Conversion to Mormonism?

[debbie_h]

It’s probably the predominant LDS interpretation, but not the only one. I remember this discussion in a number of BYU classes.

I don’t think so, this was explicitly taught in to us in my youth & seminary classes. This is what they still teach my active TBM parents. This is what was taught to us from the church manuals. There was no other explanation or interpretation.

 

[FabiusMaximus]

Transgression but not sin, there can be no sin without knowledge of good and evil.

Again, not sure if an actual transgression was necessary. It may have been that God would have in time explained the act and consequence that would bring about the mortality workshop.

How do you separate the concept of transgression from that of a sin? Adam and Eve clearly knew what God meant when he commanded them not to eat of the tree of knowledge.

 

[FCEGM]

It does state there would be no more births. Take a look at the following paragraph:

22 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.

You should have made clear that the quote above is from 2 Nephi, not Genesis.

 

[Nebuchanezzzzzz]

How do you separate the concept of transgression from that of a sin? Adam and Eve clearly knew what God meant when he commanded them not to eat of the tree of knowledge.

Yes. Like a little child knows when his parents tell him NO. But like a little child, Adam and Eve had no knowledge of good and evil until partaking of the fruit, therefore their transgression was not sin.

It was through the first transgression that the possibility of sin came into the world. The term “original sin” does not come from the Bible and contradicts the account that sin came into the world through the consumption of the fruit.

 

[zaffiroborant]

Yes. Like a little child knows when his parents tell him NO. But like a little child, Adam and Eve had no knowledge of good and evil until partaking of the fruit, therefore their transgression was not sin.

It was through the first transgression that the possibility of sin came into the world. The term “original sin” does not come from the Bible and contradicts the account that sin came into the world through the consumption of the fruit.

It didn’t come from consuming the fruit, it came from disobeying God.

 

[Nebuchanezzzzzz]

It didn’t come from consuming the fruit, it came from disobeying God.

What God said was:

“in the day that you eat from it you shall surely die.”

Since they didn’t drop dead that very day they ate the fruit, I assume that God was referring to spiritual death, i.e. separation from God.

 

[zaffiroborant]

zaffiroborant:

It didn’t come from consuming the fruit, it came from disobeying God.

What God said was:

“in the day that you eat from it you shall surely die.”

Since they didn’t drop dead that very day they ate the fruit, I assume that God was referring to spiritual death, i.e. separation from God.

What God said was:
King James Version:

15 And the Lord God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.

16 And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:

17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

He told them not to eat it, they did, that’s disobedience.

 

[Z_Ninja]

Transgression but not sin, there can be no sin without knowledge of good and evil.

Again, not sure if an actual transgression was necessary. It may have been that God would have in time explained the act and consequence that would bring about the mortality workshop.

Transgression

“You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”

Sorry, had to do it

 

[RebeccaJ]

God’s intent wasn’t to be disobeyed, but he may have intended them to partake of the fruit at a later time, without transgression but with the full understanding that they were undertaking a fall, allowing for death and reproduction. Because of the transgressive nature of the fall on this world, we have here the most wicked of the Creator’s world’s. And the only world that would crucify their God.

Back to this.

Read Genesis again. God blessed Adam and Eve. Children are named a blessing before the fall, not a fortunate consequence of the fall.

I don’t see God creating the world without a knowledge of good and evil as promoting sin, just so we “get it”. God created the world, and everything in it, and called it GOOD. Good is good, and not sorta kinda good, with God standing by in anticipation of making the world better via sin.

Not to mention giving two conflicting commandment is a view of God as a jerk. I don’t believe God is such a trickster.

 

[TexanKnight]

What God said was:

He told them not to eat it, they did, that’s disobedience.

Bingo

 

[TexanKnight]

Back to this.

Read Genesis again. God blessed Adam and Eve. Children are named a blessing before the fall, not a fortunate consequence of the fall.

I don’t see God creating the world without a knowledge of good and evil as promoting sin, just so we “get it”. God created the world, and everything in it, and called it GOOD. Good is good, and not sorta kinda good, with God standing by in anticipation of making the world better via sin.

Not to mention giving two conflicting commandment is a view of God as a jerk. I don’t believe God is such a trickster.

And that is the horrible position the LDS have taken. That God made a world that the ONLY way it could progress is if His people intentionally disobeyed Him so that He could then bring strife into the world.

What a cruel and Loki-like God.

 

[Nebuchanezzzzzz]

What God said was:

He told them not to eat it, they did, that’s disobedience.

Yes, Zaffiroborant. Disobedience is another word for transgression.

 

[zaffiroborant]

Yes, Zaffiroborant. Disobedience is another word for transgression.

Oddly disobedience is not listed as a synonym for transgression but sin is.

 

[iepuras]

Yes, Zaffiroborant. Disobedience is another word for transgression.

And disobedience to God is a sin.

 

[Sabacthani]

Knowing disobedience to God is generally a sin. Remember Paul said that where there is no law there is no punishment. Mormons believe that one cannot sin without knowledge of good and evil. For example, a young child is incapable of sin.

 

[TexanKnight]

Knowing disobedience to God is generally a sin. Remember Paul said that where there is no law there is no punishment. Mormons believe that one cannot sin without knowledge of good and evil. For example, a young child is incapable of sin.

Ah…so you are saying that Adam and Eve had no idea they were disobeying.

Ok…so NOW we have god who gives commands that He knows His children cannot follow because he is too cruel to let them know how to determine how to not disobey. So, they risk to love Eden by a God who gives commands He knows His children cannot follow

Again, the LDS god sure seems to be a cruel and Loki-Like god

 

[Sabacthani]

Ah…so you are saying that Adam and Eve had no idea they were disobeying.

Nope. I am saying:

Knowing disobedience to God is generally a sin. Remember Paul said that where there is no law there is no punishment. Mormons believe that one cannot sin without knowledge of good and evil. For example, a young child is incapable of sin.

The analogy is to a 4 year old child that knows he’s disobeying. LDS doctrine says he lacks knowledge of good and evil and therefore his transgressions are not sins.

I’m not prostelytizing my views, just trying to correctly identify them.

Why do you work so hard to muddy the waters, Tex? Why must you obfuscate everything?

 

[zaffiroborant]

Knowing disobedience to God is generally a sin. Remember Paul said that where there is no law there is no punishment. Mormons believe that one cannot sin without knowledge of good and evil. For example, a young child is incapable of sin.

But there was a “law” given, do not eat, was clearly stated.

 

[TexanKnight]

Nope. I am saying:

The analogy is to a 4 year old child that knows he’s disobeying. LDS doctrine says he lacks knowledge of good and evil and therefore his transgressions are not sins.

I’m not prostelytizing my views, just trying to correctly identify them.

Why do you work so hard to muddy the waters, Tex? Why must you obfuscate everything?

u huh.

God made rules. They disobeyed. It was sin. The LDS glorify in the sin as something their god planned.

That simply is a horrible, unfair position to take.

And I am sorry that the truth muddies things up for you

 

[Sabacthani]

But there was a “law” given, do not eat, was clearly stated.

Yes, there was. And I also clearly stated that Mormons believe that sin requires the additional component of knowledge of good and evil. You don’t see it that way, so you consider it a sin. Mormons don’t. Lo and behold, different sects define terms a little differently.

To my ears, it sounds foolish and even unchristian to impute “sinfulness” to a 4-5 year old child. A child who knows the difference between obedience and disobedience but doesn’t have enough congnition to grasp good versus evil.