Question about BoM on Original Sin

[Arandur]

The text doesn’'t say “If thou lovest me, thou shalt not eat of it.” It only says, “thou shalt not eat of it.” I don’t think it implies that Eve was not “loving” God by eating the forbidden fruit, nor was Adam.

The formula from God has always been as Christ reiterated: “if you love me, you will keep my commandments.” With all of Scripture stressing this point, how did you miss it?

I think God knew we were going to disobey Him to a certain extent (some more than others), when He sent us to earth within the context of the plan of Salvation. That is the reason He provided His Son as the Ransom, the Savior, the Redeemer from our sins if we do forsake our sins by coming unto Him. I don’t think His plan was for us to live perfectly sinless lives. I think He did know that we would gain wisdom more by being imperfect than by thinking we were going to be perfect, and looking for that perfection in others as well.

Wow, these are scary words. You are saying that it is GOOD TO SIN!!! How perverse can you possibly get! How far from God and righteousness is such a statement! How antithetical to Scripture and all that Christ said! Did you read the New Testament, or even the Old? “Therefore be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect.”

And you wonder why other Christians think LDS corrupt God’s Word, and where we see contradictions between the BoM and Smith’s teachings and the Bible?

I don’t like to be harsh, but sometimes it’s needed to show the severity of things.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Rebecca,
The text says nothing about pride. How could Adam help Eve “forsake her sins” if he didn’t partake of the forbidden fruit after she had done so?

Parker, I think you need to explain how joining someone in their sin is required to help them to keep from sinning. I am not making the connection.

The text doesn’'t say “If thou lovest me, thou shalt not eat of it.” It only says, “thou shalt not eat of it.” I don’t think it implies that Eve was not “loving” God by eating the forbidden fruit, nor was Adam.

If you love me, keep my commandments.
Thou shalt love the Lord thy God

It is Catholic teaching that love of God includes obedience to what He says. The story of Adam and Eve is a story of many things. This includes God giving a commandment and Adam and Eve disobeying. Followed by expulsion from the Garden. It isn’t hard to understand they did something WRONG.

I don’t understand how you have not “implied anything” when the text doesn’t talk about pride, doesn’t talk about whether they loved God, doesn’t talk about “helping Eve forsake her sins.”

It is basic teaching Parker. All you have to do is read the Bible to know that obeying God is a form of love. And that pride is one of the biggest factors of sin. Have you read the Bible?

Helping Eve forsake her sins was in reply to your belief that Adam should sin because Eve sinned. It is not in response to the text.

You can read the text alone to know Eve sinned, according to her own desires, in direct disobedience of God’s commandment to them. Adam sinned. God was displeased.

I think God knew we were going to disobey Him to a certain extent (some more than others), when He sent us to earth within the context of the plan of Salvation. That is the reason He provided His Son as the Ransom, the Savior, the Redeemer from our sins if we do forsake our sins by coming unto Him. I don’t think His plan was for us to live perfectly sinless lives. I think He did know that we would gain wisdom more by being imperfect than by thinking we were going to be perfect, and looking for that perfection in others as well.

Parker, I would be interested to learn how you reconcile this to what your church teaches. You have many teachings that perfection is what God desires from you.

Thanks for your earnestness. I’m fine, joyful, peaceful, absolutely assured within the depth of my soul that I am OK through reliance upon Jesus Christ as my personal Savior, that I have been born of God and thus have been brought into spiritual life through the influence of the Holy Spirit and the forgiveness Jesus offers from my sins.

 

[Arandur]

Arandur,
The New Testament is full of references to overcoming adversity and sin, and growing from experiencing these things. Joseph Smith didn’t make it up. All he would have had to do is read the New Testament and think about what he read.

Show me where in Scripture it says that sin is a good thing, better than not to sin. God can make good come from any evil, but He does not need or desire evil first in order to make good.

I also know that he dictated the Book of Mormon from seeing the translation of ancient writings by prophets of God who testified of Jesus Christ and the plan of Salvation.

I understand that you believe this. I choose not to place my faith in the testimony of Smith. I put my faith in Jesus and God’s action through history, as well as the Twelve whom he appointed, not in one questionable man.

God and Christ are and have been perfect forever, but that does not mean they haven’t seen evil happen, and it doesn’t mean they haven’t experienced pain or the effects of sins. Obviously, Christ has experienced infinite pain and also the painful effects of sins He didn’t commit.

Who said you had to commit sin to suffer? I think you’ve given proof that suffering of some sort at least can occur among the sinless (God).

We are created in God’s image and likeness, but that doesn’t mean we were to have been absolutely perfect beings from the beginning of our creation.

If all that God creates is good, then He created us good at the beginning of our creation. It was only our choice that could have changed that.

If so, we would need to be gods because perfect beings would have perfect faith, perfect love, complete joy, be perfectly patient and perfectly forgiving. We are different than God and Christ and that is the whole reason for the plan of Salvation.

Yes we are different, but do you think that you will enter into heaven and live an eternal life in God’s presence and still commit sin? If not, then why do you hold that sin is necessary?

 

[RebeccaJ]

Yes we are different, but do you think that you will enter into heaven and live an eternal life in God’s presence and still commit sin? If not, then why do you hold that sin is necessary?

This reminds me of a Mormon who once wrote that God could sin, and thus cease to be God. There is also the Mormon belief of a “spirit prison”, which requires a belief that choices against God can, and will, be made. The sort of choice that bars a person from the presence of their god in the eternities.

I think it is clear Mormons believe that sin is required in order for good to exist. They do not believe that good can exist on its own. The understanding that God is Good, ie lacking in the ability to sin, is not found in their teachings or belief.

 

[ParkerD]

Arandur,
I see that I need to clarify more items.

Show me where in Scripture it says that sin is a good thing, better than not to sin. God can make good come from any evil, but He does not need or desire evil first in order to make good.

Absolutely not. I meant that sin is inevitable in our condition as “much less than God”, since we are imperfect beings without the understanding that God has or any experience to help us if God were to have tried to simply teach us by explaining everything about how to “be good.”

 

[Finrock]

Hello Arandur! Good evening to you and I am glad to meet you. I hope your day has been a good one.

I would like to respond to your well thought-out post. I appreciate your sincere post of your understanding of the LDS position. I hope you don’t mind if I address a few points I think you may have misunderstood and perhaps to even show how some points you think are illogical are actually logical and even necessary. Note that even though I will try to address your whole post, I will only be quoting those parts that I think are your main points. Lastly, I will address one point or maybe two points per post so that one post doesn’t become too lenghty.

Here is what I have labeled Point 1:

Point 1

The BoM says that Adam and Eve could not have known joy or done good without knowing sin and pain.

If this is true, then God cannot know joy or do good…

Perhaps the biggest logic problem with that idea is that there must be evil for there to be good. If that is the case, then God is not all good, and you at least must either have a God capable of evil, or a Dualistic universe with an equally necessary evil deific being.

Let me address Point 1 in this post. Because I think it will be helpful, I will quote from 2 Nephi 2 some of the verses leading up to what was originally posted by the OP.

2 Nephi 2:11-16
"*11 For it must needs be, that there is an opposition in all things. If not so, my first-born in the wilderness, righteousness could not be brought to pass, neither wickedness, neither holiness nor misery, neither good nor bad. Wherefore, all things must needs be a compound in one; wherefore, if it should be one body it must needs remain as dead, having no life neither death, nor corruption nor incorruption, happiness nor misery, neither sense nor insensibility.

12 Wherefore, it must needs have been created for a thing of naught; wherefore there would have been no purpose in the end of its creation. Wherefore, this thing must needs destroy the wisdom of God and his eternal purposes, and also the power, and the mercy, and the justice of God.

13 And if ye shall say there is no law, ye shall also say there is no sin. If ye shall say there is no sin, ye shall also say there is no righteousness. And if there be no righteousness there be no happiness. And if there be no righteousness nor happiness there be no punishment nor misery. And if these things are not there is no God. And if there is no God we are not, neither the earth; for there could have been no creation of things, neither to act nor to be acted upon; wherefore, all things must have vanished away.

14 And now, my sons, I speak unto you these things for your profit and learning; for there is a God, and he hath created all things, both the heavens and the earth, and all things that in them are, both things to act and things to be acted upon.

15 And to bring about his eternal purposes in the end of man, after he had created our first parents, and the beasts of the field and the fowls of the air, and in fine, all things which are created, it must needs be that there was an opposition; even the forbidden fruit in opposition to the tree of life; the one being sweet and the other bitter.

16 Wherefore, the Lord God gave unto man that he should act for himself. Wherefore, man could not act for himself save it should be that he was enticed by the one or the other*."

Now, verse 11 addresses your Point 1. Read 11 carefully. It does not say that there must be evil in order for there to be good. But rather it says that there must be an opposition in all things in order for righteousness or wickedness to be brought to pass. In other words, Lehi is saying that if there isn’t an opposing choice, then neither goodness or wickedness can exist. Then he further elaborates that if goodness nor wickedness exist, then ultimately there can be no God. But, of course there is a God, therefore it must be that there is an opposition in all things. This is perfectly logical.

Lehi recognizes the very simple truth** that morality requires choice and in order for there to be choice, there must be an opposition**. And so we see in verse 15, where Lehi states that in order for God to bring about His eternal purposes, he created an opposition in the Garden of Eden (the Tree of Life in opposition to the Tree of Knowledge), thus enabling Adam and Eve to act.

To help clarify the distinction here, perhaps it is helpful to consider this: If all things are just sweet, and that is all you know and nothing else has ever existed besides “sweet” things, then the word sweet really becomes meaningless. You really couldn’t describe sweet if there was nothing different from it. You wouldn’t know what sweet is, if some alien approached you and said that your food is sweet. However, if there is something that is different from sweet or in opposition to “sweet”, like something that is bitter, and you are aware of it and have the ability to choose it instead of “sweet”, then now “sweet” actually has meaning because there is something to distinguish it from itself. Good, likewise, in order for it to mean anything and to have value, requires that there be something that is opposed to it. There must be a “not good” and this is what we call evil. To be evil is simply to act in opposition to that which is good. The only way to be evil is if you have the capacity to know the difference between the two (good and not good) and you chose not good as opposed to the good. So, evil only exist as a being that has chosen in opposition to the good. Hence, an evil being (a being that has chosen not good) doesn’t need to exist in order for there to be good, but an opposition to good must exist in order for there to be good.

This concludes this post. I’ll address your other points in other posts.

Kind Regards,
Finrock

 

[ParkerD]

Arandur,
To clarify:

The formula from God has always been as Christ reiterated: “if you love me, you will keep my commandments.” With all of Scripture stressing this point, how did you miss it?

I am certainly familiar with those words of Christ in the New Testament. We were discussing the specific text in Genesis about the fall of Eve and Adam. Those words aren’t found there. You can say that they are implied because they are somewhere in the Bible, but I disagree that they are implied in the context of what Adam and Eve were taught.

Wow, these are scary words. You are saying that it is GOOD TO SIN!!! How perverse can you possibly get! How far from God and righteousness is such a statement! How antithetical to Scripture and all that Christ said! Did you read the New Testament, or even the Old? “Therefore be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect.”

I did not say that it is good to sin. I said, “I don’t think His plan was for us to live perfectly sinless lives. I think He did know that we would gain wisdom more by being imperfect than by thinking we were going to be perfect, and looking for that perfection in others as well.”

Evidently, you think His plan was for us to live perfectly sinless lives. Not only that, I assume since you disagreed that you think we were supposed to think we had to be perfect and were absolutely going to be perfect. I disagree completely. I think we understood in the pre-mortal existence that when we came to earth we would be very likely to commit sin and therefore would absolutely need a Savior and Redeemer in order to live completely pure and completely sinless in the presence of God for eternity, after this life.

 

[ParkerD]

This reminds me of a Mormon who once wrote that God could sin, and thus cease to be God. There is also the Mormon belief of a “spirit prison”, which requires a belief that choices against God can, and will, be made. The sort of choice that bars a person from the presence of their god in the eternities.

I think it is clear Mormons believe that sin is required in order for good to exist. They do not believe that good can exist on its own. The understanding that God is Good, ie lacking in the ability to sin, is not found in their teachings or belief.

Rebecca,
“Spirit prison” is a temporary condition similar to “purgatory”, if I have understood half-correctly. Spirits in spirit prison will be taught the plan of Salvation, and be allowed to repent and accept Jesus Christ as their Savior.

God is Good, and of course He lacks the “ability” to sin because it is completely against His essence to do anything remotely like “sin.”

 

[ParkerD]

Rebecca,
To clarify:

Parker, I think you need to explain how joining someone in their sin is required to help them to keep from sinning. I am not making the connection.

Adam would have stayed in the garden of Eden and Eve would have been cast out of it, so they would no longer have been together. This was a one-time situation as far as “joining in the sin” of eating the forbidden fruit. Adam understood the consequence.

If you love me, keep my commandments.
Thou shalt love the Lord thy God

Which verse in Genesis 2 and 3 are you quoting? (I am aware of those verses elsewhere in the Bible.)

It is Catholic teaching that love of God includes obedience to what He says. The story of Adam and Eve is a story of many things. This includes God giving a commandment and Adam and Eve disobeying. Followed by expulsion from the Garden. It isn’t hard to understand they did something WRONG.

They chose to disobey and to face the consequence of that disobedience. The text doesn’t say they did something WRONG. (If so, tell me the exact passage.)

It is basic teaching Parker. All you have to do is read the Bible to know that obeying God is a form of love. And that pride is one of the biggest factors of sin. Have you read the Bible?

I think I have read the Bible more times than yourself. You have said nothing you have written about the fall of Adam and Eve is “implied”, yet by calling these things “basic teachings” you are implying that those are specifically applicable to the case of Adam and Eve. Those implications are not in the text itself.

You can read the text alone to know Eve sinned, according to her own desires, in direct disobedience of God’s commandment to them. Adam sinned. God was displeased.

How do you absolutely know “God was displeased,” without implying it or interpreting it from your understanding rather than from the text itself?

Parker, I would be interested to learn how you reconcile this to what your church teaches. You have many teachings that perfection is what God desires from you.

But the perfection can only come through believing Christ, having faith in Christ and hope in Christ, and coming unto Christ with full purpose of heart and with complete love for Him, for God the Father, and for others. We absolutely were never expected to “do it on our own.” God knew that we couldn’t “be perfect on our own” whether or not Adam and Eve had fallen in the garden of Eden. It was an impossibility.

 

[Finrock]

This reminds me of a Mormon who once wrote that God could sin, and thus cease to be God. There is also the Mormon belief of a “spirit prison”, which requires a belief that choices against God can, and will, be made. The sort of choice that bars a person from the presence of their god in the eternities.

I think it is clear Mormons believe that sin is required in order for good to exist. They do not believe that good can exist on its own. The understanding that God is Good, ie lacking in the ability to sin, is not found in their teachings or belief.

Hello RebeccaJ! I’ve enjoyed the discussion you and ParkerD have been having.

I hope you don’t mind if I point out that not everything in your post here is precisely correct. In my post to Arandur I go in to this in more detail, but just for the sake of clarity and to dispel misunderstandings, it isn’t true that the LDS church teaches that sin is required in order for good to exist. There is a distinction between sin and an opposition to good. The teaching in 2 Nephi 2 is that an opposition to all things must exist, including an opposition to good. Sin is simply acting contrary to that which is good. But, in order for there to be sin there must be a “contrary to good”, an opposition to good. Evil and sin requires knowing acting agents. So, we do believe that good can exist without sin. The good can exist without there being any evil or sinful agents. But, this isn’t the same as saying that good can exist without an opposition to it. It can’t. If there is a good then there must be a not good (not good being whatever the contradiction of the good is). The principle is really that simple.

I believe God is a free agent. He can choose. As a matter of fact, I submit that God couldn’t be morally good unless He had a choice. Morality requires choice. I believe God is good, but I also believe that to say God is Good, as in He is a principle, unavoidably takes away His personhood and God is no longer a He, but an It. I simply do not subscribe to that notion. To me, it is one of the things that makes Him so wonderful is that He choses good perfectly and always, not because He has to, but because He wants to. I believe it is a false notion to think that because someone has the ability to sin that they will sin. Jesus Christ is the prime example of this. He had the capacity and ability to sin during His mortal life, yet what makes His sacrifice meaningful and even valid is because despite any other choice available to Him, He perfectly and always chose only that which would please His Father. It is this agency that God has that makes trusting in Him meaningful, although all of this gets in to a different discussion altogether, so I will leave it at that.

Kind Regards,
Finrock

Edited for Clarification (hopefully)

 

[ParkerD]

Rebecca,
Earlier you asked,

Parker, We see the atonement as righting a wrong. Restoring the world to it’s proper order. You have a view that the world was never set askew. So I have to wonder what you believe the purpose of the Atonement to be.

I love John 3:16-17 and the entire book of John. I think “that the world through him might be saved” refers back to verse 16, “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son…” I think “world” means “the people born into the world.” See Psalm 98:9 and Isaiah 13:11. Also see Luke 2:1. I do certainly think the world was impacted by the fall of Adam and Eve, and that all of humankind were impacted in that we will physically die and we become spiritually dead the more we sin. That spiritual death caused by our sins can be overcome because of the atonement of Jesus Christ, conditional on our repentance and faith in Jesus Christ. I believe and am sure that full spiritual rebirth requires the inner cleansing effect for our body and the covenant effect for our mind and spirit, of baptism and the gift of the Holy Ghost.

I believe the purpose of the atonement is to bring our world into a state of conditional redemption and Salvation for all of humankind, plus a state of unconditional resurrection for all of humankind. The earth itself needs to be cleansed, and will be cleansed at the beginning of the Millenium in order for the earth to be a worthy place where Christ can reign personally on the earth. The atonement is by far the most important event in the history of this world. It was infinite in the pain Jesus felt and in the scope of its blessings to all of humankind, though some ignore the blessings available to them through Christ. He suffered in an incomprehensible, infinite way so that we can be purified, cleansed from all our sins if we repent and seek His help in faith, and live in the eternal presence of God with the joy of being in His presence for eternity.

 

[Arandur]

Rebecca,
To clarify:

Adam would have stayed in the garden of Eden and Eve would have been cast out of it, so they would no longer have been together. This was a one-time situation as far as “joining in the sin” of eating the forbidden fruit. Adam understood the consequence.

I think you’ve missed something. Adam already sinned before he ever ate. Why is Adam blamed as the primary sinner otherwise, when Eve ate first? Adam was WITH Eve at the time. He did not protect her from the serpent. He did not even attempt to dissuade her from eating of the fruit. He had a responsibility to do both as a fellow child of God (as the NT responsibilities of Christians makes clear), but even moreso had he those responsibilities as her husband. Adam sinned first, or at least at the same time.

Which verse in Genesis 2 and 3 are you quoting? (I am aware of those verses elsewhere in the Bible.)

So now you believe God and His doctrine are changing? I thought your church insisted otherwise. As we have said, obedience has ALWAYS and throughout the Bible been the sign of love of God. For you to make an exception to it is understandable because you have to try to reconcile the false teachings of Joseph Smith, but it is incongruent with belief in the Bible. The belief that disobedience to God can be good or necessary is certainly consistent with what the Adversary would have us believe, however.

They chose to disobey and to face the consequence of that disobedience. The text doesn’t say they did something WRONG. (If so, tell me the exact passage.)

Does God “curse” (Gen 3:17) when something was not done wrong? And again, the whole context of the Scriptures demonstrates time and time again that disobedience to God is wrong, is sin. The wages of sin is death. Through Adam sin and death entered the world (as Paul says).

I think I have read the Bible more times than yourself.

Why make such a claim in ignorance? Many people falsely assume that Catholics are unfamiliar with the Bible, when in Mass alone we hear most of it every 3 years, to say nothing of education and private or group study.

You have said nothing you have written about the fall of Adam and Eve is “implied”, yet by calling these things “basic teachings” you are implying that those are specifically applicable to the case of Adam and Eve. Those implications are not in the text itself.

So you say. We’re arguing over interpretations. Claims like this are not fruitful. Use reasoned arguments instead.

How do you absolutely know “God was displeased,” without implying it or interpreting it from your understanding rather than from the text itself?

Why would He be pleased if they did the opposite of what He specifically commanded? Does God try to deceive us and use reverse psychology to get us to do what it pleases Him for us to do?
Does God curse if He is not displeased?

But the perfection can only come through believing Christ, having faith in Christ and hope in Christ, and coming unto Christ with full purpose of heart and with complete love for Him, for God the Father, and for others. We absolutely were never expected to “do it on our own.” God knew that we couldn’t “be perfect on our own” whether or not Adam and Eve had fallen in the garden of Eden. It was an impossibility.

You’re back to saying that it is impossible to be good without sinning. Doesn’t that sound ridiculous to you? How can God be good without sinning? Why would He want us to suffer the effects of sin, knowing what they are?

Sounds like you’re trying to have a Dualistic universe (except without a co-equal evil deity).

 

[Arandur]

Sorry, I skipped some posts.

Arandur,
To clarify:

I am certainly familiar with those words of Christ in the New Testament. We were discussing the specific text in Genesis about the fall of Eve and Adam. Those words aren’t found there. You can say that they are implied because they are somewhere in the Bible, but I disagree that they are implied in the context of what Adam and Eve were taught.

I referred to this in the previous post, actually. Why don’t you think it applies? Does God change? Did He really say one thing (don’t eat of the tree) and mean another (go right ahead, that’s according to my plan)?

On the contrary, the Adam and Eve story is the very first example of sin, sin resulting from disobedience to God, showing us perhaps most dramatically of all that loving God is being obedient to Him, and being disobedient bears terrible consequences. Remember, it is through this disobedience that sin and death enter the world. This passage is in fact one of the greatest examples of how obedience to God is of the utmost importance, for it causes such terrible damage that the rest of Scripture is concerned with dealing with it. How did you miss that?

I did not say that it is good to sin. I said, “I don’t think His plan was for us to live perfectly sinless lives. I think He did know that we would gain wisdom more by being imperfect than by thinking we were going to be perfect, and looking for that perfection in others as well.”

Evidently, you think His plan was for us to live perfectly sinless lives.

As I quoted from Jesus earlier, He tells us to do just that.

Not only that, I assume since you disagreed that you think we were supposed to think we had to be perfect and were absolutely going to be perfect.

Please explain this further. I’m not sure what you’re saying.
Concupiscence (the tendency to do evil) only entered the world as a result of the Fallen State. There was no prior inclination to do evil, thus it was much more possible to choose only good, as those in heaven can choose only good. Remember, Adam and Eve experienced the presence of God, similarly to those in Heaven. Their ability to do good only was not impaired.

I disagree completely. I think we understood in the pre-mortal existence that when we came to earth we would be very likely to commit sin and therefore would absolutely need a Savior and Redeemer in order to live completely pure and completely sinless in the presence of God for eternity, after this life.

I agree that we must have GOD in order to live completely pure and sinless; that’s by definition. Adam and Eve had God in this way. So do the angels (remember that we believe angels are a separate type of being).
As for the pre-mortal existence, you realize that that means very little to we Catholics and most other Christians, a doctrine innovated as it was by Smith and others. However, even assuming it were true, why on earth would a being open itself to the possibility, even the likelihood, of sin, separation from God, and eternal damnation by entering into an existence likely to cause just that? That would be like willingly embracing whatever leads you to sin–an alcoholic drug and sex addict gambler going to the heart of Las Vegas with high-limit credit cards and no support. That is terribly foolish and quite possibly even sinful in and of itself, for it is willfully endangering your soul and your relationship to God.

 

[Arandur]

Where in the Bible is there something like your Nephi quote?

16 Wherefore, the Lord God gave unto man that he should act for himself. Wherefore, man could not act for himself save it should be that he was enticed by the one or the other

."
To clarify, the “one or the other” are possible choices, not other beings enticing man to make a choice one way or the other, correct?

Now, verse 11 addresses your Point 1. Read 11 carefully. It does not say that there must be evil in order for there to be good. But rather it says that there must be an opposition in all things in order for righteousness or wickedness to be brought to pass. In other words, Lehi is saying that if there isn’t an opposing choice, then neither goodness or wickedness can exist.

This is simply the existence of free will/choice. As soon as God created another self-willed being, He created the possibility that that being could choose something other than what He desires or plans. I believe we are in agreement here. However, there is no need for that other being (or any other being) to* ever* choose something not in accord with God’s Will. So long as no such discordant choice is made, the other being remains in union with God and freedom from corruption, moral, physical, and metaphysical evils.

Then he further elaborates that if goodness nor wickedness exist, then ultimately there can be no God.

I thought you just got done saying that wickedness need not exist, only the possibility of wickedness. If that, we would be in agreement, but not with the author. The author seems to say that wickedness must exist for God to exist, forgetting both that a wicked choice need not be made, nor that no other being but God need to exist. If God is all that exists, the single Necessary Being, the First Cause, Unmoved Mover, etc, then while He exists, only goodness exists, but no wickedness. In fact, not even the possibility of wickedness, for God’s Will is the only reference point, and is by definition Good.

But, of course there is a God, therefore it must be that there is an opposition in all things. This is perfectly logical.

No, that does not follow. While God alone exists, before He creates any other wills, there is no possibility of opposition to His Will since there is no other will. This would be true if it were “if an opposition exists, then there is a God.” The converse, I believe? A First Will must exist, and the opposition only exists when there comes another will. For the author’s statement to be correct, you’d have to have an equally necessary, Dualistic opposing deity. This is one of the falsehoods of the BoM and contradictions with the Bible.

Lehi recognizes the very simple truth** that morality requires choice and in order for there to be choice, there must be an opposition**.

This is true. Some of those other conclusions drawn from this are not true.

To help clarify the distinction here, perhaps it is helpful to consider this: If all things are just sweet, and that is all you know and nothing else has ever existed besides “sweet” things, then the word sweet really becomes meaningless.

No, sweetness is only enhanced from our frame of reference to the degree that there is relative unsweetness. It does not make sweetness not exist or be meaningless. When God made His Creation, He declared it Good. It was Good, and presumably He derived joy from it. He did not need Adam to sin and bring death into the world for Him to perceive that it was Good and derive joy from it.

You really couldn’t describe sweet if there was nothing different from it. You wouldn’t know what sweet is, if some alien approached you and said that your food is sweet. However, if there is something that is different from sweet or in opposition to “sweet”, like something that is bitter, and you are aware of it and have the ability to choose it instead of “sweet”, then now “sweet” actually has meaning because there is something to distinguish it from itself.

You are describing only relativity, something that derives from a limited frame of reference and limited capacity. You are not describing necessary properties of reality and truth. Thus God, with His unlimited frame of reference, can know of all things in their truth without having opposition. You might say think that this helps your case, but only if limited man is incapable of learning from God. Since we know otherwise from all of human experience and Scripture, we can know that the truth of things can be known and experienced (most fully, in truth) through God.

Good, likewise, in order for it to mean anything and to have value, requires that there be something that is opposed to it. There must be a “not good” and this is what we call evil. To be evil is simply to act in opposition to that which is good. The only way to be evil is if you have the capacity to know the difference between the two (good and not good) and you chose not good as opposed to the good. So, evil only exist as a being that has chosen in opposition to the good. Hence, an evil being (a being that has chosen not good) doesn’t need to exist in order for there to be good, but an opposition to good must exist in order for there to be good.

Summary: the possibility of choosing not good must exist for any will other than God to be free, but that choice to not do good need not be made.

 

[Arandur]

I believe God is a free agent. He can choose. As a matter of fact, I submit that God couldn’t be morally good unless He had a choice. Morality requires choice. I believe God is good, but I also believe that to say God is Good, as in He is a principle, unavoidably takes away His personhood and God is no longer a He, but an It. I simply do not subscribe to that notion. To me, it is one of the things that makes Him so wonderful is that He choses good perfectly and always, not because He has to, but because He wants to. I believe it is a false notion to think that because someone has the ability to sin that they will sin. Jesus Christ is the prime example of this. He had the capacity and ability to sin during His mortal life, yet what makes His sacrifice meaningful and even valid is because despite any other choice available to Him, He perfectly and always chose only that which would please His Father. It is this agency that God has that makes trusting in Him meaningful, although all of this gets in to a different discussion altogether, so I will leave it at that.

I know my posts are now bordering on the verge of spam in their length and frequency, but this adds a little to the last.

There is another possibility for God. He, as the only Necessary Being and the only omnipotent one, is the frame of reference for all things. Whatever He chooses is/becomes, by definition, Good. This is a property of the Father. The interesting thing is that the choice that you describe, the ability to choose something different, can only come about if there is some form of two or more wills, as I said previously. As far as I can see, this is best and beautifully explained in the Trinity (something I realize you LDS do not believe). For only with the Trinity do you have the Creator (the role and property of the person of the Father, though participated in by the Son as the Word and means through which the Father creates), who is the ultimate frame of reference and whose Will is by definition Good, no matter what it is. And only with the Trinity do you have the Son, eternally begotten of the Father as the Necessary Being, but having another will, and thus providing the possibility of that opposition that you say is necessary for there to be will and choice and culpability. The same can be said of the Spirit; indeed, the Spirit can even be spoken of as that which joins the three wills in union, just as he joins us in union to the Father and the Son.

 

[ParkerD]

Arandur,
I am fine with continuing this discussion using the Bible as our source for what went on in the garden of Eden.

I think you’ve missed something. Adam already sinned before he ever ate. Why is Adam blamed as the primary sinner otherwise, when Eve ate first? Adam was WITH Eve at the time. He did not protect her from the serpent. He did not even attempt to dissuade her from eating of the fruit. He had a responsibility to do both as a fellow child of God (as the NT responsibilities of Christians makes clear), but even moreso had he those responsibilities as her husband. Adam sinned first, or at least at the same time.

Who said Adam is “blamed as the primary sinner?” I think Genesis 3:14-17 shows that God blamed the serpent first, Eve second, and Adam third, and gave each of them consequences for their sin. The garden of Eden wasn’t a half-acre size garden–it was much larger. How do you infer that Adam knew the serpent was there tempting Eve? I see no evidence in the Biblical text that Adam knew that was happening. As a husband, he didn’t need to be “watching her every move”. He needed to care for her, but also to realize she needed some space and should also assume her own care of herself, no?

So now you believe God and His doctrine are changing? I thought your church insisted otherwise. As we have said, obedience has ALWAYS and throughout the Bible been the sign of love of God. For you to make an exception to it is understandable because you have to try to reconcile the false teachings of Joseph Smith, but it is incongruent with belief in the Bible. The belief that disobedience to God can be good or necessary is certainly consistent with what the Adversary would have us believe, however.

We are talking about one specific situation. That situation should not be generalized, period. How do you know with absolute certainty that God told Adam and Eve, “If you eat the forbidden fruit, you will be showing that you don’t love Me” (or words to that effect)? I think God was letting them choose, without any coercion including the coercion that would be involved if they had been told the only way to show love for Him was to obey the injunction not to eat the forbidden fruit “lest they die.” Of course they loved God, but they were also in a condition of innocence, so their love was pretty vague.

All of the teachings of the New Testament weren’t given to the people of the Old Testament. The New Testament includes “new covenant” teachings. The Bible is clear about this.

Does God “curse” (Gen 3:17) when something was not done wrong? And again, the whole context of the Scriptures demonstrates time and time again that disobedience to God is wrong, is sin. The wages of sin is death. Through Adam sin and death entered the world (as Paul says).

Thanks for this question. “Cursed shall be the ground for thy sake” is a key verse. The word “sake” is a very particular word. It conveys “for thy good, thy enhancement, thy purpose, thy advantage” using synonyms from the dictionary for the word “sake.” The ground was cursed for Adam’s benefit.

I agree that through Adam death entered the world, but I am not finding where Paul says “through Adam sin entered the world.” Could you clarify which verse you are referring to?

Why make such a claim in ignorance? Many people falsely assume that Catholics are unfamiliar with the Bible, when in Mass alone we hear most of it every 3 years, to say nothing of education and private or group study.

I wasn’t meaning or inferring that Rebecca hasn’t read the Bible or listened to it being read. She accused me of not having read the Bible. I’ve read it cover to cover at least five times, and many many chapters more than five times. I was making an educated guess, but I freely admit I could be wrong although I can’t conceive of a person reading the entire Bible five times and not questioning some of what I have read in the Catholic enclyclopedia. (That’s what I meant by educated guess.)

So you say. We’re arguing over interpretations. Claims like this are not fruitful. Use reasoned arguments instead.

Wait–I was accused of making inferences. I think we should read the Biblical text, and not make “reasoned arguments” since they will be based on whatever “reasoning” whoever is doing the reasoning comes up with. If we make no inferences, then we stick with the text itself, period.

Why would He be pleased if they did the opposite of what He specifically commanded? Does God try to deceive us and use reverse psychology to get us to do what it pleases Him for us to do?
Does God curse if He is not displeased?

Rebecca inferred God was displeased. The Bible doesn’t say He was displeased. It says He told them the consequences, including cursing the ground and that Eve would have increased “sorrow and conception.” (It doesn’t say He was pleased, either.)

I don’t think God uses any kind of psychology to “get us to do what it pleases Him for us to do.” I think He wants us to act out of our own volition. Yes, God cursed the ground, but the words don’t say He cursed Adam or Eve. See my comment about the word “sake.”

You’re back to saying that it is impossible to be good without sinning. Doesn’t that sound ridiculous to you? How can God be good without sinning? Why would He want us to suffer the effects of sin, knowing what they are?

I was talking about humankind, not about God. It doesn’t sound ridiculous to me at all to believe and understand that humankind were “pre-understood” by God and created with the understanding that we would not be perfect. I hope you understand that I think God and Christ think we can be perfect through the help of Jesus Christ, but only through that help.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Rebecca,
“Spirit prison” is a temporary condition similar to “purgatory”, if I have understood half-correctly. Spirits in spirit prison will be taught the plan of Salvation, and be allowed to repent and accept Jesus Christ as their Savior.

God is Good, and of course He lacks the “ability” to sin because it is completely against His essence to do anything remotely like “sin.”

They are not similar. Purgatory is where we are purified in order to be in the presence of God, in Heaven.

We are judged for this life. There is no second chance in the next.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Rebecca,
To clarify:

Adam would have stayed in the garden of Eden and Eve would have been cast out of it, so they would no longer have been together. This was a one-time situation as far as “joining in the sin” of eating the forbidden fruit. Adam understood the consequence.

Parker, I know this is based on mormon belief that God can change according to the circumstance. This is not Catholic (Christian) belief. God is unchanging. He is not one thing for you and another for Adam/Eve and something else for me.

Which verse in Genesis 2 and 3 are you quoting? (I am aware of those verses elsewhere in the Bible.)

Parker, this is something that mormons do that makes no sense to me. You read a passage in the Bible and extrapolate all sorts of errors from it because you never take the entire experience of humans and God, together, as one teaching.

When you say “implied”, I take it to mean random stuff that you are coming up with in your head, that has no Biblical basis whatsoever. The idea or belief that God places us in a double bind of “obey Me but I really hope you don’t” has no Biblical basis whatsoever.

What God has TAUGHT, is very clear, and has never changed.

You have to imply things that never came from God. I understand the need to do this in order to make sense the errors that you have been taught.

They chose to disobey and to face the consequence of that disobedience. The text doesn’t say they did something WRONG. (If so, tell me the exact passage.)

Parker, I’m beginning to think you might possibly believe God has never given a commandment that needs to be obeyed. God commanded Adam and Eve to not eat the fruit of the tree. Is it wrong to disobey God, or not?

I think I have read the Bible more times than yourself. You have said nothing you have written about the fall of Adam and Eve is “implied”, yet by calling these things “basic teachings” you are implying that those are specifically applicable to the case of Adam and Eve. Those implications are not in the text itself.

Parker, telling you what is taught in the Bible is not implying anything. It is teaching you what is truth. What you have got going comes from nowhere.

How do you absolutely know “God was displeased,” without implying it or interpreting it from your understanding rather than from the text itself?

Is God happy when we disobey Him? Seriously Parker, I taught these concepts to 5 year olds in primary. I know you know better. Why are you being obtuse?

But the perfection can only come through believing Christ, having faith in Christ and hope in Christ, and coming unto Christ with full purpose of heart and with complete love for Him, for God the Father, and for others. We absolutely were never expected to “do it on our own.” God knew that we couldn’t “be perfect on our own” whether or not Adam and Eve had fallen in the garden of Eden. It was an impossibility.

Obedience to the Father, Son and Holy Spirit is obedience to God. What the Father gives the Son gives. It was not an impossibility to be perfect in the Garden. It was how God created the world. He did not create an impossibility for Adam and Eve, He created Paradise. God has never left us orphans. He has never said we “do it on our own”. All things are possible because of God.

 

[Arandur]

Who said Adam is “blamed as the primary sinner?” I think Genesis 3:14-17 shows that God blamed the serpent first, Eve second, and Adam third…

Everywhere I can think of that Scripture refers to the first sin, they call Adam out on it, not Eve or the Serpent. Certainly Paul does in Romans 5:12 “Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned”
Was Paul wrong, because Genesis doesn’t clearly place the blame primarily on Adam?

The garden of Eden wasn’t a half-acre size garden–it was much larger. How do you infer that Adam knew the serpent was there tempting Eve? I see no evidence in the Biblical text that Adam knew that was happening…

Genesis 3:6 “…she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.”
Adam was with her. It is possible that Adam was not with her when the serpent was, and thus may not have been able to protect her from him or counter the serpent’s arguments, but Adam was surely with her when she took from the tree and apparently did nothing.

We are talking about one specific situation. That situation should not be generalized, period.

How do you come to that conclusion? Jesus generalized when he told us that. Is morality relative? Does it change over time? What passage in the Bible is not to be instructive in other instances, but unique to its own circumstances? You don’t think Adam and Eve knew they were supposed to honor their father? I don’t see how you could be right about this on any level.

How do you know with absolute certainty that God told Adam and Eve, “If you eat the forbidden fruit, you will be showing that you don’t love Me” (or words to that effect)?

I never said that He told them that in those words. The message throughout all of Scripture is clear, however, that obedience to God is love of God and disobedience to Him is wrong, is sin. Where do you find otherwise?

Of course they loved God, but they were also in a condition of innocence, so their love was pretty vague.

Pretty vague? What does that mean? Is a child’s love for his parent’s somehow worth less than a sinner’s?

All of the teachings of the New Testament weren’t given to the people of the Old Testament. The New Testament includes “new covenant” teachings…

What about morality changed? How about “honor thy father and mother?” You don’t think Adam and Eve knew they were supposed to do what God said?

The word “sake” is a very particular word. It conveys “for thy good, thy enhancement, thy purpose, thy advantage” using synonyms from the dictionary for the word “sake.” The ground was cursed for Adam’s benefit.

Other renderings have it “cursed be the ground because of you.” This is more internally consistent with the passage because of the reference to Adam now suffering through thorns and labor and having to work for his food. It is also more consistent with the rest of Scripture which maintains that nature was harmed by Adam’s sin and would now harm Adam because of his sin. It is hard to see how the change in nature would have been for his benefit when it was now for the first time becoming harmful to him.

I agree that through Adam death entered the world, but I am not finding where Paul says “through Adam sin entered the world.” Could you clarify which verse you are referring to?

Romans 5:6. You don’t think Adam sinned?

I think we should read the Biblical text, and not make “reasoned arguments” since they will be based on whatever “reasoning” whoever is doing the reasoning comes up with. If we make no inferences, then we stick with the text itself, period.

Any time we ascribe a meaning to a text we are interpreting it in some manner. It may seem clear to us but is challenged by others or by contextual facts. Reasoned argument helps to lead towards a more proper interpretation, but only the Holy Spirit can guide us with surety to the true one. Which is why the Bible says that it must be interpreted in the context of and in union with the authority of the Church, empowered as it is by the Holy Spirit as the pillar and foundation of truth.

The Bible doesn’t say He was displeased. It says He told them the consequences, including cursing the ground and that Eve would have increased “sorrow and conception.”

The Bible says that all sin displeases God. Adam and Eve sinned. Thus they displeased God. Is that not clear, or do you just reject what the rest of the Bible says about Adam and Eve in favor of an interpretation limited to the words of a narrow band of text only?

I don’t think God uses any kind of psychology to “get us to do what it pleases Him for us to do.” I think He wants us to act out of our own volition…

God doesn’t tell us what He wants us to do? What are the Scriptures, or the words of Jesus? What’s the purpose of the Holy Spirit?

I was talking about humankind, not about God. It doesn’t sound ridiculous to me at all to believe and understand that humankind were “pre-understood” by God and created with the understanding that we would not be perfect…

If you loved someone but knew that they were doing, would do, or were about to do something harmful to themselves or others and sorrowful to you, would you not advise them otherwise and not desire them to do that act? So God advised Adam and Eve not to eat of the tree and so it was not His will that they do so. He knew they would do it and He knew it would cause all sorts of harm, and this caused Him great sorrow–how could it not, when He knew the consequences would be so painful for His loved ones? God is not callous.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Hello RebeccaJ! I’ve enjoyed the discussion you and ParkerD have been having.

I hope you don’t mind if I point out that not everything in your post here is precisely correct. In my post to Arandur I go in to this in more detail, but just for the sake of clarity and to dispel misunderstandings, it isn’t true that the LDS church teaches that sin is required in order for good to exist. There is a distinction between sin and an opposition to good. The teaching in 2 Nephi 2 is that an opposition to all things must exist, including an opposition to good. Sin is simply acting contrary to that which is good. But, in order for there to be sin there must be a “contrary to good”, an opposition to good. Evil and sin requires knowing acting agents. So, we do believe that good can exist without sin. The good can exist without there being any evil or sinful agents. But, this isn’t the same as saying that good can exist without an opposition to it. It can’t. If there is a good then there must be a not good (not good being whatever the contradiction of the good is). The principle is really that simple.

Finrock, you have just chased your tail in a circle.

Sin is indeed opposition to good. Which good is defined by God. Therefore, sin is opposition against God. Where has God ever taught that there must, or should, be a contradiction to Himself? I think if you study what God has actually taught, you will find that He teaches us that to contradict Him is a sin. To cooperate with Him is our desire.

Moral evil is radically contrary to God’s will. If it exists, it is because God allows free will. Allowing for our freedom does not imply that God desires the evil that can come from it. God desires what is good and righteous.

I believe God is a free agent. He can choose. As a matter of fact, I submit that God couldn’t be morally good unless He had a choice. Morality requires choice. I believe God is good, but I also believe that to say God is Good, as in He is a principle, unavoidably takes away His personhood and God is no longer a He, but an It. I simply do not subscribe to that notion. To me, it is one of the things that makes Him so wonderful is that He choses good perfectly and always, not because He has to, but because He wants to. I believe it is a false notion to think that because someone has the ability to sin that they will sin. Jesus Christ is the prime example of this. He had the capacity and ability to sin during His mortal life, yet what makes His sacrifice meaningful and even valid is because despite any other choice available to Him, He perfectly and always chose only that which would please His Father. It is this agency that God has that makes trusting in Him meaningful, although all of this gets in to a different discussion altogether, so I will leave it at that.

Kind Regards,
Finrock

Finrock, Jesus could not sin because He IS God.

It is in fact Catholic belief that God has no gender. He is not an “it”, HE IS GOD. Something I think Mormons fail to understand as you keep on insisting that He is nothing more than a human made into a god.

GOD IS GOD. Always has been, always will be, GOD. This is not a title, it is who He IS. His very nature. Which nature includes, perfect goodness.