LDS Belief on the Need to Sin In Order Understand Joy

[RebeccaJ]

The story of Job, is an example of how one man knew evil and suffering, yet his suffering under evil was not caused by his sins. He was counted by God as Righteous.

Ultimately, Jesus suffered evil, and He was entirely sinless. The premise that one must sin in order to know good, is false, and is not of God We know good by aligning ourselves to God. Evil is going to happen, and while evil is allowed by God, God does not cause or will evil.

 

[Brian_Kerzetski]

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.

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

You are just fine. Both sides get frustrated when the other doesn’t see what appears to be so clear, especially when meanings of words are different on both sides.

So, after much discussion, this is what I feel it has come down to:

From lds.org; transgression: Violation or breaking of a commandment or law.

Someone I have been speaking with put it this way: * transgression: an act that goes against God, but the person doing it does not know/understand the better way.*

Since Adam’s action in the garden is labeled as a transgression by the LDS church, the question is this: what was the better way or choice? or put another way what should Adam have done instead?

To me this seems to be the foundation that everything in the LDS faith is built upon and deserves an honest answer.

 

[fhansen]

I had an interesting discussion last night with members of the Mormon church. My understanding of the belief is we had to sin in order to know what joy is, and it’s not that a person doesn’t feel joy without sin, but we are unable to put joy in context without sin which is why we came to earth. My question was, if God wants us to sin so we can experience sadness and therefore put joy into context, wouldn’t that mean we should seek out the most heinous sins possible to have the greatest understanding of joy?

I would like to know how other church members feel about this as well as if my logic makes sense.

God bless.

They’re a bit off the mark. God apparently allows man to be exposed to both good and evil-to the knowledge of good and evil-so that we may ultimately come to appreciate and embrace the good, alone, He being the greatest good BTW. We *do *end up experimenting with sin here, as we all know, with valuing and pursuing less important, created things over the most important, created One. In the end, if and as we come to make the better choices, being transformed increasingly into God’s image, joy is definitely one of the hallmarks of that change of heart, along with peace, love, etc…

 

[Job314]

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.

Ah ok, now I see part of the reason there’s so different a view on this. I would say that such a view is not biblical, given that it was only after they ate the fruit that Gid said “the man is become as one of us, to know good from evil”.

 

[Job314]

The story of Job, is an example of how one man knew evil and suffering, yet his suffering under evil was not caused by his sins. He was counted by God as Righteous.

Ultimately, Jesus suffered evil, and He was entirely sinless. The premise that one must sin in order to know good, is false, and is not of God We know good by aligning ourselves to God. Evil is going to happen, and while evil is allowed by God, God does not cause or will evil.

Exactly right. As you said earlier, righteousness is indeed obeying God. Not for a second am I saying that he causes sin. The main point I’m trying to make is that without choice there is no righteousness. Obedience to God means nothing if it’s the only choice.

Think of it this way. If all God had said were “of all the trees in the garden thou mayest freely eat” the only thing they could do would be to obey. They would be compelled to follow God and that’s not righteousness the way I understand it. It’s only when we choose for ourselves to follow Him that it becomes such.

 

[Job314]

You are just fine. Both sides get frustrated when the other doesn’t see what appears to be so clear, especially when meanings of words are different on both sides.

So, after much discussion, this is what I feel it has come down to:

From lds.org; transgression: Violation or breaking of a commandment or law.

Someone I have been speaking with put it this way: * transgression: an act that goes against God, but the person doing it does not know/understand the better way.*

Since Adam’s action in the garden is labeled as a transgression by the LDS church, the question is this: what was the better way or choice? or put another way what should Adam have done instead?

To me this seems to be the foundation that everything in the LDS faith is built upon and deserves an honest answer.

I think that both those definitions are good, but incomplete. we take it to mean, not so much that the person doesn’t understand the better way, but they don’t know the commandments. For instance, someone who breaks the sabbath before they are taught anything about it being the Lord’s day. A transgression, in the LDS view, can also be something that is formally prohibited, as opposed to a sin, something inherently wrong.

For instance, murder is inherently wrong. Sin. Eating the sheebread that was only for the priests, transgression. (But in the case of David and his company, it was a good thing)

They don’t always denote different things, but in the case of Adam and Eve there is that distinction made.

 

[Brian_Kerzetski]

I think that both those definitions are good, but incomplete. we take it to mean, not so much that the person doesn’t understand the better way, but they don’t know the commandments. For instance, someone who breaks the sabbath before they are taught anything about it being the Lord’s day. A transgression, in the LDS view, can also be something that is formally prohibited, as opposed to a sin, something inherently wrong.

For instance, murder is inherently wrong. Sin. Eating the sheebread that was only for the priests, transgression. (But in the case of David and his company, it was a good thing)

They don’t always denote different things, but in the case of Adam and Eve there is that distinction made.

Okay. So, in God’s eyes, what choice would have been the best or perfect one for Adam?

 

[Job314]

Okay. So, in God’s eyes, what choice would have been the best or perfect one for Adam?

Them eating the fruit. He only said don’t because there had to be a choice. Again, if all he said was “of all the trees in the garden thou mayest freely eat” then there is no choice for them.

 

[fhansen]

Them eating the fruit. He only said don’t because there had to be a choice. Again, if all he said was “of all the trees in the garden thou mayest freely eat” then there is no choice for them.

So God told them not to eat of it, while *wanting *them to eat of it?

 

[Job314]

So God told them not to eat of it, while *wanting *them to eat of it?

I’m by sure if you’ve read the other pages of this thread, but I have addressed this point a couple of times. In LDS theology, with the help of the Pearl of Great Price and the Book of Mormon, God essentially said if you want to remain in the garden, don’t eat it. If you want to leave and experience death and mortality, it’s your choice.

What would have happened had they not eaten it?

 

[fhansen]

I’m by sure if you’ve read the other pages of this thread, but I have addressed this point a couple of times. In LDS theology, with the help of the Pearl of Great Price and the Book of Mormon, God essentially said if you want to remain in the garden, don’t eat it. If you want to leave and experience death and mortality, it’s your choice.

What would have happened had they not eaten it?

They probably would’ve eaten from the Tree of Life, growing nearer to God, rather than away from Him. It was by no means essential that they ate from the other tree-it just put them on a detour, which God, of course, had already planned for, still with the purpose of their ultimately growing near to Him, with complete union being the final end for man.

 

[Job314]

They probably would’ve eaten from the Tree of Life, growing nearer to God, rather than away from Him. It was by no means essential that they ate from the other tree-it just put them on a detour, which God, of course, had already planned for, still with the purpose of their ultimately growing near to Him, with complete union being the final end for man.

Now I think I’m starting to understand where you’re coming from. So they didn’t have to know good from evil? They could have just stayed in the garden, waking and talking with God, their descendants would do exactly the same and none of us would know the difference between good and evil. Am I understanding correctly?

 

[Brian_Kerzetski]

Them eating the fruit. He only said don’t because there had to be a choice. Again, if all he said was “of all the trees in the garden thou mayest freely eat” then there is no choice for them.

If we put a mouse in a single corridor maze with a piece of cheese at the end that would be replenished, would there be no choice for the mouse? Of course not. The mouse could choose to eat the cheese and live or not eat the cheese and die. This did not require the maze maker to create another corridor with a hole that drops him out of the maze.

The faithful LDS members continue to say that it was good for God to deceive Adam, and good for Adam to disobey God. Frankly, you have given me a vision of a god I cannot trust. In fact, he seems to suggest I do the opposite of what he commands as it would be better for me in the end. My (at most times) rational mind cannot accept this.

I must ask from a psychological perspective: why do you accept this teaching?

 

[Job314]

If we put a mouse in a single corridor maze with a piece of cheese at the end that would be replenished, would there be no choice for the mouse? Of course not. The mouse could choose to eat the cheese and live or not eat the cheese and die. This did not require the maze maker to create another corridor with a hole that drops him out of the maze.

The faithful LDS members continue to say that it was good for God to deceive Adam, and good for Adam to disobey God. Frankly, you have given me a vision of a god I cannot trust. In fact, he seems to suggest I do the opposite of what he commands as it would be better for me in the end. My (at most times) rational mind cannot accept this.

I must ask from a psychological perspective: why do you accept this teaching?

But the difference is Adam and Eve wouldn’t die if they didn’t eat anything. They were immortal. So they would either stay in the garden and everything would stay the same. Or they could leave and progress or regress depending on their choices.

From a psychological perspective I accept it because he’s not suggesting you do the opposite of what he says. He laid out two paths for Adam and Eve. They chose the one that led to eternal life (life not just in the presence of God, but life with the same understanding he has). As opposed to the one that led to them being in the garden of Eden forever. Never changing, never progressing.

 

[fhansen]

Now I think I’m starting to understand where you’re coming from. So they didn’t have to know good from evil? They could have just stayed in the garden, waking and talking with God, their descendants would do exactly the same and none of us would know the difference between good and evil. Am I understanding correctly?

No, they already had the law written in their hearts-they knew right from wrong-which is why they hid from God, experiencing shame after having eaten of the fruit. They did not know evil directly, experientially, having no reason to in their innocence, and therefore they wouldn’t identify good either, as a separate reality, good being the norm in Eden as it was in all God’s creation. But the experience of both, combined with grace and revelation, can help serve to turn mankind back around to God, to embrace the good, alone, forsaking the evil. It’s all about man’s will.

 

[Job314]

No, they already had the law written in their hearts-they knew right from wrong-which is why they hid from God, experiencing shame after having eaten of the fruit. They did not know evil directly, experientially, having no reason to in their innocence, and therefore they wouldn’t identify good either, as a separate reality, good being the norm in Eden as it was in all God’s creation. But the experience of both, combined with grace and revelation, can help serve to turn mankind back around to God, to embrace the good, alone, forsaking the evil. It’s all about man’s will.

Well there we have it. After 10+ pages of discussion, the significant difference that causes so much misunderstanding. If they were in a state of innocence- which we agree on, I believe they couldn’t comprehend right from wrong. After all, there was no “wrong” there was only “right”. It was only after hey ate the fruit that they could comprehend this, hence, as you said, after they ate the fruit they hid themselves.

Indeed it is all about man’s will, without comprehending good from evil we wouldn’t be able to exercise that will and draw closer to God.

 

[fhansen]

Well there we have it. After 10+ pages of discussion, the significant difference that causes so much misunderstanding. If they were in a state of innocence- which we agree on, I believe they couldn’t comprehend right from wrong. After all, there was no “wrong” there was only “right”. It was only after hey ate the fruit that they could comprehend this, hence, as you said, after they ate the fruit they hid themselves.

Indeed it is all about man’s will, without comprehending good from evil we wouldn’t be able to exercise that will and draw closer to God.

They learned something-they gained wisdom-to know that God spoke the truth-that their own consciences spoke the truth. They were held accountable-and suffered the consequences-because they should have known better. And while man may have the opportunity to learn a valuable lesson the hard way-this doesn’t mean that it was God’s desire that he do so-or that man couldn’t have done otherwise. Because* then* God would be the author of evil-every evil that has befallen humanity. And if that’s true then who needs satan for that role?

A state of innocence means that they were simply who they were created to be. There was no experience of evil because it simply was not a part of their world. The idea of murder wouldn’t have even occurred to them. But they would instantly have known it to be foreign, totally out of sync, evil, had they somehow witnessed a murder in Eden.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Ah ok, now I see part of the reason there’s so different a view on this. I would say that such a view is not biblical, given that it was only after they ate the fruit that Gid said “the man is become as one of us, to know good from evil”.

Of course, differing interpretation of scripture brings different understanding.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Well there we have it. After 10+ pages of discussion, the significant difference that causes so much misunderstanding. If they were in a state of innocence- which we agree on, I believe they couldn’t comprehend right from wrong. After all, there was no “wrong” there was only “right”. It was only after hey ate the fruit that they could comprehend this, hence, as you said, after they ate the fruit they hid themselves.

Indeed it is all about man’s will, without comprehending good from evil we wouldn’t be able to exercise that will and draw closer to God.

You missed flhansen’s reference to the natural law.

 

[Job314]

You missed flhansen’s reference to the natural law.

That they had the law written in their hearts?

As long as one group believes that they knew good from evil before they ate the fruit and the other believes they didn’t, we’ll never come to an agreement on it. If they didn’t know before then it was absolutely necessary they eat the fruit. If they did, of course it doesn’t make sense to try and justify them eating it.