Article of Faith #2

[Just_A_Guy]

3 hours ago, romans8 said:

The reason behind the question is that I see a teaching that Adam's disobedience is not viewed as a sin, whereas other
teachings say it was a sin.

Not a sin:

The Pearl of Great Price Student Manual - 2018

A sin:

New Testament Student Manual - 2018
March 2008 Ensign article
 

The traditional approach (when we take the time to get our nomenclature right, which we often don’t) is that their action was a transgression but not a sin—the action wasn’t inherently wrong in and of itself, it was simply wrong because God had told them not to do it in that particular way at that particular time.  There was a conceivable set of circumstances in which God may have returned to the Garden and told Adam and Eve “okay, you can eat the fruit now”.  

But as things actually played out Adam and Eve acted, not out of obedience, but because Eve was fooled by Lucifer (who was trying to set himself up as munificent provider of blessings that a greedy God was selfishly denying them) and Adam chose to stay with her even if it meant his expulsion from Eden (perhaps trusting, but certainly having no basis at that time for believing, that God would later provide a way for their redemption).  Adam and Eve came perilously close to choosing Satan over God, which was why God saw it was so necessary to place enmity (law—see Genesis 3:15, Ephesians 2:15)  between humankind and Satan.

Edited December 26, 2021 by Just_A_Guy

[wenglund]

Since we chose to come to earth and take upon us a fallen condition, would it make sense to claim we are punished for Adam and Eve's transgression?

Thanks, Wade

[Vort]

16 hours ago, wenglund said:

Since we chose to come to earth and take upon us a fallen condition, would it make sense to claim we are punished for Adam and Eve's transgression?

Thanks, Wade

Only if you believe that taking upon ourselves a fallen condition is a punishment.

[wenglund]

1 hour ago, Vort said:

Only if you believe that taking upon ourselves a fallen condition is a punishment.

Even in that unlikely case, one would receive the "punishment" as a result of one's own choice to come to earth, and not Adam/Eve's transgression. One is punished for one's own choices/sins and not Adams transgression.  

Thanks, Wade

[romans8]

On 12/25/2021 at 7:50 PM, Just_A_Guy said:

and Adam chose to stay with her even if it meant his expulsion from Eden

I have heard that thought before.  But on what basis does one believe Adam thought he would be
expelled from Eden after eating the fruit?

Eve did not know about her eventual expulsion until after she ate, gave some to Adam, and
then heard God announcing it.  When they realized they were naked, there was no idea of
expulsion in their mind.

That is how I see it when I read that portion.

[romans8]

On 12/25/2021 at 7:41 PM, Just_A_Guy said:

But also, in the premortal life each human made the exact same choice Adam did

I did not understand.  What choice?

[Just_A_Guy]

5 hours ago, romans8 said:

I have heard that thought before.  But on what basis does one believe Adam thought he would be
expelled from Eden after eating the fruit?

Eve did not know about her eventual expulsion until after she ate, gave some to Adam, and
then heard God announcing it.  When they realized they were naked, there was no idea of
expulsion in their mind.

That is how I see it when I read that portion.

Genesis 3:3, though you’re right that from a semantical standpoint I should substitute “die” (or, per Moses 3:17, “surely die”), for “be expelled from Eden”.  The point being, Adam and Eve knew beforehand from God Himself that there were consequences to their partaking the fruit.  God is not being capricious or unfair here.  If Eve deluded herself into thinking that death was not a direct and certain consequence of her decision, it wasn’t because God hadn’t warned her; it was because she momentarily gave greater credence to the serpent than to God.

5 hours ago, romans8 said:

I did not understand.  What choice?

We, being in a state of innocence (and enjoying God’s direct presence), forsook that state and (notwithstanding we did it in hopes of a greater long-term gain in accordance with the Father’s plan of salvation, and knowing ab initio that a Savior would be provided) subjected ourselves to the power of Satan.

Edited January 1, 2022 by Just_A_Guy

[Suzie]

The reason behind the question is that I see a teaching that Adam's disobedience is not viewed as a sin, whereas other
teachings say it was a sin.

In my opinion, the 1988 quote from Dallin H. Oaks needs to be understood in the proper context. In this talk, Elder Oaks was making reference to many Christian beliefs about the "original sin" and he used the same expression to explain Adam's transgression. Even though LDS theology does not recognize the concept of "original sin",  the two terms are often used interchangeable. Maybe this was the case with Elder Oaks, however by 1993 he is very clear about the differences between sin and transgression:

"This suggested contrast between a sin and a transgression reminds us of the careful wording in the second article of faith: “We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression” (emphasis added). It also echoes a familiar distinction in the law. Some acts, like murder, are crimes because they are inherently wrong. Other acts, like operating without a license, are crimes only because they are legally prohibited. Under these distinctions, the act that produced the Fall was not a sin—inherently wrong—but a transgression—wrong because it was formally prohibited. These words are not always used to denote something different, but this distinction seems meaningful in the circumstances of the Fall. "(The great plan of happiness Dallin H. Oaks 1993)