The Fall According to Mormonism

[Techno2000]

What you may understand from the reading of the Gospel narratives is not the same as “the’ Gospel of Jesus Christ. His Birth, His Death, His Resurrection and how these events pertain to our existence is the “Gospel”

Paul

If Jesus is only a prophet why did his death accomplish so much,as compared to the other old Testament prophets that were killed ?

 

[rmcmullan]

From Paul G:
Perhaps you and Paul G should get together and discuss it, so that Mormons can present a more consistent view of what the LDS Church teaches on this subject. Paul G says Adam’s disobedience wasn’t a sin. You say that it was a sin. I agree with your conclusion, not his. Now, which one of you is more accurately stating the official LDS teaching on this matter? I really want to know.

The teaching that it was a transgression and not a sin is the official LDS teaching. The second Article of Faith is

***We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression. ***

Again, from the Doctrines of Salvation by the (former prophet) Joseph Fielding Smith:

“Transgression” not “Sin” of Adam: I never speak of the part Eve took in this fall as a sin, nor do I accuse Adam of sin. One may say, “Well, did they not break a commandment?” Yes. But let us examine the nature of that commandment and the results which came out of it.

In no other commandment that the Lord ever gave did He say: “But of the tree of knowldege of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it, nevertheless, thou mayest choose for thyself.” (Moses 3:17)

It is true that, the Lord warned Adam and Eve that to partake of the fruit would trangress a law, and this happened. But it is not always a sin to trangress a law. I will try to illustrate this. The chemist in the labratory takes two elements and combines them, and the result is something very different. He has changed the law …This may be subject to some disagreement by the critics who will say it is not transgressing a law. Well Adam’s transgression was of a similar nature, that is, his transgression was in accordance with the law.

For me, that illustration falls pretty flat but what I think he is trying to say is that either choice was valid because the Lord spelled out the consequences of his choice and allowed it. I know the scripture from Moses is crucial here and it’s not fully supported by the Biblical text. But you’ll find most LDS statements from official sources referring to Adam’s trangression, and never a sin.

I’ll leave it up to you to decide whether or not this reconciles very well with the Catholic concept of original sin. This has been pointed at as one of the major doctrinal differences between our two churches.

askgramps.org/what-is-the-difference-between-a-sin-and-a-transgression/

angelfire.com/ms/seanie/mormon/transgression.html

 

[majick275]

The teaching that it was a transgression and not a sin is the official LDS teaching. The second Article of Faith is

***We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression. ***

Again, from the Doctrines of Salvation by the (former prophet) Joseph Fielding Smith:

For me, that illustration falls pretty flat but what I think he is trying to say is that either choice was valid because the Lord spelled out the consequences of his choice and allowed it. I know the scripture from Moses is crucial here and it’s not fully supported by the Biblical text. But you’ll find most LDS statements from official sources referring to Adam’s trangression, and never a sin.

I’ll leave it up to you to decide whether or not this reconciles very well with the Catholic concept of original sin. This has been pointed at as one of the major doctrinal differences between our two churches.

askgramps.org/what-is-the-difference-between-a-sin-and-a-transgression/

angelfire.com/ms/seanie/mormon/transgression.html

i applaud you for making the real LDS teaching on this so crystal clear. while i disagree with JFS on this subject at least we can see just what it is we disagree on.

 

[Chris-WA]

Mormonism permints diversity of opinion. Neither of us speak “officially” on behalf of the Church. I respect his views, and I am sure he respects mine. It is not, after all, a doctrine that is essential for our salvation.

zerinus

I don’t expect either of you to speak officially on behalf of your church. Nor do I speak officially for the Catholic Church. But it is important that we define the actual doctrines of both churches accurately if we are to have meaningful discussions. Otherwise we are just spinning wheels and getting nowhere.

 

[Chris-WA]

I agree that Paul the apostle uses the word transgression and sin interchangeably, but I think he is the only one in scripture that does. Can you point out to me in the Old Testament where the word “sin” is used in connection to Adam and Eves actions? Or perhaps the first place it is used at all?

Paul

St. Paul is as big an authority as I need. What more do need? If he says Adam’s “transgression” was sin, that’s good enough for me. And it should be for you as well. I’m not going to quibble with St. Paul–are you?

 

[Chris-WA]

The teaching that it was a transgression and not a sin is the official LDS teaching.\quote]
O.k., now that we’ve defined the official LDS teaching, how do you reconcile this with what St. Paul has to say, which directly contradicts such teaching? St. Paul clearly calls Adam’s disobedience a sin.

 

[rmcmullan]

O.k., now that we’ve defined the official LDS teaching, how do you reconcile this with what St. Paul has to say, which directly contradicts such teaching? St. Paul clearly calls Adam’s disobedience a sin.

I’m referring to your previous posts to get the quotes with St. Paul. Let me know if you have others:

Romans 5:12-14 Therefore, just as through one person sin entered the world, and through sin, death, and thus death came to all, inasmuch as all sinned–for up to the time of the law, sin was in the world, though sin is not accounted when there is no law. But death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who did not sin after the pattern of the trespass of Adam, who is the type of the one who was to come.

Frankly, I do sometimes struggle with understanding Paul. There’s some vagueness here whether he’s suggesting that when sin and death entered the world it was through A&E’s “transgression” or A&E sinned and then death entered the world. I think you’d prefer the latter, me the former. When Adam & Eve “transgressed”, they were then subject to spiritual and temporal death. A Redeemer was provided for them to be forgiven of their sins and return to the presence of God, thereby overcoming the spiritual death (being cut off from God). But to do this required obedience to the Law and the Law was given at that time. The Law defined sin in it traditional sense.

I think there’s something about sin and transgression being used interchangeably too. I thought it was an interesting earlier post when they pointed out if the tree of knowledge was really forbidden, why was it plopped in the middle of the garden? After the fall, a cherubim and flaming sword was set up to prevent them from partaking of the tree of life. Why not just put them on the tree of knowledge and prevent the fall?

 

[zerinus]

I don’t expect either of you to speak officially on behalf of your church. Nor do I speak officially for the Catholic Church. But it is important that we define the actual doctrines of both churches accurately if we are to have meaningful discussions. Otherwise we are just spinning wheels and getting nowhere.

There are points on which scripture speaks with clarity, and points on which it doesn’t. Where such scriptural clarity does not exist, differences of opinion or interpretation becomes possible. That is true of Catholicism as well as Mormonism. Such differences of opinion does not invalidate the central tenets of the Christian religion.

zerinus

 

[rmcmullan]

Yeah, this does make my head hurt. I am looking at the KJV of those quotes you gave in posting #74. The KJV has them differently:

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:
13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam’s transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

I find it interesting that in this translation they refer to “Adam’s transgression”. Then the other verses you quoted read:

Romans 5:16 And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification.
17 For if by one man’s offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)

There’s no reference to the word “transgression” in these two. Maybe it would be helpful if you reworded what you think he was saying in your own words. Let me give it a shot for 5:12. You might disagree but it’s how I understand it:

Adam’s decision to partake of the tree and to follow his own will instead of God’s brought both death and sin. Even though there were no commandments, people have, since the fall, persued their own free will instead of God’s will.

 

[majick275]

you know it’s the KJV that removes many “plain and precious things”. read the catholic bible to get the full story.

 

[Paul_G]

St. Paul is as big an authority as I need. What more do need? If he says Adam’s “transgression” was sin, that’s good enough for me. And it should be for you as well. I’m not going to quibble with St. Paul–are you?

Perhaps he was referring to a state of being rather than an action.

Paul

 

[zerinus]

Yeah, this does make my head hurt. I am looking at the KJV of those quotes you gave in posting #74. The KJV has them differently:

I find it interesting that in this translation they refer to “Adam’s transgression”. Then the other verses you quoted read:

There’s no reference to the word “transgression” in these two. Maybe it would be helpful if you reworded what you think he was saying in your own words. Let me give it a shot for 5:12. You might disagree but it’s how I understand it:

Adam’s decision to partake of the tree and to follow his own will instead of God’s brought both death and sin. Even though there were no commandments, people have, since the fall, persued their own free will instead of God’s will.

Hate to have to have to contradict my fellow Mormons, but in the KJV “sin” and “transgression” are used as synonyms. The difference between them is rhetorical, like the difference between “look” and “behold”.

Romans 5:

14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude * of Adam’s transgression,* who is the figure of him that was to come.

Here the two words are used as synonyms. Their use is for stylistic considerations. In the art of rhetoric this is called “elegant variation”. The use of two synonyms in the same sentence adds variety and elegance to the text, and improves the style of the writing. Two different words do not necessarily have to mean two different things.

zerinus

 

[rmcmullan]

I was thinking about this for awhile–is it just the meaning of a few words in Romans or is it something bigger? The more I think about it, the more I think it is something bigger, a major difference between the LDS POV (point of view) and the RC POV.

If I understand it right, the RC POV is that Adam and Eve made a big mistake. Yes, they brought sin and death into the world, and we both agree on that, but we do disagree whether or not that was a bad thing. The LDS POV is that it was necessary for us to exercise free will. And without it, we would be not be fulfilling our divine potential.

Let me ask this question: does God demand our obedience? I mean He is omnipotent and all-knowing and concerned for what’s best for us, we’d love to have somebody like that in our government. And it would indeed be wise for us to be obedient. But should God demand it? You know that old saying about “If you love something, set it free. If it really was yours, it will return”

So what is the RC teaching regarding free will and original sin? Is it really different? Surely you’re not against free will?

 

[Chris-WA]

I was thinking about this for awhile–is it just the meaning of a few words in Romans or is it something bigger? The more I think about it, the more I think it is something bigger, a major difference between the LDS POV (point of view) and the RC POV.

If I understand it right, the RC POV is that Adam and Eve made a big mistake. Yes, they brought sin and death into the world, and we both agree on that, but we do disagree whether or not that was a bad thing. The LDS POV is that it was necessary for us to exercise free will. And without it, we would be not be fulfilling our divine potential.

Let me ask this question: does God demand our obedience? I mean He is omnipotent and all-knowing and concerned for what’s best for us, we’d love to have somebody like that in our government. And it would indeed be wise for us to be obedient. But should God demand it? You know that old saying about “If you love something, set it free. If it really was yours, it will return”

So what is the RC teaching regarding free will and original sin? Is it really different? Surely you’re not against free will?

Anything termed a “commandment” is by definition “demanded” by God. They’re “commandments,” not “suggestions.” But we still have the free will to disobey God’s commandments (“demands”), at our own peril of course. Free will is necessary (and good) because we can’t truly love God unless we are allowed to choose Him for ourselves, or reject Him. Otherwise we would be mindless sheep. Having free will, however, doesn’t mean you can choose to vilolate God’s commandments without consequences. All moral choices have consequences, good or bad. Often the consequence of disobedience is that God allows the sin to play itself out in our lives until we hit rock bottom and finally realize we need to change. When we choose to violate the commandments, whether we realize it or not, we are in effect also choosing the negative consequences of those choices.

 

[zerinus]

Anything termed a “commandment” is by definition “demanded” by God. They’re “commandments,” not “suggestions.” But we still have the free will to disobey God’s commandments (“demands”), at our own peril of course. Free will is necessary (and good) because we can’t truly love God unless we are allowed to choose Him for ourselves, or reject Him. Otherwise we would be mindless sheep. Having free will, however, doesn’t mean you can choose to vilolate God’s commandments without consequences. All moral choices have consequences, good or bad. Often the consequence of disobedience is that God allows the sin to play itself out in our lives until we hit rock bottom and finally realize we need to change. When we choose to violate the commandments, whether we realize it or not, we are in effect also choosing the negative consequences of those choices.

Have you ever wondered why God created the tree of knowledge of good and evil in the Garden in the first place?

zerinus

 

[RebeccaJ]

I was thinking about this for awhile–is it just the meaning of a few words in Romans or is it something bigger? The more I think about it, the more I think it is something bigger, a major difference between the LDS POV (point of view) and the RC POV.

If I understand it right, the RC POV is that Adam and Eve made a big mistake. Yes, they brought sin and death into the world, and we both agree on that, but we do disagree whether or not that was a bad thing. The LDS POV is that it was necessary for us to exercise free will. And without it, we would be not be fulfilling our divine potential.

Let me ask this question: does God demand our obedience? I mean He is omnipotent and all-knowing and concerned for what’s best for us, we’d love to have somebody like that in our government. And it would indeed be wise for us to be obedient. But should God demand it? You know that old saying about “If you love something, set it free. If it really was yours, it will return”

So what is the RC teaching regarding free will and original sin? Is it really different? Surely you’re not against free will?

God is not a man who governs as men.

We are commanded to obey God, which, commandment is based on love for God. In the sense that when you truly, freely, love of your own free will, then that love is shown via our actions.

The ten commandments are purposely ordered, the first three can be grouped under the heading “Love for God”. Of course obeying all of the commandments is showing love for God. And fall under love of neighbor, as Christ reiterated when he said the greatest commandment of all was to love thy neighbor as thyself.

When we love God we choose to do his will not our own. By our own weak desires we often make selfish choices.

Adam and Eve had free will from the beginning, otherwise, how was it that they were able to choose sin at all? They were tempted by Satan with the very same thing that Mormonism teaches as desirable…to become as God is. Satan lied and the lie is in the story of Genesis for you to read.

Adam and Eve had the free will to choose to obey God, that is, love God more than their own desires to become God.

God placed the trees in the Garden for the very reason that he desired Adam and Eve to have free will. He desires our love, freely given, with no conditions. He commanded them to leave the trees alone, they had the free will to obey or not.

This is the importance of free will, as God is Love, the Trinity is One because of perfect Love, and that Love is extended to us, always there, never removed. God desires his creation, us, to Love him in return, freely, as love given forcefully is not really love at all.

God intended His creation to be as perfect as he made. Satan destroyed that perfection via the temptation. This is original sin, a fallen world, brought about by transgression, a trespass, against God. Trespass is the word used in modern translations. Trespassing against God, not obeying his commandments, is a sin.

God’s Love is perfectly revealed in his Son, Jesus Christ, who freely gave His life in order to atone for the fall.

 

[rmcmullan]

Anything termed a “commandment” is by definition “demanded” by God. They’re “commandments,” not “suggestions.” But we still have the free will to disobey God’s commandments (“demands”), at our own peril of course. Free will is necessary (and good) because we can’t truly love God unless we are allowed to choose Him for ourselves, or reject Him. Otherwise we would be mindless sheep. Having free will, however, doesn’t mean you can choose to vilolate God’s commandments without consequences. All moral choices have consequences, good or bad. Often the consequence of disobedience is that God allows the sin to play itself out in our lives until we hit rock bottom and finally realize we need to change. When we choose to violate the commandments, whether we realize it or not, we are in effect also choosing the negative consequences of those choices.

Well said, and that’s the LDS POV on the fall. Except for the original sin concept, is this also a Catholic POV, just not the emphasis?

 

[rmcmullan]

Here are a couple of LDS scriptures that go along with some of these points. The first one is on the necessity of the fall, sin or transgression, to the progress of mankind, though at a great cost of suffering and lost souls:

Moses 5:10 And in that day Adam blessed God and was filled, and began to prophesy concerning all the families of the earth, saying: Blessed be the name of God, for because of my transgression my eyes are opened, and in this life I shall have joy, and again in the flesh I shall see God.
11 And Eve, his wife, heard all these things and was glad, saying: Were it not for our transgression we never should have had seed, and never should have known good and evil, and the joy of our redemption, and the eternal life which God giveth unto all the obedient.
12 And Adam and Eve blessed the name of God, and they made all things known unto their sons and their daughters.

And, for Rebecca, who is concerned about Satan’s lie:

Moses 4:9 But of the fruit of the tree which thou beholdest in the midst of the garden, God hath said—Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.
10 And the serpent said unto the woman: Ye shall not surely die;
11 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

and

Moses 4:28 And I, the Lord God, said unto mine Only Begotten: Behold, the man is become as one of us to know good and evil; and now lest he put forth his hand and partake also of the tree of life, and eat and live forever,
29 Therefore I, the Lord God, will send him forth from the Garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken;
30 For as I, the Lord God, liveth, even so my words cannot return void, for as they go forth out of my mouth they must be fulfilled.
31 So I drove out the man, and I placed at the east of the Garden of Eden, cherubim and a flaming sword, which turned every way to keep the way of the tree of life.

 

[Jerusha]

Thanks for confirming my perception, mcmullin.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Here are a couple of LDS scriptures that go along with some of these points. The first one is on the necessity of the fall, sin or transgression, to the progress of mankind, though at a great cost of suffering and lost souls:

And, for Rebecca, who is concerned about Satan’s lie:

and

And for you, concerning LDS scripture:

Galatians 1

6 I am amazed that you are so quickly forsaking the one who called you by (the) grace (of Christ) for a different gospel 7 (not that there is another). But there are some who are disturbing you and wish to pervert the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach (to you) a gospel other than the one that we preached to you, let that one be accursed! 9 As we have said before, and now I say again, if anyone preaches to you a gospel other than the one that you received, let that one be accursed!