Question about BoM on Original Sin

[Finrock]

Hello Arandur! It’s been a long day for me thus far. Hopefully none of this frustration reflects in my post. I do hope, however, that you are having a wonderful day.

Thank you for taking the time to read and to respond to my post. I want to point out that my primary purpose is not to convince you that my view is right. I do understand that you do not agree with the LDS position and I respect your beliefs and I am comfortable with the fact that you are opposed to it. My primary purpose in posting is to clarify what the LDS position actually is, rather than the misunderstandings I read that are being posited as being the LDS understanding of things. If in the course of the conversation you are convinced of something that I say, then that is a bonus. But, really I am motivated by a desire to correct misunderstandings and misconceptions. If someone is going to disagree with the LDS position, I want them to disagree based on what is actually the position and not a misinterpretation of it.

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

I haven’t found any one place in the Bible that is like 2 Nephi 2, although I do believe that many scriptures in the Bible in various places state or imply the truths I believe are found in 2 Nephi 2.

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?

You are correct. “Satan himself is not necessary to evil, but he hastens and abets evil wherever he can” (Encyclopedia of Mormonism). This also addresses to a degree your false statement that Mormons believe that an evil deity must exist in order for there to be good. Mormons do not believe this, it isn’t what Lehi teaches in 2 Nephi, and it isn’t a part of Mormon doctrine. According to LDS understanding, good necessarily exist and evil exist only as something that is opposed to what is good. Or, “evil is any order of existence that is not righteous” (E. of M.).

I agree with you that we demonstrate our love for God by our obedience to Him. It would seem to me that being obedient and demonstrating love for God is relatively easy when you live in His presence and everything is provided for you. However, the LDS position is that to have exaltation, which is God’s desire for us, requires us to be obedient when we are not in His presence and while we are “…subject to, and able to overcome, evil and devil adversaries, such as Satan and his hosts” (E of M). To receive exaltation, we were to be tested in an environment away from God’s presence, to be enticed by things in opposition to that which is good, and to be tempted by an adversary. If we overcome these conditions, then we can have eternal life. We can “…achieve the Father’s order of righteousness through Christ if [we] choose that order in explicit rejection of evil” (E of M).

But, this state of affairs that I described above could not have come to pass unless there was a Fall. And it is in this respect that God wanted the Fall to occur, because it was through this mortal condition that the greates possible good, joy, and happiness could be attained by his children, although not guaranteed. It is the LDS position that the Fall of Adam and Eve was forseen by God and it was a part of His plan. The events in the Garden took place as they should have. Yes, the Fall separated mankind from God, which is spiritual death, and it brought about physical death, but these conditions are a necessary part of our probation to see if we will love God even when He is “not around” (what I mean is that we cannot see Him and we aren’t continually in His presence), even when we are enticed by things that are opposed to good, and even when we are actively being tempted by an evil being. But, most importantly, we can accomplish all of this because God provided a means for us to overcome the affects of the fall by providing us a Savior, even Jesus Christ, who “…offere[d] himself a sacrifice for sin, to answer the ends of the law, unto all those who have a broken heart and a contrite spirit…” (2 Nephi 2:7).

All of this that I have described here is what is contained in 2 Nephi 2. You have to take all of the verses in context of the whole, and this is what Lehi is trying to teach his children in that chapter.

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.

If the possibility of choosing not good must exist in order for there to be free will, I don’t see how God is logically exempt from this condition while claiming He has free will. However, that isn’t important to me. I’m perfectly happy to know that you believe that way. Many Mormons also believe that God is incapable of choosing anything but good. I’m not one of them, as I’ve made clear in another post. I do agree, however, that the choice to not do good doesn’t have to be made.

Kind Regards,
Finrock

 

[ParkerD]

Arandur and Rebecca,
I wanted to let you know that I do plan to continue the discussion we have been having, but have not had time today so it will be this evening later on. I also wanted to let each of you know that just as Hebrews 11 talks about people who have the assurance that they are doing God’s will, and have the assurance within their own soul that they have been and are being guided by the Holy Ghost, I also have that assurance within my own soul and am completely confident in my understanding of the Bible (not necessarily every verse in terms of what every verse means, but every concept).

I don’t need any authority to “interpret” or to amplify through reasoning or other means, in order for me to feel like I understand the text of the Bible. I have the assurance of the Holy Ghost as my primary source of understanding, so why would I rely on men’s interpretations of the text? That is exactly what God meant when He said we could be spiritually reborn such that our communication with God is two-way communication. I know with absolute certainty that I have the privilege of having that in my life, as long as I stay repentant and responsive to the voice of the Spirit. I am not saying you don’t–I am just saying I do. I have 100% assurance of that, not one iota of doubt.

 

[Arandur]

Arandur and Rebecca,
I wanted to let you know that I do plan to continue the discussion we have been having, but have not had time today so it will be this evening later on. I also wanted to let each of you know that just as Hebrews 11 talks about people who have the assurance that they are doing God’s will, and have the assurance within their own soul that they have been and are being guided by the Holy Ghost, I also have that assurance within my own soul and am completely confident in my understanding of the Bible (not necessarily every verse in terms of what every verse means, but every concept).

I don’t need any authority to “interpret” or to amplify through reasoning or other means, in order for me to feel like I understand the text of the Bible. I have the assurance of the Holy Ghost as my primary source of understanding, so why would I rely on men’s interpretations of the text? That is exactly what God meant when He said we could be spiritually reborn such that our communication with God is two-way communication. I know with absolute certainty that I have the privilege of having that in my life, as long as I stay repentant and responsive to the voice of the Spirit. I am not saying you don’t–I am just saying I do. I have 100% assurance of that, not one iota of doubt.

You are using an old formula that I encounter actually more frequently among Mormons than among Protestants, but is characteristic of both.

Ultimately what you are talking about is relying only on your own personal interpretation. It is a position of pride. I have gone in depth in other threads here and on MADB illustrating this point, and since it’s off topic I won’t go into in depth here. What it boils down to, however, is the very simple reality that there are people who feel exactly as you do, who feel totally assured that they are absolutely correct about the Bible and have the complete stamp of approval of the Holy Spirit on this, but who believe very different and contradictory things.

Since the two people relying on such a feeling cannot both be right, and are using that method as a means to determine their own veracity and remain in their belief (not even considering others), then that method must be wrong. It is certainly not the method talked about in the whole context of Scripture. I can’t think of a better method by which to be led astray and remain stagnant in false beliefs. What a victory for the Adversary. Ultimately it does indeed amount to a position of pride and personal interpretation.

Further, you massively mistake the Catholic position to think that it is reliance on man’s interpretation (when in fact your own position is reliance on one man’s interpretation–your own). It is reliance on Jesus Christ alone as head of the Church, through the mechanism by which he established his authoritative teaching authority, to forever maintain and preserve the Deposit of Truth in its role as Pillar and Foundation of Truth, inerrant and preserved by the Holy Spirit in a way never before (Pentecost) granted to man.

I too will have to come back to this discussion later, probably tomorrow night.

Finrock, let me just say quickly that I know LDS don’t believe in an equal and eternal evil deity. I was pointing out that some of what you say shares parallels with various forms of Dualism, some of which are actually more consistent if they posit an equal and eternal evil deity (though still ultimately illogical and false).

 

[ParkerD]

You are using an old formula that I encounter actually more frequently among Mormons than among Protestants, but is characteristic of both.

Ultimately what you are talking about is relying only on your own personal interpretation. It is a position of pride. I have gone in depth in other threads here and on MADB illustrating this point, and since it’s off topic I won’t go into in depth here. What it boils down to, however, is the very simple reality that there are people who feel exactly as you do, who feel totally assured that they are absolutely correct about the Bible and have the complete stamp of approval of the Holy Spirit on this, but who believe very different and contradictory things.

Since the two people relying on such a feeling cannot both be right, and are using that method as a means to determine their own veracity and remain in their belief (not even considering others), then that method must be wrong. It is certainly not the method talked about in the whole context of Scripture. I can’t think of a better method by which to be led astray and remain stagnant in false beliefs. What a victory for the Adversary. Ultimately it does indeed amount to a position of pride and personal interpretation.

Further, you massively mistake the Catholic position to think that it is reliance on man’s interpretation (when in fact your own position is reliance on one man’s interpretation–your own). It is reliance on Jesus Christ alone as head of the Church, through the mechanism by which he established his authoritative teaching authority, to forever maintain and preserve the Deposit of Truth in its role as Pillar and Foundation of Truth, inerrant and preserved by the Holy Spirit in a way never before (Pentecost) granted to man.

I too will have to come back to this discussion later, probably tomorrow night.

Finrock, let me just say quickly that I know LDS don’t believe in an equal and eternal evil deity. I was pointing out that some of what you say shares parallels with various forms of Dualism, some of which are actually more consistent if they posit an equal and eternal evil deity (though still ultimately illogical and false).

Arandur,
It seems to me that since you have written that man was supposed to be perfect and have direct communication with God, then above you say that a “method” must be wrong that is the method discussed amply in the New Testament, and this method relies directly on communication with God through the Holy Ghost, then you have been inconsistent. You evidently don’t really believe humankind can have two-way communication with God. We differ significantly on this point.

I’ll respond to your questions, but it seems only valuable in that others may read this. I would challenge you to try sincere fervent prayer asking God specific questions such as whether He intended to have been understood to say “Cursed shall be the ground for thy sake” including the word “sake” as the best translation from the original Hebrew text. I think you can get an answer, if you are completely sincere. Since you’re trying to be perfect and you believe God intended you to be perfect and wants you to be perfect, then I suggest you trust yourself as being able to pray to Him and get the answer you desire in faith and sincerity.

 

[ParkerD]

Arandur,
I’ll respond to your questions as best I can until I run out of time.

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?

Thanks for bringing this up so I would think about this more deeply. The impression I get is that when Adam partook of the forbidden fruit, he did it without the temptation of the serpent, so his sin was more deliberate and pre-meditated and thus was a more notable sin for Paul to cite. Both Eve’s sin and Adam’s sin brought the condition into the world of “choice between good and evil”, which meant that sin “entered into the world” by virtue of the fact that Adam’s posterity would definitely be less than perfect, or in other words, would choose “evil” instead of “good” in many cases.

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.

Evidently you have understood this passage to mean she turned to Adam immediately and gave him the fruit to eat, right after she had taken a bite. I simply disagree. The text is not clear. I do think Adam probably would have tried to stop her if he had seen her about to take a bite.

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.

You evidently think Adam either had the entire Bible or that God told him everything that would eventually be written in the Bible. I don’t think that at all. I don’t get the impression by reading Genesis 2 and 3 that God taught them all Biblical teachings, particularly New Testament teachings.

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?

Again, your assumption that Adam and Eve were made aware of all Biblical teachings is not evident from Genesis 2 and 3, so it is an assumption.

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

Until a person’s “love” is challenged in some way by having to do something difficult or something that really does give evidence that they do love, then I would say it is unclear how much love they really have so I used the word “vague”. In my personal experience, love is strengthened by adversity.

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?

Let’s suppose you have just ironed a shirt, and the iron is hot, or perhaps you need to leave it hot while you step out of the room to get another shirt to iron. Let’s suppose that you have a child, and you tell the child the iron is very hot and they’ll get burned if they touch it, and they are not to touch it. “Thou shalt not touch that iron.”

Let’s suppose the child touches the iron anyway. Did that mean they didn’t love you? Or does it mean their curiosity came to the fore and their desire to obey you took a “back seat”? Would you think, “this child has been very disobedient and has shown that they don’t listen to me and don’t love me”?

Other renderings have it “cursed be the ground because of you.” This is more internally consistent with the passage (according to you) 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 suppose that you realize that this is an extremely key verse with an extremely important word, “sake”. If you really want to find out about the translation from the Hebrew, then I think you can find out and I think it would be important that you find out.

 

[ParkerD]

Arandur,
Continuation:

Romans 5:12. You don’t think Adam sinned?

I’ve already stated that I do think Adam sinned. I think Romans 5 answers my question and that you were correct in the statement you made about Paul’s teaching.

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.

As I’ve already stated, I strongly and completely disagree with the last sentence, but totally agree with the words you stated that I have underlined.

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?

Please help me understand your frame of reference by quoting the verse you refer to in your first sentence here. I think God could deliberately use a “narrow band of text”. Don’t you think that God could have a purpose in doing that? If God wanted more text to be there, would He not have included more text by inspiring that it be written into the text?

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?

God does tell us what He wants us to do, because He loves us and wants us to be obedient in order to have complete happiness and joy. But I said that I don’t think He uses “psychology” to gain our obedience. He is direct and straightforward. I think He gave Adam and Eve a straightforward “thou shalt not” directive, and told them the consequences if they chose to disobey that directive. I don’t think He was displeased that they disobeyed that particular directive. I think the word “sake” is a very telling word as to what God had as a plan for humankind.

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.

I think the way you have understood the fall of Adam indicates a “capricious” God rather than a loving and compassionate God. Sorry–we differ profoundly on this.

 

[zaffiroborant]

Arandur,
It seems to me that since you have written that man was supposed to be perfect and have direct communication with God, then above you say that a “method” must be wrong that is the method discussed amply in the New Testament, and this method relies directly on communication with God through the Holy Ghost, then you have been inconsistent. You evidently don’t really believe humankind can have two-way communication with God. We differ significantly on this point.

I’ll respond to your questions, but it seems only valuable in that others may read this. I would challenge you to try sincere fervent prayer asking God specific questions such as whether He intended to have been understood to say “Cursed shall be the ground for thy sake” including the word “sake” as the best translation from the original Hebrew text. I think you can get an answer, if you are completely sincere. Since you’re trying to be perfect and you believe God intended you to be perfect and wants you to be perfect, then I suggest you trust yourself as being able to pray to Him and get the answer you desire in faith and sincerity.

Why is this the best translation? My DR, NAB, JB and NJB do not translate it this way. Neither do the NIV, RSV, NAS, ESV, or the NLT, for the most part they all say because of you, not as you emphasis “for your sake”.

“Because of you” and “for your sake” are profoundly different approaches to the events in the Garden and will lead you to completely different conclusions.

And I have to say you have accused Rebecca of making assumptions but yet I have never seen anyone make assumptions about Eves motivation and state of mind like you have in this thread. You are all about being in her head, reading all sorts of thoughts that are nowhere indicated in the text.

 

[ParkerD]

Rebecca,
I’m sorry but I have run out of time to reply to your comments and questions tonight. I will try to make time for a response at some point tomorrow or Saturday. I guess Arandur’s questions seemed more like questions I could answer while I was tired, but as I looked at your questions I think yours require me to be rested when I answer them.

 

[ParkerD]

Zaffiroborant,
I would be interested in your thoughts about Eve’s motives including explaining Genesis 3:6, if you feel so inclined. There are some elements of fairly “representative” or “classic” men/women behavior in what Adam did and what Eve did, I think. But perhaps that’s just me, reading and thinking and comparing with the realities of life.

 

[ParkerD]

Rebecca,
Usually sleep comes right away for me, but not tonight after all, so here goes my reply:

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.

I don’t understand what you think Adam should have done after Eve had eaten the fruit.

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.

I had read Genesis and believe that God inspired the Bible to be written the way it was written; also, that Adam didn’t have a Bible to read from and that if God had told him the entire Biblical teaching, we would be able to understand that this is what happened by reading the text in Genesis. I don’t think Genesis 2-3 leads to the conclusion you have drawn.

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.

It would be a double bind of “thou shalt not for if you do you will surely die even though I know you well enough to know what you are going to do before you do it, and there is ample provision in my plan of Salvation and happiness for that eventuality.”

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

So from your perspective, God taught Adam and Eve the whole of Biblical teaching?

I want you to understand that I know (although I may not explain myself well) that God knew Adam and Eve would fall and that it was for humankind’s sake that He allowed it to happen. This is not because I have been taught this. It is because the Holy Spirit has told me this so I am now a first-person witness that it is true.

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?

We could go through a checklist of commandments and see who is obeying which more completely, I suppose. I fully believe the commandments are to be lived because they bring us happiness and joy. I don’t think that their act of not eating the forbidden fruit was bringing them happiness and joy.

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?

Sorry you think I was being obtuse to say that the text doesn’t say God was displeased with the action of Eve and Adam. Show me in Genesis 2-3 where it does say He was displeased.

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.

I would be interested in your explanation or description of how Adam and Eve would have been perfect in the garden of Eden. If you will describe their perfect lives, and their perfect children’s lives, and how all that perfection comes about, then I will learn something I don’t really understand at this point as to what you mean by their being perfect. (Thanks in advance, unless you think that was an obtuse request. If so, sorry, but I am still interested.)

 

[Arandur]

Arandur,
It seems to me that since you have written that man was supposed to be perfect and have direct communication with God, then above you say that a “method” must be wrong that is the method discussed amply in the New Testament, and this method relies directly on communication with God through the Holy Ghost, then you have been inconsistent. You evidently don’t really believe humankind can have two-way communication with God. We differ significantly on this point.

Don’t presume. Your presumption is ridiculous. I of course believe in direct two-way communication with God, and experience it every day.

I’ll respond to your questions, but it seems only valuable in that others may read this. I would challenge you to try sincere fervent prayer asking God specific questions such as whether He intended to have been understood to say “Cursed shall be the ground for thy sake” including the word “sake” as the best translation from the original Hebrew text. I think you can get an answer, if you are completely sincere. Since you’re trying to be perfect and you believe God intended you to be perfect and wants you to be perfect, then I suggest you trust yourself as being able to pray to Him and get the answer you desire in faith and sincerity.

You ignored the logic problem your claim presents, and arrogantly and pridefully presume that you have this assurance and others, such as me, do not. You ignore the extremely simple problem that many others believe exactly the same as you do, assured of their own correctness, believing they have the absolute assurance of the Holy Spirit in their interpretation, and yet believe very contradictory interpretations. Other people using this same method as you and just as assured as you if not moreso believe something quite at odds with your beliefs. This is a FACT. That fact plainly gives the lie to your method.

You have asserted a non-Biblical method and relied on your own prideful interpretation. The Bible affirms that Jesus directed us to the Church as the source of all authority, for the Church is guaranteed by the Holy Spirit. I could provide myriad references and links, but since this is off topic anyway, I’ll suffice with an introductory article: catholic.com/library/pillar.asp

I have and do pray, and I study with God and the Church (Christ and the Holy Spirit).

As for the “for Adam’s sake,” and which is the “best” translation, I have explained to you already why “because of you” is the better translation, as it agrees much better with the local text as well as with the rest of the Bible. You chose not to respond to my explanation.

 

[ParkerD]

Don’t presume. Your presumption is ridiculous. I of course believe in direct two-way communication with God, and experience it every day.

You ignored the logic problem your claim presents, and arrogantly and pridefully presume that you have this assurance and others, such as me, do not. You ignore the extremely simple problem that many others believe exactly the same as you do, assured of their own correctness, believing they have the absolute assurance of the Holy Spirit in their interpretation, and yet believe very contradictory interpretations. Other people using this same method as you and just as assured as you if not moreso believe something quite at odds with your beliefs. This is a FACT. That fact plainly gives the lie to your method.

You have asserted a non-Biblical method and relied on your own prideful interpretation. The Bible affirms that Jesus directed us to the Church as the source of all authority, for the Church is guaranteed by the Holy Spirit. I could provide myriad references and links, but since this is off topic anyway, I’ll suffice with an introductory article: catholic.com/library/pillar.asp

I have and do pray, and I study with God and the Church (Christ and the Holy Spirit).

As for the “for Adam’s sake,” and which is the “best” translation, I have explained to you already why “because of you” is the better translation, as it agrees much better with the local text as well as with the rest of the Bible. You chose not to respond to my explanation.

Arandur,
I believe you as to your two-way communication with God. That means God would answer if you asked, and you wouldn’t have to rely on a “better translation”. I honestly do not think those who translated the text into the words “because of you” were taking the Hebrew text and translating based on the meaning of the words from the Hebrew. I think Tyndale and Wycliffe and others were careful to do that as meaningfully and precisely as they could. I didn’t answer your explanation because I thought a scholar such as yourself would go to the Hebrew text, figure out the meaning from the original, and let me know what you found rather than taking someone’s interpretation who wanted a modern translation that fit their point of view.

There is an extreme disconnect in your logic. Read 1 Corinthians 2, entire chapter. I suppose you think Paul was being prideful because he said he had the Spirit and that the Spirit gives hidden wisdom. Well, then, I’m like Paul in that respect. To your way of thinking, the nearer a person approaches getting wisdom from God by the Holy Spirit, the closer they are to being prideful. You win. I’m that kind of “prideful”, and grateful for the Spirit in my life.

 

[Arandur]

Thanks for bringing this up so I would think about this more deeply. The impression I get is that when Adam partook of the forbidden fruit, he did it without the temptation of the serpent, so his sin was more deliberate and pre-meditated and thus was a more notable sin for Paul to cite. Both Eve’s sin and Adam’s sin brought the condition into the world of “choice between good and evil”, which meant that sin “entered into the world” by virtue of the fact that Adam’s posterity would definitely be less than perfect, or in other words, would choose “evil” instead of “good” in many cases.

That Adam was not deceived is an acceptable explanation (see 1 Tim 2:14, which also is another passage that makes it clear that sin was involved) that does not conflict with anything valid that I can see. These things are usually multivalent, with many “both/and” valid aspects. It even supports the fact that the Bible consistently refers to Adam as the primary sinner.

Evidently you have understood this passage to mean she turned to Adam immediately and gave him the fruit to eat, right after she had taken a bite. I simply disagree. The text is not clear. I do think Adam probably would have tried to stop her if he had seen her about to take a bite.

“with her” seems pretty clear to me. You stretch the passage with no reason. The simple statement simply taken is sufficient. I see no need or support for believing “with her” means “well, he wasn’t really with her at the time, she caught up with him later.” There is no evidence that Adam made the “loving” decision to follow her into sin that you suggest. It’s simply not there. So why put it there? Similarly, if Adam was not with Eve at the time, the text would most likely have said “she went to him.” It’s pretty clear. Why force it to mean something else?

You evidently think Adam either had the entire Bible or that God told him everything that would eventually be written in the Bible. I don’t think that at all. I don’t get the impression by reading Genesis 2 and 3 that God taught them all Biblical teachings, particularly New Testament teachings.

Understanding that he should obey his Father doesn’t require much knowledge of the Bible. Wow. Do you remember your own childhood? Do you have any kids? One of the earliest things children learn is that they should obey their parents. Especially considering the strong LDS believe that children cannot sin until the age of 8, Adam and Eve were at least 8. Surely they knew this. Please, Parker, you’re really, really grasping at straws here. It is extremely clear that God gave Adam and Eve a command (not to eat). They knew what that meant. They knew they were supposed to obey, that it was WRONG not to. The rest of the Bible affirms the sin of Adam and Eve in disobeying, telling us that we MUST interpret Adam and Eve’s act as a wrong act, as a sin. How more clear can it get? You really have to reject virtually the whole message of the Bible and Jesus through his Apostles in order to miss this, Parker.

Again, your assumption that Adam and Eve were made aware of all Biblical teachings is not evident from Genesis 2 and 3, so it is an assumption.

Wrong. By the Bible’s assertion that disobedience is wrong, and that Adam and Eve indeed sinned, it tells us how to interpret the Adam and Eve story. You have to reject the Bible to believe that Adam and Eve did not sin. I can’t think of a more pernicious belief than that sin is not sin. How twisted that is, and how happily a lie planted by the Adversary. I have to use strong language for this, because it is so incredibly clear in the Bible and so, frankly, Satanic, to believe that sin is not sin.

Until a person’s “love” is challenged in some way by having to do something difficult or something that really does give evidence that they do love, then I would say it is unclear how much love they really have so I used the word “vague”. In my personal experience, love is strengthened by adversity.

And so joining in your loved one’s sin is love? Plenty of fornicators will be happy to hear that.

Let’s suppose you have just ironed a shirt, and the iron is hot, or perhaps you need to leave it hot while you step out of the room to get another shirt to iron. Let’s suppose that you have a child, and you tell the child the iron is very hot and they’ll get burned if they touch it, and they are not to touch it. “Thou shalt not touch that iron.”

Let’s suppose the child touches the iron anyway. Did that mean they didn’t love you? Or does it mean their curiosity came to the fore and their desire to obey you took a “back seat”? Would you think, “this child has been very disobedient and has shown that they don’t listen to me and don’t love me”?

The parent is not God, and the act does not harm other people or do grave harm. It is not analogous, sorry. Something more analogous would involve grave matter. After all, Adam and Eve’s choice killed them and all of their offspring, as well as ushering in a multitude of pain and suffering, damnations to hell, and deicide. Touching a hot iron is not a valid comparison.

I suppose that you realize that this is an extremely key verse with an extremely important word, “sake”. If you really want to find out about the translation from the Hebrew, then I think you can find out and I think it would be important that you find out.

It’s not that key a verse. It’s one part of the description of the consequences of sin. Address my argument concerning it and we’ll see if you have a point. Explain how the cursing of the ground helps Adam and is a good thing.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Rebecca,
I don’t understand what you think Adam should have done after Eve had eaten the fruit.

They both coulda shoulad woulda possibly done a lot of things. What is important is what they did. What the story is telling us. They both disobeyed God. You have chosen to be stuck on one idea that is not conveyed in the text, at all.

I had read Genesis and believe that God inspired the Bible to be written the way it was written; also, that Adam didn’t have a Bible to read from and that if God had told him the entire Biblical teaching, we would be able to understand that this is what happened by reading the text in Genesis. I don’t think Genesis 2-3 leads to the conclusion you have drawn.

Adam and Eve were in the presence of God. You can read that He taught them to not eat the fruit. They did. Not by the promptings of God but by that of the serpent. You keep trying to create a different story that is no where to be found but in your head.

It would be a double bind of “thou shalt not for if you do you will surely die even though I know you well enough to know what you are going to do before you do it, and there is ample provision in my plan of Salvation and happiness for that eventuality.”

So, you believe God’s commandments should not be obeyed because He knows that we are going to disobey Him. Couldn’t you possibly believe, as we are taught in the Bible, that God desires our obedience?

So from your perspective, God taught Adam and Eve the whole of Biblical teaching?

Seriously Parker. Go back and read what God taught them.

I want you to understand that I know (although I may not explain myself well) that God knew Adam and Eve would fall and that it was for humankind’s sake that He allowed it to happen. This is not because I have been taught this. It is because the Holy Spirit has told me this so I am now a first-person witness that it is true.

I want you to know that the Holy Spirit has given me a witness of something quite different. I am a witness to that Truth.

We could go through a checklist of commandments and see who is obeying which more completely, I suppose. I fully believe the commandments are to be lived because they bring us happiness and joy. I don’t think that their act of not eating the forbidden fruit was bringing them happiness and joy.

So, all these people in the world who believe sin brings them joy…they don’t need to bother with God’s commandments?

Is it possible that following what God wants for us can at times be very difficult? At those times is it more important that we ditch His desires for our own?

Also, I think you have yet to provide any proof that Adam and Eve were not happy or joyful in the Paradise that God had created for them.

Sorry you think I was being obtuse to say that the text doesn’t say God was displeased with the action of Eve and Adam. Show me in Genesis 2-3 where it does say He was displeased.

He punished them. Do you believe God punishes for doing what He desires?

I would be interested in your explanation or description of how Adam and Eve would have been perfect in the garden of Eden. If you will describe their perfect lives, and their perfect children’s lives, and how all that perfection comes about, then I will learn something I don’t really understand at this point as to what you mean by their being perfect. (Thanks in advance, unless you think that was an obtuse request. If so, sorry, but I am still interested.)

Parker, they were with GOD. Do you need a further explanation than that?

 

[Arandur]

I’ve already stated that I do think Adam sinned. I think Romans 5 answers my question and that you were correct in the statement you made about Paul’s teaching.

Good. Some of the things I said in the last post don’t apply then. Sorry I didn’t read this first.

However, if you agree that Adam sinned, why do you defend the sin? You still have me confused about what your real position is on Adam’s sin.

As I’ve already stated, I strongly and completely disagree with the last sentence, but totally agree with the words you stated that I have underlined.

You disagree with 1 Tim 3:15 ("But if I should be delayed, you should know how to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth.)? Not an enviable position. Frankly, it’s not up to you. Jesus gave the Spirit to the Church to guide it into all truth; that Christians are to admonish each other and, failing resolution, seek counsel in the Church; that the Apostles speak with authority greater than the angels; that Tradition matters (2 Tim 2:15, often overlooked); that the apostolic ordained Church has teaching authority; that personal interpretation is insufficient (2 Peter 3:16, also often overlooked); and more. These things are non-negotiable.

Please help me understand your frame of reference by quoting the verse you refer to in your first sentence here. I think God could deliberately use a “narrow band of text”. Don’t you think that God could have a purpose in doing that? If God wanted more text to be there, would He not have included more text by inspiring that it be written into the text?

Basic principles of reading Scripture, Parker! Do you like to take things out of context all the time? Meaning comes through context. You can’t split off books from the Bible, nor divorce a primary theme from any passage. All sin displeases God. Do you agree that this is a basic Biblical principle? Does God change? Is this not true? If it is true, and, as you have agreed, Adam did sin, then how can you say that Adam’s sin did not displease God? Why is that hard to understand?

I think the way you have understood the fall of Adam indicates a “capricious” God rather than a loving and compassionate God. Sorry–we differ profoundly on this.

Really? You don’t think a “capricious” God is a God that tells you not to do something, intends for you to do it, and then punishes you for it?

The loving and compassionate God creates man and hopes only for his good. He maintains a plan to set things aright or offer an avenue of mercy if man does not choose good. But He does not PLAN that man should choose something harmful just so He can set His plan in motion and write a certain story, like an author who willfully sacrifices his characters to make the story more dramatic. God is not a father that ones his child to contract a terminal disease just so he can show that child how much he cares for him. That would be a god who cares more about his own pride and feelings and shows comparative contempt for his child.

 

[Catholic20064]

What does this mean from the Exultet which is read at the Easter vigil:

Father, how wonderful your care for us!
How boundless your merciful love!
To ransom a slave
you gave away your Son.

O happy fault, O necessary sin of Adam,
which gained for us so great a Redeemer!

Most blessed of all nights, chosen by God
to see Christ rising from the dead!

What does “O necessary sin of Adam” mean if it was not the will of the Father that Adam fall as part of God’s plan?

 

[ParkerD]

Arandur,
At this point we have nothing in common to talk about here. We disagree in every conceivable way about the Bible and how to understand it, about God’s love for mankind including after the fall of Adam, about God’s relationship to man, about God’s plan of salvation, about the use of words and their meanings. We just have no common ground. I would be willing to have a meaningful discussion, but your criticism and condemnation are not only not meaningful, but directly refute your statements about the commandments since I sense no love coming from you in your treatment of me with your words.

You will probably say this is a cop-out. I say the discussion has become unmeaningful and therefore a waste of my time. Have a nice day, though.

 

[ParkerD]

What does this mean from the Exultet which is read at the Easter vigil:

Quote:
Father, how wonderful your care for us!
How boundless your merciful love!
To ransom a slave
you gave away your Son.

O happy fault, O necessary sin of Adam,
which gained for us so great a Redeemer!

Most blessed of all nights, chosen by God
to see Christ rising from the dead!

What does “O necessary sin of Adam” mean if it was not the will of the Father that Adam fall as part of God’s plan?

Catholic20064,

Thank you sincerely for bringing this beautiful thought into the discussion here. I appreciate that very much. You have helped smooth over some bad feelings I was beginning to have about the worthwhileness of this forum at this point for me personally. Thanks again.

 

[Arandur]

Arandur,
I believe you as to your two-way communication with God. That means God would answer if you asked, and you wouldn’t have to rely on a “better translation”.

You missed my point. I rely on the Bible’s own interpretation, later in its texts and themes and references to Adam, and in the Church’s, since the Church teaches with the authority of the Holy Spirit.

As Zaff pointed out, many other worthy scholars have read it differently, and even the KJV phrasing can be taken to mean the same thing, for in English at the time of its writing, “for your sake” can also easily mean “because of you.” Many of those other version of the Bible are not “modern.” Dhouay-Riems is, IIRC, far older than KJV, for one.

There is an extreme disconnect in your logic. Read 1 Corinthians 2, entire chapter. I suppose you think Paul was being prideful because he said he had the Spirit and that the Spirit gives hidden wisdom. Well, then, I’m like Paul in that respect. To your way of thinking, the nearer a person approaches getting wisdom from God by the Holy Spirit, the closer they are to being prideful. You win. I’m that kind of “prideful”, and grateful for the Spirit in my life.

You have read but you have not perceived. Consider Paul’s words in the context of his other writings. This is the same man admonishing people to ignore even the words of angels lest they be in agreement with the Apostles. The man who makes a point of saying he’s in agreement with Peter, and that should settle the case. The man who uses the “we” even in this chapter as referring to the body of apostles, giving instruction on carrying on that office and exercising its teaching authority. 1 Corinthians 2 refers to an authority, yes, an authority wholly consistent with the teaching authority exercised by the apostolic office. The Spirit he speaks of acts in unity, with any truth understood by its unity with not just the individuals of the Church, but the whole Church, lead by the ordained apostles, but truly by Christ as the head and directed by the Spirit. All must remain in union. If a man’s belief is contrary to the consistent teachings of the apostles, however assured he feels of the Holy Spirit’s direction, he is simply wrong. He has either deluded himself, or he has been deluded by another power.

I note that you still have no answer to the obvious problem with your method found wherever someone else who follows the same method disagrees with you. The true solution for those disagreements, as Paul speaks of, requires seeing if the idea is in unity with the Church.

[/QUOTE]

 

[Arandur]

Arandur,
At this point we have nothing in common to talk about here. We disagree in every conceivable way about the Bible and how to understand it, about God’s love for mankind including after the fall of Adam, about God’s relationship to man, about God’s plan of salvation, about the use of words and their meanings. We just have no common ground. I would be willing to have a meaningful discussion, but your criticism and condemnation are not only not meaningful, but directly refute your statements about the commandments since I sense no love coming from you in your treatment of me with your words.

You will probably say this is a cop-out. I say the discussion has become unmeaningful and therefore a waste of my time. Have a nice day, though.

I hang in there on this discussion and use strong language because I care enough to want you and readers to see not just error, but dangerous error. How is it not dangerous and pernicious to believe that God planned or wanted a sin, that to disobey God can be good?

If you want something to return to, there were some things earlier that you asserted, I responded to, and you ignored. My first post here, I believe. You had claimed that Adam and Eve were infertile before their sin (how sin brings fertility I don’t know). In fact, I think the BoM pretty much states that. I showed in several ways that, from the very local and explicit context of Genesis, this interpretation is impossible. Are you not interested in truth?