Sin vs. Transgression

[SouthernMo]

16 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

The implications are numerous, especially as we ponder the idea of transgressing a lower law to live a higher one.

Sin however is something to repent of.  Adam and Eve never needed to repent, and instead rejoiced.  But because a law was transgressed a consequence had to be dealt with to satisfy justice.  And we see Adam sacrificing and the first revelation of the atonement.

Very good points.

Would it be a bridge too far to then say that today one does not need to repent for transgressions (only sins)?

[mfbukowski]

8 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

Very good points.

Would it be a bridge too far to then say that today one does not need to repent for transgressions (only sins)?

My point exactly.  If it ain't a sin fergitaboutit. It is a distinction without a difference.

[JAHS]

1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

But I don't agree that Adam and Eve were not accountable.  I believe they were fully accountable, and understood the consequences of transgressing the commandment not to partake, and they knew that Father forbade it, and that it was prima facie wrong for that reason.

The only consequence that they knew was that they would die if they partook of the fruit. They had no idea of the concept of right or wrong.

Eve said:
"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."(Moses 5:11)

2 hours ago, Stargazer said:

As I said, the fact that they had not committed serious sin, in the words of the lesson Mo brought to our attention, does not mean that they had committed no sin.

If the lesson said they commited any degree of sin the lesson is wrong:
"And now, behold, if Adam had not transgressed he would not have fallen, but he would have remained in the garden of Eden. And all things which were created must have remained in the same state in which they were after they were created; and they must have remained forever, and had no end.
And they would have had no children; wherefore they would have remained in a state of innocence, having no joy, for they knew no misery; doing no good, for they knew no sin"
(2 Nephi 2 22-23)
The scriptures say  they knew no sin, period. 

[CV75]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

Interestingly, the scripture indicates that it was the serpent that was actually deceived.

Yes, he was (if you mean "knew not the mind of God" means "deceived"), and so was she, by he (Moses 4:6, 19).

Edited June 25, 2018 by CV75

[strappinglad]

27 minutes ago, JAHS said:

The scriptures say  they knew no sin, period. 

Sorry, this is pre - partaking of the fruit

post partaking they would soon be aware of sin. I look upon the 2 Nephi quote as hyperbole for emphasis. I just don't think God would waste a perfectly good creation.

[CV75]

32 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

Very good points.

Would it be a bridge too far to then say that today one does not need to repent for transgressions (only sins)?

I think it depends on the nature of the transgression, what one has learned from it, and whether one wishes to go the extra mile (do all he can do) to help others who have been negatively impacted by his mistake. Adam didn't have to repent of the Fall, and no one else was harmed by it, so he just made covenants more suited to his new new world. And he essentially renounced association with the serpent. On the other hand, a preacher who realizes he had  taught false doctrine in ignorance might feel inclined to reach out to his parishioners with the message of his conversion to the Restored Gospel. This kind of repentance would not be required to establish his worthiness to be baptized, but it would be required in apostate instances requiring renunciation of certain doctrines and practices. Children of certain apostate marriages have to renounce those practices even though they have not committed any sin, but if they were beguiled into supporting them at one point, this is a good way for them to show their godly walk and conversation and do as Adam did, which is to make covenants for a new world, even if they never were beguiled or willingly supportive.

[JAHS]

10 minutes ago, strappinglad said:

Sorry, this is pre - partaking of the fruit

post partaking they would soon be aware of sin. I look upon the 2 Nephi quote as hyperbole for emphasis. I just don't think God would waste a perfectly good creation.

Of course they would soon be aware of sin.  But if they did not know right from wrong and knew no sin what they eventually did can not be called a sin.
God would not have wasted anything. He knew exactly what would happen. and it did.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, SouthernMo said:

Elder Oaks’ 1993 talk, which sheds light on the subject: https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1993/10/the-great-plan-of-happiness?lang=eng

—Their choice was NOT a sin (he quotes Joseph Smith)

—It was a transgression of the law (he quotes Joseph Fielding Smith)

He goes on to explain that sin is inherently wrong, while a transgression is formally prohibited.  Which begs the question, is breaking the word of wisdom a transgression (and not a sin)?  What about failure to pay tithing?  What other commandments fall under the category of “formally prohibited”, as opposed to “inherently wrong?”

Hopefully, using a teaching from Elder Oaks is more appropriate (@Stargazer)  than using a gospel principles manual as a basis for discussion?

Quote

Elder Joseph Fielding Smith said: “I never speak of the part Eve took in this fall as a sin, nor do I accuse Adam of a sin. … This was a transgression of the law, but not a sin … for it was something that Adam and Eve had to do!” (Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation,comp. Bruce R. McConkie, 3 vols., Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1954–56, 1:114–15).

There is a commercial on TV now which includes a discussion about whether or not a hotdog is a "sandwich"- and the answer is supposedly conclusively given by a computer that it IS a sandwich.

I would like to propose that the whole question of whether it was a "sin" OR "transgression" is like the huge problem of whether or not a hotdog is a sandwich.

In the final analysis it is a semantic non-problem and irrelevant to anything of practical importance.  Frankly I think the whole distinction was invented by LDS folks who wanted to hold onto the idea that there was something "wrong" with the fall because they had been raised by Protestants who believed there is something VERY wrong with the fall, and yet the LDS folks did not want to come right out and say that the Fall was part of God's plan.

So they invented this phony distinction between a "transgression" and a "sin"- a distinction without a definable difference and here we are today discussing it still.

It's kind of like the LDS fudging on the word "damn" in scriptures that speak of damnation as a synonym of "dam", meaning to stop or break the flow of a river, or in the LDS usage including the fudged meaning, to stop one's progress toward progression.

Look up both words in any dictionary including the OED and you will find that in no way does "damn" ever take on the meaning of "dam".

In short if we want to fudge on a scriptural meaning which uses the word "damn" we should just say that it is either an incorrect usage  or a misinterpretation or a mistranslation or that we just do not agree with the scripture and call it for what it is.  "Damn" never means "dam"!

So I see "transgression" used here in a similar way.

I want to quote an encyclopedia entry about William James, without whom I would never have joined the church.  

I was a student of philosophy and long story short, was seeking a church with beliefs like those of William James- and found this one.  

I will highlight the relevant points to this discussion which illustrates what God was doing here in the Garden with Adam and Eve.  For me this IS scripture as well as our canonized scripture.  And this is only scratching the surface of the depth that the philosophy of James gives to Mormonism.

https://www.iep.utm.edu/james-o/

Quote

 In “The Dilemma of Determinism,” James depicts his image of God with a memorable analogy, comparing God to a master chess player engaged in a give-and-take with us novices.  We are free to make our own moves; yet the master knows all the moves we could possibly make, the odds of our choosing one over the others, and how best to respond to any move we choose to make.  This indicates two departures from the traditional Judeo-Christian concept of God, in that the master is interacting with us in time (rather than eternal) and does not know everything in the future, to the extent that it is freely chosen by us.  In “Reflex Action and Theism,” James subscribes to a theistic belief in a personal God with whom we can maintain interpersonal relations, who possesses the deepest power in reality (not necessarily omnipotent) and a mind (not omniscient).  We can love and respect God to the extent that we are committed to the pursuit of common values.  In “Is Life Worth Living?” James even suggests that God may derive strength and energy from our collaboration (Will, pp. 181-182, 116, 122, 141, 61).  Elsewhere, rejecting the Hegelian notion of God as an all-encompassing Absolute, he subscribes to a God that is finite in knowledge or in power or in both, one that acts in time and has a history and an environment, like us (Universe, pp. 269, 272; see Letters, vol. 2, pp. 213-215, for James’s responses to a 1904 questionnaire regarding his personal religious beliefs).

And so we see "Chessmaster God" making the exactly correct moves to allow Adam to make the Fortunate Fall

Edited June 25, 2018 by mfbukowski

[Hamba Tuhan]

9 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

So they invented this phony distinction between a "transgression" and a "sin"- a distinction without a definable difference and here we are today discussing it still.

I thought I was the only member who'd reached this conclusion. I guess not...

[SouthernMo]

14 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Frankly I think the whole distinction was invented by LDS folks who wanted to hold onto the idea that there was something "wrong" with the fall because they had been raised by Protestants who believed there is something VERY wrong with the fall, and yet the LDS folks did not want to come right out and say that the Fall was part of God's plan.

I agree with you that we don’t want to get too wrapped up into semantics discussions, but I’m not sure I want to write off the difference as something “invented by LDS folks” when Elder Oaks has spent time teaching us about the difference (as it applies to Adam & Eve and the fall).

[clarkgoble]

10 hours ago, SouthernMo said:

In correlated LDS settings, we are taught that Adam and Eve’s choice to partake of the tree of knowledge was not a sin, but a transgression.  That teaching is used to convey that their choice was part of God’s plan, and not something that they needed to repent of.

However, I’ve never gotten a satisfactory answer as to what the difference between a sin and a transgression is. 

Generally the distinction is between law and justice. One can break the law but it'd be unjust to punish someone due to ignorance or circumstance. That's particularly true in this day and age where the lawbooks for a state are often dozens of volumes. The common statement is that ignorance of the law is no excuse, but of course often it would be unjust to punish someone given ignorance. Balancing justice with the letter of the law can be difficult - especially when legislatures frequently given less room for judicial discretion. (Think "three strikes you're out laws")

With respect to the fall account, it's unsurprising that a lot of it was pushed by GAs who were themselves lawyers. (Such as Bruce R. McConkie or Dalin H. Oaks) That said, I think it's a useful distinction. Transgression just means one violated the law. Sin implies knowing willful violation. Even in our legal tradition intent matters a lot - say the distinction between first degree murder or manslaughter. In terms of effects intent doesn't matter - the person is dead in both cases. However it matters a lot whether the event causing the death was intentional, due to neglect, or due to accident. Responsibility thus is inherently related to intent and knowledge. (Even if I don't intend to kill someone, if I should have known my actions could have led to that - say driving fast under the influence of methamphetamines - I'm clearly responsible in some strong sense short of murder)

Getting back to the issue of the fall, the question then becomes Adam and Eve's intents and their knowledge. Typically people making the sin/transgression distinction note that neither Adam nor Eve knew good from evil yet but were like children. To draw an analogy again, a toddler who gets ahold of their dad's gun and shoots someone is going to be judged quite a bit differently from an adult who does the same thing. Thus the sin/transgression distinction. Contrary to some above who suggest it's a difference without a difference I think it gets inherently at how sin is related to intent and knowledge while transgression is just tied to rule violation. Where some might have a point is whether rules are themselves tied to intent and knowledge. I'd just note that the rules in Genesis 2 - 4 don't appear to have such ties.

Edited June 25, 2018 by clarkgoble

[Stargazer]

11 hours ago, SouthernMo said:

Elder Oaks’ 1993 talk, which sheds light on the subject: https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1993/10/the-great-plan-of-happiness?lang=eng

—Their choice was NOT a sin (he quotes Joseph Smith)

—It was a transgression of the law (he quotes Joseph Fielding Smith)

He goes on to explain that sin is inherently wrong, while a transgression is formally prohibited.  Which begs the question, is breaking the word of wisdom a transgression (and not a sin)?  What about failure to pay tithing?  What other commandments fall under the category of “formally prohibited”, as opposed to “inherently wrong?”

Hopefully, using a teaching from Elder Oaks is more appropriate (@Stargazer)  than using a gospel principles manual as a basis for discussion?

Okay!  Thanks very much for this!  I believe I have changed my mind.  

While I was writing what I wrote earlier I was having doubts about it, but I couldn't quite overturn it in my mind, but what Elder Oaks said flipped the switch for me.  

 

[CV75]

14 hours ago, SouthernMo said:

is breaking the word of wisdom a transgression (and not a sin)?  What about failure to pay tithing?  What other commandments fall under the category of “formally prohibited”, as opposed to “inherently wrong?”

I think it is inherently wrong to intentionally reject or disobey the light we have been given. So, breaking the word of wisdom and refusal to pay tithing would be sins for those who had witnessed the blessings of living them.

Eve did not intentionally reject the light she had been given, only misapply it while in a beguiled frame of mind. The probationary state that followed was designed to unveil her full potential.

[MDalby]

This was a transgression of the law, but not a sin in the strict sense, for it was something Adam and Eve had to do 
(Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, 1:115)

The use of the term transgression lays emphasis on the violation of the law or rule involved, whereas the term sin points up the wilful nature of the disobedience.
(Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, p. 804)

Sin cannot be committed unless laws are ordained (Alma 42:17) and unless people have knowledge of those laws so that they can violate them. Adam and Eve could not commit sin while in the Garden of Eden, although laws of conduct had already been established, because the knowledge of good and evil had not yet been given them. Unless they had partaken of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil "they would have remained in a state of innocence, having no joy, for they knew no misery; doing no good, for they knew no sin." (2 Ne. 2:23.)
This is the same principle used by our Lord in condemning the wicked Pharisees: "If ye were blind, ye should have no sin: but now ye say, We see; therefore your sin remaineth." (John 9:41.) It is on this principle also that little children "cannot sin until they begin to become accountable," because in their innocent state they are without "knowledge." (D. & C. 29:46-50; Moro. 8:8.) 
(Bruce R McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, pp.735-736 SIN)

Edited June 25, 2018 by MDalby

[changed]

17 hours ago, JAHS said:

But in their innocent state they did not yet comprehend the difference between good and evil. They were told not to do it, but didn't understand why or the consequences of what doing it would bring.  They did what seemed to them the logical thing to do because of what Satan told them.
Most children under the age of 8 might transgress a commandment but it cannot be called sin because they don't understand that doing it is wrong. When they do understand it is wrong and then willingly choose to do it, then it can be called a sin.

 

I think it applies to more than just kids below the age of 8 - it applies to anyone who is not omniscient, to everyone who does not know all the "why's" or does not know the consequences.  

[Scott Lloyd]

19 hours ago, SouthernMo said:

In correlated LDS settings, we are taught that Adam and Eve’s choice to partake of the tree of knowledge was not a sin, but a transgression.  That teaching is used to convey that their choice was part of God’s plan, and not something that they needed to repent of.

However, I’ve never gotten a satisfactory answer as to what the difference between a sin and a transgression is. 

Most recently, I’ve been told that a transgression isn’t as bad as a sin.  When I prodded further, asking if it’s OK for us to transgress, but not sin, and for more applicable examples of what a transgression (but not a sin) are, I didn’t get an answer.

Would love to hear thoughts. What is the difference?

To be clear, I am not interested in a thread about why Adam and Eve needed to partake of the forbidden tree, but more interested in understanding the difference between two words (ideas) we have been taught are distinct.  What application does this nuanced difference in terms have for me?

Who told you a transgression is not as bad as a sin? Was it an authoritative Church source? 

[SouthernMo]

36 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Who told you a transgression is not as bad as a sin? Was it an authoritative Church source? 

This is a very good point. While my reading of Oaks 1993 talk, paragraph 15 seems to connotate that a transgression is not as serious of a sin, it’s not 100% clear.

Perhaps a transgression is not better or worse than a sin, but rather in a different category?

[SouthernMo]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

I think it is inherently wrong to intentionally reject or disobey the light we have been given. So, breaking the word of wisdom and refusal to pay tithing would be sins for those who had witnessed the blessings of living them.

Eve did not intentionally reject the light she had been given, only misapply it while in a beguiled frame of mind. The probationary state that followed was designed to unveil her full potential.

I think I understand your point, and I don’t think it does a person any good to try to push the boundaries of living a good life, and avoid following any teachings from God because of a perceived “loophole” in the definition of “sin.”

But, if we’re taking Oaks at his word, it appears that by his definition, breaking the word of wisdom would not be a sin, but a transgression. There is nothing morally wrong about drinking green tea or coffee, BUT - it is a formal prohibition that our church leaders have asked us to obey.

There seems to be a teaching that there is a difference doctrinally between sin and transgression. The question is why?  What does it mean to me/us?  Should I/we view or treat sins differently from transgressions?

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, SouthernMo said:

This is a very good point. While my reading of Oaks 1993 talk, paragraph 15 seems to connotate that a transgression is not as serious of a sin, it’s not 100% clear.

Perhaps a transgression is not better or worse than a sin, but rather in a different category?

I think we need to be wary of drawing generalized conclusions from specific instances. Note this remark from that same talk by Elder Oaks: 

Quote

Under these distinctions, the act that produced the Fall was not a sin—inherently wrong—but a transgression—wrong because it was formally prohibited. These words are not always used to denote something different, but this distinction seems meaningful in the circumstances of the Fall.

So the words “are not always used to denote something different.”

Like all dogs are mammals but not every mammal is a dog, perhaps we could say that all sins are transgressions but not every transgression is a sin. 

I say we should be wary, because I’ve seen someone on this board try to rationalize homosexual violation of the law of chastity by calling it a transgression. 

Edited June 25, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[CV75]

2 hours ago, SouthernMo said:

I think I understand your point, and I don’t think it does a person any good to try to push the boundaries of living a good life, and avoid following any teachings from God because of a perceived “loophole” in the definition of “sin.”

But, if we’re taking Oaks at his word, it appears that by his definition, breaking the word of wisdom would not be a sin, but a transgression. There is nothing morally wrong about drinking green tea or coffee, BUT - it is a formal prohibition that our church leaders have asked us to obey.

There seems to be a teaching that there is a difference doctrinally between sin and transgression. The question is why?  What does it mean to me/us?  Should I/we view or treat sins differently from transgressions?

I think that – placing “morally wrong” within the context of breaking a covenant of the Restored Gospel – it seems that drinking coffee would be morally wrong. 3 Nephi 12:1 makes responding to what our leaders have asked to obey an intrinsic part the doctrine of Christ: “give heed unto the words of these twelve whom I have chosen from among you to minister unto you, and to be your servants” for that is how they “shall receive a remission of their sins.” The extent to which it is morally wrong depends on the Lord’s expectations of the one breaking the covenant under the particular set of circumstances.

I think the doctrinal difference between the two has to do with the principles of mortal accountability and divine redemption; in other words, our path to perfection. If we understand the character of Adam and Eve, and understand the character of God, we come to understand the evolution of our own character.

[mfbukowski]

17 hours ago, SouthernMo said:

I agree with you that we don’t want to get too wrapped up into semantics discussions, but I’m not sure I want to write off the difference as something “invented by LDS folks” when Elder Oaks has spent time teaching us about the difference (as it applies to Adam & Eve and the fall).

Oh.

I thought he was LDS......   and human.

I thought we were to get our own testimonies on these matters ....

( about to be struck by lightning) 😈

[SouthernMo]

23 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I think that – placing “morally wrong” within the context of breaking a covenant of the Restored Gospel – it seems that drinking coffee would be morally wrong. 3 Nephi 12:1 makes responding to what our leaders have asked to obey an intrinsic part the doctrine of Christ: “give heed unto the words of these twelve whom I have chosen from among you to minister unto you, and to be your servants” for that is how they “shall receive a remission of their sins.” The extent to which it is morally wrong depends on the Lord’s expectations of the one breaking the covenant under the particular set of circumstances.

I think the doctrinal difference between the two has to do with the principles of mortal accountability and divine redemption; in other words, our path to perfection. If we understand the character of Adam and Eve, and understand the character of God, we come to understand the evolution of our own character.

Interesting thoughts. I agree with you. Covenants are important, and need to be taken very seriously. I need to make sure I’m 100% understanding the scope of the covenants I enter into.

Given your interpretation of the 3 Nephi scripture, is there any misdeed that a member of the church could do today that you would categorize as a transgression but not a sin? (Two earrings in one ear, wearing a tank top, getting a tattoo, etc...?)

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

I think that – placing “morally wrong” within the context of breaking a covenant of the Restored Gospel – it seems that drinking coffee would be morally wrong. 3 Nephi 12:1 makes responding to what our leaders have asked to obey an intrinsic part the doctrine of Christ: “give heed unto the words of these twelve whom I have chosen from among you to minister unto you, and to be your servants” for that is how they “shall receive a remission of their sins.” The extent to which it is morally wrong depends on the Lord’s expectations of the one breaking the covenant under the particular set of circumstances.

I think the doctrinal difference between the two has to do with the principles of mortal accountability and divine redemption; in other words, our path to perfection. If we understand the character of Adam and Eve, and understand the character of God, we come to understand the evolution of our own character.

Different situations can change the morality of any act- for example killing someone in self defense.  It might be "necessary" to do that or kill someone to save another life.  And then of course we have wars, allegedly to protect others who cannot protect themselves.

Are these all "transgressions" and not "sins"- or not even "transgressions"?  One can take laws absolutely - "Thou shalt not kill" to mean absolutely never under any circumstances, and one can also take God's command absolutely but obviously it was totally ambiguous

Moses 3

Quote

17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it, nevertheless, thou mayest choose for thyself, for it is given unto thee; but, remember that I forbid it, for in the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

It seems even LESS like a "transgression" to eat of the fruit under the circumstances than "Thou shalt not kill" would be of one (say a police officer) killing someone who was about to kill another.

"Thou shalt not kill" sounds pretty absolute - much MORE absolute than verse 17 above and yet killing to defend someone would not even be regarded as a "transgression" at least in my opinion.

And so Eve saw it was "necessary" to eat of the tree AND choose for herself because it was GIVEN to her to make the choice or not. 

"Under most circumstances, don't eat the fruit or you shall surely die, but yet it's up to you"  And she knew the penalty was death.

This was not "most circumstances"- this was THE choice for mankind to HAVE choice!  This was THE opportunity to choose for all humanity.  "Is there no other way"? she cried.  She chose the penalty of death for the greater good of mankind.  It was like "dying for your country" which is seen as a praiseworthy act!

There WAS no other way- and it was "Given to her" to make the choice.

Not even a "transgression" in my book.

Edited June 25, 2018 by mfbukowski

[CV75]

57 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

Interesting thoughts. I agree with you. Covenants are important, and need to be taken very seriously. I need to make sure I’m 100% understanding the scope of the covenants I enter into.

Given your interpretation of the 3 Nephi scripture, is there any misdeed that a member of the church could do today that you would categorize as a transgression but not a sin? (Two earrings in one ear, wearing a tank top, getting a tattoo, etc...?)

To me, transgressions lack moral implications. I'm not sure how many of the Church's laws, rules and codes of conduct lack moral implications (maybe record keeping? One person depositing tithing funds and not two?). I would say that anything that would result in their not retaining a remission of their sins would be a sin.

[CV75]

40 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Different situations can change the morality of any act- for example killing someone in self defense.  It might be "necessary" to do that or kill someone to save another life.  And then of course we have wars, allegedly to protect others who cannot protect themselves.

Are these all "transgressions" and not "sins"- or not even "transgressions"?  One can take laws absolutely - "Thou shalt not kill" to mean absolutely never under any circumstances, and one can also take God's command absolutely but obviously it was totally ambiguous

Moses 3

It seems even LESS like a "transgression" to eat of the fruit under the circumstances than "Thou shalt not kill" would be of one (say a police officer) killing someone who was about to kill another.

"Thou shalt not kill" sounds pretty absolute - much MORE absolute than verse 17 above and yet killing to defend someone would not even be regarded as a "transgression" at least in my opinion.

And so Eve saw it was "necessary" to eat of the tree AND choose for herself because it was GIVEN to her to make the choice or not. 

"Under most circumstances, don't eat the fruit or you shall surely die, but yet it's up to you"  And she knew the penalty was death.

This was not "most circumstances"- this was THE choice for mankind to HAVE choice!  This was THE opportunity to choose for all humanity.  "Is there no other way"? she cried.  She chose the penalty of death for the greater good of mankind.  It was like "dying for your country" which is seen as a praiseworthy act!

There WAS no other way- and it was "Given to her" to make the choice.

Not even a "transgression" in my book. 

I see no moral implications to partaking of the forbidden fruit, so I don’t take Eve’s action as a sin. Desiring wisdom for the sake of keeping other commandments (multiplying with Adam and subduing the earth—the latter implying victory over some opposition that to date was at best imaginary) is no sin. Being beguiled is no sin.

To me, transgressions lack moral implications, so it doesn’t bother me to say that she transgressed. She broke a rule for life in Eden, but kept one for life in mortality and beyond, and as you say, she was given the choice which life to end and which new one(s) to live. I believe she did have an idea that being fruitful and multiplying, and subduing the earth, and having dominion over it and all her life forms would require a change (transgression) in venue!