm of theoretical possibilities, it could be that the primary MORAL justification for the spiritual fall was the sin -- or transgression -- of our first parents but that, simultaneously, the consumption of a real fruit, with a chemical composition designed to bring about PHYSICAL changes in the paradisical bodies of Adam and Eve, made them mortal in the same same way the ingestion of poisonous mushrooms can administer the physical change we know as physical death. In other words, why couldn't both be true? I'm sure there have been plenty of first-time heroine users who experienced something akin to a spiritual fall when they made the choice to stick a syringe full of heroin into their arms for the first time and then physically died soon thereafter because they didn't realize a fatal dose of the drug was being administered. In such an instance, spiritual and physical death come about because of both a choice AND an act.

Thanks for the compliment!

When you consider that "the fall" encompasses both the physical and spiritual fall/death of Adam and Eve, and you also consider that "the fall" was a direct consequence of the transgression and not the direct consequence of the fruit, it leaves little ground for the theory of a corrupt fruit.  None of God's creation was corrupt in the garden of Eden.  Corruption only entered as a direct result of the fall, which was a direct result of transgression. 

Think about this, the direct consequences of the fruit itself were good, unless you think that moral agency is inherently evil.  IT was the transgression and not the fruit that was the problem.  God himself deemed it good along with the rest of his creation.  When you think about the spiritual imperative of the fruit itself, and how essential and good it was, it is eye opening (pardon the pun).  It was the key to moral agency, which is good.  It was the key to eternal life, which is good.  It was the key to the fulfillment of the plan of God, which is good.  It was the key to become like God through eternal progression, which is good.  It was required for obedience to the first commandment, which is good.  Now you have to ask yourself, why would God forbid such an essential and spiritually good key save they were unprepared?  The only argument that I have ever heard is the one that you are giving - that God forbade it on the grounds of natural law rather than spiritual law; that it would break certain natural laws thus causing natural and physical death.  

I will share 2 scriptures which I believe ruin that theory.  The first scripture states that the reason for physical death was transgression (not the fruit).

Quote

For as death hath passed upon all men, to fulfill 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; and the fall came by reason of transgression; and because man became fallen they were cut off from the presence of the Lord.

 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. And if so, this flesh must have laid down to rot and to crumble to its mother earth, to rise no more (2 Nephi 9:6-7).

The second scripture states that the command to not partake of the fruit was morally and spiritually based and not naturally or physically based:

Quote

Wherefore, verily I say unto you that all things unto me are spiritual, and not at any time have I given unto you a law which was temporal; neither any man, nor the children of men; neither Adam, your father, whom I created.

Behold, I gave unto him that he should be an agent unto himself; and I gave unto him commandment, but no temporal commandment gave I unto him, for my commandments are spiritual; they are not natural nor temporal, neither carnal nor sensual (D&C 29:34-35).

 

Edited January 9, 2017 by pogi

[Bobbieaware]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

Thanks for the compliment!

When you consider that "the fall" encompasses both the physical and spiritual fall/death of Adam and Eve, and you also consider that "the fall" was a direct consequence of the transgression and not the direct consequence of the fruit, it leaves little ground for the theory of a corrupt fruit.  None of God's creation was corrupt in the garden of Eden.  Corruption only entered as a direct result of the fall, which was a direct result of transgression. 

Think about this, the direct consequences of the fruit itself were good, unless you think that moral agency is inherently evil.  IT was the transgression and not the fruit that was the problem.  God himself deemed it good along with the rest of his creation.  When you think about the spiritual imperative of the fruit itself, and how essential and good it was, it is eye opening (pardon the pun).  It was the key to moral agency, which is good.  It was the key to eternal life, which is good.  It was the key to the fulfillment of the plan of God, which is good.  It was the key to become like God through eternal progression, which is good.  It was required for obedience to the first commandment, which is good.  Now you have to ask yourself, why would God forbid such an essential and spiritually good key save they were unprepared?  The only argument that I have ever heard is the one that you are giving - that God forbade it on the grounds of natural law rather than spiritual law; that it would break certain natural laws thus causing natural and physical death.  

I will share 2 scriptures which I believe ruin that theory.  The first scripture states that the reason for physical death was transgression (not the fruit).

The second scripture states that the command to not partake of the fruit was morally and spiritually based and not naturally or physically based:

 

Thanks for the response. Because of time constraints, I'll go one point at a time. Last one first.

You quote Doctrine and Covenants 29 which says, "not at any time have I given unto you a law which was temporal, neither any man, neither the children of men..."

Yet the Lord gave the human race the law of the Word of Wisdom which says we should to abstain from the ingestion of several physical substances that are harmful to our bodies and to be unafraid to wisely partake of other physical substances that the Lord says are physically beneficial. Now I'm well-aware of the fact that D&C 87 promises there will be purely spiritual blessings poured out if one obeys the letter and spirit of the Word of Wisdom. But it also clearly promises there will be physical blessings that will likely bring health, vitality and vigor to the human body. In fact, the Lord seems to suggest bodily health and spiritual health go hand in hand. So my question is this: How can a law from God be purely spiritual, while the Word of Wisdom pertains to the ingestion of earthly physical substances that will either hurt or bless the fallen human bodies of the children of men? 

[pogi]

2 hours ago, Bobbieaware said:

Thanks for the response. Because of time constraints, I'll go one point at a time. Last one first.

You quote Doctrine and Covenants 29 which says, "not at any time have I given unto you a law which was temporal, neither any man, neither the children of men..."

Yet the Lord gave the human race the law of the Word of Wisdom which says we should to abstain from the ingestion of several physical substances that are harmful to our bodies and to be unafraid to wisely partake of other physical substances that the Lord says are physically beneficial. Now I'm well-aware of the fact that D&C 87 promises there will be purely spiritual blessings poured out if one obeys the letter and spirit of the Word of Wisdom. But it also clearly promises there will be physical blessings that will likely bring health, vitality and vigor to the human body. In fact, the Lord seems to suggest bodily health and spiritual health go hand in hand. So my question is this: How can a law from God be purely spiritual, while the Word of Wisdom pertains to the ingestion of earthly physical substances that will either hurt or bless the fallen human bodies of the children of men? 

There are a few ways that we can look at this.  These are a few options:

1. The Lord contradicted himself (I choose not to believe this).

2. We take D&C 89 at face value and accept that it was "not given by commandment or constraint... but for a principle with promise", thus eliminating any contradiction.

3. D&C 29 was written in 1830, 3 years before the WoW in 1833.  Even more, the WoW was not considered a commandment until much later.  D&C 29 specifically states that,  "not at any time have I given unto you a law which was temporal; neither any man, nor the children of men; neither Adam, your father, whom I created."

Note the past tense.  The Lord doesn't state that he will never give a temporal command, he states that he has never given a temporal command.  Of special note, he specifically mentions Adam by name.  I don't think that we have ground to question that point regardless of our interpretation of the WoW.  His command to Adam was not "natural nor temporal, neither carnal nor sensual."

 

Edited January 9, 2017 by pogi

[Glenn101]

20 minutes ago, pogi said:

There are a few ways that we can look at this.  These are a few options:

1. The Lord contradicted himself (I choose not to believe this).

2. We take D&C 89 at face value and accept that it was "not given by commandment or constraint... but for a principle with promise", thus eliminating any contradiction.

3. D&C 29 was written in 1830, 3 years before the WoW in 1833.  Even more, the WoW was not considered a commandment until much later.  D&C 29 specifically states that,  "not at any time have I given unto you a law which was temporal; neither any man, nor the children of men; neither Adam, your father, whom I created."

Note the past tense.  The Lord doesn't state that he will never give a temporal command, he states that he has never given a temporal command.  Of special note, he specifically mentions Adam by name.  I don't think that we have ground to question that point regardless of our interpretation of the WoW.  His command to Adam was not "natural nor temporal, neither carnal nor sensual."

 

I believe there is another way that we can look at the no temporal commandment quote. I have always felt that even though some commandments were/are concerning temporal things, but they have a spiritual basis. Tithing is just one such. It concerns our temporal financial dealings, but the underlying principle is spiritual.

Also, just wanted to echo Bobbieaware's "I enjoy your posts." They always provide a lot of food for thought. We all are viewing the same scriptures and have slightly different understandings of the. I confess that the lens through which I am viewing any of this does have that dark tint if which Paul spoke.

Glenn

[theplains]

On 08/01/2017 at 1:33 PM, Bobbieaware said:

The Book of Mormon prophets repeatedly teach that the two primary effects of the fall are everlasting physical death (no resurrection from physical death) and everlasting banishment from the presence of God in hell (total spiritual death).

The LDS Church teaches in Gospel Principles that great blessings resulted from the Fall.  Are you aware
of other times in human history where God blessed people for disobedience?

Thanks,
Jim

[Okrahomer]

29 minutes ago, theplains said:

The LDS Church teaches in Gospel Principles that great blessings resulted from the Fall.  Are you aware
of other times in human history where God blessed people for disobedience?

Thanks,
Jim

The Bible also teaches this, or do you not consider the Atonement of Christ a great blessing?

Luke 15:7 (KJV) ⁷ I say unto you, that likewise joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine just persons, which need no repentance.

 

[Bobbieaware]

1 hour ago, theplains said:

The LDS Church teaches in Gospel Principles that great blessings resulted from the Fall.  Are you aware
of other times in human history where God blessed people for disobedience?

Thanks,
Jim

IThe Book of Mormon repeatedly testifies the consequences of the fall are never-ending physical death and total spiritual death, with banishment from God's presence forever in hell. The reason why the Gospel Principles manual teaches eternal blessings came after the fall is because through the infinite and eternal power and blessings of the atonement of Christ God replaced the otherwise inescapable curse of the fall with the Gospel of Jesus Christ and it's deliverence from total physical and spiritual death. In other words, if it weren't for the fall there would be no Gospel of Jesus Christ.

I'm wondering. Over the years, I've heard and read several non-LDS Christian ministers preach that the Bible teaches God knew there was going to be a fall before the earth was created. Do you believe that?

Edited January 10, 2017 by Bobbieaware

[Bobbieaware]

5 hours ago, theplains said:

The LDS Church teaches in Gospel Principles that great blessings resulted from the Fall.  Are you aware
of other times in human history where God blessed people for disobedience?

Thanks,
Jim

The Book of Mormon repeatedly testifies the consequences of the fall are never-ending physical death and total spiritual death, with banishment from God's presence forever in hell. The reason why the Gospel Principles manual teaches eternal blessings came after the fall is because through the infinite and eternal power and blessings of the atonement of Christ God replaced the otherwise inescapable curse of the fall with the Gospel of Jesus Christ and it's deliverence from total physical and spiritual death. In other words, if it weren't for the fall there would be no Gospel of Jesus Christ.

I'm wondering. Over the years, I've heard and read several non-LDS Christian ministers preach that the Bible teaches God knew there was going to be a fall before the earth was created. Do you believe that?

Edited January 10, 2017 by Bobbieaware

[JLHPROF]

3 hours ago, Bobbieaware said:

Over the years, I've heard and read several non-LDS Christian ministers preach that the Bible teaches God knew there was going to be a fall before the earth was created. Do you believe that?

I do, as I've said repeatedly on this thread.  The Fall was the plan of salvation.

[Bobbieaware]

13 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I do, as I've said repeatedly on this thread.  The Fall was the plan of salvation.

Mormonism 101.

[RevTestament]

10 hours ago, Bobbieaware said:

Mormonism 101.

Genesis 101 - at least as revealed through the eyes of the NT.

This is why we see the tree of life showing up in the New Jerusalem. Those who partake of it, recover from eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, and get to live with our Savior. What traditional Christianity blames on Adam, they don't realize they have each done themselves to themselves.

The scriptures teach that the son is not responsible for the sins of his father, and shall not be punished for them. The doctrine of original sin departs from this scriptural teaching.

[Darren10]

On ‎12‎/‎27‎/‎2016 at 10:38 PM, Glenn101 said:

Then, again, they were in a completely innocent state, not knowing good from evil. They did not even know they were naked. Would they ever have had children under such circumstances? Carnal attraction did not seem to exist before they partook of the fruit.

Can a person sin in the eyes of God if they do not have the ability to understand right from wrong? Take for instance a developmentally retarded person, like my son. He is forever five years old. He does not really know and understand right from wrong. He knows only that there are things that adults disapprove of, but he does not understand why. Can he actually sin in the eyes of God?

Those questions are not answered anywhere in the Bible that I can find, but are answered by scriptures that you do not accept.

Glenn

"Those questions are not answered anywhere in the Bible that I can find, but are answered by scriptures that you do not accept." - Very well put Glen and those revelatory scriptures prove to be a great blessing to humanity.

[pogi]

22 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

I believe there is another way that we can look at the no temporal commandment quote. I have always felt that even though some commandments were/are concerning temporal things, but they have a spiritual basis. Tithing is just one such. It concerns our temporal financial dealings, but the underlying principle is spiritual.

Also, just wanted to echo Bobbieaware's "I enjoy your posts." They always provide a lot of food for thought. We all are viewing the same scriptures and have slightly different understandings of the. I confess that the lens through which I am viewing any of this does have that dark tint if which Paul spoke.

Glenn

Thank you Glenn.

I would be willing to consider that interpretation, but it remains an uphill battle for anyone to claim that death (both spiritual and temporal) was not a direct consequence of transgression.  When you consider the entirety of scriptural evidence (which I have studied thoroughly), any other interpretation seems unlikely to me.  On top of the scriptures that I have already shared, I have listed some more to consider.  My theory is that death has less to do with the tree of knowledge and more to do with separation from the tree of life as a consequence of transgression.  It is by no small consequence that it was called the tree of life. Note the theme and relation between death (temporal and spiritual) and "being cut off from the presence of the Lord", which is symbolized in the tree of life.    These scriptures demonstrate that Adam would not have died had he not been removed from the tree of life.  In other words, temporal death was a direct result of being cut off from the presence of the Lord through transgression.

Quote

Yea, behold, this death bringeth to pass the resurrection, and redeemeth all mankind from the first death—that spiritual death; for all mankind, by the fall of Adam being cut off from the presence of the Lord, are considered as dead, both as to things temporal and to things spiritual (Helaman 14:16).

Quote

 

 6 But behold, it was appointed unto man to die—therefore, as they were cut off from the tree of life they should be cut off from the face of the earth—and man became lost forever, yea, they became fallen man.

 7 And now, ye see by this that our first parents were cut off both temporally and spiritually from the presence of the Lord; and thus we see they became subjects to follow after their own will.

 8 Now behold, it was not expedient that man should be reclaimed from this temporal death, for that would destroy the great plan of happiness.

 9 Therefore, as the soul could never die, and the fall had brought upon all mankind a spiritual death as well as a temporal, that is, they were cut off from the presence of the Lord, it was expedient that mankind should be reclaimed from this spiritual death (Alma 42).

 

Quote

 

And now behold, I say unto you that if it had been possible for Adam to have partaken of the fruit of the tree of life at that time, there would have been no death, and the word would have been void, making God a liar, for he said: If thou eat thou shalt surely die.

And we see that death comes upon mankind, yea, the death which has been spoken of by Amulek, which is the temporal death; nevertheless there was a space granted unto man in which he might repent; therefore this life became a probationary state; a time to prepare to meet God; a time to prepare for that endless state which has been spoken of by us, which is after the resurrection of the dead (Alma 12: 23-24)

 

Quote

 

 And it came to pass that when Aaron saw that the king would believe his words, he began from the creation of Adam, reading the scriptures unto the king—how God created man after his own image, and that God gave him commandments, and that because of transgression, man had fallen (Alma 22:12-14).

 

Quote

For the wages of sin [aka transgression] is death (Romans 6:23)

Quote

But the free gift is not like the transgression. For if by the transgression of the one the many died, much more did the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abound to the many (Romans 5:15).

 

Edited January 10, 2017 by pogi

[Glenn101]

4 hours ago, pogi said:

Thank you Glenn.

I would be willing to consider that interpretation, but it remains an uphill battle for anyone to claim that death (both spiritual and temporal) was not a direct consequence of transgression.  When you consider the entirety of scriptural evidence (which I have studied thoroughly), any other interpretation seems unlikely to me.  On top of the scriptures that I have already shared, I have listed some more to consider.  My theory is that death has less to do with the tree of knowledge and more to do with separation from the tree of life as a consequence of transgression.  It is by no small consequence that it was called the tree of life. Note the theme and relation between death (temporal and spiritual) and "being cut off from the presence of the Lord", which is symbolized in the tree of life.    These scriptures demonstrate that Adam would not have died had he not been removed from the tree of life.  In other words, temporal death was a direct result of being cut off from the presence of the Lord through transgression.

 

Temporal death and spiritual death most certainly came to pass for all mankind because of the transgression in the Garden of Eden by Adam and Eve. Whether the temporal death, going from unmortal to mortal, was a natural consequence, i.e. that the fruit contained some type of chemical that made their bodies mortal or whether whether it was effected by God I do not know. Whether gaining the knowledge of good and evil was literally effected by the fruit or effected by God, I do not know. I tend to believe that the fruit had some properties that effected those changes, just as I believe that the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge had some properties that would have made their mortal bodies immortal. No matter what, as a consequence of that transgression, Adam and Eve became mortal and death entered the world. Adam and Eve gained the ability to understand right from wrong, sin entered the world, and man was cut off from the presence of God, the spiritual death.

Because of the atonement, physical death has been overcome for all mortals that ever were or will be born. Spiritual death will be overcome by by those who take advantage of that aspect of the atonement.

That is my understanding.

Glenn

[ERayR]

On 12/28/2016 at 0:50 PM, 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.

There would have been no mortal births at all without it.  They had to become mortal to have mortal children.

[ERayR]

On 12/28/2016 at 0:56 PM, Jeanne said:

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???

Not necessarily an apple.  It could have simply been knowledge of good and evil imparted by Satin and listened to instead of listening to God and Christ.

[Bobbieaware]

5 hours ago, pogi said:

Thank you Glenn.

I would be willing to consider that interpretation, but it remains an uphill battle for anyone to claim that death (both spiritual and temporal) was not a direct consequence of transgression.  When you consider the entirety of scriptural evidence (which I have studied thoroughly), any other interpretation seems unlikely to me.  On top of the scriptures that I have already shared, I have listed some more to consider.  My theory is that death has less to do with the tree of knowledge and more to do with separation from the tree of life as a consequence of transgression.  It is by no small consequence that it was called the tree of life. Note the theme and relation between death (temporal and spiritual) and "being cut off from the presence of the Lord", which is symbolized in the tree of life.    These scriptures demonstrate that Adam would not have died had he not been removed from the tree of life.  In other words, temporal death was a direct result of being cut off from the presence of the Lord through transgression.

 

There are so very many sins that combine a decision followed by an act. With this kind of sin, the decision to commit a sin is rendered null and void without following through with an act, and an act will not occur without there first being a decision to commit a sin. And in light of the fact that all the scriptural narratives of the fall include a decision followed by an act, I don't understand why it doesn't make sense to consider the possibility that the fall came about because there was a decision followed by some kind of an act. What is so significant and important about that fall coming to pass solely because there was a decision without there also being an act? In a strange way, it sort of reminds me of the born-again Christians who say the physical act of water baptism is totally unnecessary because receiving salvation requires only a decision, a decision that needs no physical act to be ratified.

Edited January 11, 2017 by Bobbieaware

[pogi]

17 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

Temporal death and spiritual death most certainly came to pass for all mankind because of the transgression in the Garden of Eden by Adam and Eve. Whether the temporal death, going from unmortal to mortal, was a natural consequence, i.e. that the fruit contained some type of chemical that made their bodies mortal or whether whether it was effected by God I do not know. Whether gaining the knowledge of good and evil was literally effected by the fruit or effected by God, I do not know. I tend to believe that the fruit had some properties that effected those changes, just as I believe that the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge had some properties that would have made their mortal bodies immortal. No matter what, as a consequence of that transgression, Adam and Eve became mortal and death entered the world. Adam and Eve gained the ability to understand right from wrong, sin entered the world, and man was cut off from the presence of God, the spiritual death.

Because of the atonement, physical death has been overcome for all mortals that ever were or will be born. Spiritual death will be overcome by by those who take advantage of that aspect of the atonement.

That is my understanding.

Glenn

That is my understanding as well.  I don't claim to know one way or the other, but the scriptures persuade me to believe that both spiritual and temporal death were the result of being cut off from the tree of life (the presence of the Lord).  It doesn't seem that there is a scriptural justification for the poisonous fruit theory, but the idea is contrived out of necessity to explain a possible reason for the forbidding .  When you explain my alternative theory and reason for forbidding the fruit, all contrived notions and contradictions disappear -1 Nephi 3:7 is still absolutely true, and God does not contradict himself.  He does not need to provide the opposition to himself through conflicting commands, Satan provides the opposition all on his own.

I personally don't see any valid reason in scripture to dissuade me from believing that the fruit would have been administered to them through obedience. Their choice was obedience (knowledge of good), or disobedience (knowledge of evil).  Does that no parallel spiritual reality perfectly?

 For me it clears up so much confusion and adds a depth of meaning without harming the plan of salvation in the least.

Edited January 11, 2017 by pogi

[pogi]

17 hours ago, Bobbieaware said:

There are so very many sins that combine a decision followed by an act. With this kind of sin, the decision to commit a sin is rendered null and void without following through with an act, and an act will not occur without there first being a decision to commit a sin. And in light of the fact that all the scriptural narratives of the fall include a decision followed by an act, I don't understand why it doesn't make sense to consider the possibility that the fall came about because there was a decision followed by some kind of an act. What is so significant and important about that fall coming to pass solely because there was a decision without there also being an act? In a strange way, it sort of reminds me of the born-again Christians who say the physical act of water baptism is totally unnecessary because receiving salvation requires only a decision, a decision that needs no physical act to be ratified.

I am not quite sure what you are getting at here.  Whichever way you look at it, there was a decision (to partake of the fruit) followed by an act (eating the fruit). 

From my perspective, the fruit would have been administered to them in time - an intended blessing predicated upon obedience.  Knowledge of good is always predicated upon obedience while knowledge of evil is always predicated upon disobedience.  Adam and Eve came to know the good through the evil, instead of coming to know the evil through the good.  In other words, they were first introduced to evil causing them to hide from God and to be uncomfortable and insecure in His presence. They were more comfortable in the presence of Lucifer.  That is why Satan wanted to give them the fruit first - to win influence.  Satan knew that it would be given in time.  He knew the plan.  He knew the role of the tree from seeing what had been done in other worlds.  Satan was not ignorantly doing God's will by tempting them to eat of the fruit.  No, he was much more of a conspiring and conniving serpent.  In administering the fruit he was literally trying to take the place of God, just as he had done in the pre-existence.  

Why did Satan not anticipate such a harsh curse if he knew what had happened in other worlds?  One explanation is that this was the first world and first time that God did not administered the fruit to Adam.  This may help explain prophetic teachings which state that our world is the only world evil enough to crucify their Savior.  Why?  What is so different about our world?  Is it because Satan was the first to imprint on our hearts whereas God was the first to imprint in other worlds? Just some ideas to play around with 

The transgression was equivalent to the transgression of sex before marriage in many ways.  There is both a decision followed by an act.  That doesn't mean that the act is always wrong, but only when it transgresses God's law in forbidding it.  Sex is intended as a gift and is only corrupt when administered by Lucifer - such is the fruit of the tree of knowledge.

Edited January 11, 2017 by pogi

[Glenn101]

7 hours ago, pogi said:

That is my understanding as well.  I don't claim to know one way or the other, but the scriptures persuade me to believe that both spiritual and temporal death were the result of being cut off from the tree of life (the presence of the Lord).  It doesn't seem that there is a scriptural justification for the poisonous fruit theory, but the idea is contrived out of necessity to explain a possible reason for the forbidding .  When you explain my alternative theory and reason for forbidding the fruit, all contrived notions and contradictions disappear -1 Nephi 3:7 is still absolutely true, and God does not contradict himself.  He does not need to provide the opposition to himself through conflicting commands, Satan provides the opposition all on his own.

I personally don't see any valid reason in scripture to dissuade me from believing that the fruit would have been administered to them through obedience. Their choice was obedience (knowledge of good), or disobedience (knowledge of evil).  Does that no parallel spiritual reality perfectly?

 For me it clears up so much confusion and adds a depth of meaning without harming the plan of salvation in the least.

I do not really understand your reasoning there. Are you saying that God would eventually have given the fruit to Adam and Eve or otherwise enabled them to know the difference between right and wrong? 

Glenn

[theplains]

On 09/01/2017 at 8:34 PM, Bobbieaware said:

I'm wondering. Over the years, I've heard and read several non-LDS Christian ministers preach that the Bible teaches God knew there was going to be a fall before the earth was created. Do you believe that?

I believe God knew they would disobey him. But I don't believe God ordained them to disobey him. If
i remember correctly, I think I recall someone saying on this forum that he believed there was a great
celebration in heaven when Adam and Eve both ate from the forbidden fruit.

Thanks,
Jim