LDS Belief on the Need to Sin In Order Understand Joy

[Tarquin]

I’ve read and re-read the responses here, and I’m yet to find someone that has answered it. Perhaps you could enlighten me? If sorrow and pain didn’t exist, how would one comprehend happiness and joy? (The total absence of these things is what I’m talking about, not simply the absence of it in one’s life)

I believe your understanding is blocked by the preconception - the confidence and certainty - that what you say is true and correct. I understand Mormon reasoning on this issue, and I understand the reasoning of those who believe joy and happiness can be experienced even where there was never misery nor sorrow, and I understand those who say suffering is good and necessary, and those who say that all suffering will end. I reject the Mormon view. I reject the view that says suffering is “good”. I believe suffering is inevitable for very obvious, natural reasons. I have seen no argument (by Christians and others who have said it is) to convince me that suffering is good. I have never read an argument, despite looking for one, that has much merit for the contention that we could not experience happiness and joy without FIRST experiencing misery. Why must misery come first, I asked myself. How would you know it is misery, I ask myself, if I did not FIRST experience joy, in order that I would afterwards know what misery is like.

You are straying from Mormon doctrine and giving your own opinion. That is fine. But personal opinions so often fail. The opinions that are strong seem to be those that have stood for a long time, and been bolstered by subsequent advocates. For example, Platonism, Utilitarianism, the Trinity. Even if one disagrees with these, one can see a formidable school of arguments in their favor, which arguments are difficult to dismantle. Mormonism seems to have no tradition or genealogy of careful, significant development of the argument that we (to put it simply) must be miserable before we can be happy. It’s a one-on thing. Each member who wants to argue the case is pretty much left to his own devices. There is no established argument, no band of philosophers, no progressive history of presenting the argument. There is no support. There is just the empty assertion.

“The total absence of these things” is a Mormon impossibility, unless one abandons the doctrines of eternal progression, “God was once a man,” the pre-existence, and so on. Tell us, if joy and happiness cannot be experienced except after one has experience misery and sorrow (or whichever sad terms are used), was there no joy in the pre-existence? Wouldn’t there have to be misery in our pre-existent state when we lived alongside God the Father (and Goddess the Mother), in order for us to be happy there, in order for us to “shout with joy” as the scriptures state? Was not the fact that one-third of the host of heaven - that would be like if you have six brothers and three sisters, one sister and two brothers would be annihilated - you would never, ever see them again - would that not provide some sense of sorrow or misery? I don’t see how it could be otherwise. And if it did cause misery, could you then not feel happiness? And if you were with your righteous brothers and sisters, and with God Himself, would you not feel some small amount of happiness? And if you were already of a state of mind that you could feel both happiness and misery, why pretend that you (Adam) had to sin in order to feel that which you were already capable of feeling?

 

[zaffiroborant]

No, of course not. But we will still remember what it was like to be in pain, to experience sadness etc. so we will still be able to comprehend and identify that we are happy.

You make the point I’m trying to make very eloquently, thank you. We learn to appreciate and identify good from evil, none of which would be possible without the fall. We would exist in the garden forever, not being able to identify between good (which brings happiness) and evil (which brings sorrow), therefore our state of being would be a state of innocence yes, but a state where we could not identify that we were happy.

Why do you think that God is unable to impart this same understanding, do LDS believe that God is not omnipotent?

 

[Job314]

I believe your understanding is blocked by the preconception - the confidence and certainty - that what you say is true and correct. I understand Mormon reasoning on this issue, and I understand the reasoning of those who believe joy and happiness can be experienced even where there was never misery nor sorrow, and I understand those who say suffering is good and necessary, and those who say that all suffering will end. I reject the Mormon view. I reject the view that says suffering is “good”. I believe suffering is inevitable for very obvious, natural reasons. I have seen no argument (by Christians and others who have said it is) to convince me that suffering is good. I have never read an argument, despite looking for one, that has much merit for the contention that we could not experience happiness and joy without FIRST experiencing misery. Why must misery come first, I asked myself. How would you know it is misery, I ask myself, if I did not FIRST experience joy, in order that I would afterwards know what misery is like.

You are straying from Mormon doctrine and giving your own opinion. That is fine. But personal opinions so often fail. The opinions that are strong seem to be those that have stood for a long time, and been bolstered by subsequent advocates. For example, Platonism, Utilitarianism, the Trinity. Even if one disagrees with these, one can see a formidable school of arguments in their favor, which arguments are difficult to dismantle. Mormonism seems to have no tradition or genealogy of careful, significant development of the argument that we (to put it simply) must be miserable before we can be happy. It’s a one-on thing. Each member who wants to argue the case is pretty much left to his own devices. There is no established argument, no band of philosophers, no progressive history of presenting the argument. There is no support. There is just the empty assertion.

“The total absence of these things” is a Mormon impossibility, unless one abandons the doctrines of eternal progression, “God was once a man,” the pre-existence, and so on. Tell us, if joy and happiness cannot be experienced except after one has experience misery and sorrow (or whichever sad terms are used), was there no joy in the pre-existence? Wouldn’t there have to be misery in our pre-existent state when we lived alongside God the Father (and Goddess the Mother), in order for us to be happy there, in order for us to “shout with joy” as the scriptures state? Was not the fact that one-third of the host of heaven - that would be like if you have six brothers and three sisters, one sister and two brothers would be annihilated - you would never, ever see them again - would that not provide some sense of sorrow or misery? I don’t see how it could be otherwise. And if it did cause misery, could you then not feel happiness? And if you were with your righteous brothers and sisters, and with God Himself, would you not feel some small amount of happiness? And if you were already of a state of mind that you could feel both happiness and misery, why pretend that you (Adam) had to sin in order to feel that which you were already capable of feeling?

Thank you for your thoughts. I do however, disagree with your assertion that I’ve stared from “Mormon” doctrine, and that there are no groups that give evidence to support it.
There are also some flaws in your reasoning. For instance, one only has to exercise to know that some suffering can indeed be good.
I also never said that misery had to come first, only that before one knew the difference between good and evil, even if they were in a state that we would describe as “happy” they would not and could not know it.
You also seem to be unfamiliar with the doctrine of the (metaphorical) veil that was placed on all of us to cause us to forget our premortal existence.

For further clarification on the fall, please read the following:
en.fairmormon.org/Plan_of_salvation/Fall_of_Adam_and_Eve

 

[Janderich]

I reject the Mormon view. I reject the view that says suffering is “good”. I believe suffering is inevitable for very obvious, natural reasons. I have seen no argument (by Christians and others who have said it is) to convince me that suffering is good. I have never read an argument, despite looking for one, that has much merit for the contention that we could not experience happiness and joy without FIRST experiencing misery. Why must misery come first, I asked myself. How would you know it is misery, I ask myself, if I did not FIRST experience joy, in order that I would afterwards know what misery is like.

Let me take a step back. Before the tree, before Adam and Eve partook of it. Joseph Smith tells us, "God himself, finding he was in the midst of spirits and glory, because he was more intelligent, saw proper to institute laws whereby the rest could have a privilege to advance like himself. The relationship we have with God places us in a situation to advance in knowledge. He has power to institute laws to instruct the weaker intelligences… (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 354). We of course are the weaker intelligences. There are certain flaws in our character which must be overcome. God did not create them, for we are eternal. Therefore, the fall did not give us a sinful nature, it simply placed us in an environment where our weakness was exposed.

So I don’t understand this whole idea of misery needing to come “FIRST” in order to experience joy. That is not LDS doctrine. Rather, in order to grow we needed to be placed in a situation where we could experience both misery and joy together. We needed to be given freedom to fail and freedom to overcome. Now, of course we had, and have, weaknesses and so the inevitable consequence of flawed beings being placed in such a condition is that they will experience some pain and sorrow, but that does not mean we must experience pain first.

“The total absence of these things” is a Mormon impossibility, unless one abandons the doctrines of eternal progression, “God was once a man,” the pre-existence, and so on. Tell us, if joy and happiness cannot be experienced except after one has experience misery and sorrow (or whichever sad terms are used), was there no joy in the pre-existence? Wouldn’t there have to be misery in our pre-existent state when we lived alongside God the Father (and Goddess the Mother), in order for us to be happy there, in order for us to “shout with joy” as the scriptures state? Was not the fact that one-third of the host of heaven - that would be like if you have six brothers and three sisters, one sister and two brothers would be annihilated - you would never, ever see them again - would that not provide some sense of sorrow or misery? I don’t see how it could be otherwise. And if it did cause misery, could you then not feel happiness? And if you were with your righteous brothers and sisters, and with God Himself, would you not feel some small amount of happiness? And if you were already of a state of mind that you could feel both happiness and misery, why pretend that you (Adam) had to sin in order to feel that which you were already capable of feeling?

The truth about the pre-existence is not given to all. We have a veil placed over our minds such that we do not know all that went on before. However, the scriptures speak truth on the matter. For instance:

And there was a war in heaven; Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels, and prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven. And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil,… And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony; and they loved not their lives unto the death. Therefore rejoice, ye heavens, and ye that dwell in them. (Rev 12:7-9,11-12)

Note, that the hosts of heaven cast Satan out by the blood of the Lamb and by the word of their testimony. The fall was not the beginning and death is not the end. Again Joseph Smith, "But it will be agreat while after you have apssed through the veil before you will have learned [the principles of exaultation]. It is not all to be comprehended in this world, it will be a great work to learn out salvation and exaltation even beyond the grave. (TPJS p. 348).

 

[Brian_Kerzetski]

For further clarification on the fall, please read the following:
en.fairmormon.org/Plan_of_salvation/Fall_of_Adam_and_Eve

Wow. So, God is incapable of creating us with free will so he needs evil to step in. He’s not powerful enough to do what he sees fit. This is one big reason I haven’t seen the god presented by the LDS as worthy of my worship. If the supreme being can’t do something all by himself, why would he deserve all of our praise? In fact, it seems that if it wasn’t for Adam and Satan, we wouldn’t be where we are today. It seems they should receive at least as much praise as God if not the majority of it.

I’m sorry, the more I read, the more convoluted the LDS faith becomes.

 

[Job314]

Wow. So, God is incapable of creating us with free will so he needs evil to step in. He’s not powerful enough to do what he sees fit. This is one big reason I haven’t seen the god presented by the LDS as worthy of my worship. If the supreme being can’t do something all by himself, why would he deserve all of our praise? In fact, it seems that if it wasn’t for Adam and Satan, we wouldn’t be where we are today. It seems they should receive at least as much praise as God if not the majority of it.

I’m sorry, the more I read, the more convoluted the LDS faith becomes.

It’s not a question of God’s omnipotence it’s simply the only way possible for free will to exist…

And we agree that there are things that God “can’t” do. For example lie or be unjust, coukd God not have saved us all without Jesus dying on the cross and being resurrected and going through the pain of gethsemane? Does Satan then deserve our praise for tempting Judas to betray Christ? Or pushing the leaders of the Jews to press the Roman leaders (especially Pilate) until they permitted the crucifixion? Of course not. But God allowed those things to happen because they furthered His plan. Was He not powerful enough to do those things Himself? Of course He was. But He didn’t.

Both Catholicism and Mormonism can be convuluted, depending on the way you approach them. (The earlier cited example of the Trinity with its mystery, is a perfect example)

 

[Horton]

Let me take a step back. Before the tree, before Adam and Eve partook of it. Joseph Smith tells us, "God himself, finding he was in the midst of spirits and glory, because he was more intelligent, saw proper to institute laws whereby the rest could have a privilege to advance like himself. The relationship we have with God places us in a situation to advance in knowledge. He has power to institute laws to instruct the weaker intelligences… (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 354). We of course are the weaker intelligences. There are certain flaws in our character which must be overcome. God did not create them, for we are eternal. Therefore, the fall did not give us a sinful nature, it simply placed us in an environment where our weakness was exposed.

So I don’t understand this whole idea of misery needing to come “FIRST” in order to experience joy. That is not LDS doctrine. Rather, in order to grow we needed to be placed in a situation where we could experience both misery and joy together. We needed to be given freedom to fail and freedom to overcome. Now, of course we had, and have, weaknesses and so the inevitable consequence of flawed beings being placed in such a condition is that they will experience some pain and sorrow, but that does not mean we must experience pain first.

The truth about the pre-existence is not given to all. We have a veil placed over our minds such that we do not know all that went on before. However, the scriptures speak truth on the matter. For instance: Note, that the hosts of heaven cast Satan out by the blood of the Lamb and by the word of their testimony. The fall was not the beginning and death is not the end. Again Joseph Smith, "But it will be agreat while after you have apssed through the veil before you will have learned [the principles of exaultation]. It is not all to be comprehended in this world, it will be a great work to learn out salvation and exaltation even beyond the grave. (TPJS p. 348).

Wow. So, God is incapable of creating us with free will so he needs evil to step in. He’s not powerful enough to do what he sees fit. This is one big reason I haven’t seen the god presented by the LDS as worthy of my worship. If the supreme being can’t do something all by himself, why would he deserve all of our praise? In fact, it seems that if it wasn’t for Adam and Satan, we wouldn’t be where we are today. It seems they should receive at least as much praise as God if not the majority of it.

I’m sorry, the more I read, the more convoluted the LDS faith becomes.

I know - Just the above post by Janderich is enough to make one’s head spin.

 

[Horton]

It’s not a question of God’s omnipotence it’s simply the only way possible for free will to exist…

And we agree that there are things that God “can’t” do. For example lie or be unjust, coukd God not have saved us all without Jesus dying on the cross and being resurrected and going through the pain of gethsemane? Does Satan then deserve our praise for tempting Judas to betray Christ? Or pushing the leaders of the Jews to press the Roman leaders (especially Pilate) until they permitted the crucifixion? Of course not. But God allowed those things to happen because they furthered His plan. Was He not powerful enough to do those things Himself? Of course He was. But He didn’t.

Both Catholicism and Mormonism can be convuluted, depending on the way you approach them. (The earlier cited example of the Trinity with its mystery, is a perfect example)

God is capable of anything He wishes to do. You did a complete 180 in the second part of that paragraph. God gives a free will to choose Him or to not choose Him. God could have done things in a thousand different ways but He did them the way He wanted to. The why of it is unknowable for the most part.

Catholicism is not convoluted at all, nor is the trinity. You just choose to not understand it.

 

[Job314]

God is capable of anything He wishes to do. You did a complete 180 in the second part of that paragraph. God gives a free will to choose Him or to not choose Him. God could have done things in a thousand different ways but He did them the way He wanted to. The why of it is unknowable for the most part.

Catholicism is not convoluted at all, nor is the trinity. You just choose to not understand it.

There was no 180. I simply stated that God is omnipotent, but there are things He won’t do or He wouldn’t be God.

And yet the trinity is defined quite clearly in the Athanasian creed as “incomprehensible”
"Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Spirit. The Father uncreated, the Son uncreated, and the Holy Spirit uncreated. The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Spirit incomprehensible.

Now, the three being one but three, but still one may be called the “mystery of the trinity” but if saying that there’s one but actually three but really only one but they can be talking to each other, but still be one isn’t convoluted, I don’t know what is.

I don’t choose not to understand it. By its own definition (from a council ~400 years after Christ) it’s something not able to be understood. (And yes, I’m familiar with the metaphors of water, ice, steam and the sun-warmth, light, and radiation etc.)

 

[Horton]

There was no 180. I simply stated that God is omnipotent, but there are things He won’t do or He wouldn’t be God.

And yet the trinity is defined quite clearly in the Athanasian creed as “incomprehensible”
"Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Spirit. The Father uncreated, the Son uncreated, and the Holy Spirit uncreated. The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Spirit incomprehensible.

Now, the three being one but three, but still one may be called the “mystery of the trinity” but if saying that there’s one but actually three but really only one but they can be talking to each other, but still be one isn’t convoluted, I don’t know what is.

I don’t choose not to understand it. By its own definition (from a council ~400 years after Christ) it’s something not able to be understood. (And yes, I’m familiar with the metaphors of water, ice, steam and the sun-warmth, light, and radiation etc.)

It makes perfect sense to me.

 

[Job314]

It makes perfect sense to me.

Then please explain it to me I’ve read sermons and explanations but it always comes down to the “mystery of the trinity” I know there are countless other threads on this, and I don’t wish to derail this one, but if it’s so easy to understand l, enlighten me.

 

[Janderich]

Then please explain it to me I’ve read sermons and explanations but it always comes down to the “mystery of the trinity” I know there are countless other threads on this, and I don’t wish to derail this one, but if it’s so easy to understand l, enlighten me.

I think if we do pursue your question it will derail this thread. Better to start a new one.

 

[RebeccaJ]

It’s not a question of God’s omnipotence it’s simply the only way possible for free will to exist…

And we agree that there are things that God “can’t” do. For example lie or be unjust, coukd God not have saved us all without Jesus dying on the cross and being resurrected and going through the pain of gethsemane? Does Satan then deserve our praise for tempting Judas to betray Christ? Or pushing the leaders of the Jews to press the Roman leaders (especially Pilate) until they permitted the crucifixion? Of course not. But God allowed those things to happen because they furthered His plan. Was He not powerful enough to do those things Himself? Of course He was. But He didn’t.

Both Catholicism and Mormonism can be convuluted, depending on the way you approach them. (The earlier cited example of the Trinity with its mystery, is a perfect example)

Free will existed before the Fall. Adam and Eve choosing to go against God was an illicit exercise of free will.

God does not require suffering, nor does He cause suffering. God does use suffering for His Good, but it is a sad misunderstanding of God’s Mercy, to believe suffering is required for free will to exist.

You’re expressed view of the Trinity is what Mormonism has taught you, not from any Chrisrian source. And it is modalism, which is a heresy. But whatever, your changing the the subject is an exercise of logical fallacies. An indicator that you can’t support your position.

 

[Horton]

Then please explain it to me I’ve read sermons and explanations but it always comes down to the “mystery of the trinity” I know there are countless other threads on this, and I don’t wish to derail this one, but if it’s so easy to understand l, enlighten me.

upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b3/Shield-Trinity-Scutum-Fidei-English.svg/220px-Shield-Trinity-Scutum-Fidei-English.svg.png

This image should help to visualize the trinity. To fully understand it though you will have to take off your LDS blinders. There is God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit. Three persons in one being. To further understand it study the Nicene Creed found here usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe/

If you want to discuss this further we can start another thread.

 

[Job314]

Free will existed before the Fall. Adam and Eve choosing to go against God was an illicit exercise of free will.

God does not require suffering, nor does He cause suffering. God does use suffering for His Good, but it is a sad misunderstanding of God’s Mercy, to believe suffering is required for free will to exist.

You’re expressed view of the Trinity is what Mormonism has taught you, not from any Chrisrian source. And it is modalism, which is a heresy. But whatever, your changing the the subject is an exercise of logical fallacies. An indicator that you can’t support your position.

But the only way they could “go against God” was if he forbade something and endorsed another. The knowledge of good and evil is what I’m saying didn’t exist before the fall. But perhaps my point would be better made by sharing this article from catholicism.org

catholicism.org/o-happy-fault.html

Relevant quotes from the above article include:
"Cardinal Biffi is an Ambrosian scholar, in fact he was the principal collaborator in compiling the Opera Omnia of the Father and Doctor of the Church. The Cardinal Archbishop-Emeritus of Bologna is, coincidentally, a native of Milan…Here are the relevant quotes he extracts from Saint Ambrose’s writings:

“My fault has become for me the price of redemption, through which Christ came to me. For me Christ tasted death. Transgression is more profitable than innocence. Innocence had made me arrogant, transgression made me humble” (De Iacob et vita beata, I, 21, my italic).

“The Lord knew that Adam would fall and then be redeemed by Christ. Happy ruin, that has such a beautiful reparation!” ( Commentary on Psalm 39, 20).

“We who have sinned more have gained more, because your grace makes us more blessed than our absence of fault does” (Commentary on Psalm 37, 47).

“Evil in fact has a utility within itself and evil has even insinuated itself into the saints by the providential will of the Lord” (Apologia David, 7).

In the words of Saint Ambrose: “O Lord Jesus, I am more a debtor to your outrages for my redemption than to your power in my creation. It would have been useless for us to have been born if we had gone without the benefit of being redeemed.” (In Lucam II, 41).

“This is repeated practically verbatim in another verse of the Exultet: “Nihil enim nobis nasci profuit nisi redimi profuisset” (For it availed us nothing to be born, unless it had availed us to be redeemed).”

 

[Horton]

Then please explain it to me I’ve read sermons and explanations but it always comes down to the “mystery of the trinity” I know there are countless other threads on this, and I don’t wish to derail this one, but if it’s so easy to understand l, enlighten me.

I did start another thread on this forum discussing the Trinity

 

[RebeccaJ]

But the only way they could “go against God” was if he forbade something and endorsed another. The knowledge of good and evil is what I’m saying didn’t exist before the fall. But perhaps my point would be better made by sharing this article from catholicism.org

catholicism.org/o-happy-fault.html

Relevant quotes from the above article include:
"Cardinal Biffi is an Ambrosian scholar, in fact he was the principal collaborator in compiling the Opera Omnia of the Father and Doctor of the Church. The Cardinal Archbishop-Emeritus of Bologna is, coincidentally, a native of Milan…Here are the relevant quotes he extracts from Saint Ambrose’s writings:

“My fault has become for me the price of redemption, through which Christ came to me. For me Christ tasted death. Transgression is more profitable than innocence. Innocence had made me arrogant, transgression made me humble” (De Iacob et vita beata, I, 21, my italic).

“The Lord knew that Adam would fall and then be redeemed by Christ. Happy ruin, that has such a beautiful reparation!” ( Commentary on Psalm 39, 20).

“We who have sinned more have gained more, because your grace makes us more blessed than our absence of fault does” (Commentary on Psalm 37, 47).

“Evil in fact has a utility within itself and evil has even insinuated itself into the saints by the providential will of the Lord” (Apologia David, 7).

In the words of Saint Ambrose: “O Lord Jesus, I am more a debtor to your outrages for my redemption than to your power in my creation. It would have been useless for us to have been born if we had gone without the benefit of being redeemed.” (In Lucam II, 41).

“This is repeated practically verbatim in another verse of the Exultet: “Nihil enim nobis nasci profuit nisi redimi profuisset” (For it availed us nothing to be born, unless it had availed us to be redeemed).”

Yes, didn’t I already point this out?

Catholics see and express God’s mercy. We aren’t expounding the virtues of sin, as sin has no virtues. St. Paul does the same, in Romans 5-6. I recommend you read those two chapters and pay close attention.

usccb.org/bible/romans/5

 

[Job314]

Yes, didn’t I already point this out?

Catholics see and express God’s mercy. We aren’t expounding the virtues of sin, as sin has no virtues. St. Paul does the same, in Romans 5-6. I recommend you read those two chapters and pay close attention.

usccb.org/bible/romans/5

Yes, you did, and it was very much appreciated as I think it brings us closer to understanding.

I neglected to quote where St. Ambrose in the Exultet refers to the fall as “necessary”

 

[fhansen]

Yes, you did, and it was very much appreciated as I think it brings us closer to understanding.

I neglected to quote where St. Ambrose in the Exultet refers to the fall as “necessary”

It was necessary in that, without it, there’d be no reason for so great a Redeemer. The Fall was useful, but only insofar as God could bring an even greater good out of its evil. In Catholic theology, sin/evil are never exalted, and God can never be directly responsible for it. Evil, like a hot stove, can only offer us the valuable lesson of learning why to hate and avoid it. Your understanding on this point is close, so long as God is not seen as desiring or willing that which He commanded Adam not to do. “…of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you must not eat…”

Here are some teachings from our Catechism on this:
**
412 But why did God not prevent the first man from sinning? St. Leo the Great responds, "Christ’s inexpressible grace gave us blessings better than those the demon’s envy had taken away."307 And St. Thomas Aquinas wrote, "There is nothing to prevent human nature’s being raised up to something greater, even after sin; God permits evil in order to draw forth some greater good. Thus St. Paul says, ‘Where sin increased, grace abounded all the more’; and the Exsultet sings, ‘O happy fault,. . . which gained for us so great a Redeemer!’"308**

 

[Job314]

It was necessary in that, without it, there’d be no reason for so great a Redeemer. The Fall was useful, but only insofar as God could bring an even greater good out of its evil. In Catholic theology, sin/evil are never exalted, and God can never be directly responsible for it. Evil, like a hot stove, can only offer us the valuable lesson of learning why to hate and avoid it. Your understanding on this point is close, so long as God is not seen as desiring or willing that which He commanded Adam not to do. “…of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you must not eat…”

Here are some teachings from our Catechism on this:
**
412 But why did God not prevent the first man from sinning? St. Leo the Great responds, "Christ’s inexpressible grace gave us blessings better than those the demon’s envy had taken away."307 And St. Thomas Aquinas wrote, "There is nothing to prevent human nature’s being raised up to something greater, even after sin; God permits evil in order to draw forth some greater good. Thus St. Paul says, ‘Where sin increased, grace abounded all the more’; and the Exsultet sings, ‘O happy fault,. . . which gained for us so great a Redeemer!’"308**

Thanks for the explanation, I do appreciate it. My thought though, is that the gist of the points of St Augustine and St Ambrose (amongst others) is that it was “necessary”. And necessary can only mean:

"needed to achieve a certain desired effect or result; required
resulting from necessity; inevitable ⇒ ■ the necessary consequences of your action
(logic)
(of a statement, formula, etc) true under all interpretations or in all possible circumstances
(of a proposition) determined to be true by its meaning, so that its denial would be self-contradictory
(of a property) essential, so that without it its subject would not be the entity it is
(of an inference) always yielding a true conclusion when its premises are true; valid
(of a condition) entailed by the truth of some statement or the obtaining of some state of affairs . Compare sufficient (sense 2
(philosophy) (in a nonlogical sense) expressing a law of nature, so that if it is in this sense necessary that all As are B, even although it is not contradictory to conceive of an A which is not B, we are licensed to infer that if something were an A it would have to be B
(rare) compelled, as by necessity or law; not free

It also comes from the Latin word necessārius which means indispensable, or from necesse unavoidable.