A Sin Question

[Gramajane]

I can't stay-- but just thought I'd add this thought to the mix.

I understand that sin is anything that leads us away from God,

and before you are at the age of accountability (8) you are not held responsible by God

and so we baptize at that age for them to be able to repent (among other important things)

though to really sin-- it to knowingly choose not to follow Jesus Christ and Heavenly fathers commandments--

-- and there are larger and smaller ones in that some lead us very far away , very fast and are harder to recover from (though the only unforgivable sin is blasphemy against the Holy Ghost)

I am so thankful for the blessing/miracle of repentance

but of course the best plan is to not make a sin/mistake in the first place

(an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure)

but we ALL will and DO even as we try not to-- so we just need to keep being aware.

I explained it to my little Sunday School class once, as like a beautiful white outfit of clothing-- on your baptism-- you are perfectly clean-- but sometimes we get "dirty" and don't even be aware -- so we need to remember to do the things to keep clean in our spirits

which is like bathing in the scriptures-- where we can learn more and see "spots"

renewing our covenants in Sacrament meeting

but it will ultimately take Jesus Christ to "make up the difference" as we can't do it alone though we are to do all that we can do! Anyway-- got to go. I'm doing a service project today. blessings! Gramajane

[Misshalfway]

Here's a question about the nature of mankind.

Why is it that every man seems to have a inbred moral compass. My H was listening to a podcast yesterday about scientists who were studying the origins and who now believe that morality is literally a chemical process in the body and not something that is trained into people thru culture.

The LDS paradigm teaches that each child of God was first created (organized) spiritually and then allowed a physical body to grapple with until death and ressurection. The physical body brings with it the natural man. Our spirit bodies were taught and prepared and were gifted with talents and abilities. And at some point, all man are given an inherent knowledge of good and evil. I am thinking at this point that it was the fall that gave that knowledge to mankind....that implanted that literally physical/spiritual ability to discern right from wrong and good from evil.

What do you all think? And how would the protestant mind explain the origins of morality?

[Dr T]

One of the consequences of the fall was pain in child birth. I wonder how that changed from not being painful?

[Dr T]

One of the consequences of the fall was pain in child birth. I wonder how that changed? Was there a time that it wouldn't have been painful?

[Hemidakota]

Good one...I only thought a handful of here when reading; really look at the specifics of details. Kudos…

Dr. T., as stated something most would gloss over and never think about it. What was the difference of child birth for Eve, being once immortal with conceiving a child versus what the Lord GOD has added? Apparently the wordage was added [paraphrasing] - "[Eve] I will multiply your sorrow in child bearing." Was there any significant amount of sorrow in giving birth prior to this body conversion? This remains a mystery for many.

[Hemidakota]

Not that I understand how God formed man and woman but it apparently had something to do with dust and ribs and that this creation produced immortal, innocent creatures. It is my understanding that God can't create anything that is corruptable and certainly flesh is corruptable. I think the animals were in that state of being too. I am not sure they could procreate either. The scriptures seem to indicate that the fall created the circle of life for all the creatures and plants etc.

Many past threads here talked about this little gem - rib story.

Even few of the brethren, believe there is key within the 'rib story' that spurs the notion of first creation of Adam [meaning first being] vice the content what President Young and Elder Pratt provided with being born vice created. Joseph Smith kept his mouth sealed on this portion of history.

And this makes sense if you look at it from the other end of things. Adam and Eve were living in the presence of God. They took the fruit. Sin and death are introduced and as a result they were cast out of God's presence. In order to get back to God's presence, to be saved, we must reverse the process. We can't go back to being innocent, but thru the Savior, we will be resurrected (immortal) and cleansed (returned to a pure state). Then we can go back into the presence of the Father.

GOD never used the term 'SIN' but called it a 'TRANSGRESSION'. It may sound petty but there is a logical reason behind this.

Edited October 13, 2009 by Hemidakota

[Hemidakota]

Good point. So what's the difference? Our Heavenly parents do not produce mortal children. They produce spirit children. Its clear that Father can create bodies....bodies for Adam and Eve, but it is the nature of those bodies that are in question. They were not mortal either and could not produce children that needed saving. Nothing could reproduce in the garden. There was no progression.

So, you are stating, both heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother only have spirit offspring when they are both immortal and resurrected glorfied beings?

A simple math equation here [something to ponder over]:

IMMORTAL [GOD] + IMMORTAL [GODDESS] =

IMMORTAL [GOD] + MORTAL [FEMALE] =

SPIRIT [MALE] + SPIRIT [FEMALE] =

MORTAL [MALE] + MORTAL [FEMALE] =

What did both President Joseph F. Smith and the Prophet Joseph Smith state that flowed in their veins? What brought these immortal beings to become mortal? I think Tom cleverly answered this one in the past.

Remember also, there is a difference of Adam the man was not created in the garden but was brought to the garden after, while Adam the woman was created in the garden. Strange in seeing why the Godhead did not do them both outside of the garden.

Edited October 13, 2009 by Hemidakota

[Justice]

... and yet hominids knew exactly how to do it for million of years. Were they just slow learners?

I don't know what hominids are, almost sounds like a large white corn.

But, if they weren't children of God then they were not of the family of Adam.

[Jenamarie]

Jumping in here... In regards to the verse about Eve's sorrows being "multipled in childbearing"

I guess I always thought of that verse as meaning emotional pain, versus physical pain. Ya, labor is painful, but for the most part it's brief. Children can bring lots of pain to a mother over their lifetimes. Whether intentional (rebellion) or not (chronic illness, untimely death, etc.) a mother's heart is often filled with sorrow for the trials of her children.

I'm not saying father's don't feel sorrow because of their children, but I think as mother's, being the nurturers, we feel it more acutely.

[Justice]

One of the consequences of the fall was pain in child birth. I wonder how that changed? Was there a time that it wouldn't have been painful?

I don't read the verse as having had children before. I read the verse as never having had sorrow before. They were immortal and perfect, in the presence of God. They had not experienced sorrow, lonliness, pain or grief. I believe Father was telling them that the sorrow they felt at that moment would be worse later living outside His presence in a mortal condition.

There is proof Adam and Eve did not have children while in the Garden (they were not mentioned as being kicked out of the Garden with them). However, the why is up for debate.

I believe, as I said, that God made their bodies perfect. Together with the fact that they recognized their nakedness after they ate the fruit, I believe they just didn't understand yet. They were like little children who take baths together and don't even recognize the differences. It would be impossible to have children if you didn't even recognize gender.

By using the trees as the examples of good and evil and eternal life, there is more to be learned about how God taught them about gender (seeds are "he" and earth is "she"), and that they were His offspring. But, you would need to read the Book of Mormon to get that part. :)

Edited October 13, 2009 by Justice

[lattelady]

I agree with you Justice on the "sorrow" part. I interpret the verse to mean that Eve would now experience pain and sorrow in childbirth where she wouldn't have before. Consequences.

[Dr T]

I agree with that. I never thought Eve gave birth before either. I guess what I was thinking physical pain would come from child birth regardless. It seems like it would anyway. I don't see them as not being able to feel that pain really. Thanks for your thoughts Justice :)

[Snow]

Well, it depends on your point of view. Bible deniers suggest that such theories as you are suggetsing prove they are right. I believe you stated that the other group, science deniers, would believe that man, in our frail and able to make mistakes state, may not have the math right. The bible, in either regard, is not specific. I trust the bible that Heavenly Father created Adam and Even as the first man and woman. My understanding is that whether due to knowledge, innocence, or physical ability, they could not or would not follow the first commandment until they ate of the tree and fell. Which is truly the important issue. Hominds, apes, chimpanzies, or grits <hominy :) >, aren't germaine to the story. I am frustrated by those who claim to believe the bible but spend so much time trying to deny it or disprove it. What is the lesson taught by the story, who cares about the science. Science will not get us back in the presence of our Heavenly Father.

You types never cease to amaze and bemuse.

Since you are talking to me I assume that you are talking about me when you say "bible deniers." You of course know perfectly well that I am not a "bible-denier." Rather I am someone who disagrees with your theory on how the Bible should be understood. Calling me a "bible-denier" instead of a "gatorman-theory-of-bible-interpretation-denier" speaks to your honesty. Getting chastised on religious grounds from someone who plays so fast and loose with the truth means nothing.

Here's the deal - when dogma is contradicted by fact, you have to change the context under which you interpret or understand the dogma - not deny the fact. My obligation, as a Mormon, is to accept and understand truth, regardless of it's source - an obligation that we obviously do not have in common.

One fact that you should understand... you, Adam and his wife, Eve are hominids and therefore "germane" to this discussion.

[Gatorman]

You types never cease to amaze and bemuse.

Since you are talking to me I assume that you are talking about me when you say "bible deniers." You of course know perfectly well that I am not a "bible-denier." Rather I am someone who disagrees with your theory on how the Bible should be understood. Calling me a "bible-denier" instead of a "gatorman-theory-of-bible-interpretation-denier" speaks to your honesty. Getting chastised on religious grounds from someone who plays so fast and loose with the truth means nothing.

Here's the deal - when dogma is contradicted by fact, you have to change the context under which you interpret or understand the dogma - not deny the fact. My obligation, as a Mormon, is to accept and understand truth, regardless of it's source - an obligation that we obviously do not have in common.

One fact that you should understand... you, Adam and his wife, Eve are hominids and therefore "germane" to this discussion.

So says the science of men. And, you were the first to suggest denegration of 'science deniers'. I used the term bible deniers as a simile. You prefer to give the teachings and understanding of men greater precedence than faith, it appears. I prefer to give my faith precedence over the teachings and science of men. That is the true difference. And, it is your choice, as it is mine. But, my first reaction is not to put you down because of how you believe. My first reaction is to simply state I disagree. I believe, as the bible teaches, that Adam and Eve are the first children of our heavenly father. If that contradicts the science of men, then, I believe what my faith says and acknowledge that men may be flawed. It has happened before, it will happen again. But, no matter what, our faith teaches us that Heavenly Father's first children on earth were Adam and Eve. Either you believe that or you don't.

[Misshalfway]

I thought this thread was about original sin.

[pam]

How many threads do you know actually stay on topic? Especially after 113 posts?

[Misshalfway]

Good point. But don't you mods often refer people back to the original intent of the OP?

[john doe]

I was thinking earlier today how far this thread has strayed from the original ideas. And if a certain couple people don't stop fighting about science vs. non-science, I'm going to crack some heads.

[Gatorman]

Post removed by poster.

Edited October 14, 2009 by Gatorman
Message lost in translation.

[Justice]

I agree with that. I never thought Eve gave birth before either. I guess what I was thinking physical pain would come from child birth regardless. It seems like it would anyway. I don't see them as not being able to feel that pain really. Thanks for your thoughts Justice :)

I don't know if it's true, but I've heard that animals, even mammals, don't feel pain during child birth. I don't remember where I heard it, though.

And, I'm not sure how that would tie into this topic anyway. I'm sure we really don't realize all the consequences of sin yet.

Thanks for the discussion. :)

[Dr T]

How many threads do you know actually stay on topic? Especially after 113 posts?

Uh, "Questions Only"?

[Moksha]

I don't know what hominids are, almost sounds like a large white corn.

You are thinking of hominy. Hominids-R-Us is a store down by the mall.

But, if they weren't children of God then they were not of the family of Adam.

If not immediate family, then perhaps cousins several time removed during the Ascent of Man.

[HiJolly]

I don't know if it's true, but I've heard that animals, even mammals, don't feel pain during child birth. I don't remember where I heard it, though.

And, I'm not sure how that would tie into this topic anyway. I'm sure we really don't realize all the consequences of sin yet.

Thanks for the discussion. :)

I believe animals do feel pain upon birthing offspring. Maybe you've never seen an animal give birth. I have.

HiJolly

[lattelady]

So, bringing this thread full circle, would you say we're sinners because we sin, or we sin because we're sinners?

[pam]

I would say we are sinners because we sin.