LDS Belief on the Need to Sin In Order Understand Joy

[Tarquin]

I have a few favorite verses that relate to this. The two most pertinent may be this:

Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man: But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death. James 1:13-15

Mormons have a couple of traditional ways to reply to this.
The passage is “translated incorrectly.” The Prophet then can correct that passage. He has not done so. The Joseph Smith translation is virtually the same as the KJV. Then they may argue, “But he didn’t finish it” or “But the Reorganized Church had it and they might have changed it.”

Another passage is “There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it.” 1 Corinthians 10:13

“Temptation” does not refer to some fatal grand Sin. biblehub.com/greek/3986.htm It is an attraction, provocation, disposition, invitation, an allurement, an enticement. God does not put those things in front of people. There are enough temptations in the world, without God Himself also having to place them in front of us.

“God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able.”
Did God suffer Adam to be tempted above what he was able?
He was tempted to eat of a forbidden fruit and he did so. He had an alternative to the two obvious ones in the Bible, but Mormons don’t seem to realize that.

“but will with the temptation also make a way to escape.”
This means a way to escape the temptation itself, not something else, not the consequences of the temptation. So what way did God make for Adam to escape the temptation that God (according to Mormon Doctrine) placed in front of Adam?

Did God give Adam a temptation which was above his power to resist, thus forcing him to sin? Did God deny Adam any recourse other than to sin?

Why did God have to “test” Adam in the first place? Wasn’t it enough that Adam had persevered through a test so onerous that one-third of all God’s children failed it!? What more does he want!? Does he want to reduce his posterity from billions and billions of children, to only a handful (less than one-millionth of a percent) worthy to dwell with him? Does that sound even sane? A God we call a God of Love, who wishes the best for everyone, does He really have no better way to teach and raise His children in the pre-existence for millions of years, kick out a third of them, and further then let the rest of them suffer in ignorance until the sins of most of them drive them, too, out of God’s presence? (Unless they’re lucky enough to be contacted by one of the thousandth of a percent of Mormons persuading - sorry, not persuading, just “teaching” Mormonism, and leaving it to God to bless them or not bless them to know Mormonism is “true”.)

Frankly, the Mormon embrace of sin as a good thing, for make no mistake what Adam did was sin, can be no source of joy for anyone, least of all for God. I would provide the teachings of the prophets regarding these points, but when a prophet’s teachings disagree with the Mormon doctrine du jour, the prophets’ words are disregarded as being “just their own opinion”.

 

[Job314]

I don’t mean to derail this thread, just looking for some understanding.

What is the Catholic belief in regards to what would have happened had Adam and Eve not eaten the forbidden fruit?

In LDS theology (stemming from the Book of Mormon) if they hadn’t eaten the fruit, they wouldn’t have had children, and so, no more of God’s children would have come to Earth.
Is our time on earth viewed as a negative in Catholicism? That would certainly explain the confusion here.

I believe that our time here is part of God’s plan for us. A time of growth and of testing, to show Him that we are willing to obey His commandments, even when though there is son and temptation all around. But, our purpose here isn’t to simply return to the same state we were in before we came here. It is to return to live with God in a state that will allow us to progress eternally. And that is only made possible through the Atoning blood of Jesus Christ, the “lamb slain from the foundation of the world”. We are able to experience mortality, and overcome sin because of Jesus Christ. Through His grace we can become better and return to live with Him and our Heavenly Father “pure as He is pure” and that one day “we shall be like Him.”

Hopefully I haven’t just confused everyone more

 

[Brian_Kerzetski]

I don’t mean to derail this thread, just looking for some understanding.

What is the Catholic belief in regards to what would have happened had Adam and Eve not eaten the forbidden fruit?

Ii cannot say there is a definite Church teaching on this matter. However, we believe Adam and Eve were perfectly created by God. Had they not partaken of the fruit we would most likely all been living together with God in the garden. We do not believe the fall was necessary for procreation.

In LDS theology (stemming from the Book of Mormon) if they hadn’t eaten the fruit, they wouldn’t have had children, and so, no more of God’s children would have come to Earth.
Is our time on earth viewed as a negative in Catholicism? That would certainly explain the confusion here.

To begin, there is no pre-existence in Catholicism. When Adam and Eve appeared in the garden, that was the beginning of their existence. It was not intended to be a negative, but a positive as God gave them (and us) everything we needed to be happy with Him. However, because of Adam’s disobedience, he (and we by extension) could no longer be in the presence of God until the bond was repaired. So, I suppose it could be said that what was once a positive is now negative unless we persevere to return to the positive. I’m sure so much more could be said, but I’m trying to keep it short.

I believe that our time here is part of God’s plan for us. A time of growth and of testing, to show Him that we are willing to obey His commandments, even when though there is [sin] and temptation all around.

In a sense, yes, but not because it is what God desires for us, but because of our failure to listen to Him.

But, our purpose here isn’t to simply return to the same state we were in before we came here. It is to return to live with God in a state that will allow us to progress eternally. And that is only made possible through the Atoning blood of Jesus Christ, the “lamb slain from the foundation of the world”. We are able to experience mortality, and overcome sin because of Jesus Christ. Through His grace we can become better and return to live with Him and our Heavenly Father “pure as He is pure” and that one day “we shall be like Him.”

Here is the breakdown between LDS and most other Christian theology. We don’t believe in a preexistence. God created Adam and Eve to be His perfect creation. Adam messed it up, so now we must spend our earthly lives getting as close as we can to God with the hopes of entering His presence, which would not be possible without the eternal sacrifice of Christ. None of that would be necessary if Adam did not choose to act as he did in the garden.

Hopefully I haven’t just confused everyone more

I think you’re fine with your questions. But there is a whole lot more this than what I have been able to share. Hopefully others can elaborate, and you can search the other parts of the forums to gain deeper answers.

God bless!

 

[Horton]

I don’t mean to derail this thread, just looking for some understanding.

What is the Catholic belief in regards to what would have happened had Adam and Eve not eaten the forbidden fruit?

 

[Job314]

Thanks for the responses, and the link to the Catechism, they’ve helped me understand a bit more about why this seems so hard for Mormons and Catholics to understand each other’s beliefs.

I understand that there’s no doctrine of pre-mortal life in Catholicism. My question is if we were all living in the garden, I can only see a few outcomes:

1. We’re all given the same commandments as Adam and Eve, no one ever disobeys and eats the forbidden fruit, so we all enter God’s presence. (As an aside, why would God have even created the tree of knowledge of good and evil? Also, if it was a sinful act, how could a perfect God have created it? Why would He even create us here on the Earth if The only purpose was to try and get to Him- which I would assume would be impossible, given that if we didn’t eat the forbidden fruit we’d live forever and so, never die and live with God, He would just visit us?)
2. We’re all living in the garden, someone eats the forbidden fruit, they’re cast out and either reproduce and create a race of people that are mortal and subject to sin and death, or just die out themselves. God would need to send a saviour among them surely?
3. We’re all in the garden, we all eat the fruit, and become subject to sin and death.

In regards to the fall being a positive, I found this in the Catechism:
"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 Exultet sings, ‘O happy fault,… which gained for us so great a Redeemer!’”308 (310, 395, 272, 1994)

God permits sin in order to draw forth some greater good. In my understanding, that applies to all of us. He allowed sin to enter the world so that we could all grow from experiencing and resisting temptation. We become more like Him. And through the grace of Christ, eventually we can be perfect even as He is.

And Horton, I only meant confused about how Mormons could possibly see the fall as a good thing

 

[Brian_Kerzetski]

Thanks for the responses, and the link to the Catechism, they’ve helped me understand a bit more about why this seems so hard for Mormons and Catholics to understand each other’s beliefs.

I understand that there’s no doctrine of pre-mortal life in Catholicism. My question is if we were all living in the garden, I can only see a few outcomes:

1. We’re all given the same commandments as Adam and Eve, no one ever disobeys and eats the forbidden fruit, so we all enter God’s presence. (As an aside, why would God have even created the tree of knowledge of good and evil?

I don’t know that we have the answer to this. My guess is He did not intend to keep the fruit from us forever, but to allow us to taste it when we were mature enough to handle its truths.

Also, if it was a sinful act, how could a perfect God have created it?

It was Adam’s disobedience that was the sin, not the fruit itself. Everything God makes is holy and good; however, he gave us (and the angels) the free will to choose His way or our own way. He only allows evil to happen, he doesn’t create it or condone it.

Why would He even create us here on the Earth if The only purpose was to try and get to Him- which I would assume would be impossible, given that if we didn’t eat the forbidden fruit we’d live forever and so, never die and live with God, He would just visit us?)

He created us to give His Love to us. Adam and Eve were already in His presence, just as the angels were when they were created. Neither creation had to do anything but choose God over everything else. Because God is the perfect Good, anything that contradicts that good cannot exist in its presence.

1. We’re all living in the garden, someone eats the forbidden fruit, they’re cast out and either reproduce and create a race of people that are mortal and subject to sin and death, or just die out themselves. God would need to send a saviour among them surely?

Agreed, but’s that not to say anyone would have made that choice. We may never know.

1. We’re all in the garden, we all eat the fruit, and become subject to sin and death.

It’s certainly possible, but I would say not probable. Something to ponder for sure.

In regards to the fall being a positive, I found this in the Catechism:
"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 Exultet sings, ‘O happy fault,… which gained for us so great a Redeemer!’”308 (310, 395, 272, 1994)

God permits sin in order to draw forth some greater good. In my understanding, that applies to all of us. He allowed sin to enter the world so that we could all grow from experiencing and resisting temptation. We become more like Him. And through the grace of Christ, eventually we can be perfect even as He is.

I almost agree. But I would counter that God always wants us to make the choice that brings us closer to Him. Even though God cleans up our disasters and makes us better than we were doesn’t mean He wanted us to make the mess in the first place. Paul goes on to state that we are not to continue sinning so grace will increase. Quite the opposite. This just speaks to the glory of God and his infinite ability to overcome all evil and restore His creation, and on the same hand show His everlasting love for us in allowing us to choose something other than Him. Otherwise, we should sin as much as possible so we can receive as much grace and experience as possible.

 

[Job314]

I don’t know that we have the answer to this. My guess is He did not intend to keep the fruit from us forever, but to allow us to taste it when we were mature enough to handle its truths.
It was Adam’s disobedience that was the sin, not the fruit itself. Everything God makes is holy and good; however, he gave us (and the angels) the free will to choose His way or our own way. He only allows evil to happen, he doesn’t create it or condone it.

I absolutely agree that He doesn’t create or condone evil. But if we agree that God cannot create evil, and the fruit was meant to be partaken of at some point, then the consequences of eating it are then a good thing. It was only the timing that was wrong, hence our defining it as a transgression as opposed to a sin (I know those terms are used interchangeably sometimes). They transgressed because God told them not to partake of it or they’d have to leave the garden and would become mortal. But the end result was a positive. They (and so, their descendants) came to know good and evil. They could understand that sin brings misery and death and following God brings joy and life. They were able to choose to follow God because the choice was there.

He created us to give His Love to us. Adam and Eve were already in His presence, just as the angels were when they were created. Neither creation had to do anything but choose God over everything else. Because God is the perfect Good, anything that contradicts that good cannot exist in its presence.

Now we’re getting somewhere Therein lies anther fundamental difference in our understandings I think. I believe that we were created not simply to be recipients of God’s love (as wonderful and incomprehensible fantastic as that is) but as a way for his children to become like Him.

I almost agree. But I would counter that God always wants us to make the choice that brings us closer to Him. Even though God cleans up our disasters and makes us better than we were doesn’t mean He wanted us to make the mess in the first place. Paul goes on to state that we are not to continue sinning so grace will increase. Quite the opposite. This just speaks to the glory of God and his infinite ability to overcome all evil and restore His creation, and on the same hand show His everlasting love for us in allowing us to choose something other than Him. Otherwise, we should sin as much as possible so we can receive as much grace and experience as possible.

Absolutely. Ideally we should learn from our mistakes and the mistakes of others. I’m certainly not advocating that we should sin more so that we receive more grace.
My belief is that God will do more than just restore His creation. But make it better than it was. It was created in such a way that mankind had a choice. We could either follow God or not. That’s why there had to be the prohibition on eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. If there wasn’t, there wouldn’t be a choice. How could God give us free will if there was no choice?

 

[Brian_Kerzetski]

I absolutely agree that He doesn’t create or condone evil. But if we agree that God cannot create evil, and the fruit was meant to be partaken of at some point, then the consequences of eating it are then a good thing. It was only the timing that was wrong, hence our defining it as a transgression as opposed to a sin (I know those terms are used interchangeably sometimes). They transgressed because God told them not to partake of it or they’d have to leave the garden and would become mortal. But the end result was a positive. They (and so, their descendants) came to know good and evil. They could understand that sin brings misery and death and following God brings joy and life. They were able to choose to follow God because the choice was there.

That sounds like an “end justifies the means” mentality. Yes a positive came out of the evil, but that doesn’t justify the evil (transgression, sin, whatever name you wish to give it). There was still a better choice that should have been made.

But I must reiterate what I said. My guess was that He intended to eventually share the fruit with us when we were ready, just like we receive our drivers license at 16, the opportunity to vote at 18, the opportunity to run for President at 35. There’s a certain maturity that is needed before they are allowed, otherwise disaster could occur.

Now we’re getting somewhere Therein lies anther fundamental difference in our understandings I think. I believe that we were created not simply to be recipients of God’s love (as wonderful and incomprehensible fantastic as that is) but as a way for his children to become like Him.

Yes, to reciprocate that Love with Him and all His creation. However, we are finite creatures, and as such cannot become the infinite being that is God. Become like Him, yes, but not become Him. The infinite is impossible for the finite to achieve.

Absolutely. Ideally we should learn from our mistakes and the mistakes of others. I’m certainly not advocating that we should sin more so that we receive more grace.
My belief is that God will do more than just restore His creation. But make it better than it was. It was created in such a way that mankind had a choice. We could either follow God or not. That’s why there had to be the prohibition on eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. If there wasn’t, there wouldn’t be a choice. How could God give us free will if there was no choice?

I would say the choice is created by us, not God. He has offered His creation everything along with the ability to freely accept it. I do not give my children the option to choose something that is not good for them. However, they have the ability to decide on their own to reject my love. It really is unfathomable when we take a wide view of it, yet it happens.

 

[Job314]

That sounds like an “end justifies the means” mentality. Yes a positive came out of the evil, but that doesn’t justify the evil (transgression, sin, whatever name you wish to give it). There was still a better choice that should have been made.

But this goes back to what I was saying before. What was the better choice? To stay in the garden, we’d all live there eternally, never dying, never knowing good from evil?

But I must reiterate what I said. My guess was that He intended to eventually share the fruit with us when we were ready, just like we receive our drivers license at 16, the opportunity to vote at 18, the opportunity to run for President at 35. There’s a certain maturity that is needed before they are allowed, otherwise disaster could occur.

So the better choice would have been to wait until God changed his commandment? We don’t know how long they were in the garden before they ate the fruit… Hmm, not sure I follow this line of thinking, sorry.

Yes, to reciprocate that Love with Him and all His creation. However, we are finite creatures, and as such cannot become the infinite being that is God. Become like Him, yes, but not become Him. The infinite is impossible for the finite to achieve.

That’s an interesting point, surely it would only be a narcissistic God that creates things merely to love Him?

I would say the choice is created by us, not God. He has offered His creation everything along with the ability to freely accept it. I do not give my children the option to choose something that is not good for them. However, they have the ability to decide on their own to reject my love. It really is unfathomable when we take a wide view of it, yet it happens.

But He did create the choice. He created the trees in the garden, including the tree of knowledge of good and evil and then forbidding them to eat of its fruit. I would say that’s pretty clearly Him creating a choice between two paths for Adam and Eve.

It’s like if a father built two houses and said “You may stay in this house if you want things to remain the same. Don’t go into the other house, if you do, you will die”
They chose to become mortal and experience pain and suffering, that through faith in Christ they, and their descendants could overcome sin and death and live with God eternally and be like Him.

I’d love an explanation- If they never ate the fruit, what would have happened?

I’m starting to see why there’s been 9 pages of this thread already

 

[zaffiroborant]

But this goes back to what I was saying before. What was the better choice? To stay in the garden, we’d all live there eternally, never dying, never knowing good from evil?

So the better choice would have been to wait until God changed his commandment? We don’t know how long they were in the garden before they ate the fruit… Hmm, not sure I follow this line of thinking, sorry.

Yes obeying God is always the right choice, isn’t that the point of prayer, or do you just ignore God’s voice? So why wouldn’t waiting for God’s timetable be the right choice? Believe me we are having just as hard a time following the idea that direct defiance of a commandment of God is a good thing.

That’s an interesting point, surely it would only be a narcissistic God that creates things merely to love Him?

Is your spouse someone you collected merely to love you or someone you share a relationship with?

But He did create the choice. He created the trees in the garden, including the tree of knowledge of good and evil and then forbidding them to eat of its fruit. I would say that’s pretty clearly Him creating a choice between two paths for Adam and Eve.

It’s like if a father built two houses and said “You may stay in this house if you want things to remain the same. Don’t go into the other house, if you do, you will die”
They chose to become mortal and experience pain and suffering, that through faith in Christ they, and their descendants could overcome sin and death and live with God eternally and be like Him.

Yes two paths follow the tempter or talk to God and ask Him about it, again the similarity to prayer.

I’d love an explanation- If they never ate the fruit, what would have happened?

How can someone say what would have happened, do you think God incapable of dealing with either situation?

 

[Job314]

Yes obeying God is always the right choice, isn’t that the point of prayer, or do you just ignore God’s voice? So why wouldn’t waiting for God’s timetable be the right choice? Believe me we are having just as hard a time following the idea that direct defiance of a commandment of God is a good thing.

I didn’t mean to frustrate anyone, sorry if I’ve caused offence.
I absolutely agree that waiting on God’s timing is always the right choice. Having said that, the point that they would eventually be permitted to eat the fruit wasn’t made by me. I was trying to understand the reasoning behind it.

I think that fundamentally we look at it differently, and that’s causing the difference of opinion. It seems that in Catholicism, our lives begin here on earth (as did Adam and Eve’s) and we were created so that God (a spirit, without body, parts, or passions) could love and be loved.

I believe that the embodied God (comprising body and spirit) sent his spirit children to earth to gain a physical body, to learn through the exercise of free will to obey the commandments, because we love Him. As a consequence, we all make mistakes because the only perfect person was Christ (unless you subscribe to the dogma that Mary was sinless too). In either case, we would need a Saviour. Hence, God, in His omniscience, ordained His Son to be the Saviour of mankind. The sinless sacrifice that would appease the law of justice and allow God to be merciful and forgive us of our sins. Through the Atonement of Christ, we can eventually become as He is. We are in fact, commanded to become so in the Sermon on the Mount.

As part of this plan- there had to be a choice. A choice between staying in the garden or leaving. How could there be free will of God didn’t provide a choice?

Is your spouse someone you collected merely to love you or someone you share a relationship with?

I’m not really sure that that applies because one doesn’t create one’s spouse. A relationship is certainly formed and developed, that’s why we get married. But God created us (that much, we can agree on) Why would He do so unless there was a purpose to it?

How can someone say what would have happened, do you think God incapable of dealing with either situation?

Again, I’m trying to understand the reasoning behind the concept that staying in the Garden of Eden was what God wanted all along. The commandment was given, as I’ve said, as a means to give them free will. There had to be a choice otherwise we would be incapable of choosing to follow God. If there were never any temptations, loyalty to God and keeping His commandments would not mean much, because it would be the only thing we could do.

This is becoming, if possible, even more convoluted… Sorry admins

 

[zaffiroborant]

As part of this plan- there had to be a choice. A choice between staying in the garden or leaving. How could there be free will of God didn’t provide a choice?

You don’t see staying in the garden as a valid choice, why not?

I’m not really sure that that applies because one doesn’t create one’s spouse. A relationship is certainly formed and developed, that’s why we get married. But God created us (that much, we can agree on) Why would He do so unless there was a purpose to it?

Why can’t love be the purpose?

Again, I’m trying to understand the reasoning behind the concept that staying in the Garden of Eden was what God wanted all along. The commandment was given, as I’ve said, as a means to give them free will. There had to be a choice otherwise we would be incapable of choosing to follow God. If there were never any temptations, loyalty to God and keeping His commandments would not mean much, because it would be the only thing we could do.

This is becoming, if possible, even more convoluted… Sorry admins

You do realize that there is a difference between being tempted and succumbing to temptation? No one has said what God wanted basically our point is that God doesn’t play head games with us. The LDS paradigm basically has God saying “Don’t eat the fruit because you will die, but if you don’t eat the fruit you will stunt your growth, and oh ya you won’t be able to have kids, which by the way I also command you to do.”

 

[Job314]

You don’t see staying in the garden as a valid choice, why not?

Because in the garden there was no progression. It was only after they are the fruit that God said they became “as one of us, knowing good from evil” if they became more like God, how is that not progression? You do see staying in the garden as a valid choice. Why?

Why can’t love be the purpose?

Don’t get me wrong, love definitely is a huge part of it, that’s why a saviour was provided after all. I suppose it comes to down to your concept of Heaven. What will be doing there? We’ll be resurrected and have bodies after all.

You do realize that there is a difference between being tempted and succumbing to temptation?

Obviously there’s a difference. I don’t think being patronising helps the discussion.

No one has said what God wanted basically our point is that God doesn’t play head games with us. The LDS paradigm basically has God saying “Don’t eat the fruit because you will die, but if you don’t eat the fruit you will stunt your growth, and oh ya you won’t be able to have kids, which by the way I also command you to do.”

Exactly. No one has said what God wanted to happen. Can someone please do so?

Actually, the LDS paradigm basically has God saying: “Don’t eat the fruit if you want to stay in the garden and not have children. If you want to experience mortality and childbirth and struggles, then eat the fruit. But if you do you will be subject to death”

Having said all of that, it’s only because we’re subject to death that the resurrection can occur. Without the resurrection our bodies would remain imperfect (a consequence of the fall). This was the only way for our bodies to become perfect (like God’s), and to know good from evil (like God)

 

[zaffiroborant]

Because in the garden there was no progression. It was only after they are the fruit that God said they became “as one of us, knowing good from evil” if they became more like God, how is that not progression? You do see staying in the garden as a valid choice. Why?

And why couldn’t Adam and Eve spend time talking with God, being instructed by Him and progressing to the point where they could eat the fruit? How do you know there was no progression in the Garden? Why do you think it’s progression to throw away direct discussion with God, learning from Him as you would from a parent or teacher?

Obviously there’s a difference. I don’t think being patronising helps the discussion.

I’m not being patronizing but you seem to say that unless temptation is there and one succumbs to it that free will is non-existent. Resisting temptation, obeying a commandment and going straight to God with your questions is just as valid a choice as blatantly defying a commandment from God.

Exactly. No one has said what God wanted to happen. Can someone please do so?

Why do you expect that? We don’t presume to know, do you?

Actually, the LDS paradigm basically has God saying: “Don’t eat the fruit if you want to stay in the garden and not have children. If you want to experience mortality and childbirth and struggles, then eat the fruit. But if you do you will be subject to death”

Then why did He command them not to eat the fruit, it’s setting us up for failure, like me telling my children you will get straight A’s but you will not learn to read, it you learn to read I will throw you out on the street.

Having said all of that, it’s only because we’re subject to death that the resurrection can occur. Without the resurrection our bodies would remain imperfect (a consequence of the fall). This was the only way for our bodies to become perfect (like God’s), and to know good from evil (like God)

This is just not a point, the resurrection is not about making bodies perfect. And I would point out that you just said bodies were imperfect because of the fall so they were perfect in the garden.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Again, I’m trying to understand the reasoning behind the concept that staying in the Garden of Eden was what God wanted all along. The commandment was given, as I’ve said, as a means to give them free will. There had to be a choice otherwise we would be incapable of choosing to follow God. If there were never any temptations, loyalty to God and keeping His commandments would not mean much, because it would be the only thing we could do.

This is becoming, if possible, even more convoluted… Sorry admins

I think it might help if you understand, that Catholic teaching is, a choice made to violate a commandment from God is an abuse of free will, not a valid use of it.

Holiness, in Catholic teaching, means choosing the will of God, and viewing acting against God, as NOT a choice at all.

Otherwise, your confusion seems to stem from an idea that God tempted Adam and Eve, by merely giving a command. He did not. The temptation came from Satan. Further, it is what is called a threefold temptation, to which, Jesus shows us the correct response when He faced the threefold temptation in the desert.

Do not love the world or the things in the world. If any one loves the world, love for the Father isnot in him. For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh and the lust of the eyes and the pride oflife, is not of the Father but is of the world. And the world passes away, and the lust of it; but hewho does the will of God abides for ever. (1 John 2:13-17)

Describes the threefold temptation:

1. lust of the flesh
2. lust of the eyes
3. pride of life (anything that leads to arrogance, ostentation, pride in self, presumption, and boasting)

Adam and Eve’s threefold temptation:

1. The forbidden fruit is good for food.
2. It is a delight to the eyes.
3. Will make one wise.

Their response, as we’re discussing, is to follow their own will, instead of God’s will.

Jesus’ threefold temptation:

1. Stones into bread (good for food).
2. All that He can see can be His kingdom.
3. IF you are the Son of God…

Jesus’ response, was to follow the will of the Father, instead of following the temptation to do something that Jesus willed, at that particular moment. To the point at hand, Jesus was given all that Satan tempted Him with, by the Father. Jesus did not take it all at that moment for Himself (a presumption), as Adam and Eve did in the garden.

Adam and Eve are an example of what not to do, when faced with temptation. What is confusing to Catholics, is to think that Adam and Eve provide an example of what to do, when the entire Christian premise of the need for a Messiah, is based on the FALL. Not, the PROGRESSION, of Adam and Eve. Let alone, that God would desire sin in order to further His will. Jesus shows us, by this example, that what Satan offered was no choice at all.

We seek to follow Jesus Christ, not the temptations of Satan.

Your argument, applied to Christ’s temptation, is that the consequences would have been the same, so why not just go for it at that moment, in the desert?

It’s about following the will of God, which very often, requires patience, humility and trust. Thinking we can push God to do our will, via sin, is not a message of the Gospel.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Exactly. No one has said what God wanted to happen. Can someone please do so?

He desired that Adam and Eve love God, and all their progeny (us) to live in holiness, in His presence.

Thus, He sent us the Son, to redeem us and restore to us what was lost by their first sin.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Having said all of that, it’s only because we’re subject to death that the resurrection can occur. Without the resurrection our bodies would remain imperfect (a consequence of the fall). This was the only way for our bodies to become perfect (like God’s), and to know good from evil (like God)

Really, the only way? Why would you believe that?

You do understand, that in the garden, Adam and Eve did not know death, right? What is the result of the resurrection? …death is conquered again. We’re restored to where God created us in the first place. AND, in His mercy, as St. Paul says, to something even greater. So we do see the Fall as that “happy fault”, but simultaneously understand, that God can use suffering for Good, but that God does not desire sin.

Mormons take it over a line that we would never cross, and that is to presume that we need to sin in order to get something really great out of God. Presumption, is one of the sins against the Holy Spirit. So we do not presume God desired Adam and Eve to sin, but that in His Mercy, God used, and foresaw, their suffering and so prepared Something greater. That Something, being a Person, Jesus Christ.

Redemption something we deserve or merit. It is God’s will.

 

[RebeccaJ]

The Christian definition of the “Plan of Salvation”, is Jesus Christ Himself. It is centered on Him. It IS Him. He is God’s plan, revealed.

The Fall, was not God’s plan. God’s plan is a merciful response to the Fall. Prophesied through the ages, prefigured in many ways and fulfilled in its entirety, in Jesus Christ.

 

[Job314]

Thanks for your responses Rebecca, they’re quite insightful

Really, the only way? Why would you believe that?

You do understand, that in the garden, Adam and Eve did not know death, right? What is the result of the resurrection? …death is conquered again. We’re restored to where God created us in the first place. AND, in His mercy, as St. Paul says, to something even greater. So we do see the Fall as that “happy fault”, but simultaneously understand, that God can use suffering for Good, but that God does not desire sin.

Mormons take it over a line that we would never cross, and that is to presume that we need to sin in order to get something really great out of God. Presumption, is one of the sins against the Holy Spirit. So we do not presume God desired Adam and Eve to sin, but that in His Mercy, God used, and foresaw, their suffering and so prepared Something greater. That Something, being a Person, Jesus Christ.

Redemption something we deserve or merit. It is God’s will.

God desired all mankind to live in His presence, on that we are in total agreement. But if we all lived in the garden, why would God place the tree of knowledge of good and evil there with us? He cannot create evil. Therefore, the tree and the fruit must be good. Now, God said don’t eat the fruit or you will die. Or in other words you will become mortal.

So I would ask, what was God’s plan if not the fall? He is all knowing, he would have known Adam and Eve would eat the fruit, therefore the fall must have been part of his plan. Don’t misunderstand, I’m not saying that he caused it to happen. But he specifically forbade the fruit of one tree so that free will could exist.

I would say it was the only way we could a) have a perfect body (as you said, we are restored to this state by the resurrection, so the fall wasn’t necessary for this) but also b) have a perfected body and know good from evil. It’s the only way because it was only after they ate the fruit that God said “man is become as one of us knowing good from evil”

So if they didn’t eat the fruit. Even if we accept that they would have had children, we wouldn’t know good from evil. Is there righteousness if there is no temptation to sin?

I certainly don’t presume that the more I sin the greater I’ll appreciate God’s mercy so I should desire sin. Not at all. What I do believe is that in the total absence of sin, there could be no righteousness and no progression. and certainly without a knowledge of good and evil, Adam and Eve (and by extension, mankind) could not choose to follow Christ. In the complete absence of sin, they would have to follow Him, there would be no choice.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Thanks for your responses Rebecca, they’re quite insightful

God desired all mankind to live in His presence, on that we are in total agreement. But if we all lived in the garden, why would God place the tree of knowledge of good and evil there with us? He cannot create evil. Therefore, the tree and the fruit must be good. Now, God said don’t eat the fruit or you will die. Or in other words you will become mortal.

So I would ask, what was God’s plan if not the fall? He is all knowing, he would have known Adam and Eve would eat the fruit, therefore the fall must have been part of his plan. Don’t misunderstand, I’m not saying that he caused it to happen. But he specifically forbade the fruit of one tree so that free will could exist.

I would say it was the only way we could a) have a perfect body (as you said, we are restored to this state by the resurrection, so the fall wasn’t necessary for this) but also b) have a perfected body and know good from evil. It’s the only way because it was only after they ate the fruit that God said “man is become as one of us knowing good from evil”

So if they didn’t eat the fruit. Even if we accept that they would have had children, we wouldn’t know good from evil. Is there righteousness if there is no temptation to sin?

I certainly don’t presume that the more I sin the greater I’ll appreciate God’s mercy so I should desire sin. Not at all. What I do believe is that in the total absence of sin, there could be no righteousness and no progression. and certainly without a knowledge of good and evil, Adam and Eve (and by extension, mankind) could not choose to follow Christ. In the complete absence of sin, they would have to follow Him, there would be no choice.

Righteousness, for a Christian, means obeying God.

Adam and Eve knew good from evil the moment they were tempted. The tree of knowledge and evil indeed, provided a choice. They could have obeyed God and would know that choice was righteous.

Your entire argument is based on a belief that God desires sin. That, is the temptation of Satan, never from God.

Our God is all knowing and all seeing, and certainly did plan for our Salvation before Adam and Eve. He did not plan the Fall, by tricking Adam and Eve into sin. Such a God is a capricious God, and a trickster. That is not our God.

You can plan for a disaster that you speculate might happen, by reason. That does not mean we go around causing disasters, just so we can be tha prepared hero.