s/o LDS Garden of Eden

[pfamilygal]

So, explain more. This is interesting to me.

 

So God gave two commands in the Garden that contradicted each other? Beget children (which required eating the fruit) AND don't eat the fruit (which means no children)? How could He give contradictory commands?

 

And if He wanted them to choose to eat the fruit, how could it be sin that required punishment (Jesus' atoning sacrifice)?

 

I'm really not trying to be a pain in the butt. I was LDS as a child and would like to know more. (I am now Methodist).

Edited July 16, 2011 by pfamilygal

[tntgoodwin]

For some reason, I thought the requirement to be fruitful and multiply came after they were banished from the Garden... I may be misremembering.

[dangermom]

Nope, the commands were simultaneous. I have always found it rather hard to wrap my brain around, but it seems that Adam and Eve were given two competing commandments. They had to choose freely whether to stay in the Garden, innocent but static, or leave it and experience hardship, sin, joy, and progression--and allow the rest of us to come to earth to learn too.

 

So we honor Eve for her wise choice, and Adam for going along with it.

 

I'm sure MamaSheep and others more eloquent than I will be along soon to give better explanations! :)

[stansclan89]

So, explain more. This is interesting to me.

 

So God gave two commands in the Garden that contradicted each other? Beget children (which required eating the fruit) AND don't eat the fruit (which means no children)? How could He give contradictory commands?

 

And if He wanted them to choose to eat the fruit, how could it be sin that required punishment (Jesus' atoning sacrifice)?

 

I'm really not trying to be a pain in the butt. I was LDS as a child and would like to know more. (I am now Methodist).

 

I've always been of the opinion (note the word opinion ;)) that "don't eat the fruit" was a temporary thing. God would eventually tell them to eat it, just not yet. Satan convinced them to eat it before God was ready for them to. Jesus' atoning sacrifice would always be needed, for we aren't and never were going to be perfect no matter what Eve did.

[pfamilygal]

So eating the fruit was not sin?

 

Where did sin come in then?

 

(Tell me to shut up if I'm obnoxious. I just find this very interesting. Most of my LDS friends IRL are not very knowledgable about their faith.)

[Julie in Austin]

What dangermom said, but I would add that when you wrote, "how could it be sin that required punishment (Jesus' atoning sacrifice)," that is not the LDS understanding:

 

(1) it wasn't a sin, it was a transgression. Some strains of LDS thought go so far as to see it as a "wise choice."

 

(2) it didn't require punishment

 

You ask where sin came in. I would assume that that's the next chapter--Cain and Abel.

 

And, you aren't being obnoxious. I (and others) are more than happy to answer any questions.

[KatDilan]

So maybe I am missing something here, but it seems to me that the idea that consuming the fruit was an access point to sexual knowledge has no Biblical foundation. It was the "tree of the knowledge of good and evil". Nowhere does it specify sexuality as playing a part. The sexuality correlation seems to be a man made idea. Nowhere else in all of Scripture is sex called evil. It's misuse and abuse, yes, but sex within the boundaries of marriage as God lays out in Scripture, no.

 

It is my opinion, and partly because God commanded them to be fruitful and multiply at the same time, that the "knowledge" obtained from the tree involved taking on the discernment between good and evil for ourselves, but limited as we are in knowledge, perspective, etc. we are incapable of doing so righteously. Why else would God Himself say in Gen 3:22 "Behold, the man has become like one of Us, to know good and evil."?

[pfamilygal]

It is my opinion, and partly because God commanded them to be fruitful and multiply at the same time, that the "knowledge" obtained from the tree involved taking on the discernment between good and evil for ourselves, but limited as we are in knowledge, perspective, etc. we are incapable of doing so righteously. Why else would God Himself say in Gen 3:22 "Behold, the man has become like one of Us, to know good and evil."?

 

I agree.

 

My understanding is that Adam and Eve's ingestion of the fruit was sin, because it was disobedience of God's direct command. They wanted to become like God (just as Satan had before). I think that's the traditional Christian understanding of original sin.

 

So LDS teaching is that sins and transgressions are different? Sin entered the world with Cain then, not with Eve?

[Julie in Austin]

I agree.

 

My understanding is that Adam and Eve's ingestion of the fruit was sin, because it was disobedience of God's direct command. They wanted to become like God (just as Satan had before). I think that's the traditional Christian understanding of original sin.

 

So LDS teaching is that sins and transgressions are different? Sin entered the world with Cain then, not with Eve?

 

The understanding would be somewhat different: Genesis 2:17 can be read as an if-then statement ("if you choose to eat it, then . . ."). (I also think it is interesting that Eve wasn't created at that point, but that's another story!)

 

If you are interested (and apologies if you are not), here's a statement about Eve from an LDS Church leader (Elder Dallin H. Oaks):

 

"It was Eve who first transgressed the limits of Eden in order to initiate the conditions of mortality. Her act, whatever its nature, was formally a transgression but eternally a glorious necessity to open the doorway toward eternal life. Adam showed his wisdom by doing the same. And thus Eve and 'Adam fell that men might be' (2 Ne. 2:25). Some Christians condemn Eve for her act, concluding that she and her daughters are somehow flawed by it. Not the Latter day Saints! Informed by revelation, we celebrate Eve's act and honor her wisdom and courage in the great episode called the Fall. Joseph Smith taught that it was not a 'sin,' because God had decreed it. Brigham Young declared, 'We should never blame Mother Eve, not the least.' 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! This suggested contrast between a sin and a transgression reminds us of the careful wording in the second article of faith: 'We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam's transgression' (emphasis added). It also echoes a familiar distinction in the law. Some acts, like murder, are crimes because they are inherently wrong. Other acts, like operating without a license, are crimes only because they are legally prohibited. 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. Modern revelation shows that our first parents understood the necessity of the Fall. Adam declared, 'Blessed be the name of God, for because of my transgression my eyes are opened, and in this life I shall have joy, and again in the flesh I shall see God' (Moses 5:10). Note the different perspective and the special wisdom of Eve, who focused on the purpose and effect of the great plan of happiness: '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). In his vision of the redemption of the dead, President Joseph F. Smith saw 'the great and mighty ones' assembled to meet the Son of God, and among them was 'our glorious Mother Eve' (D&C 138:38 39).

[DianeW88]

I want to give you a well thought out answer to your question and try to address all of the points, but I don't have time right at the moment (Saturdays are so crazy around here. :D). Here are some quotes from www.lds.org (you can always go there and search out any topic you want as well) to get started. I'm sure some of the other LDS ladies will be able to respond as well.

 

This is a basic explanation from a "Gospel Fundamentals" lesson (hence the simple language...I apologize for that...it isn't meant to sound patronizing or anything like that...it's geared for kiddos, but it's fairly basic doctrine. Feel free to ask more questions as they occur to you).

 

"Our Father in Heaven created a beautiful place on the earth for Adam and Eve to live in. It was called the Garden of Eden. When Adam and Eve were in the Garden of Eden, they each had a body of flesh and bones that could not die. They did not have children. They did not have to plant and harvest or work for the things they needed. They did not remember their life in heaven. They did not know what was good and what was evil.

In the Garden of Eden, Adam and Eve were able to walk and talk with our Father in Heaven. He told them the things that they should do. He told them to take care of the garden and keep it beautiful. He told them to have children. He also told them they could eat freely the fruit of every tree in the garden, except one. Our Father in Heaven told them not to eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. He warned them that if they ate the fruit of that tree they would die.

 

 

Adam and Eve Became Separated from Our Father in Heaven

 

Satan thought he could destroy the plan of our Father in Heaven. He came to the Garden of Eden and tried to persuade Eve to eat some of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. He told her that if she ate the fruit she would not die. He said she would know the difference between good and evil, as our Father in Heaven does. Eve believed Satan, and she ate the fruit. When Eve told Adam she had eaten some of the fruit, he knew she would have to leave the garden. He ate some of the fruit too so they could stay together.

The lives of Adam and Eve changed after they ate the fruit our Father in Heaven had told them not to eat. Our Father in Heaven sent them out of the Garden of Eden. They could not walk and talk with Him anymore. From then on mankind was separated from the presence of our Father in Heaven. Not being able to be with our Father in Heaven is called spiritual death. Adam and Eve had to live in the world outside the beautiful garden. They had to work to obtain the things they needed.

Their bodies changed. Now they could have children. They could become sick and feel pain and sorrow, and someday they would die. The changes that came upon Adam and Eve are called the Fall of Adam.

These changes affect all of the descendants of Adam and Eve. Like them, we too have the power to have children; and sickness, pain, sorrow, and death also come to us.

What did Satan do to try to destroy our Father in Heaven’s plan?

 

The Fall of Adam Was a Necessary Part of Our Father in Heaven’s Plan

 

 

Our Father in Heaven planned for His children to come to earth to receive bodies of flesh and bones. After He sent Adam and Eve out of the Garden of Eden, they began to have children. Later their children married and had children. In this way our Father in Heaven’s spirit children who lived with Him began to come to earth as He had planned. Because of what Adam and Eve did, each of us could come to earth and receive a body of flesh and bones.

Our Father in Heaven also planned for His children to work to obtain the things they wanted and needed. Ever since Adam and Eve left the Garden of Eden, our Father in Heaven’s children on earth have had to work to obtain the things they want and need.

After Adam and Eve ate the fruit that our Father in Heaven had told them not to eat, they learned the difference between good and evil. Now, each of us on the earth can learn the difference between good and evil and choose for himself to do good things or bad things.

When our Father in Heaven sent Adam and Eve out of the Garden of Eden, they tried to learn the things He wanted them to do. They obeyed Him and taught their children to obey Him. Each of us should also learn the things our Father in Heaven wants us to do, and we should obey Him and teach our children to obey Him."

 

We are not saying that Adam and Eve were not punished for what they did. They were. They were separated from God's presence. They had to experience pain and sorrow. They had to work for all they had, whereas before, it was all there for their taking. Here is the explanation of the difference between "sin" and "trangression" from one of our church leaders, Dallin Oaks:

 

Regarding this distinction, Elder Dallin H. Oaks of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles observed: “This suggested contrast between a sin and a transgression reminds us of the careful wording in the second article of faith: ‘We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression’ (emphasis added). It also echoes a familiar distinction in the law. Some acts, like murder, are crimes because they are inherently wrong. Other acts, like operating without a license, are crimes only because they are legally prohibited. 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.†2

Even though Adam and Eve had not sinned, because of their transgression they had to face certain consequences, two of which were spiritual death and physical death. Physical death came to Adam and Eve at the end of their earthly lives, but spiritual death occurred as they were cast out of the Garden of Eden, being cut off from the presence of God (see Alma 42:9

 

I hope that helps somewhat. I'm happy to get back to this and follow up on any other questions you (or others) might have. I know the other LDS ladies will be happy to help as well.

[8circles]

:bigear: This is fascinating. Thanks for explaining.

[usetoschool]

So, explain more. This is interesting to me.

 

So God gave two commands in the Garden that contradicted each other? Beget children (which required eating the fruit) AND don't eat the fruit (which means no children)? How could He give contradictory commands?

 

And if He wanted them to choose to eat the fruit, how could it be sin that required punishment (Jesus' atoning sacrifice)?

 

I'm really not trying to be a pain in the butt. I was LDS as a child and would like to know more. (I am now Methodist).

 

Hmmm...I didn't see what this spun off from but I will take a shot at answering, as best I can - I am no doctrinal scholar :tongue_smilie:

 

Choice, or agency, is the core of the doctrine in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It is what the war in heaven was about, that cast out Satan, and is why we are here; to learn to choose and become like Christ, to the best of our ability, since we can never be as perfect as He is. The Fall was not an accident. It was planned for and known all along. Jesus Christ agreed to be our savior and implement Heavenly Father's plan (where Satan wanted his own plan that usurped our agency). So, that is part one of the background info.

 

Part two is that Adam and Eve were like little children in the Garden of Eden and did not have mortal bodies. But Heavenly Father's plan always involved families. Family units are eternal and sealing a family together is the highest ordinance in the temple and in the gospel.

 

So Heavenly Father gave them a choice, essentially - stay here in this garden forever as immortals and never grow and never have children and never know good and evil, or choose to break a rule and become mortal and have children and progress. Eve was tempted by Satan to break the rule, but in the end she and Adam chose to move forward. The atonement covers Adam and Eve's original rule breaking. And we generally teach it as a transgression, the breaking of a rule and not really as a sin, though I guess that terminology could easily get mixed up and confused in conversations with other denominations that use the words differently.

 

There is in the Mormon Church a kind of list of beliefs called the Articles of Faith - #3 says, We believe that men will be punished for their own sins and not for Adam's transgression. In order to "fall" and become mortal, they had to transgress. We live in a fallen world, subject to sin and enticements and failure but the atonement paid the price for Adam's original transgression.

 

And now I have gone over this so many times and taken so long to type this up and tried to make it true and easy to understand that others have probably jumped in with better answers. :001_huh: :001_smile:

Edited July 16, 2011 by jcooperetc
eliminated a kitty killing misused apostrophe

[usetoschool]

I've always been of the opinion (note the word opinion ;)) that "don't eat the fruit" was a temporary thing. God would eventually tell them to eat it, just not yet. Satan convinced them to eat it before God was ready for them to. Jesus' atoning sacrifice would always be needed, for we aren't and never were going to be perfect no matter what Eve did.

 

I was just reading something a while back that talked about Satan having a much bigger idea in mind. He was on his way to convince them next to eat the fruit of the tree of life and live forever in their transgression so Heavenly Father put guards up around that tree and sent them away from it (Genesis 3:22). He allowed the eating of the forbidden fruit because it was part of the plan but cut Satan off in his bigger plan. Don't know that it is 100% doctrine, but was an interesting thought and explains the need to guard the tree of life. Satan knows the whole plan and was trying to short circuit it big time since he didn't get his way in Heaven.

[Xuzi]

I agree.

 

My understanding is that Adam and Eve's ingestion of the fruit was sin, because it was disobedience of God's direct command. They wanted to become like God (just as Satan had before). I think that's the traditional Christian understanding of original sin.

 

So LDS teaching is that sins and transgressions are different? Sin entered the world with Cain then, not with Eve?

This is where there's a big difference in LDS-Christian and traditional-Christian thought. We don't believe that striving to be like God is sin, but is, rather, the whole point of His Plan.

 

Moses 1:39 39For behold, this is my work and my glory—to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man.

 

(eternal life being God's kind of life)

 

Notice the emphasis on like God though. Not BE God, or USURP God. He is, was, and forever will be The Father. Just like I can "grow up" to be like my Mom, but I'm not my Mom. Even though I now own my own home and have my own children, and have held jobs in the past, I am only able to do those things because of her. I wouldn't BE here without her. I wouldn't have the skills I have without her guidance and direction. My accomplishments all point back to her (and my dad, of course. ;) )

 

Satan's sin was that he wanted us to NOT be able to choose. That we could ONLY choose God, but then Satan would take upon himself the glory of that accomplishment, rather than giving it to God, to whom it rightly belongs. Jesus Christ did the will of the Father, and give all the glory to Him, rather than keeping it for himself.

 

God wants us to CHOOSE Him, not be forced to Him. (which is why you'll never find a Calvanist Mormon ;) )

[dangermom]

 

So LDS teaching is that sins and transgressions are different? Sin entered the world with Cain then, not with Eve?

 

I wouldn't say that sin didn't enter the world until Cain came along. I should think that Adam and Eve, once they were fallen human beings, started sinning as part of their human condition. That's just part of being human; we sin.

 

In LDS theology, we needed to come down to earth and go through hardship and sin so that we could learn to make choices and become more like Jesus or our Father in Heaven. Since, however, sin separates us from God, we needed a perfect Savior to pay the price of our sin and make it possible for us to come back home to God if we repent. It's a long process.

[La Condessa]

The quoted from lds.org, and is official church doctrine. Sorry it's so long, but it's a lot better than I could have done myself :

 

 

Most Christian churches teach that the Fall was a tragedy, that if Adam and Eve had not partaken of the forbidden fruit, they and all their posterity could now be living in immortal bliss in the Garden of Eden. But truth revealed to latter-day prophets teaches that the Fall was not a tragedy—without it Adam and Eve would have had no posterity. Thus, the Fall was a necessary step in Heavenly Father’s plan to bring about the eternal happiness of His children.

 

No Death, No Posterity, No Progress

“If Adam had not transgressed,†Lehi taught his son Jacob, “he would not have fallen, but he would have remained in the garden of Eden. …

 

“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.

 

“But behold, all things have been done in the wisdom of him who knoweth all things.

 

“Adam fell that men might be; and men are, that they might have joy†(2 Ne. 2:22–25).

 

After Adam and Eve partook of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, their eyes were opened, and Eve expressed gladness at the opportunity their transgression made possible: “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).

 

Partaking of the fruit brought mortality, with its many opportunities to choose between good and evil, and enabled Adam and Eve to bear children. Thus the Fall opened the door for Heavenly Father’s children to come into the world, obtain physical bodies, and participate in “the great plan of happiness†(Alma 42:8). “Therefore this life became a probationary state,†a time to learn and grow, to repent and overcome weakness, “a time to prepare to meet God†(Alma 12:24).

 

Transgression, Not Sin

President Joseph Fielding Smith (1876–1972) 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!†1

 

Regarding this distinction, Elder Dallin H. Oaks of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles observed: “This suggested contrast between a sin and a transgression reminds us of the careful wording in the second article of faith: ‘We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression’ (emphasis added). It also echoes a familiar distinction in the law. Some acts, like murder, are crimes because they are inherently wrong. Other acts, like operating without a license, are crimes only because they are legally prohibited. 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.†2

 

Even though Adam and Eve had not sinned, because of their transgression they had to face certain consequences, two of which were spiritual death and physical death. Physical death came to Adam and Eve at the end of their earthly lives, but spiritual death occurred as they were cast out of the Garden of Eden, being cut off from the presence of God (see Alma 42:9).

 

Original Sin

The result of our first parents’ transgression, explained President Smith, “was banishment from the presence of God and bringing … physical death into the world. The majority … [of Christians] maintain that every child born into this world is tainted with ‘original sin,’ or partakes of Adam’s transgression in his birth. The second Article of Faith contradicts this foolish and erroneous doctrine.†3 All descendants of Adam and Eve inherit certain effects from the Fall, but because of the Atonement of Jesus Christ we are held accountable only for our own sins. Children who die before the age of accountability are “alive in Christ†(Moro. 8:12) and have no need of repentance or baptism (see Moro. 8:8–11).

 

Commandments in the Garden

The Lord gave Adam and Eve commandments in the Garden of Eden, two of which were to multiply and replenish the earth (see Gen. 1:28) and to not partake of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil (see Gen. 2:17). These two commandments were designed to place Adam and Eve in a position where they had to make a choice. President Smith taught: “The Lord said to Adam that if he wished to remain as he was in the garden, then he was not to eat the fruit, but if he desired to eat it and partake of death he was at liberty to do so.†4 Faced with this dilemma, Adam and Eve chose death—both physical and spiritual—which opened the door for themselves and their posterity to gain knowledge and experience and to participate in the Father’s plan of happiness leading to eternal life.

[Xuzi]

And something that I think needs to be added to the information already provided:

 

LDS believe in a Pre-existant state. Our Spirits lived with God before we were born here on Earth. As I understand it, traditional-Christianity believes that we don't come into being until our bodies were formed in our mother's wombs. LDS belief is that we've existed for far, far longer than that. :) Our life here in mortality is a blip on the radar (comparatively) as far as our existance goes, but it is a *very important* "blip", because we will learn things and make choices here that we couldn't make while in His Presence, and it will determine what direction we will go in when we die.

[pfamilygal]

These things make it seem like the LDS faith is very different than mainstream Christianity. Like two totally separate faiths. Am I missing something?

Edited July 16, 2011 by pfamilygal

[Xuzi]

When you focus on the "milk" stuff we have a lot in common:

 

Jesus loves me

He died on the cross for me so that I can be forgiven for my sins

God created the world

All fall short of the glory of God, and are in need of a Savior

The Bible is the Word of God

Jesus wants me to love my neighbor

Baptism

Sacrament (other denoms call it "Communion" or "Lord's Supper")

etc.

we have a lot in common. When you get to the "meat" stuff (Prophets, other scripture in addition to the Bible, different understanding of Original Sin etc.) then yes, there is quiet a bit of divergence. But then, from my own observation, there doesn't seem to be much unity of belief among the other denominations either, once you're past the "milk" stuff. I don't think there'd be quiet so many denominations otherwise.

[pfamilygal]

So, do you believe that the original OT/NT have been corrupted (as the Muslims do?) Because some of these teachings seem quite different than what I've read in the OT/NT.

[Xuzi]

So, do you believe that the original OT/NT have been corrupted (as the Muslims do?) Because some of these teachings seem quite different than what I've read in the OT/NT.

From our Articles of Faith:

 

We believe the Bible to be the word of God, as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.

 

We believe many "plain and precious truths" were lost from the Bible during the many, many years between when it was first penned to today. Whether those truths were removed intentionall by those who wished to use the Bible for their own gains, or by mere accident from having copies of copies, and translations of translations we don't know, but it's obvious (to us) that it was.

 

Also keep in mind that the source of our Doctrine is not limited to the Bible. We have the Book of Mormon, the Pearl of Great Price, and the Doctrine and Covenants as books of cannon, in addition to the Holy Bible. AND we have living Prophets who speak for the Lord today. So not finding a particular doctrine specifically spelled out in the Bible isn't an issue for us, as we don't consider it the ONLY word of God.

[La Condessa]

So, do you believe that the original OT/NT have been corrupted (as the Muslims do?) Because some of these teachings seem quite different than what I've read in the OT/NT.

 

We do believe that as the books of the bible have gone down through history and been translated, that some things have been mistranslated/changed/lost.

 

 

 

 

Oh, you were quicker than me, Xuzi. :001_smile:

[MamaSheep]

So, explain more. This is interesting to me.

 

So God gave two commands in the Garden that contradicted each other? Beget children (which required eating the fruit) AND don't eat the fruit (which means no children)? How could He give contradictory commands?

 

And if He wanted them to choose to eat the fruit, how could it be sin that required punishment (Jesus' atoning sacrifice)?

 

I'm really not trying to be a pain in the butt. I was LDS as a child and would like to know more. (I am now Methodist).

 

This is interesting to me too. :) If you want a good, in-depth read from an LDS perspective I highly recommend Eve and the Choice Made in Eden.

 

As others have said, we don't see it so much as God giving two commands that contradicted each other so much as we see it as God giving two options, either one of which would preclude the other. You have to choose one, you can't have it both ways.

 

We do believe that eating of the fruit and entering into a mortal state of existence was part of the original plan. As others have explained already we see it as a "transgression" rather than a sin. This transition is viewed as necessary for us to obtain a physical body like that of the Father (our belief in a corporeal God being another interesting topic IMO), and to give us an opportunity to learn to use our free will appropriately. We also believe that the atonement was part of the original plan, not a stop-gap fix for an "oops" after God's plan went awry. God knew that when we were learning to choose between good and evil we would inevitably choose wrongly some of the time. Christ's atonement for sin is viewed, in LDS doctrine, as an atonement for individual sin, not for original sin. In fact, while we accept the universality of the effects of the fall on mankind, we don't accept the doctrine of original sin--we do not believe that we share responsibility for that choic. And we believe that infants enter the world in a state of purity, not of sin or depravity (but the only person who ever lived who remained in that state of purity and did not sin was Christ). Another purpose of the atonement was to overcome both physical death and spiritual death (separation from the presence of God).

 

The Bible tells us that Christ was foreordained to be the Savior from before the foundation of the world--before the world was even created. (See 1 Peter 1:20, Hebrews 9:26, Revelation 13:8, for example.) To me, this indicates that having a Savior was the original plan, not a new plan that God came up with after Satan and Adam and Eve made wreckage of the original plan. And there would have been no need to plan to have a Savior if the assumption was that mankind would live forever in a sinless state in the Garden. A God that couldn't foresee that, in the circumstances He created in the Garden, Adam and Eve would eat the fruit would not be an omniscient God. A God that could not establish some other arrangement of circumstances that would prevent that from happening (if that's what He truly wanted) would not be an omnipotent God. To me, believing that God is both omniscient and omnipotent requires a belief that things went down in the Garden of Eden exactly according to God's plan.

 

(Two interesting side notes. One is that the first mention of sin I could find in the Bible was in Genesis 4, with Cain and Abel, even checking with a Hebrew lexicon. I'm not a Hebrew scholar, so it's possible I'm missing something there, and my belief doesn't swing on this fact or anything, but I found it interesting. The other is that to the best of my knowledge the concept of original sin was first taught by Augustine, and was not part of

Judaism or of early Christianity.)

 

And btw, I don't think you're a pain in the butt at all for asking, I think it's a perfectly legitimate thing to wonder. As far as I'm concerned you can ask all the questions you want. Also, thank you for asking so politely. :)

[MamaSheep]

So maybe I am missing something here, but it seems to me that the idea that consuming the fruit was an access point to sexual knowledge has no Biblical foundation. It was the "tree of the knowledge of good and evil". Nowhere does it specify sexuality as playing a part. The sexuality correlation seems to be a man made idea. Nowhere else in all of Scripture is sex called evil. It's misuse and abuse, yes, but sex within the boundaries of marriage as God lays out in Scripture, no.

 

It is my opinion, and partly because God commanded them to be fruitful and multiply at the same time, that the "knowledge" obtained from the tree involved taking on the discernment between good and evil for ourselves, but limited as we are in knowledge, perspective, etc. we are incapable of doing so righteously. Why else would God Himself say in Gen 3:22 "Behold, the man has become like one of Us, to know good and evil."?

 

I am LDS, and I completely agree with you that there is no indication in the Bible that consuming the fruit was an access point to sexual knowledge. Although I can't think off the top of my head of a specific citation of official church doctrine that even addresses this point, my personal take on it is that the reason Adam and Eve could not have children in the Garden prior to the Fall had more to do with their physical state than with their level of knowledge.

 

Be that as it may, the LDS church does consider sexuality to be sacred, not sinful, and the misuse of the power to give life to be wrong on about the same level as the misuse of the power to take life.

[MamaSheep]

This is where there's a big difference in LDS-Christian and traditional-Christian thought. We don't believe that striving to be like God is sin, but is, rather, the whole point of His Plan.

 

Moses 1:39 39For behold, this is my work and my glory—to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man.

 

(eternal life being God's kind of life)

 

Notice the emphasis on like God though. Not BE God, or USURP God. He is, was, and forever will be The Father. Just like I can "grow up" to be like my Mom, but I'm not my Mom. Even though I now own my own home and have my own children, and have held jobs in the past, I am only able to do those things because of her. I wouldn't BE here without her. I wouldn't have the skills I have without her guidance and direction. My accomplishments all point back to her (and my dad, of course. ;) )

 

Satan's sin was that he wanted us to NOT be able to choose. That we could ONLY choose God, but then Satan would take upon himself the glory of that accomplishment, rather than giving it to God, to whom it rightly belongs. Jesus Christ did the will of the Father, and give all the glory to Him, rather than keeping it for himself.

 

God wants us to CHOOSE Him, not be forced to Him. (which is why you'll never find a Calvanist Mormon ;) )

 

 

Keep in mind, too, that this idea of becoming like God being a proper goal for mankind is not limited to LDS-specific scripture.

 

A few random examples from the Bible:

 

Matthew 5:48 "Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect."

 

 

1 John 3:2 "Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is."

 

2 Corinthians 3:18 "But we all, with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord."

 

John 13:34 "A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another."

 

John 17:22 "And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:"

 

Romans 6:5 "For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:"

 

Revelation 3:21 "To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne."

 

This idea that becoming more like Christ and the Father is a GOOD thing is all through scripture.

[Guest Onlybygrace]

I should start this by saying that I've never posted on this forum~I'm brand new and just getting a feel for things NOR have I read each comment so this may have been mentioned (and I apologize if it has~I don't have time to read this whole post!), but the Bible clearly says that sin came through Adam, not Cain...

 

Romans 5:12-21

Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

 

13(For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

14Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

15But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.

16And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification.

17For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)

18Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.

19For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.

20Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound: 21That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord. :001_smile:

[pfamilygal]

Keep in mind, too, that this idea of becoming like God being a proper goal for mankind is not limited to LDS-specific scripture.

 

A few random examples from the Bible:

 

Matthew 5:48 "Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect."

 

 

1 John 3:2 "Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is."

 

2 Corinthians 3:18 "But we all, with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord."

 

John 13:34 "A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another."

 

John 17:22 "And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:"

 

Romans 6:5 "For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:"

 

Revelation 3:21 "To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne."

 

This idea that becoming more like Christ and the Father is a GOOD thing is all through scripture.

 

I would agree, of course. We are to be sinless or perfect/complete like Him and we will be when we are in Heaven. I think the difference (if my understanding is correct) is that traditional Christianity teaches that we will be human, but LDS teaches that we will be divine? Satan's sin was that he wanted to be worshipped like God and wanted to be equal with Him. Which of course, being a created being, he cannot and will not be. Just as we cannot and will not be.

[MamaSheep]

These things make it seem like the LDS faith is very different than mainstream Christianity. Like two totally separate faiths. Am I missing something?

 

To have a truly effective comparison one would have to first be able to define what "mainstream Christianity" IS, and what the actual beliefs we're comparing LDS belief to ARE. Which is extremely difficult to do, and will vary depending on who you ask. As Xuzi already said, we do have a great deal of agreement on the basic issues, but yes there are significant differences when we get down to the nitty gritty.

 

The question of whether or not they're two totally separate faiths is a little dicey. Actually I suppose you'd have to say there are 30,000+ different faiths, if we're comparing to "mainstream Christianity" as a whole. "Mainstream Christianity" isn't a cohesive, whole, single "faith". We would be more similar to some denominations, and more different from others.

 

We most emphatically believe the LDS church to be a Christian church. We believe in the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. We believe in Jesus Christ as the Savior and Only Begotten Son of God, as the Creator of the world under the direction of the Father. We believe in His teachings and strive to live our lives in accordance with them. We believe that Christ currently leads the church through revelation, and that the leaders of our church act under the authority of Christ. We believe the church to be a restoration of Christianity in its original form, and to be directly connected to the historic church in that the apostles Peter, James, and John appeared as resurrected beings and ordained men chosen for the purpose to the holy apostleship.

 

This being the case, in the areas where we diverge from modern "mainstream Christianity" we would say that the areas of disagreement stem from misinterpretations and misunderstandings of scripture as well as the insertion of human philosophy amongst revealed truth on the part of the various denominations of mainstream Christianity. If they are two entirely separate faiths, we would be of the opinion that this would be because mainstream Christianity has altered the beautiful truths given by God through revelation to the point that they are no longer part of true Christianity. However, generally speaking we recognize that members of other Christian faiths do have true faith in Christ and strive to live according to His teachings according to the best of their knowledge, and we believe that this is pleasing to God, even if their understanding is imperfect. Each of us has areas in which we still need to learn and to grow, no matter which church we belong to.

 

I hope I didn't offend anyone by giving such a direct answer, I just thought such a direct question deserved a direct answer.

[Xuzi]

I would agree, of course. We are to be sinless or perfect/complete like Him and we will be when we are in Heaven. I think the difference (if my understanding is correct) is that traditional Christianity teaches that we will be human, but LDS teaches that we will be divine? Satan's sin was that he wanted to be worshipped like God and wanted to be equal with Him. Which of course, being a created being, he cannot and will not be. Just as we cannot and will not be.

LDS teaching is that we ARE divine. We are ~literally~ Sons and Daughters of God. He is the Father of our Spirits. I know I've heard other Chrisitans refer to themselves as "children of God", but my understanding is that they don't mean it quite so... literally, as LDS do. Now of course, we are not the same level of Divinity as God the Father, or our Savior, or even the Holy Spirit, but the potential is there, and our experiences here in mortality play a huge part in our growth towards reaching our potential.

[Xuzi]

I should start this by saying that I've never posted on this forum~I'm brand new and just getting a feel for things NOR have I read each comment so this may have been mentioned (and I apologize if it has~I don't have time to read this whole post!), but the Bible clearly says that sin came through Adam, not Cain...

 

Romans 5:12-21

Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

 

13(For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

14Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

15But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.

16And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification.

17For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)

18Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.

19For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.

20Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound: 21That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord. :001_smile:

I agree, sin started with Adam and Eve and not Cain. It was just someone's conjectur, and not official LDS doctrine (which I think that PP tried to make clear in her post).

[pfamilygal]

I'll get back with y'all later. I am at work right now (in the ER) and things are picking up.

[MamaSheep]

I should start this by saying that I've never posted on this forum~I'm brand new and just getting a feel for things NOR have I read each comment so this may have been mentioned (and I apologize if it has~I don't have time to read this whole post!), but the Bible clearly says that sin came through Adam, not Cain...

 

Romans 5:12-21

Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

 

13(For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

14Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

15But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.

16And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification.

17For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)

18Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.

19For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.

20Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound: 21That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord. :001_smile:

 

Just to be clear, the LDS belief is not that Adam was sinless. We believe that Adam sinned just like everyone else. I do find it interesting that the Bible doesn't mention sin until Cain, but that doesn't mean I don't think Adam ever sinned. Certainly Adam's transgression (as it is called in verse 14 of your quote) is what allowed sin to become a possibility in the world, and we would absolutely agree that it was in the Fall that sin "entered into the world, and death passed upon all men."

[Xuzi]

I'll get back with y'all later. I am at work right now (in the ER) and things are picking up.

Blessings on your work there. :)

[MamaSheep]

I would agree, of course. We are to be sinless or perfect/complete like Him and we will be when we are in Heaven. I think the difference (if my understanding is correct) is that traditional Christianity teaches that we will be human, but LDS teaches that we will be divine? Satan's sin was that he wanted to be worshipped like God and wanted to be equal with Him. Which of course, being a created being, he cannot and will not be. Just as we cannot and will not be.

 

In LDS teaching the difference between divine and human is more one of degree than of kind. We believe that our spirits are literally the offspring of God, and our bodies are made in the literal image of His body. We believe that part of the purpose of our mortal experience and of Christ's atonement is to instruct us and purify us so that we will be capable of experiencing the same kind of existence that God experiences--Eternal Life. We believe that there is a difference between immortality and Eternal Life, and that Adam and Eve had immortality in the Garden, but that Eternal Life is available ONLY in and through the atonement of Jesus Christ. Eternal Life, the greatest of all the gifts of God, was not possible in Eden, because in their state of immortal innocence Adam and Eve had no access to the atonement of Christ. Stagnant, immortal, innocent, ignorance is not the same as knowing God and Jesus Christ whom He has sent. Walking with God in a state of ignorant bliss is not the same as sitting with Christ in His throne as a joint-heir with a clarity of understanding and knowledge.

 

Acts 17:28-29 "For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.

29 Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man’s device."

 

Hebrews 12:9 "Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live?"

 

Romans 8:17 "And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together."

 

The Biblical teachings that when Christ comes we shall be "like" Him, and that those who overcome will sit with Christ in His throne AS Christ sits in with the Father in His throne, and that we will see as God sees and know as God knows, and so forth, are teachings that we understand to be literal. We think Christ meant what He said about being one with Him AS He is one with the Father. I know that these passages are understood in a more figurative light in most "mainstream" Christian churches, but to me the LDS church's literal understanding seems the more correct one, particularly when taken with the rest of the Bible as a whole.

 

So yes, we believe that being "like" God means literally being divine beings. but that doesn't mean that we believe we will usurp or diminish God's glory or divine authority. Rather, we take the Bible literally, again, when it gives God the title "God of gods". For example:

 

Deuteronomy 10:17 "For the Lord your God is God of gods, and Lord of lords, a great God, a mighty, and a terrible, which regardeth not persons, nor taketh reward:"

 

Daniel 2:47 "The king answered unto Daniel, and said, Of a truth it is, that your God is a God of gods, and a Lord of kings, and a revealer of secrets, seeing thou couldest reveal this secret."

 

Psalm 136:2 "O give thanks unto the God of gods: for his mercy endureth for ever."

 

Far from diminishing God's glory, we believe that being worshipped by divine beings rather than merely by imperfect humans--or even perfected humans, could only increase God's glory--if such a thing were possible. Satan wanted to take God's place, to usurp God's glory, and be worshipped by God. He wanted to BE the Father. We believe God willingly shares His power and glory with those who are properly prepared through Christ, and that those who are so blessed will continue to worship the Father as their God.

 

Again, I believe this to be more in harmony with the text of the Bible than the mainstream "figurative" interpretation of these kinds of passages. It has never made sense to me that Christ would urge us to become like Him if he didn't mean it. He is not a liar.

 

(Something else that has never made sense to me is the idea that an omnipotent God would be unable to reproduce, should He choose to do so. But there we are...lol.)

Edited July 17, 2011 by MamaSheep

[MamaSheep]

I'll get back with y'all later. I am at work right now (in the ER) and things are picking up.

 

Oh good, because I need to go switch laundry and do something about dinner, and I didn't want to just run out in the middle of such a good discussion. :)

 

Also, THANK YOU for the work you do. I took dh to our emergency room a couple of weeks ago, and it would have been such a nightmare without the kindness of the nurses both to him and to me.

[Julie in Austin]

I should start this by saying that I've never posted on this forum~I'm brand new and just getting a feel for things NOR have I read each comment so this may have been mentioned (and I apologize if it has~I don't have time to read this whole post!), but the Bible clearly says that sin came through Adam, not Cain...

 

Romans 5:12-21

Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

 

13(For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

14Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

15But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.

16And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification.

17For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)

18Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.

19For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.

20Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound: 21That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord. :001_smile:

 

I'm probably guilty for derailing this discussion by mentioning Cain. What I meant by that was: if you want the first story in the Bible that mentions _sin_, Cain is it. Obviously (to me, anyway), Adam and Eve would have sinned in the course of normal life in the fallen world after they left the Garden.

 

Carry on.

[SailorMom]

LDS teaching is that we ARE divine. We are ~literally~ Sons and Daughters of God. He is the Father of our Spirits. I know I've heard other Chrisitans refer to themselves as "children of God", but my understanding is that they don't mean it quite so... literally, as LDS do. Now of course, we are not the same level of Divinity as God the Father, or our Savior, or even the Holy Spirit, but the potential is there, and our experiences here in mortality play a huge part in our growth towards reaching our potential.

 

 

Deists have huge variations in belief - as do Christians :)

I personally am in the group that believes we are all parts of one greater "thing". What that thing is - well - I figure God has it all figured out and I don't have the ability to comprehend it anyway :)

 

Really enjoying this.....

[WishboneDawn]

 

So we honor Eve for her wise choice, and Adam for going along with it.

 

 

I really think that's an interesting perspective, looking at it as wisdom rather then sin. After all, the absence of sin is innocence or ignorance. Ignorance, the opposite of wisdom. Is ignorance desirable?

 

I've never thought of the serpent as Satan, more as a mischief or helper figure. That would make sense in the wise choice context. (not saying this is an LDS view, just what it's implications could be for me)

 

It almost makes God seem a little mean, likes he wants to withhold wisodm and knowledge for Himself...Or like a parent who's trying to getting his childen out the door as adults aware of the impact of their choices...The punishments aren't punishments but natural consequences of the choices that, in the end, had to be made?

Edited July 17, 2011 by WishboneDawn

[WishboneDawn]

The understanding would be somewhat different: Genesis 2:17 can be read as an if-then statement ("if you choose to eat it, then . . ."). (I also think it is interesting that Eve wasn't created at that point, but that's another story!)

 

If you are interested (and apologies if you are not), here's a statement about Eve from an LDS Church leader (Elder Dallin H. Oaks):

 

"It was Eve who first transgressed the limits of Eden in order to initiate the conditions of mortality. Her act, whatever its nature, was formally a transgression but eternally a glorious necessity to open the doorway toward eternal life. Adam showed his wisdom by doing the same. And thus Eve and 'Adam fell that men might be' (2 Ne. 2:25). Some Christians condemn Eve for her act, concluding that she and her daughters are somehow flawed by it. Not the Latter day Saints! Informed by revelation, we celebrate Eve's act and honor her wisdom and courage in the great episode called the Fall. Joseph Smith taught that it was not a 'sin,' because God had decreed it. Brigham Young declared, 'We should never blame Mother Eve, not the least.' 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! This suggested contrast between a sin and a transgression reminds us of the careful wording in the second article of faith: 'We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam's transgression' (emphasis added). It also echoes a familiar distinction in the law. Some acts, like murder, are crimes because they are inherently wrong. Other acts, like operating without a license, are crimes only because they are legally prohibited. 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. Modern revelation shows that our first parents understood the necessity of the Fall. Adam declared, 'Blessed be the name of God, for because of my transgression my eyes are opened, and in this life I shall have joy, and again in the flesh I shall see God' (Moses 5:10). Note the different perspective and the special wisdom of Eve, who focused on the purpose and effect of the great plan of happiness: '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). In his vision of the redemption of the dead, President Joseph F. Smith saw 'the great and mighty ones' assembled to meet the Son of God, and among them was 'our glorious Mother Eve' (D&C 138:38 39).

 

Now there's some food for thought. Thanks!:)

[MamaSheep]

I really think that's an interesting perspective, looking at it as wisdom rather then sin. After all, the absence of sin is innocence or ignorance. Ignorance, the opposite of wisdom. Is ignorance desirable?

 

I've never though of the serpent as Satan, more as a mischief or helper figure. That would make sense in the wise choice context.

 

It almost makes God seem a little mean, likes he wants to withhold wisodm and knowledge for Himself...Or like a parent who's trying to getting his childen out the door as adults aware of the impact of their choices...The punishments aren't punishments but natural consequences of the choices that, in the end, had to be made?

 

You would probably enjoy that book I recommended in my fist post on this thread. It digs a lot into the meanings of the Hebrew words used in the Adam and Eve account, and there are some really interesting subtleties that get lost in translation.

 

But to be clear, the book is written from an LDS perspective and does refer to LDS-specific scripture and quotes LDS prophets very freely as well, so I don't know how that would affect your enjoyment of the book. It does make some very interesting points, though, imo.

[SailorMom]

I have to say - really liking the way the LDS treat Eve :)

[WishboneDawn]

These things make it seem like the LDS faith is very different than mainstream Christianity. Like two totally separate faiths. Am I missing something?

 

I'm quite sure you could make that statement about many different denominations once you really started to compare nuts and bolts.

[WishboneDawn]

You would probably enjoy that book I recommended in my fist post on this thread. It digs a lot into the meanings of the Hebrew words used in the Adam and Eve account, and there are some really interesting subtleties that get lost in translation.

 

But to be clear, the book is written from an LDS perspective and does refer to LDS-specific scripture and quotes LDS prophets very freely as well, so I don't know how that would affect your enjoyment of the book. It does make some very interesting points, though, imo.

 

It wouldn't affect my enjoyment at all. I think learning about how other Christians view the Bible is not just fascinating but spiritually enriching (it's the Anglican in me seeking communion and reconciliation? :D) I had never thought of Eve in the light you guys are mentioning and now it seems like such an obvious possible interpretation. The Bible geek in me is dancing right now! :D

[craftyerin]

I am not LDS, but my best friend is. She recommended I read Mormon America to answer all the questions I was forever peppering her with. It was a fascinating read and I do recommend it for those of you (like me) who are reading this thread as mainstream evangelical protestants who know very little about the LDS church, its history, and its doctrine.

 

http://www.amazon.com/Mormon-America-Revised-Updated-Promise/dp/0061432954/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1310863194&sr=1-1

[MamaSheep]

It wouldn't affect my enjoyment at all. I think learning about how other Christians view the Bible is not just fascinating but spiritually enriching (it's the Anglican in me seeking communion and reconciliation? :D) I had never thought of Eve in the light you guys are mentioning and now it seems like such an obvious possible interpretation. The Bible geek in me is dancing right now! :D

 

Then you would probably quite enjoy this book. I just re-checked my link at Amazon and realized they don't sell it there directly, so here's a link to a place that does, just in case. ;) http://deseretbook.com/Eve-Choice-Made-Eden-Beverly-Campbell/i/4462828

 

Ok, I really do have to quit stalling and go deal with the laundry. Tee hee...

[dangermom]

I also really enjoyed reading Eve and the Choice Made in Eden, and would repeat the recommendation.

 

But we would never say that God was being selfish and trying to keep all knowledge for Himself; He wants us to become like Him. It's just that we have to choose to do it, and the Garden of Eden was where part of that choice was made. Every single one of us chose to become mortal and get born on earth. (Mormon teenagers don't get to complain "I didn't ask to be born!" Yes, you did!)

[Xuzi]

I also really enjoyed reading Eve and the Choice Made in Eden, and would repeat the recommendation.

 

But we would never say that God was being selfish and trying to keep all knowledge for Himself; He wants us to become like Him. It's just that we have to choose to do it, and the Garden of Eden was where part of that choice was made. Every single one of us chose to become mortal and get born on earth. (Mormon teenagers don't get to complain "I didn't ask to be born!" Yes, you did!)

Flashback to my childhood! :lol:

[LittleIzumi]

I would agree, of course. We are to be sinless or perfect/complete like Him and we will be when we are in Heaven. I think the difference (if my understanding is correct) is that traditional Christianity teaches that we will be human, but LDS teaches that we will be divine? Satan's sin was that he wanted to be worshipped like God and wanted to be equal with Him. Which of course, being a created being, he cannot and will not be. Just as we cannot and will not be.

 

This has been addressed, but I just wanted to reiterate in case it was missed--we don't believe Satan's sin was wanting to be like God. We believe it was that he wanted to BE God--he wanted to take over, to have God's OWN power & God's OWN glory, and to do away with free will. On the other hand, Jesus wanted to follow God's plan, help all of God's children have the opportunity to choose and grow, and give all glory for the plan of our salvation to God, its creator. (We believe in God, Jesus & the Holy Ghost as three separate beings, if that wasn't obvious already, lol.)

 

I found an explanation written by one of our Apostles, Robert D. Hale, in a message he wrote to the children of the church. It's a little "light" as it was for kids, but I like it.

"Lucifer was one of Heavenly Father’s most brilliant spirit sons. He asked to be sent to earth where he would force all of us to return to our Father’s presence without choosing for ourselves whether or not we wanted to do right.

 

Lucifer was vain and very selfish, for he desired all the honor and glory for the success of Heavenly Father’s plan. Because his plan was rejected, Lucifer became angry and rebellious. He and one-third of the spirit children who chose to follow him were cast out of heaven. Lucifer, whose name means the “shining one,†was told that he would now be known as Satan or the devil.

 

 

Satan and his followers were permitted to come to earth to tempt us and to try to influence us into doing wrong, but none of them have mortal bodies. They are jealous of ours and do everything in their power to keep us from returning to Heavenly Father’s presence.

 

 

Jesus, the eldest Son of God the Father, offered to carry out the plan used in many worlds before ours that would allow us free agency or the opportunity to choose for ourselves how we wanted to live. Because Jesus, our Elder Brother, loves us so much, He wanted to take upon Himself a mortal body like ours to show us the right way to live. And then He agreed to sacrifice His life so that in some heavenly way we could all be forgiven of our sins if we repent of them and choose to live righteously while here.

Jesus wisely knew that sometimes temptations would be so appealing that we would choose to do wrong. But under His plan we could recognize our wrongdoing, repent, and be forgiven. To repent means to be truly sorry, to change or turn away from that wrongdoing, to seek forgiveness, and then to try with all our hearts to live better lives.

 

 

As spirits we realized the wonderful blessing of receiving physical bodies and of choosing for ourselves what to do. We also knew that each time we chose to do right we would grow in knowledge and develop in character and leadership so that we could become perfect even as our Father in heaven is perfect.

 

 

And so we chose to follow the way Jesus offered to carry out the plan of our Heavenly Father."

 

Just to be clear, the LDS belief is not that Adam was sinless. We believe that Adam sinned just like everyone else. I do find it interesting that the Bible doesn't mention sin until Cain, but that doesn't mean I don't think Adam ever sinned. Certainly Adam's transgression (as it is called in verse 14 of your quote) is what allowed sin to become a possibility in the world, and we would absolutely agree that it was in the Fall that sin "entered into the world, and death passed upon all men."

 

Adam & Eve were the first people on earth who understood good and evil, right and wrong. So of course they were also the first to have personal sin. Without knowing good and evil, they couldn't sin, physically. But the knowing of good and evil itself wasn't sinful. It simply allowed mankind to have the knowledge of good & to choose otherwise if they wanted.

 

I really think that's an interesting perspective, looking at it as wisdom rather then sin. After all, the absence of sin is innocence or ignorance. Ignorance, the opposite of wisdom. Is ignorance desirable?

 

I've never thought of the serpent as Satan, more as a mischief or helper figure. That would make sense in the wise choice context. (not saying this is an LDS view, just what it's implications could be for me)

 

It almost makes God seem a little mean, likes he wants to withhold wisodm and knowledge for Himself...Or like a parent who's trying to getting his childen out the door as adults aware of the impact of their choices...The punishments aren't punishments but natural consequences of the choices that, in the end, had to be made?

 

Yup. We needed to choose for ourselves, and to learn and grow!

[pfamilygal]

Okay, finally got home from work and I am DEAD! Oy vey. And today was only the second 12 hr shift in a stretch of five. God have mercy. Stupid full moon.

 

I will have to rejoin the convo in the morning when brain function returns to normal.

[LittleIzumi]

Okay, finally got home from work and I am DEAD! Oy vey. And today was only the second 12 hr shift in a stretch of five. God have mercy. Stupid full moon.

 

I will have to rejoin the convo in the morning when brain function returns to normal.

 

:grouphug: