LDS Belief on the Need to Sin In Order Understand Joy

[RebeccaJ]

Isn’t disobeying God the same as sinning?

LDS define sin differently. Though, I can’t explain why. Lol. They have two terms, transgression and sin. Where we understand, rightly, that transgression against God is the very definition of sin. They believe a transgression is not a sin, and define the sin of Adam and Eve as, not a sin but something desired by their God via Eve taking the initiative to transgress. They believe Satan’s temptation was a truth, if not The Truth.

So their view of sin and suffering is rooted in a belief that God wants us to suffer, so that we can know good. Eve, kicking that in to motion, for them is a good thing. They rate her transgression against God as a sacrifice that benefits us all. While simultaneously believing God does not want us to sin.

As I see it, this makes their God a trickster, and not trustworthy.

 

[Horton]

LDS define sin differently. Though, I can’t explain why. Lol. They have two terms, transgression and sin. Where we understand, rightly, that transgression against God is the very definition of sin. They believe a transgression is not a sin, and define the sin of Adam and Eve as, not a sin but something desired by their God via Eve taking the initiative to transgress. They believe Satan’s temptation was a truth, if not The Truth.

So their view of sin and suffering is rooted in a belief that God wants us to suffer, so that we can know good. Eve, kicking that in to motion, for them is a good thing. They rate her transgression against God as a sacrifice that benefits us all. While simultaneously believing God does not want us to sin.

As I see it, this makes their God a trickster, and not trustworthy.

Stranger & stranger. So sin is good and something God wants us to do? Kinda puts a bit of of a twist on whole mess.

 

[lax16]

LDS define sin differently. Though, I can’t explain why. Lol. They have two terms, transgression and sin. Where we understand, rightly, that transgression against God is the very definition of sin. They believe a transgression is not a sin, and define the sin of Adam and Eve as, not a sin but something desired by their God via Eve taking the initiative to transgress. They believe Satan’s temptation was a truth, if not The Truth.

So their view of sin and suffering is rooted in a belief that God wants us to suffer, so that we can know good. Eve, kicking that in to motion, for them is a good thing. They rate her transgression against God as a sacrifice that benefits us all. While simultaneously believing God does not want us to sin.

As I see it, this makes their God a trickster, and not trustworthy.

Thanks for pointing this out. I had never this before so, of course, did some reading on Mormon sites on the subject.

From the LDS Student Manual:

lds.org/manual/book-of-mormon-student-manual/chapter-7-2-nephi-1-3?lang=eng

2 Nephi 2:22–23. What Is the Difference Between Sin and Transgression?
•Elder Dallin H. Oaks explained the difference between sin and transgression: “[The] 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’ (italics 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” (in Conference Report, Oct. 1993, 98; or Ensign, Nov. 1993, 73).

So, disobeying God is not a sin? Not inherently wrong?

It falls under a transgression because it was only “formally prohibited”?

Would it be a sin to break a commandment or is that only a transgression as well?

Interesting stuff. I didn’t know Mormons made this distinction.

 

[jane_doe]

According to the post by lax, LDS theology, from a Mormon site, yes one must sin to know joy. What do you think the fall was about if not sinnng against God?

Lax’s post is does not say “and they had to sin to know joy”. (If it does and I missed it, point it out to me).

Instead, I’ll quote Mormon scripture, which describe the hypothetical-if-Adam-&-Eve had not fallen as: “They [referring to Adam and Eve] would have remained in a state of innocence, having no joy, for they knew no misery; doing no good” (emphasis mine).

I addressed how this relates to sin and righteousness in post #6.

 

[lax16]

Lax’s post is does not say “and they had to sin to know joy”. (If it does and I missed it, point it out to me).

Instead, I’ll quote Mormon scripture, which describe the hypothetical-if-Adam-&-Eve had not fallen as: “They [referring to Adam and Eve] would have remained in a state of innocence, having no joy, for they knew no misery; doing no good” (emphasis mine).

I addressed how this relates to sin and righteousness in post #6.

Here it is again:

They became mortal—just as we are—subject to sin, disease, all types of suffering, and ultimately death. But it wasn’t all bad because they could now feel great joy. “Adam fell that men might be; and men are, that they might have joy.” (2 Nephi 2:25)

 

[jane_doe]

Here it is again:

They became mortal—just as we are—subject to sin, disease, all types of suffering, and ultimately death. But it wasn’t all bad because they could now feel great joy. “Adam fell that men might be; and men are, that they might have joy.” (2 Nephi 2:25)

I don’t see “sin causes joy”.

If I were to paste words together the way you are doing, I could say “disease causes joy” or “death causes joy” (none of which are LDS doctrine).

Rather, I’m (again) going to quote LDS scripture which says “They [referring to Adam and Eve] would have remained in a state of innocence, having no joy, for they knew no misery”

 

[Horton]

Here it is again:

They became mortal—just as we are—subject to sin, disease, all types of suffering, and ultimately death. But it wasn’t all bad because they could now feel great joy. “Adam fell that men might be; and men are, that they might have joy.” (2 Nephi 2:25)

Thank you lax.

Jane - you can twist the words all you want but the meaning of the LDS theology is clear. It states clearly that the fall of Adam & Eve was a good thing in that it allowed mankind to know joy. That theory is nonsensical as it is not biblically sound or based in any Christian belief.

 

[lax16]

I don’t see “sin causes joy”.

If I were to paste words together the way you are doing, I could say “disease causes joy” or “death causes joy” (none of which are LDS doctrine).

Where did I paste words together?

According to the LDS, without disease, sin etc there would be no joy.

Disease causes joy? Death causes joy? Nobody said that.

Rather, I’m (again) going to quote LDS scripture which says “They [referring to Adam and Eve] would have remained in a state of innocence, having no joy, for they knew no misery; doing no good”

So if a person is in a state of innocence they cannot know joy?

 

[RebeccaJ]

I don’t see “sin causes joy”.

If I were to paste words together the way you are doing, I could say “disease causes joy” or “death causes joy” (none of which are LDS doctrine).

Rather, I’m (again) going to quote LDS scripture which says “They [referring to Adam and Eve] would have remained in a state of innocence, having no joy, for they knew no misery”

How does this make your point? Seems to support a belief that joy requires misery, that was brought about by the fall, which was brought about by sin.

 

[lax16]

Thank you lax.

Jane - you can twist the words all you want but the meaning of the LDS theology is clear. It states clearly that the fall of Adam & Eve was a good thing in that it allowed mankind to know joy. That theory is nonsensical as it is not biblically sound or based in any Christian belief.

The Fulness of the Gospel: The Fall of Adam and Eve
A series examining doctrines unique to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
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 have 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

lds.org/ensign/2006/06/the-fulness-of-the-gospel-the-fall-of-adam-and-eve?lang=eng

 

[lax16]

How does this make your point? Seems to support a belief that joy requires misery, that was brought about by the fall, which was brought about by sin.

Everything I have read in LDS literature states that it allowed Adam and Eve to procreate and fill the earth with children.

This almost seems to be the point they are trying to drive home. No children, no joy.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Everything I have read in LDS literature states that it allowed Adam and Eve to procreate and fill the earth with children.

This almost seems to be the point they are trying to drive home. No children, no joy.

Yeah, LDS believe Adam and Eve could not procreate until after the fall. So they teach two opposing commandments were taught. One to not eat of the fruit and one to procreate. (Which we see in Genesis, God blessed them. ) So being in this bind, as it is viewed by LDS, Eve made a difficult but correct decision to disobey a commandment, in order to fulfill the other. The consequences are , as LDS view it, that knowing good and evil was obtained at that point, which is an attribute needed to become a god. Which they express with the term “Progression”.

One of our Catholic posters put it a bit more bluntly than you once, that everything in the Mormon view of the fall, comes down to having sex.

 

[jane_doe]

Ok, the OP hasn’t replied to this in a long while.

For the sake of Lax, Horton, RebeccaJ, and myself, I think I’m just going to skip out on this discussion. Because I’m not going to convince any of you 3, you’re not going to convince me, and all we’re going to do is annoy each other and chase our tails. So I’ll leave it at that to save us all the time.

 

[kimg901]

Ok, the OP hasn’t replied to this in a long while.

For the sake of Lax, Horton, RebeccaJ, and myself, I think I’m just going to skip out on this discussion. Because I’m not going to convince any of you 3, you’re not going to convince me, and all we’re going to do is annoy each other and chase our tails. So I’ll leave it at that to save us all the time.

That figures Its hard to face facts written by your own church. There are no words to twist but only by you and other lds posters. Any person but an lds person would and can see what it says.

 

[Horton]

Ok, the OP hasn’t replied to this in a long while.

For the sake of Lax, Horton, RebeccaJ, and myself, I think I’m just going to skip out on this discussion. Because I’m not going to convince any of you 3, you’re not going to convince me, and all we’re going to do is annoy each other and chase our tails. So I’ll leave it at that to save us all the time.

You can bow out if you choose but please don’t speak for me. I didn’t come to CAF to be convinced my faith is wrong and yours is right. I know my faith, the Catholic Faith is the truth. I know this as firmly as I know my name. I’m not chasing anything. The OP had a question and we did our best to answer it. If your argument doesn’t hold up and you choose to leave, ok.

 

[jane_doe]

That figures Its hard to face facts written by your own church. There are no words to twist but only by you and other lds posters. Any person but an lds person would and can see what it says.

You can bow out if you choose but please don’t speak for me. I didn’t come to CAF to be convinced my faith is wrong and yours is right. I know my faith, the Catholic Faith is the truth. I know this as firmly as I know my name. I’m not chasing anything. The OP had a question and we did our best to answer it. If your argument doesn’t hold up and you choose to leave, ok.

I came to CAF to learn about the Catholic faith, because (even though I don’t believe it) there are many people in this world that do, and I wanted to learn how they see the world, so that I may better understand and love them.

I know that I’m not going to persuade their of you of a theological argument, and I’m know neither of you are going to persuade me. We are all very passionate in the beliefs we prize, and we hold those beliefs because we feel that they resonate with truth, logic, and God. So, as none of us are going to learn something, there’s no point in having this conversation we’ve all had before. I know that, I acknowledge you choice of faith, and I’m not going to waste our time: because I respect you, your choices, and your time.

Here is an update on my quest to better understand Catholicism (which I started in February): about a month ago, I gave up. Why-- because seemingly everywhere I turned I was met with comments like the above: people going out of their way with the #1 priority of insulting my faith, rather than telling me what you believe-- after I came to your digital church doorstep asking what you believe! That tells me a really rotten picture of the priority Catholic people put on their faith and respecting fellow human beings.

I couldn’t keep doing this: trying to learn about Catholic faith while having Catholic people wreck my view of it. So I gave up.

Congratulations.

 

[drac16]

Jane, I hope you will reconsider. Yeah, some people were too aggressive in this thread, but you are a valued member of this forum [to me]. I find it refreshing to hear an LDS voice. We as a forum can aspire to something greater than bitterness.

 

[antihippy79]

I came to CAF to learn about the Catholic faith, because (even though I don’t believe it) there are many people in this world that do, and I wanted to learn how they see the world, so that I may better understand and love them.

I know that I’m not going to persuade their of you of a theological argument, and I’m know neither of you are going to persuade me. We are all very passionate in the beliefs we prize, and we hold those beliefs because we feel that they resonate with truth, logic, and God. So, as none of us are going to learn something, there’s no point in having this conversation we’ve all had before. I know that, I acknowledge you choice of faith, and I’m not going to waste our time: because I respect you, your choices, and your time.

Here is an update on my quest to better understand Catholicism (which I started in February): about a month ago, I gave up. Why-- because seemingly everywhere I turned I was met with comments like the above: people going out of their way with the #1 priority of insulting my faith, rather than telling me what you believe-- after I came to your digital church doorstep asking what you believe! That tells me a really rotten picture of the priority Catholic people put on their faith and respecting fellow human beings.

I couldn’t keep doing this: trying to learn about Catholic faith while having Catholic people wreck my view of it. So I gave up.

Congratulations.

Did you come to learn about Catholicism to find the Truth of Christ or for some other curiosity? This reminds me of when my Mormon buddy told me to pray after reading the BoM and then I’d feel the truth of it. I didn’t. It was boring and obviously not inspired by God. His response: You didn’t have a sincere heart when you prayed about it. Sure. Is your heart sincere?

 

[RebeccaJ]

I came to CAF to learn about the Catholic faith, because (even though I don’t believe it) there are many people in this world that do, and I wanted to learn how they see the world, so that I may better understand and love them.

I know that I’m not going to persuade their of you of a theological argument, and I’m know neither of you are going to persuade me. We are all very passionate in the beliefs we prize, and we hold those beliefs because we feel that they resonate with truth, logic, and God. So, as none of us are going to learn something, there’s no point in having this conversation we’ve all had before. I know that, I acknowledge you choice of faith, and I’m not going to waste our time: because I respect you, your choices, and your time.

Here is an update on my quest to better understand Catholicism (which I started in February): about a month ago, I gave up. Why-- because seemingly everywhere I turned I was met with comments like the above: people going out of their way with the #1 priority of insulting my faith, rather than telling me what you believe-- after I came to your digital church doorstep asking what you believe! That tells me a really rotten picture of the priority Catholic people put on their faith and respecting fellow human beings.

I couldn’t keep doing this: trying to learn about Catholic faith while having Catholic people wreck my view of it. So I gave up.

Congratulations.

This forum isn’t a church. It isn’t run by the Catholic Church.

It is what it says it is, a discussion forum. In the non Catholic sub forum we discuss…non Catholic religions.

I can understand not wanting to participate here. There are multiple sub forums where Catholic topics are discussed.

 

[Horton]

I came to CAF to learn about the Catholic faith, because (even though I don’t believe it) there are many people in this world that do, and I wanted to learn how they see the world, so that I may better understand and love them.

I know that I’m not going to persuade their of you of a theological argument, and I’m know neither of you are going to persuade me. We are all very passionate in the beliefs we prize, and we hold those beliefs because we feel that they resonate with truth, logic, and God. So, as none of us are going to learn something, there’s no point in having this conversation we’ve all had before. I know that, I acknowledge you choice of faith, and I’m not going to waste our time: because I respect you, your choices, and your time.

Here is an update on my quest to better understand Catholicism (which I started in February): about a month ago, I gave up. Why-- because seemingly everywhere I turned I was met with comments like the above: people going out of their way with the #1 priority of insulting my faith, rather than telling me what you believe-- after I came to your digital church doorstep asking what you believe! That tells me a really rotten picture of the priority Catholic people put on their faith and respecting fellow human beings.

I couldn’t keep doing this: trying to learn about Catholic faith while having Catholic people wreck my view of it. So I gave up.

Congratulations.

Ok