Question about BoM on Original Sin

[SeattleCatholic]

I have started reading the Book of Mormon to better understand the faith of my close friend. I am finding it very hard to get through (lots of repetition and confusing language).

I have a question on a passage I just read.

2 Nephi 2:22-25

22 And now, behold, if Adam had not transgressed he would not have fallen, but he would have remained in the garden of Eden. And all things which were created must have remained in the same state in which they were after they were created; and they must have remained forever, and had no end.

23 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.

24 But behold, all things have been done in the wisdom of him who knoweth all things.

25 Adam fell that men might be; and men are, that they might have joy.

What I understand from this is that God willed the fall of Adam and Eve as being necessary so that men could experience joy and do good. Am I correct in my reading of this passage?

 

[Adrienne5678]

Yes, but why are you reading it? It’s not true. Adam and Eve knew joy they lived in happiness because God was among them. When they sinned they shoved God out of their hearts and gave up true happiness which now can only be found in Heaven. Reading non Catholic books are dangerous, you can get the faith messed up.

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

I have started reading the Book of Mormon to better understand the faith of my close friend. I am finding it very hard to get through (lots of repetition and confusing language).

I have a question on a passage I just read.

2 Nephi 2:22-25

22 And now, behold, if Adam had not transgressed he would not have fallen, but he would have remained in the garden of Eden. And all things which were created must have remained in the same state in which they were after they were created; and they must have remained forever, and had no end.

23 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.

24 But behold, all things have been done in the wisdom of him who knoweth all things.

25 Adam fell that men might be; and men are, that they might have joy.

What I understand from this is that God willed the fall of Adam and Eve as being necessary so that men could experience joy and do good. Am I correct in my reading of this passage?

yes you have it correct the Mormons believe that the fall was necessary. they seem to think that there is something wrong with married union of man and women that it could only happen if fall happened that an Innocent Adam and Eve would not have been able to procreate. This is not a Biblical stance I see now reason to believe it.

Be careful my friend the language of BoM and other are written to confuse and lead you away.

 

[ParkerD]

I have started reading the Book of Mormon to better understand the faith of my close friend. I am finding it very hard to get through (lots of repetition and confusing language).

I have a question on a passage I just read.

2 Nephi 2:22-25

22 And now, behold, if Adam had not transgressed he would not have fallen, but he would have remained in the garden of Eden. And all things which were created must have remained in the same state in which they were after they were created; and they must have remained forever, and had no end.

23 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.

24 But behold, all things have been done in the wisdom of him who knoweth all things.

25 Adam fell that men might be; and men are, that they might have joy.

What I understand from this is that God willed the fall of Adam and Eve as being necessary so that men could experience joy and do good. Am I correct in my reading of this passage?

Seattle Catholic,
This is a complex question you have asked, from an important chapter from the Book of Mormon. Thanks for asking the question.

The connotation of the words “God willed” does not really reflect the LDS belief as others might use those words, since God’s will is always completely righteous and God would not punish someone for accomplishing His will. I look at the passage in 2 Nephi 2 as conveying the meaning that Adam chose to transgress the commandment given to him and Eve as noted in Genesis 3:3, after the serpent tempted Eve and she ate the forbidden fruit. Eve chose to transgress because she wanted wisdom which was not available to her without eating the forbidden fruit. Adam chose to transgress to remain with Eve and fulfill the commandment from Genesis 1:28 “And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it:”.

Note the wording of Genesis 3:
3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.
4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.

In the Garden of Eden, Adam and Eve were innocent and had no sense of joy because there was no opposition: there were no problems to overcome, no trials or challenges or difficulties to face, no real work to do since the garden was bringing forth fruit in abundance. Did they like that condition? (Not necessarily.)

It is apparent that Eve was curious and wanted something more–she wanted wisdom. Yet, she was aware that they had been told they would die if they ate the forbidden fruit. I look at the experience as described, and read that she was willing to bring upon herself death in order to gain wisdom. I don’t look at this choice as prideful or a grievous sin, but instead as a choice of “stay innocent without any wisdom, or eat the forbidden fruit and be placed into a situation where there will be access to wisdom but where we will also die.”

Adam was willing to bring upon himself death also, because he faced the dilemma of needing to fulfill the commandment to multiply and replenish the earth and could only do that by staying with Eve when she was cast out of the garden of Eden.

It appears from the scriptures that Eve’s body was not in a condition to have children while they were in the garden of Eden. The mentrual cycle and childbirth are painful conditions. (I have no idea of the pain of childbirth, but can only imagine based on watching and having had intense pain myself a few times–we are talking serious wrenching pain for a mother in childbirth.) It appears to me that God allowed Eve to make a choice that only she was privileged to make: “Should I suffer pain and eventual death and also be cast out of the presence of God, in order to progress in wisdom and to have joy?” She would not have been aware of the joy of motherhood in the garden of Eden, but maybe she had a feeling inside of her that told her that motherhood was going to be worth the price of pain.

The phrase “doing no good, for they knew no sin” makes sense when one considers that “good” is brought about when someone makes a choice between possible choices. If there is only one possible choice, which is to do the “right thing” at every moment, then such a choice can’t really be considered “good” because there is nothing to compare it to.

There is much more to be said on this subject, especially about the redemption offered by Jesus Christ from Adam and Eve’s physical death and their spiritual death. We know that God had planned for this redemption, this gift of grace to humankind. 2 Nephi 2 explains about the atonement of Christ that is essential to understand when considering the fall of Adam and Eve and God’s plan that “men are that they might have joy.” God knew Eve’s heart well enough to know that she would probably choose to eat the forbidden fruit, so He had a plan to redeem them (and all of us) from the consequences of that choice.

I hope this has helped.

 

[Jerusha]

I look at the experience as described, and read that she was willing to bring upon herself death in order to gain wisdom. I don’t look at this choice as prideful or a grievous sin, but instead as a choice of “stay innocent without any wisdom, or eat the forbidden fruit and be placed into a situation where there will be access to wisdom but where we will also die.”

Your response is interesting. However, given your interpretation, so wisely phrased in light of the responses of those who warn against reading it, I have a question.

If God gave us brains, shouldn’t we thank Him by using them for His Glory?

The LDS definition of original sin is so narrow. It is not sex, or wisdom. Both are good, when submitted to God.

I believe that one aspect of original sin is that of believing that “we” are good and those who are not “us” are evil. This would have been a crucial issue in the agricultural revolution of Mesopotamia, with a population explosion, and previously isolated peoples meeting each other. And lack of trust in God to provide food in a hunting and gathering society sparked the agricultural revolution. And people with larger brains did better in such times.

Just a stimulus for further thought. Sometimes it is good to think.

Perhaps books by Jared Diamond will give you more insight.

 

[ParkerD]

Your response is interesting. However, given your interpretation, so wisely phrased in light of the responses of those who warn against reading it, I have a question.

If God gave us brains, shouldn’t we thank Him by using them for His Glory?

The LDS definition of original sin is so narrow. It is not sex, or wisdom. Both are good, when submitted to God.

I believe that one aspect of original sin is that of believing that “we” are good and those who are not “us” are evil. This would have been a crucial issue in the agricultural revolution of Mesopotamia, with a population explosion, and previously isolated peoples meeting each other. And lack of trust in God to provide food in a hunting and gathering society sparked the agricultural revolution. And people with larger brains did better in such times.

Just a stimulus for further thought. Sometimes it is good to think.

Jerusha,
Thanks for your thoughts on this subject. I should clarify that “original sin” was not “procreation” and I wasn’t trying to imply that it was. “Original sin” was choosing to eat the forbidden fruit, particularly after being tempted to do it by the serpent. It was making a choice to go against a commandment.

“Procreation” within the bonds of marriage is always good as you said “when submitted to God”. “Wisdom” is always good “when submitted to God.”

I don’t look at the practices of an agrarian society as lacking trust in God to provide food. I think Adam and Eve were taught methods of agriculture and taught them to their children, including the need for waiting for the harvest and for exercising faith in God with the planting, the weeding, the nurturing, and the harvesting. I think Adam learned to enjoy work, and was grateful that his children would have the growth opportunities that come from working, even though it is not smooth sailing and there are thorns and weeds along the way.

But I can also see your point about culture clashes. I think it’s a good point, with deep implications as far as people learning to get along with each other coming from very different perspectives and cultural backgrounds. There are profound truths to be learned within that context, and you could teach me much, no doubt.

 

[RebeccaJ]

While Parker may object to the language of “God willed” the fact is the LDS church teaches the fall was planned by God. You cannot separate God’s will from God’s plan.

Yes, mormons believe their god’s plans included a desire for Adam and Eve to disobey his commandment. They fail to see the implications of a god desiring that our First Parent’s must sin, in order that a god’s plans might come to fruition.

:hypno:

 

[ParkerD]

While Parker may object to the language of “God willed” the fact is the LDS church teaches the fall was planned by God. You cannot separate God’s will from God’s plan.

Yes, mormons believe their god’s plans included a desire for Adam and Eve to disobey his commandment. They fail to see the implications of a god desiring that our First Parent’s must sin, in order that a god’s plans might come to fruition.

Rebecca J,
I agree that God (who knows all things past, present, and future) knew that Adam and Eve would partake of the forbidden fruit, and had a plan in place with Jesus Christ as the Foreordained Lamb who would suffer the atonement and the crucifixion in order to redeem all of Heavenly Father’s spirit children from the effects of the fall of Adam and Eve.

But God knowing something does not make it His will, and I think He was absolutely deliberate in allowing for choice by Eve and Adam. He also allows each of us to choose, without inhibiting or pre-determining our choices for us.

There is an important difference between God “desiring” a thing to happen, and God “allowing” a thing to happen. We should never believe God “desires” those actions by His children (many of which are downright bad actions) which He allows. In the case of Adam and Eve, it did fulfill a future good purpose to allow their choice, which was fully provided for in His plan for us. But that does not mean He desired that they “must” sin. He desired that they “choose for themselves” whether to undergo pain and death and work, or not. He did not impose a choice on them. This can be so instructive for us–as parents, as teachers, or as leaders.

God is always teaching, even in the way He allowed Adam and Eve to fall from being in His presence into a condition where they would grow through having opposition in their lives.

 

[racing59]

Seattle Catholic,
This is a complex question you have asked, from an important chapter from the Book of Mormon. Thanks for asking the question.

The connotation of the words “God willed” does not really reflect the LDS belief as others might use those words, since God’s will is always completely righteous and God would not punish someone for accomplishing His will. I look at the passage in 2 Nephi 2 as conveying the meaning that Adam chose to transgress the commandment given to him and Eve as noted in Genesis 3:3, after the serpent tempted Eve and she ate the forbidden fruit. Eve chose to transgress because she wanted wisdom which was not available to her without eating the forbidden fruit. Adam chose to transgress to remain with Eve and fulfill the commandment from Genesis 1:28 “And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it:”.

Note the wording of Genesis 3:
3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.
4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.

In the Garden of Eden, Adam and Eve were innocent and had no sense of joy because there was no opposition: there were no problems to overcome, no trials or challenges or difficulties to face, no real work to do since the garden was bringing forth fruit in abundance. Did they like that condition? (Not necessarily.)

It is apparent that Eve was curious and wanted something more–she wanted wisdom. Yet, she was aware that they had been told they would die if they ate the forbidden fruit. I look at the experience as described, and read that she was willing to bring upon herself death in order to gain wisdom. I don’t look at this choice as prideful or a grievous sin, but instead as a choice of “stay innocent without any wisdom, or eat the forbidden fruit and be placed into a situation where there will be access to wisdom but where we will also die.”

Adam was willing to bring upon himself death also, because he faced the dilemma of needing to fulfill the commandment to multiply and replenish the earth and could only do that by staying with Eve when she was cast out of the garden of Eden.

It appears from the scriptures that Eve’s body was not in a condition to have children while they were in the garden of Eden. The mentrual cycle and childbirth are painful conditions. (I have no idea of the pain of childbirth, but can only imagine based on watching and having had intense pain myself a few times–we are talking serious wrenching pain for a mother in childbirth.) It appears to me that God allowed Eve to make a choice that only she was privileged to make: “Should I suffer pain and eventual death and also be cast out of the presence of God, in order to progress in wisdom and to have joy?” She would not have been aware of the joy of motherhood in the garden of Eden, but maybe she had a feeling inside of her that told her that motherhood was going to be worth the price of pain.

The phrase “doing no good, for they knew no sin” makes sense when one considers that “good” is brought about when someone makes a choice between possible choices. If there is only one possible choice, which is to do the “right thing” at every moment, then such a choice can’t really be considered “good” because there is nothing to compare it to.

There is much more to be said on this subject, especially about the redemption offered by Jesus Christ from Adam and Eve’s physical death and their spiritual death. We know that God had planned for this redemption, this gift of grace to humankind. 2 Nephi 2 explains about the atonement of Christ that is essential to understand when considering the fall of Adam and Eve and God’s plan that “men are that they might have joy.” God knew Eve’s heart well enough to know that she would probably choose to eat the forbidden fruit, so He had a plan to redeem them (and all of us) from the consequences of that choice.

I hope this has helped.

Eden has always fascinated me. I thank you for your insight into LDS. In the first creation story in Genesis 1 God commands Go forth and be fruitful and multiply. Is it possible Eve could have conception with out a cycle and birth pains? What further fascinates me is Eve is created out of Adams flesh and blood(the two are one flesh).Couldn’t you say this was a Marital Covenant?Also Adam was keeper and tiller of the garden, I take this as he was to maintain and protect the Garden. If this is so, why was the Serpent there in the first place? We both know there were two trees in the center of the Garden, the "Tree of Knowledge of good and Evil"and “The tree of Life”. Proverbs 3:14-18 tells us Wisdom is the “Tree of Life”. Don’t you think Adam and Eve sin could have been the rejected the Wisdom of God for the Wisdom of the serpent which was earthly things? Is it possible that co-creation with God wasn’t bad , but viewing sex outside a marital covenant is?
Just some thoughts.
Peace /B]

 

[ParkerD]

Eden has always fascinated me. I thank you for your insight into LDS. In the first creation story in Genesis 1 God commands Go forth and be fruitful and multiply. Is it possible Eve could have conception with out a cycle and birth pains? What further fascinates me is Eve is created out of Adams flesh and blood(the two are one flesh).Couldn’t you say this was a Marital Covenant?Also Adam was keeper and tiller of the garden, I take this as he was to maintain and protect the Garden. If this is so, why was the Serpent there in the first place? We both know there were two trees in the center of the Garden, the "Tree of Knowledge of good and Evil"and “The tree of Life”. Proverbs 3:14-18 tells us Wisdom is the “Tree of Life”. Don’t you think Adam and Eve sin could have been the rejected the Wisdom of God for the Wisdom of the serpent which was earthly things? Is it possible that co-creation with God wasn’t bad , but viewing sex outside a marital covenant is?
Just some thoughts.
Peace /B]

Racing59,
I don’t think Eve could have had children without a cycle and birth pains.

I agree absolutely that Adam and Eve had a Marital Covenant and that the creation of Eve from Adam’s rib teaches us a significant lesson that Eve and Adam are equal partners and should make decisions side by side.

I suspect the serpent “snuck” into the garden without Adam knowing it.

I don’t think Adam and Eve had the opportunity to eat the fruit of the tree of life. I can see your point about the possibility that they were rejecting “God’s wisdom”, but the question then becomes “How did God obtain His wisdom?” Could Adam receive wisdom from God without submitting himself to a position where he would experience opposition and the fact of having to make choices for himself amidst all sorts of imperfect conditions? I just don’t think innocence and wisdom go together as joint conditions. If you have complete innocence, then you don’t have wisdom because your experience is so limited.

Again, co-creation wasn’t bad at all. Adam’s choice to remain with Eve wasn’t just about having children (a good thing)–it was also about having companionship, having the joy of a spiritually and emotionally intimate relationship. Whether he knew all of that was what he was choosing, I doubt that he did, but I think he realized that he couldn’t progress without Eve’s companionship.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Rebecca J,
I agree that God (who knows all things past, present, and future) knew that Adam and Eve would partake of the forbidden fruit, and had a plan in place with Jesus Christ as the Foreordained Lamb who would suffer the atonement and the crucifixion in order to redeem all of Heavenly Father’s spirit children from the effects of the fall of Adam and Eve.

Parker, your belief requires that God planned for the sin of Adam of Eve, that it was necessary.

God has never defined sin as necessary.

Sin is an offense against reason, truth, and right conscience; it is failure in genuine love for God and neighbor caused by a perverse attachment to certain goods. It wounds the nature of man and injures human solidarity. It has been defined as "an utterance, a deed, or a desire contrary to the eternal law.

It is unreasonable to believe that God wills sin as necessary, for any purpose.

 

[racing59]

Racing59,
I don’t think Eve could have had children without a cycle and birth pains.

I agree absolutely that Adam and Eve had a Marital Covenant and that the creation of Eve from Adam’s rib teaches us a significant lesson that Eve and Adam are equal partners and should make decisions side by side.

I suspect the serpent “snuck” into the garden without Adam knowing it.

I don’t think Adam and Eve had the opportunity to eat the fruit of the tree of life. I can see your point about the possibility that they were rejecting “God’s wisdom”, but the question then becomes “How did God obtain His wisdom?” Could Adam receive wisdom from God without submitting himself to a position where he would experience opposition and the fact of having to make choices for himself amidst all sorts of imperfect conditions? I just don’t think innocence and wisdom go together as joint conditions. If you have complete innocence, then you don’t have wisdom because your experience is so limited.

Again, co-creation wasn’t bad at all. Adam’s choice to remain with Eve wasn’t just about having children (a good thing)–it was also about having companionship, having the joy of a spiritually and emotionally intimate relationship. Whether he knew all of that was what he was choosing, I doubt that he did, but I think he realized that he couldn’t progress without Eve’s companionship.

There are two premises that go along with what you say. 1) Adam had no knowledge of the Serpent getting in. 2) Was the lack of access to the Tree of Life. I suggest Adam as keeper of the Garden, he was to do the Spiritual warfare and protect his bride Eve.I further suggest he had access to the Tree of Life,could of ate from it and leap into battle and layed his life down for Eve, but he remained silent. No were in Chapter 2 of Genesis does it say Adam was not there when Eve was being tricked.Is it possible God’s plan was for Adam to eat from the Tree of Life and be willing to lay down his life for his Bride, as Christ did the Church? Having 2 trees in the center and one being away out isn’t it true God gave us free will and that means a choice?

 

[ParkerD]

Parker, your belief requires that God planned for the sin of Adam of Eve, that it was necessary.

God has never defined sin as necessary.

Sin is an offense against reason, truth, and right conscience; it is failure in genuine love for God and neighbor caused by a perverse attachment to certain goods. It wounds the nature of man and injures human solidarity. It has been defined as "an utterance, a deed, or a desire contrary to the eternal law.

It is unreasonable to believe that God wills sin as necessary, for any purpose.

Rebecca J,
It is absolutely true that God does not “will sin as necessary.” But He absolutely does “allow sin as a necessary part of mortality for His children, so they can experience opposition and can gain humility and come unto Christ.”

He set up a circumstance where it may appear to us that in the garden of Eden, He “wanted” Adam and Eve to fall. But why is wanting them to have a choice wanting them to fall? He foreknew that they would fall. I suppose one could say that, because of all the spirits waiting to come to earth and progress on earth, He hoped that they would make the choice of eating the forbidden fruit, but He had given a commandment against making that choice for if they did “they would die.” That was the penalty for making the choice. They were carrying out their own will, not His. He cannot “will sin as necessary” because that is against His perfection.

 

[ParkerD]

There are two premises that go along with what you say. 1) Adam had no knowledge of the Serpent getting in. 2) Was the lack of access to the Tree of Life. I suggest Adam as keeper of the Garden, he was to do the Spiritual warfare and protect his bride Eve.I further suggest he had access to the Tree of Life,could of ate from it and leap into battle and layed his life down for Eve, but he remained silent. No were in Chapter 2 of Genesis does it say Adam was not there when Eve was being tricked.Is it possible God’s plan was for Adam to eat from the Tree of Life and be willing to lay down his life for his Bride, as Christ did the Church? Having 2 trees in the center and one being away out isn’t it true God gave us free will and that means a choice?

Racing59,
You have provided an interesting possibility, but I don’t get the sense that Adam had anything but innocence in his condition in the garden of Eden, so I doubt that he would have perceived the serpent as a threat or perceived that he himself needed to protect Eve from such a threat. How could he know? I think he was living in complete innocence.

But I do think choice as an ultimate gift to us is extremely important, as you implied by your last question. Thanks for these thoughts.

 

[racing59]

Racing59,
You have provided an interesting possibility, but I don’t get the sense that Adam had anything but innocence in his condition in the garden of Eden, so I doubt that he would have perceived the serpent as a threat or perceived that he himself needed to protect Eve from such a threat. How could he know? I think he was living in complete innocence.

But I do think choice as an ultimate gift to us is extremely important, as you implied by your last question. Thanks for these thoughts.

**Thank you, Parker D you provided a good response to the first premise. It would be logical to conclude Adams innocence.But if Eden was the Holy of Holies and Shekina of the Lord was present Adam would have to have Knowledge of the Tree of Life as keeper and tiller of the garden?
P.S. I really enjoy this thread.I love dwelling deep in Scripture.
Peace **

 

[majick275]

Racing59,
You have provided an interesting possibility, but I don’t get the sense that Adam had anything but innocence in his condition in the garden of Eden, so I doubt that he would have perceived the serpent as a threat or perceived that he himself needed to protect Eve from such a threat. How could he know? I think he was living in complete innocence.

But I do think choice as an ultimate gift to us is extremely important, as you implied by your last question. Thanks for these thoughts.

full understanding of the mormon doctrine on this requires a knowledge the LDS temple ceremony where this is covered in somewhat greater detail. the gist of it is that Adam and Eve both KNEW that it was wrong to disobey God by eating the fruit. Eve does it anyway because of what the serpent tells her will happen (she will not die, she will have the same knowledge that God has, etc.) and then manipulates Adam into eating it be pointing that now that she has sinned and must be cast out of the garden he cannot obey God’s command to be fruitful and multiply as they will be forcibly separated. he then “sees that this must be” and chooses to eat the fruit as the “best” way to remain obedient to God. all of this is integral to the mormon doctrine of eternal progression in which this has happened before and will again in an infinite number of times and places as beings progress from “intelligences” who are “born” to deities (exalted beings) as spirit children who will be put in a situation where they must choose either good or evil. those who choose good will then be placed on an earth as mortals with no knowledge of their spiritual “pre- existence”, those who choose evil will be cast out but allowed to “tempt” and oppose the who chose good. at the end of that world those who failed to remain good during the mortal lifespan will go to a place of comfort but no more progress (kind of liek the elysian fields of greek mythology) those who actively were evil will be combined with those who were already cast out and be eternally “cast out”, those who were completely obedient will become exalted and move up the next order of development where THEY will now be creators and their God increases in glory as he then becomes a God of Gods. all of this in a never ending chain extending both directions.

Thus in mormon doctrine there really is no equivalent to the catholic dogma of original sin

 

[Jerusha]

Thus in mormon doctrine there really is no equivalent to the catholic dogma of original sin

The underlying plot of the BOM, written by Solomon Spalding, is actually about original sin. For Catholics, this is the sin of pride, “becoming as gods,” and Mormons just don’t get it.

A satirical religious novel became sacred scripture. :takeoff:

 

[ParkerD]

Full understanding of the mormon doctrine on this requires a knowledge the LDS temple ceremony where this is covered in somewhat greater detail…
Thus in mormon doctrine there really is no equivalent to the catholic dogma of original sin

Majick275,
I think if I have understood what I have read about “catholic dogma of original sin,” that I agree there really is no equivalent in Mormon doctrine.

I suppose a person may get fuller understanding or they may get misunderstanding from the LDS temple ceremony, but the standard works of LDS scripture contain the full doctrine about the fall of Adam and Eve.

I am going to clarify some of your statements. I don’t think Eve thought she would “have the same knowledge God has” or thought “she will not die”. She heard the words of temptation, but that doesn’t mean she thought they were true. She was thinking and evaluating. Genesis 3:6 is clear that what she wanted was what would “make one wise”. She wanted wisdom, but knew that God had given a commandment that she was breaking and therefore would die.

I think it is unfair to say that Eve manipulates Adam into eating the fruit. She restates the consequence for her and restates the other commandment they had received. She lets him think about it. This is not manipulative at all. Adam could choose to feel manipulated, or he could recognize that what she was saying was precisely true and he could choose to eat the fruit knowing that such a choice was the best thing for him to do given the circumstances.

I agree that spirits and intelligences make choices that result in their progress, but I think we don’t know much at all about how other worlds’ conditions are. Choices and potential for wrong choices must exist, so perhaps your statement of inference is correct.

I think all kingdoms of glory are kingdoms where there will be progress, but in different ways. Glory implies progress, creativity, joy within the limits of the kingdom the person has lived to receive by their choices. How could a kingdom be described as being “glory” if there were no progress in a way that brought a sense of satisfaction and purpose to living forever? “Eternal progression” is different than “eternal progress”. “Eternal progression” implies “eternal increase” by bringing other spirits into a condition where they can advance, but “eternal progress” I think would just mean “progress forever”. Christ wanted that for all of the spirit children of Heavenly Father, and offered it to them by offering Himself as the Savior and Redeemer.

I hope this has clarified a few of your points.

 

[ParkerD]

The underlying plot of the BOM, written by Solomon Spalding, is actually about original sin. For Catholics, this is the sin of pride, “becoming as gods,” and Mormons just don’t get it.

A satirical religious novel became sacred scripture.

Jerusha,
I think it is more likely that someone like Shakespeare (i.e. someone super-intelligent and a super-writer in disguise) wrote the Book of Mormon than Solomon Spalding (surely you can’t be serious since you surely have studied literature and surely would have made comparisons between the two works before making such a “studied” comment), but even that would be akin to there being another Shakespeare in that it would be one of the greatest perplexities ever to have happened in the history of the world.

The problem Catholics don’t deal with is that the book of Revelation talks repeatedly about becoming joint-heirs with Christ and receiving a throne with Him.

I absolutely agree that the sin of pride is a serious sin. If Christ and the Apostle John hadn’t said what they said or written what is in the Bible, then I wouldn’t believe “receiving a throne” is attainable, but who am I to deny what Christ has promised? What gratitude would I be showing if I were to say, “I don’t believe it–it’s not possible”?

 

[racing59]

Majick275,
I think if I have understood what I have read about “catholic dogma of original sin,” that I agree there really is no equivalent in Mormon doctrine.

I suppose a person may get fuller understanding or they may get misunderstanding from the LDS temple ceremony, but the standard works of LDS scripture contain the full doctrine about the fall of Adam and Eve.

I am going to clarify some of your statements. I don’t think Eve thought she would “have the same knowledge God has” or thought “she will not die”. She heard the words of temptation, but that doesn’t mean she thought they were true. She was thinking and evaluating. Genesis 3:6 is clear that what she wanted was what would “make one wise”. She wanted wisdom, but knew that God had given a commandment that she was breaking and therefore would die.

I think it is unfair to say that Eve manipulates Adam into eating the fruit. She restates the consequence for her and restates the other commandment they had received. She lets him think about it. This is not manipulative at all. Adam could choose to feel manipulated, or he could recognize that what she was saying was precisely true and he could choose to eat the fruit knowing that such a choice was the best thing for him to do given the circumstances.

I agree that spirits and intelligences make choices that result in their progress, but I think we don’t know much at all about how other worlds’ conditions are. Choices and potential for wrong choices must exist, so perhaps your statement of inference is correct.

I think all kingdoms of glory are kingdoms where there will be progress, but in different ways. Glory implies progress, creativity, joy within the limits of the kingdom the person has lived to receive by their choices. How could a kingdom be described as being “glory” if there were no progress in a way that brought a sense of satisfaction and purpose to living forever? “Eternal progression” is different than “eternal progress”. “Eternal progression” implies “eternal increase” by bringing other spirits into a condition where they can advance, but “eternal progress” I think would just mean “progress forever”. Christ wanted that for all of the spirit children of Heavenly Father, and offered it to them by offering Himself as the Savior and Redeemer.

I hope this has clarified a few of your points.

I believe Adam and Eve had enternal life till the fall. Having said that why would God give them a Tree of Life? They had to be aware of it don’t you think? I think it is a mistake to put it all on Eve.Were in the Bible does it say Adam was not present when the Serpent con her?Christ is the New Adam in the Bible. He died for his Church Eph. 5:22-35. Don’t you think the anology of the NEw Adam could be related to the Old Adam?
Just a thought