Transgression vs. sin

[CV75]

13 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

One has to distinguish between crimes (misdemeanors and felonies) for which one may be jailed or imprisoned, and mere infractions -- for which you may only be fined.

A Savior was provided Adam and Eve, and a their lives extended, so they evaded both imprisonment and a fine. In the short term, death and the troubles of a fallen world were not to be permanent conditions (such as the telestial kingdom of the resurrection is), hence the tree of life was made inaccessible to them preventing a conviction (living forever in their sins) that a crime would call for. It seems that death and mortality might be construed as a fine in that they suffered it and moved on, and quite successfully as the record goes.

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

A Savior was provided Adam and Eve, and a their lives extended, so they evaded both imprisonment and a fine. In the short term, death and the troubles of a fallen world were not to be permanent conditions (such as the telestial kingdom of the resurrection is), hence the tree of life was made inaccessible to them preventing a conviction (living forever in their sins) that a crime would call for. It seems that death and mortality might be construed as a fine in that they suffered it and moved on, and quite successfully as the record goes.

You have taken the analogy too far, CV.  Violations of religious law only apply to those able to understand the principle.  We must not confuse that with secular criminal law, which does not apply to innocent children anyhow -- innocent children such as adam & eve.

[CV75]

21 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

You have taken the analogy too far, CV.  Violations of religious law only apply to those able to understand the principle.  We must not confuse that with secular criminal law, which does not apply to innocent children anyhow -- innocent children such as adam & eve.

Yet we seem to have the same conclusion that the moral or religious construct of sin (described in earlier posts as a classical definition of sin) does not apply to Adam and Eve's act of partaking of the forbidden fruit, just as secular criminal law does not apply to children.

[RevTestament]

On 7/14/2017 at 11:09 PM, JLHPROF said:

Eve transgressed.  She violated a law in order to gain wisdom AND to have children.

Moses 5:11 And Eve, his wife, heard all these things and was glad, saying: Were it not for our transgression we never should have had seed, AND never should have known good and evil, and the joy of our redemption, and the eternal life which God giveth unto all the obedient.
 

Do I believe Adam and Eve's parts did not work? Am I to believe that she couldn't get pregnant in Eden? Or am I to believe that she could not have spiritual children in the word, if there was no fall to lead them back to God from? The traditional interpretation seems to imply that we are somehow breaking God's law by procreating through sex - which seems to not follow from God's commandment to multiply. God's commandments are not self contradictory. I prefer instead the parable of the sower of the seed to the literal contradictory interpretation.

[bluebell]

On 7/13/2017 at 7:17 PM, changed said:

I was reading a book that had been sitting on the shelf for awhile - "The Broken Heart" by Bruce C. Haven, and ran across something that started me thinking - 

" .. Adam and Eve's original sin was not a classic sin in the sense of an evil, knowing rebellion against God." - pg 16

Seems to me that they both knew what they were doing was wrong - I mean they walked and talked with God Himself, they were told directly not to eat the fruit... it's not like they were some third-world starving children who had never met missionaries and had never been taught anything about who God was.  Adam and Eve knew better than any of us who God was - they knew him better than any prophet ever did... so how is it that anyone can call what they did a mere "transgression" rather than a sin?  They absolutely knew what they were doing.

I mean, if it was not a sin, why did Jesus have to atone for it?  

I haven't read the whole thread, so this might have already been said.

First, they didn't know the difference between good and evil until after they had partaken of the fruit.  Second, Elder Oaks has explained previously that the difference between a sin and transgression is the difference between murder and jaywalking.  Both are against the law, but one is morally wrong while the other is wrong only because someone has said that it is wrong.  

There are penalties for both acts, which is why the Atonement covers Adam and Eve's transgression.

[changed]

3 hours ago, RevTestament said:

Do I believe Adam and Eve's parts did not work? Am I to believe that she couldn't get pregnant in Eden? Or am I to believe that she could not have spiritual children in the word, if there was no fall to lead them back to God from? The traditional interpretation seems to imply that we are somehow breaking God's law by procreating through sex - which seems to not follow from God's commandment to multiply. God's commandments are not self contradictory. I prefer instead the parable of the sower of the seed to the literal contradictory interpretation.

It is a scripture - 

Moses 5:11

• Pearl of Great Price

And Eve, his wife, heard all these things and was glad, saying: Were it not for our transgression we never should have had seed, and never should have known good and evil, and the joy of our redemption, and the eternal life which God giveth unto all the obedient. 

 

So Adam and Eve were unable to have children in their perfect state - yes.

Edited July 17, 2017 by changed

[changed]

3 hours ago, bluebell said:

I haven't read the whole thread, so this might have already been said.

First, they didn't know the difference between good and evil until after they had partaken of the fruit.  Second, Elder Oaks has explained previously that the difference between a sin and transgression is the difference between murder and jaywalking.  Both are against the law, but one is morally wrong while the other is wrong only because someone has said that it is wrong.  

There are penalties for both acts, which is why the Atonement covers Adam and Eve's transgression.

The someone who said it was wrong was God... 

[changed]

On 7/14/2017 at 11:09 PM, JLHPROF said:

Eve transgressed.  She violated a law in order to gain wisdom AND to have children.

Moses 5:11 And Eve, his wife, heard all these things and was glad, saying: Were it not for our transgression we never should have had seed, AND never should have known good and evil, and the joy of our redemption, and the eternal life which God giveth unto all the obedient.
 

She did not realize or talk about wanting to have children until after she transgressed.  The motivation behind the original sin/transgression was to gain wisdom.

 

4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:

5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.

 

The name of the tree was not "the tree for children", it was the tree of knowledge.  She did not eat the fruit in order to fulfill the commandment to have children (that was realized later).  She ate the fruit in order to gain wisdom - I do not think either were commanded to gain wisdom...  Eve's actions cannot be excused through the "they had to in order to have children" explanation.  It was not about kids.  

Edited July 17, 2017 by changed

[JLHPROF]

Just now, changed said:

She did not realize or talk about wanting to have children until after she transgressed.  The motivation behind the original sin/transgression was to gain wisdom.

4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.

The name of the tree was not "the tree for children", it was the tree of knowledge.  

I think you are taking the allegorical elements too literally (I can't believe I just said that).

The first commandment God gave Adam and Eve was to multiply.  Then he commanded them not to "eat of the tree of knowledge".
After eating and gaining knowledge Eve stated that they were then able to have children but not before.

Let's just say there is a metaphorical reason for the aprons of fig leaves and their placement.

• "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, Journal of Discourses, v. 2, p. 6

What knowledge/wisdom do you think she was seeking?

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, changed said:

The someone who said it was wrong was God... 

Of course.  That doesn't change anything that Elder Oaks said though.  Partaking of the fruit was wrong, only because God said it was wrong.  It was not inherently wrong (such as murder, for example).

 

[RevTestament]

1 hour ago, changed said:

It is a scripture - 

Moses 5:11

• Pearl of Great Price

And Eve, his wife, heard all these things and was glad, saying: Were it not for our transgression we never should have had seed, and never should have known good and evil, and the joy of our redemption, and the eternal life which God giveth unto all the obedient. 

 

So Adam and Eve were unable to have children in their perfect state - yes.

Yeah, I know there is a scripture I quoted it. There is also another scripture:

Genesis 1:

27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth,

 

One is a physical creation and one is a spiritual creation. Which do you believe is which?

I'm sure this is why the Church teaches Adam's transgression is different - he was commanded to multiply. Yet, Moses says he could not have seed.