The Great Plan of Happiness

[theplains]

I had some questions about this Conference talk.

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1993/10/the-great-plan-of-happiness?lang=eng

"Our understanding of life begins with a council in heaven. There the spirit children of God were taught his eternal plan
for their destiny. We had progressed as far as we could without a physical body and an experience in mortality."

How were they progressing without a physical body?

"For reasons that have not been revealed, this transition, or “fall,” could not happen without a transgression—an exercise
of moral agency amounting to a willful breaking of a law (see Moses 6:59). This would be a planned offense, a formality
to serve an eternal purpose. The Prophet Lehi explained that “if Adam had not transgressed he would not have fallen”
(2 Ne. 2:22), but would have remained in the same state in which he was created."

Besides being called a "planned offense", was the Fall a "God-ordained, God-desired offense?"

Is there a difference between moral agency and agency?  If an exercise of moral agency (such as a willful breaking of a
law) produces transgression, what can agency produce?

Thanks,
Jim

[Traveler]

2 hours ago, theplains said:

I had some questions about this Conference talk.

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1993/10/the-great-plan-of-happiness?lang=eng

"Our understanding of life begins with a council in heaven. There the spirit children of God were taught his eternal plan
for their destiny. We had progressed as far as we could without a physical body and an experience in mortality."

How were they progressing without a physical body?

"For reasons that have not been revealed, this transition, or “fall,” could not happen without a transgression—an exercise
of moral agency amounting to a willful breaking of a law (see Moses 6:59). This would be a planned offense, a formality
to serve an eternal purpose. The Prophet Lehi explained that “if Adam had not transgressed he would not have fallen”
(2 Ne. 2:22), but would have remained in the same state in which he was created."

Besides being called a "planned offense", was the Fall a "God-ordained, God-desired offense?"

Is there a difference between moral agency and agency?  If an exercise of moral agency (such as a willful breaking of a
law) produces transgression, what can agency produce?

Thanks,
Jim

 

Greetings Jim,

Your question is at the foundation of the “restoration” that is necessary to prepare the world for a time of divine enlightenment.   The Plan of Happiness or the Plan of Salvation of which you ask is the divine purpose and destiny of man and devised by the Eternal G-d the Father.  In LDS theology this plan was presented in “The Beginning” and is a covenant G-d made.  This plan and associated covenant was presented in heaven.  All that agreed became the “children of G-d” with the privilege of covenanting with G-d to fulfil his plan. 

Everything that has taken place and will take place was planned according to the wisdom and intelligence of G-d.  Those that rejected the plan became Satan and his demonic angles.  In LDS theology the plan was that man could become like G-d and learn good from evil and choose which they prefer via the agency G-d gave man.  Thus we learn evil by the fall and suffering death and we learn good by the atonement of Christ and the resurrection.  Without this plan of G-d we could not suffer death without being damned to an eternal hell – which is overcome by the grace of G-d and the resurrection.

Those that are resurrected are resurrected as Christ and those that repent of their sins will sit at the right hand of G-d (as does Christ) – which is symbolic of being one with G-d as Christ and G-d are one.

This is the short reader’s digest version.  All scripture and all revelation give witness to Christ, the Law of G-d, the Ordinances of salvation, and the everlasting covenant.  All of which are necessary elements of the Plan of Happiness that G-d has provided before anyone was born.

 

The Traveler

Edited July 2, 2018 by Traveler

[Fether]

2 hours ago, theplains said:

I had some questions about this Conference talk.

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1993/10/the-great-plan-of-happiness?lang=eng

"Our understanding of life begins with a council in heaven. There the spirit children of God were taught his eternal plan
for their destiny. We had progressed as far as we could without a physical body and an experience in mortality."

How were they progressing without a physical body?

"For reasons that have not been revealed, this transition, or “fall,” could not happen without a transgression—an exercise
of moral agency amounting to a willful breaking of a law (see Moses 6:59). This would be a planned offense, a formality
to serve an eternal purpose. The Prophet Lehi explained that “if Adam had not transgressed he would not have fallen”
(2 Ne. 2:22), but would have remained in the same state in which he was created."

Besides being called a "planned offense", was the Fall a "God-ordained, God-desired offense?"

Is there a difference between moral agency and agency?  If an exercise of moral agency (such as a willful breaking of a
law) produces transgression, what can agency produce?

Thanks,
Jim

In pre earth life, we could choose between good and evil. This is evident when we read Ephesians 1:3-5, Alma 13:3, and the story of many of God’s children following Satan in pre-earth life. The state of Adam and Eve was that of a child in that their ability to choose good and evil was  removed, but were given bodies.

Edited July 2, 2018 by Fether

[Anddenex]

4 hours ago, theplains said:

Besides being called a "planned offense", was the Fall a "God-ordained, God-desired offense?"

Is there a difference between moral agency and agency?  If an exercise of moral agency (such as a willful breaking of a
law) produces transgression, what can agency produce?

Thanks,
Jim

Besides being called a "planned offense", was the Fall a "God-ordained, God-desired offense?"

It would be "foreordained." Adam and Eve still had their moral agency to fulfill or to continue to exist as husband and wife forever. God-ordained could be a correct term. The plan was ordained, thus anything within the plan was ordained by God -- God-ordained.

The notion of "desire" though, I would say creates a conundrum. God doesn't desire "transgression" or "sin." He may recognize where it is required, necessary, or essential. His desire was our progression, not necessarily the offense.

Is there a difference between moral agency and agency?

As the term in scripture is "moral agency" and our leaders are no longer using the term "free agency" due to interpretation, the concept of agency would be different than moral agency if we want to be thorough. The word choice of "moral agency" implies accountability for our actions. Our agency was given that we might choose the sweet over the bitter. That we might choose good over the evil. If not, a Savior was provided.

When people use "agency" alone the interpretation is similar to "free agency" - choice without accountability. We are free. I can choose what I want. You can't punish me as I didn't harm anybody. There is no right or wrong technically. Thus we have the moral sins of our day that will eventually cause the justice of God to act upon this world as in the days of Noah, except by fire and not water. In this case morality is added to agency specifying an accountability for our choices. Agency though or "free agency" doesn't exist. We are accountable for our decisions.

If an exercise of moral agency (such as a willful breaking of a law) produces transgression, what can agency produce?

Agency doesn't produce anything as it doesn't exist. Moral agency exists, thus there is a punishment or reward as we learn in the Book of Mormon.

 

[CV75]

4 hours ago, theplains said:

I had some questions about this Conference talk.

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1993/10/the-great-plan-of-happiness?lang=eng

"Our understanding of life begins with a council in heaven. There the spirit children of God were taught his eternal plan
for their destiny. We had progressed as far as we could without a physical body and an experience in mortality."

How were they progressing without a physical body?

"For reasons that have not been revealed, this transition, or “fall,” could not happen without a transgression—an exercise
of moral agency amounting to a willful breaking of a law (see Moses 6:59). This would be a planned offense, a formality
to serve an eternal purpose. The Prophet Lehi explained that “if Adam had not transgressed he would not have fallen”
(2 Ne. 2:22), but would have remained in the same state in which he was created."

Besides being called a "planned offense", was the Fall a "God-ordained, God-desired offense?"

Is there a difference between moral agency and agency?  If an exercise of moral agency (such as a willful breaking of a
law) produces transgression, what can agency produce?

Thanks,
Jim

When you understand Elder Oaks’ distinction between a sin and a transgression, and what a transgression is (crossing a barrier; a transition or fall; breaking the limits), his use of the term “moral agency” refers to their choices at the transgression level, not the sin level in breaking the law. That works for his talk, but in the conversations you've been part of in three current threads, it helps to distinguish between moral agency and agency just as it is to distinguish between sin and transgression.

We were progressing without a spirit body by participating in the war in heaven, shouting for joy at the creation, etc., all progressive events furthering the Lord's plan.

God desired Adam and Eve to use their agency to progress. The talk does not mention a "God-ordained, God-desired offense." The talk does quote Lehi in its being planned in God's wisdom and serving an eternal purpose.

Yes, there is a difference between moral agency and agency for the purpose of these current discussions. Without the knowledge of good and evil, moral agency is so undeveloped that it is functionally mere agency. Using moral agency to break a moral law in our world is a sin; using agency to break a barrier or limit in Eden is a transgression.

Edited July 2, 2018 by CV75

[Jersey Boy]

19 hours ago, theplains said:

I had some questions about this Conference talk.

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1993/10/the-great-plan-of-happiness?lang=eng

"Our understanding of life begins with a council in heaven. There the spirit children of God were taught his eternal plan
for their destiny. We had progressed as far as we could without a physical body and an experience in mortality."

How were they progressing without a physical body?

"For reasons that have not been revealed, this transition, or “fall,” could not happen without a transgression—an exercise
of moral agency amounting to a willful breaking of a law (see Moses 6:59). This would be a planned offense, a formality
to serve an eternal purpose. The Prophet Lehi explained that “if Adam had not transgressed he would not have fallen”
(2 Ne. 2:22), but would have remained in the same state in which he was created."

Besides being called a "planned offense", was the Fall a "God-ordained, God-desired offense?"

Is there a difference between moral agency and agency?  If an exercise of moral agency (such as a willful breaking of a
law) produces transgression, what can agency produce?

Thanks,
Jim

In practical terms, what difference of substance is there between a God who creates the conditions that allow something negative to happen in order that a greater good might come to pass, and an omniscient God who, even though he knows the end of ALL THINGS from the beginning, creates intelligent beings and allows for conditions and circumstances that knows for certain are going to inevitably end in a negative outcome?

Edited July 3, 2018 by Jersey Boy

[theplains]

On 7/2/2018 at 6:36 PM, CV75 said:

Yes, there is a difference between moral agency and agency for the purpose of these current discussions. Without the knowledge of good and evil, moral agency is so undeveloped that it is functionally mere agency. Using moral agency to break a moral law in our world is a sin; using agency to break a barrier or limit in Eden is a transgression.

What was the first moral law to be broken and who broke it?

Jim

[CV75]

17 hours ago, theplains said:

What was the first moral law to be broken and who broke it?

Jim

Cain slaying Abel, as far as I can tell.

[theplains]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

Cain slaying Abel, as far as I can tell.

I'm assuming breaking a moral law equals sin in your context.

What moral laws do you believe Adam, Eve, and their children lived by when Abel was killed?   Was murder the
first sin committed or do you believe Adam and his descendants committed other sins before the slaying of
Abel?

Jim

[Jersey Boy]

22 hours ago, theplains said:

What was the first moral law to be broken and who broke it?

Jim

The first moral law to be broken on the earth was when Adam and Eve violated God’s commandment to not eat of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. The punishments harshly pronounced by God upon Satan (for tempting Eve to eat of the forbidden fruit), Adam and Eve powerfully attest to the fact that the there were serious consequences for this first violation of God’s moral law on earth...

15 And I, the Lord God, called unto Adam, and said unto him: Where goest thou?

16 And he said: I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I beheld that I was naked, and I hid myself.

17 And I, the Lord God, said unto Adam: Who told thee thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldst not eat, if so thou shouldst surely die?

18 And the man said: The woman thou gavest me, and commandest that she should remain with me, she gave me of the fruit of the tree and I did eat.

19 And I, the Lord God, said unto the woman: What is this thing which thou hast done? And the woman said: The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat.

20 And I, the Lord God, said unto the serpent: Because thou hast done this thou shalt be cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life;

21 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, between thy seed and her seed; and he shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

22 Unto the woman, I, the Lord God, said: I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception. In sorrow thou shalt bring forth children, and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

23 And unto Adam, I, the Lord God, said: Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the fruit of the tree of which I commanded thee, saying—Thou shalt not eat of it, cursed shall be the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life.

24 Thorns also, and thistles shall it bring forth to thee, and thou shalt eat the herb of the field.

25 By the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, until thou shalt return unto the ground—for thou shalt surely die—for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou wast, and unto dust shalt thou return. (Moses 4)

But this is not all. The punishment decreed by God for Adam and Eve’s violation of the moral law to not partake of the fruit of the tree of knowledge went far beyond the punishments described in the previous excerpt from the Book of Moses. In fact, the Book of Mormon prophet Jacob testifies that the violation of that commandment brought about the most serious punishment imaginable, total spiritual death and everlasting banishment from the presence of God in hell...

... For behold, if the flesh should rise no more our spirits must become subject to that angel who fell from before the presence of the Eternal God, and became the devil, to rise no more.

9 And our spirits must have become like unto him, and we become devils, angels to a devil, to be shut out from the presence of our God, and to remain with the father of lies, in misery, like unto himself; yea, to that being who beguiled our first parents, who transformeth himself nigh unto an angel of light, and stirreth up the children of men unto secret combinations of murder and all manner of secret works of darknes. (2 Nephi 9).

Edited July 4, 2018 by Jersey Boy

[CV75]

4 hours ago, theplains said:

I'm assuming breaking a moral law equals sin in your context.

What moral laws do you believe Adam, Eve, and their children lived by when Abel was killed?   Was murder the
first sin committed or do you believe Adam and his descendants committed other sins before the slaying of
Abel?

Jim

Since the Bible doesn’t have anything to say about it, let’s turn to the Pearl of Great Price. From Chapter 5:

After keeping the first commandments carried from Eden into the fallen world (verses 1 and 2), God gave Adam and Eve more commandments to keep in this probationary estate (verse 5) that build on them (verses 6-12). Note that Adam and Eve had to teach these things to their children before they became accountable (verse13), and once they believed Satan more than God, they became carnal, sensual and devilish (verses 14-15). The first time sin is mentioned is found in verse 23 as a warning against the acts that follow carnal, sensual and devilish attitudes, so we do not know exactly how much time had passed (we can surmise somewhat from the biblical chronologies).

Note that carnal, sensual and devilish natures and attitudes are a vulnerability arising in the fallen world, and are not mentioned as part of Adam and Eve’s character in Eden. The moral and agency dynamics in Eden between the serpent and Eve in context of her commandments and lack of knowledge of good and evil are completely different than the dynamics in this world between the devil and the children of men in context of their new commandments and a knowledge of good and evil.

Some may observe an intermediate phase between Eden and the fallen world, where Adam and Eve and their children had commandments but did not have much opposition against keeping them, or know what they were for (knowledge seems to invite opposition and choices to be made; consider the difference between agency or moral agency): “And after many days an angel of the Lord appeared unto Adam, saying: Why dost thou offer sacrifices unto the Lord? And Adam said unto him: I know not, save the Lord commanded me. And then the angel spake, saying: This thing is a similitude of the sacrifice of the Only Begotten of the Father, which is full of grace and truth. Wherefore, thou shalt do all that thou doest in the name of the Son, and thou shalt repent and call upon God in the name of the Son forevermore.” It was afterwards that “Satan came among them,” countermanding God.

Chapter 6 overlaps with Chapter 5 around this point in the advancing transition from Eden to the fallen world beginning with verse 51. These verses through the end of the chapter suggest the addition of more commandments (the ordinances of baptism in water and by fire, priesthood ordination after the order of the Son of God, things not mentioned in Chapter 5).

You may see some parallels between these phases and Eden, but they are not identical estates with the same moral significance in relation to various concepts such as hearkening to the voice of the Lord, rejecting His greater counsel, sin, repentance, etc.

So I guess I would still say that the first “sin” as I would relate to it was committed by Cain (see verse 25, “And it shall be said in time to come[let’s say that time for me is my lifetime]—That these abominations were had from Cain; for he rejected the greater counsel which was had from God…”). He may have multiplied as his family taught him, but to kill would have been in complete defiance of that. This is consistent with the Bible, though as you can see, a lot is missing from the Bible.

[CV75]

On 7/2/2018 at 9:15 PM, Jersey Boy said:

In practical terms, what difference of substance is there between a God who creates the conditions that allow something negative to happen in order that a greater good might come to pass, and an omniscient God who, even though he knows the end of ALL THINGS from the beginning, creates intelligent beings and allows for conditions and circumstances that knows for certain are going to inevitably end in a negative outcome?

I would say that, in both cases, God creates intelligent beings (Adam and Eve). In both cases, there are negative and positive outcomes arising from the choices of those beings (conditions and circumstances are experienced by intelligent beings as neutral, positive or negative, but are not in and of themselves so). In both cases, a negative outcome giving rise to a positive outcome is still a net positive.

3 hours ago, Jersey Boy said:

The first moral law to be broken on the earth was when Adam and Eve violated God’s commandment to not eat of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. The punishments harshly pronounced by God upon Satan (for tempting Eve to eat of the forbidden fruit), Adam and Eve powerfully attest to the fact that the there were serious consequences for this first violation of God’s moral law on earth...

The commandments given in Eden were not moral in nature. The serious consequences are positive as well as negative, but ultimately the negative give way to the positive. See Posted 2 hours ago and Elder Oaks' talks.

 

[Jersey Boy]

35 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I would say that, in both cases, God creates intelligent beings (Adam and Eve). In both cases, there are negative and positive outcomes arising from the choices of those beings (conditions and circumstances are experienced by intelligent beings as neutral, positive or negative, but are not in and of themselves so). In both cases, a negative outcome giving rise to a positive outcome is still a net positive.

The commandments given in Eden were not moral in nature. The serious consequences are positive as well as negative, but ultimately the negative give way to the positive. See Posted 2 hours ago and Elder Oaks' talks.

 

Of course God’s commandments in Eden were of a moral nature, otherwise they wouldn’t have been commandments, commandments with serious consequences for disobedience. God’s commandments, by very nature, can either be obeyed or disobeyed, with a God-ordained reward for each commandment obeyed and a God-ordained punishment (often in the form of a withheld blessing) for each disobedience. The following verses from the Book of Moses clearly indicate God’s commandments in Eden were of a moral nature:

53 And our father Adam spake unto the Lord, and said: Why is it that men must repent and be baptized in water? And the Lord said unto Adam: Behold I have forgiven thee thy transgression in the Garden of Eden.

54 Hence came the saying abroad among the people, that the Son of God hath atoned for original guilt, wherein the sins of the parents cannot be answered upon the heads of the children, for they are whole from the foundation of the world. (Moses 6)

If the commandment to not partake of the forbidden fruit was not of a moral nature, there would have been no need for God to forgive Adam for transgressing the commandment. And if the commandment to not partake of the forbidden fruit was not of a moral nature, Adam would not have been adjudged as guilty for a transgression against the law of God that required the atoning blood of Christ in order to be cleared of the consequences of the moral offense.

[CV75]

11 hours ago, Jersey Boy said:

Of course God’s commandments in Eden were of a moral nature, otherwise they wouldn’t have been commandments, commandments with serious consequences for disobedience. God’s commandments, by very nature, can either be obeyed or disobeyed, with a God-ordained reward for each commandment obeyed and a God-ordained punishment (often in the form of a withheld blessing) for each disobedience. The following verses from the Book of Moses clearly indicate God’s commandments in Eden were of a moral nature:

53 And our father Adam spake unto the Lord, and said: Why is it that men must repent and be baptized in water? And the Lord said unto Adam: Behold I have forgiven thee thy transgression in the Garden of Eden.

54 Hence came the saying abroad among the people, that the Son of God hath atoned for original guilt, wherein the sins of the parents cannot be answered upon the heads of the children, for they are whole from the foundation of the world. (Moses 6)

If the commandment to not partake of the forbidden fruit was not of a moral nature, there would have been no need for God to forgive Adam for transgressing the commandment. And if the commandment to not partake of the forbidden fruit was not of a moral nature, Adam would not have been adjudged as guilty for a transgression against the law of God that required the atoning blood of Christ in order to be cleared of the consequences of the moral offense.

People can be guilty and forgiven of far less than moral offenses; these are needful responses and happen all the time. Children are a good example, but so are social faux pas and jurisdictional misdemeanors committed by adults. The atonement of Christ covers all kinds of offenses and more, and is needful for them all.

The semantic distinction between sin and transgression, and agency and moral agency is important when drilling down on this subject. Nowhere in the Bible are Adam and Eve referred to as sinners, only as transgressors. The difference is addressed here:

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1996/10/sins-and-mistakes?lang=eng

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1993/10/the-great-plan-of-happiness?lang=eng

"Original guilt" refers to guilt arising from the actions of any individual, not to Adam's transgression or inherited guilt. We inherited a fallen world from Adam and Eve, not personal guilt for their transgression (little children are whole from the foundation of the world--Moroni 8:12).

•  

 

[Jersey Boy]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

People can be guilty and forgiven of far less than moral offenses; these are needful responses and happen all the time. Children are a good example, but so are social faux pas and jurisdictional misdemeanors committed by adults. The atonement of Christ covers all kinds of offenses and more, and is needful for them all.

The semantic distinction between sin and transgression, and agency and moral agency is important when drilling down on this subject. Nowhere in the Bible are Adam and Eve referred to as sinners, only as transgressors. The difference is addressed here:

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1996/10/sins-and-mistakes?lang=eng

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1993/10/the-great-plan-of-happiness?lang=eng

"Original guilt" refers to guilt arising from the actions of any individual, not to Adam's transgression or inherited guilt. We inherited a fallen world from Adam and Eve, not personal guilt for their transgression (little children are whole from the foundation of the world--Moroni 8:12).

•  

 

If Adam and Eve weren’t moral agents before the fall, God would not have given them a strict commandment to not partake of the forbidden fruit, the violation of which would cause such dire moral consequences — endless physical death (endless expulsion from the physical presence of God) and total spiritual death (endless hell). The very fact that God allowed Satan to tempt our first parents to violate the commandment to not eat of the forbidden fruit indicates moral agency was involved because they clearly had the moral choice to obey the will of God or the will of the devil. 

You say there’s a difference between sin against the will of God and transgression. Will you please explain to me how in the following passages of scripture Adam is supposed to know whether he had sins for which he needed to repent and be baptized  or whether he had transgressions for which he needed to repent and be baptized?

51 And he called upon our father Adam by his own voice, saying: I am God; I made the world, and men before they were in the flesh.

52 And he also said unto him: If thou wilt turn unto me, and hearken unto my voice, and believe, and repent of all thy transgressions, and be baptized, even in water, in the name of mine Only Begotten Son, who is full of grace and truth, which is Jesus Christ, the only name which shall be given under heaven, whereby salvation shall come unto the children of men, ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost, asking all things in his name, and whatsoever ye shall ask, it shall be given you. (Moses 6)

Or do you believe Adam never actually committed sin — as he was told he only needed to repent of his TRANSGRESSIONS —  and that his baptism was only a legal requirement to keep the commandment to be baptized (like Jesus Christ) because, in reality, he never committed a sin?

 

 

Edited July 5, 2018 by Jersey Boy

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Jersey Boy said:

If Adam and Eve weren’t moral agents before the fall, God would not have given them a strict commandment to not partake of the forbidden fruit, the violation of which would cause such dire moral consequences — endless physical death (endless expulsion from the physical presence of God) and total spiritual death (endless hell). The very fact that God allowed Satan to tempt our first parents to violate the commandment to not eat of the forbidden fruit indicates moral agency was involved because they clearly had the moral choice to obey the will of God or the will of the devil. 

You say there’s a difference between sin against the will of God and transgression. Will you please explain to me how in the following passages of scripture Adam is supposed to know whether he had sins for which he needed to repent and be baptized  or whether he had transgressions for which he needed to repent and be baptized?

51 And he called upon our father Adam by his own voice, saying: I am God; I made the world, and men before they were in the flesh.

52 And he also said unto him: If thou wilt turn unto me, and hearken unto my voice, and believe, and repent of all thy transgressions, and be baptized, even in water, in the name of mine Only Begotten Son, who is full of grace and truth, which is Jesus Christ, the only name which shall be given under heaven, whereby salvation shall come unto the children of men, ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost, asking all things in his name, and whatsoever ye shall ask, it shall be given you. (Moses 6)

Or do you believe Adam never actually committed sin — as he was told he only needed to repent of his TRANSGRESSIONS —  and that his baptism was only a legal requirement to keep the commandment to be baptized (like Jesus Christ) because, in reality, he never committed a sin?

 

 

They had agency and choice, that is true. Death likewise (endless or not) is neither moral nor immoral; under certain conditions the act of causing death of any kind can be either (preserving liberty or taking a brother’s stuff, respectively). Agency and choice have moral relevance only under certain conditions, and these conditions did not exist in Eden.

Those two verses alone do not offer the full picture I am describing, but verse 52 does use the word “transgressions” and not “sins.” The Lord explains, beginning in verse 53, why baptism in water and by fire are necessary: While Adam was forgiven of his transgression in Eden, his children will conceive sin in their hearts, and where it is given unto them to know good from evil far differently than Adam and Eve obtained it, Adam was given another law and commandment, which is to teach his children. Verse 59 begins the teaching, which includes the transition between Adam’s transgression in Eden and mankind’s sins (including any Adam might commit in mortality) in the fallen world:

“That by reason of [Adam’s] transgression [in Eden] cometh the fall [into the mortal world], which fall bringeth death, and inasmuch as ye [Adam and Eve’s mortal offspring] were born into the world by water, and blood, and the spirit, which I have made, and so became of dust a living soul, even so ye [Adam and Eve’s mortal offspring, just as Adam was in verses 64-68] must be born again into the kingdom of heaven, of water, and of the Spirit, and be cleansed by blood, even the blood of mine Only Begotten; that ye might be sanctified from all sin [Adam and Eve’s mortal offspring; any sinfulness Adam might have committed in mortality, since he had already been forgiven of his transgression in Eden], and enjoy the words of eternal life in this world, and eternal life in the world to come, even immortal glory…”

The ordinance of sacrifice is like our sacrament, and allowed the benefits of these ordinances to persist throughout a person’s life (Moses 5:5-8). This was given before the ordinances in Chapter 6, and explains why and how Adam’s transgressions in Eden were forgiven after he entered this world, and how this prepared him to receive more commandments and teach his posterity about salvation from sin.

Will you please explain to me how in the following passages of scripture Adam is supposed to know whether he had sins for which he needed to repent and be baptized or whether he had transgressions for which he needed to repent and be baptized?

So Adam was told he transgressed in Eden, and was also told how sin is committed in the world that followed the Fall. Baptism (the full ordinance including baptism by fire) was given him to be born again into the kingdom of heaven, something which he needed after his expulsion from Eden.

The transition from the ordinance of sacrifice and its connection with repenting of sin unto salvation (5:15, 23) to the ordinance of baptism and repenting of all sin unto eternal life (6:59) illustrates the difference between redemption from death and redemption unto eternal life and exaltation. Both sets of ordinances reminded the posterity of Adam of these principles. The seriousness of sins committed seemed to increase between mere conceiving and committing (6:), and then in magnitude between 5:15 and 5:23 (Cain).

There are a couple of other threads on this subject you might want to browse through as various points are covered between the three threads, and they all relate to your questions I think.

[Jersey Boy]

6 hours ago, CV75 said:

They had agency and choice, that is true. Death likewise (endless or not) is neither moral nor immoral; under certain conditions the act of causing death of any kind can be either (preserving liberty or taking a brother’s stuff, respectively). Agency and choice have moral relevance only under certain conditions, and these conditions did not exist in Eden.

 

Those two verses alone do not offer the full picture I am describing, but verse 52 does use the word “transgressions” and not “sins.” The Lord explains, beginning in verse 53, why baptism in water and by fire are necessary: While Adam was forgiven of his transgression in Eden, his children will conceive sin in their hearts, and where it is given unto them to know good from evil far differently than Adam and Eve obtained it, Adam was given another law and commandment, which is to teach his children. Verse 59 begins the teaching, which includes the transition between Adam’s transgression in Eden and mankind’s sins (including any Adam might commit in mortality) in the fallen world:

 

“That by reason of [Adam’s] transgression [in Eden] cometh the fall [into the mortal world], which fall bringeth death, and inasmuch as ye [Adam and Eve’s mortal offspring] were born into the world by water, and blood, and the spirit, which I have made, and so became of dust a living soul, even so ye [Adam and Eve’s mortal offspring, just as Adam was in verses 64-68] must be born again into the kingdom of heaven, of water, and of the Spirit, and be cleansed by blood, even the blood of mine Only Begotten; that ye might be sanctified from all sin [Adam and Eve’s mortal offspring; any sinfulness Adam might have committed in mortality, since he had already been forgiven of his transgression in Eden], and enjoy the words of eternal life in this world, and eternal life in the world to come, even immortal glory…”

 

The ordinance of sacrifice is like our sacrament, and allowed the benefits of these ordinances to persist throughout a person’s life (Moses 5:5-8). This was given before the ordinances in Chapter 6, and explains why and how Adam’s transgressions in Eden were forgiven after he entered this world, and how this prepared him to receive more commandments and teach his posterity about salvation from sin.

 

Will you please explain to me how in the following passages of scripture Adam is supposed to know whether he had sins for which he needed to repent and be baptized or whether he had transgressions for which he needed to repent and be baptized?

 

So Adam was told he transgressed in Eden, and was also told how sin is committed in the world that followed the Fall. Baptism (the full ordinance including baptism by fire) was given him to be born again into the kingdom of heaven, something which he needed after his expulsion from Eden.

 

The transition from the ordinance of sacrifice and its connection with repenting of sin unto salvation (5:15, 23) to the ordinance of baptism and repenting of all sin unto eternal life (6:59) illustrates the difference between redemption from death and redemption unto eternal life and exaltation. Both sets of ordinances reminded the posterity of Adam of these principles. The seriousness of sins committed seemed to increase between mere conceiving and committing (6:), and then in magnitude between 5:15 and 5:23 (Cain).

 

There are a couple of other threads on this subject you might want to browse through as various points are covered between the three threads, and they all relate to your questions I think.

My preference is to thoroughly address your points one point at a time and fully consider and discuss each one of them before moving on to the next item under discussion. So here I go:

 Your assertion in the first paragraph that the sentence of physical passed death upon Adam and Eve has nothing to do with a moral connection is incorrect. The prophet Jacob makes it perfectly clear that endless physical death would be the direct causative factor of mankind being drawn inexorably into an endless hell:

8 O the wisdom of God, his mercy and grace! For behold, if the flesh should rise no more our spirits must become subject to that angel who fell from before the presence of the Eternal God, and became the devil, to rise no more.

9 And our spirits must have become like unto him, and we become devils, angels to a devil, to be shut out from the presence of our God, and to remain with the father of lies, in misery, like unto himself; yea, to that being who beguiled our first parents, who transformeth himself nigh unto an angel of light, and stirreth up the children of men unto secret combinations of murder and all manner of secret works of darkness.

So now I hope you can agree that physical death is not a less consequential gospel issue, for if physical death remained to an endless duration we would all be unavoidably drawn down to  hell and a state of ultimate immoral wickedness. The sentence of physical death passed upon Adam and Eve was a severe punishment for the violation of God’s will.

P.S. I hope you’ll begin to refer to the scriptures to validate your points, because for me one potent passage of scripture is worth worth at least 20 personal observations and opinions.

 

 

Edited July 5, 2018 by Jersey Boy

[CV75]

48 minutes ago, Jersey Boy said:

My preference is to thoroughly address your points one point at a time and fully consider and discuss each one of them before moving on to the next item under discussion. So here I go:

 Your assertion in the first paragraph that the sentence of physical passed death upon Adam and Eve has nothing to do with a moral connection is incorrect. The prophet Jacob makes it perfectly clear that endless physical death would be the direct causative factor of mankind being drawn inexorably into an endless hell:

8 O the wisdom of God, his mercy and grace! For behold, if the flesh should rise no more our spirits must become subject to that angel who fell from before the presence of the Eternal God, and became the devil, to rise no more.

9 And our spirits must have become like unto him, and we become devils, angels to a devil, to be shut out from the presence of our God, and to remain with the father of lies, in misery, like unto himself; yea, to that being who beguiled our first parents, who transformeth himself nigh unto an angel of light, and stirreth up the children of men unto secret combinations of murder and all manner of secret works of darkness.

So now I hope you can agree that physical death is not a less consequential gospel issue, for if physical death remained to an endless duration we would all be unavoidably drawn down to  hell and a state of ultimate immoral wickedness. The sentence of physical death passed upon Adam and Eve was a severe punishment for the violation of God’s will.

P.S. I hope you’ll begin to refer to the scriptures to validate your points, because for me one potent passage of scripture is worth worth at least 20 personal observations and opinions.

In these verses, Jacob is explaining what would happen with our spirits if our bodies were not to rise from the grave, which would be the fate even of those who make good moral choices (the righteous) and infants (who make no moral choices). The Redemption makes the deliverance from physical and spiritual death possible (verses 11 and 12). Without the Redemption, good works, faith in good works, good intentions, infant innocence, etc. have no moral relevance to what would happen to our spirits.

Death is obviously very much the serious problem Jacob describes, but it is not a moral problem. Everyone dies, the good, the bad, the innocent. Without the Redemption, all spirits, whether they were good, bad, or non-accountable in this life become subject to the devil and thus have no more moral choices to make after this life.

That Adam and Eve's choice in Eden led to the problem of death does not make their choice an immoral one, or that it had moral consequences. People are moral; things are not. The things people do are moral only when the people are accountable and possess a moral sense. Hence Adam and Eve's choice is most typically called a transgression in scripture.