2 Nephi 2:15-16 - opposition


Recommended Posts

48 minutes ago, romans8 said:

Question 1: I believe that Adam and Eve experienced joy before the Fall.  They lived in a perfect paradise
and had fellowship with God and each other, and experience all the beauty around them. Unless they were
robots and had no emotions ... which I don't believe.   I believe God wanted them to only experience good
and not evil.  If we parents today, we could use the example of our children.  If I were a father, I would not
want my children to know about evil or to experience it.

Question 2: my answer to question 1 was no.  But I can address it too.  I do not consider it a moral duty or a
duty for all human beings to experience mortal life as you stated. They experience happiness in their life but
also experience misery due to consequences which began with the Fall.  I do not refer to the Fall as the curse
of Adam as Moroni 8:8

1.  I have (twice) asked what you think God intended for humankind after the fall, and your answer focuses on what He intended before the fall.  Fortunately, you finally sort of get around to answering my question 1 in your latest response to question 2.

2.  When you say “They experience happiness in their life but
also experience misery due to consequences which began with the Fall”—I agree with this.  And that’s what changed between Gen 3:16 and Moses 5:10-11:  experience.  That’s why Eve came to understand that the fall was not an unmitigated disaster.  

It is interesting to me that you ask @person0 what “the curse of Adam” in Moroni 8:8 refers to, and then—without waiting for a response, and in your very next post, carry on as if you know exactly what it means.  Your question to person0 is especially interesting when you have proven in the past to be so industriously resourceful at finding obscure LDS pedagogical materials—but are somehow ignorant of the church-published youth seminary manuals that define this term as the separation between man and God that was a result of the fall.

What I am concerned about in this particular thread, is that even though Mormonism pretty clearly describes the Fall as a mixed blessing you seem heck-bent on straw-manning the Mormon teaching as pronouncing the Fall as being either all good or all bad—and then you try to play “gotcha” by confronting us with LDS scriptures, sermons, and teaching materials that don’t line up with the caricature of us that you’ve created using hyper-technical semantic interpretations of a language (English) that is neither the original language of the most of the source documents, nor (as I believe you’ve freely acknowledged) is even your own first language.  It all comes across as deeply disingenuous.

So, let me try to put this as clearly as I can:

The fall of Adam had both positive and negative effects.

Positive and necessary long-term effects included:  enabling procreation, permitting spiritual growth by introducing an element of opposition, and heightening humankind’s ability to enjoy the good by making it possible to actually experience the bad.

Negative short-term effects included allowing humankind to experience pain, despair, and sin; wresting humankind from their innocent state, and bringing about an alienation from God that—if one does not repent and turn to Christ—can become permanent.

Different scriptures, sermons, and church instructional materials will focus on different aspects of the fall, whether positive or negative; depending on the attitudes, priorities, and praxis that a particular speaker is trying to elicit within a particular audience at a particular moment in time; and may be influenced additionally by whatever secular/literary traditions (whether accurate or errant) that the speaker’s particular culture may have ascribed to the story of the fall.  

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

...you seem heck-bent on straw-manning the Mormon teaching —and then you try to play “gotcha” by confronting us with LDS scriptures, sermons, and teaching materials that don’t line up with the caricature of us that you’ve created using hyper-technical semantic interpretations... It all comes across as deeply disingenuous.

Well, since Jonah( @romans8) has already been kicked off the site for this exact behavior before) is it any wonder to hear him doing it again?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, romans8 said:

What is the curse of Adam mentioned in Moroni 8:8?

The "Curse of Adam" is spiritual death, or separation from God. Little children are alive in Christ.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On 8/28/2022 at 5:10 PM, Vort said:

The "Curse of Adam" is spiritual death, or separation from God. Little children are alive in Christ.

Thank you. I always thought of the Fall as bringing both mortality and a spiritual separation from
God. Adam and Eve brought these upon themselves, whereas Cain and Abel and all subsequent
children inherited these two consequences.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/28/2022 at 4:55 PM, Carborendum said:

Well, since Jonah( @romans8) has already been kicked off the site for this exact behavior before) is it any wonder to hear him doing it again?

A large part of America is into conspiracy theories .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/28/2022 at 1:08 PM, Just_A_Guy said:

Positive and necessary long-term effects included:  enabling procreation, permitting spiritual growth by introducing an element of opposition, and heightening humankind’s ability to enjoy the good by making it possible to actually experience the bad.

Did this positive effect also extend to the plants and animals or did they already have the ability to
procreate before the Fall?

As you are aware, other churches do not believe Adam and Eve should be celebrated for their act
of disobedience in the Garden of Eden.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/28/2022 at 12:52 PM, mikbone said:

We believe in the scriptures.

2 Ne 2: 22-25

What are your thoughts on these teachings.  I may have referenced them before.

Maybe being happy means not having joy?

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/friend/1973/02/our-first-parents?lang=eng

Adam and Eve were happy in their beautiful home in the Garden of Eden, for they had been given everything 
  they could want for food and for pleasure. They knew nothing of evil, for their world was all good.

Often in the cool of early evening the Lord would walk and talk with them, and their happiness was complete. 
  He told them that everything had been made for them to enjoy except one tree—the tree of knowledge of good 
  and evil—and that they should neither touch nor eat the fruit of that tree, for if they did, they would be 
  punished. Adam promised that they would not disobey this commandment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, romans8 said:

[1] Did this positive effect also extend to the plants and animals or did they already have the ability to
procreate before the Fall?

[2] As you are aware, other churches do not believe Adam and Eve should be celebrated for their act
of disobedience in the Garden of Eden.

1.  Different church authorities have gone in different directions on this.  But it really doesn’t matter to us, because the fall narrative primarily explains the fallen state of man—our own struggles with death and illness, our own spiritual natures and wrestle with sin, our own alienation from and desire for reconciliation with God.  
 

2.  At this point, I really couldn’t give three craps about what you say about other churches’ beliefs.  I have no reason to believe you are representing their beliefs with any more understanding, accuracy, or honesty than you’ve represented our own.  Other belief systems will ultimately stand approved of God (or not) on their own merits.

But as for our beliefs:  It is not Adam’s and Eve’s disobedience that Latter-day Saints celebrate.  As I said to you nearly two months ago:

The most handy modern-life analogue I can think of is a couple who breaks the law of chastity and, on learning that the woman has become pregnant, marry and keep the child; over the years finding joy and rejoicing in their child and in parenthood generally.  The Lord turned a bad decision into something that served His purpose and, in His mercy, offered forgiveness and redemption to the sinners.  But His mercy does not mean that the sin was not sin or that, were the sinners given the chance to go back in time to repeat or avoid their sin, they would not be expected to chose a more directly-righteous course. 

Adam and Eve repented of their sins.  You seem to be doubling down on yours; and I would advise you to stop.

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, romans8 said:

What are your thoughts on these teachings.  I may have referenced them before.

Maybe being happy means not having joy?

 

Yup.  Whenever we have a legitimate gospel question, we should turn to the scriptures, study, pray and then meditate and listen.

Google search engine is great.  But on gospel issues the Holy Ghost is vastly superior.

Scripture always trumps commentary.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/28/2022 at 12:19 PM, romans8 said:

Do you believe Eve noticed any change in her circumstances (like realizing she was naked, feeling
shame or fear) after she ate and before Adam ate?  I would say no; otherwise she would have 
warned Adam.

What would warning Adam have accomplished different than what ended up happening?  That said:

Quote

And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.  (1 Tim. 2:14)
Adam fell that men might be; and men are, that they might have joy. (2 Ne. 2:25)

More importantly, I don't understand your ultimate objective in pursuing this line of questioning.

On 8/28/2022 at 12:21 PM, romans8 said:

What is the curse of Adam mentioned in Moroni 8:8?

The natural consequences of the Fall of Adam.  Mortality and separation from God.

On 8/28/2022 at 12:32 PM, romans8 said:

I believe God wanted them to only experience good and not evil. . . If I were a father, I would not want my children to know about evil or to experience it.

What does that mean?  Is it possible there is a language barrier?  I want my children to know about evil so they can learn to avoid it.

This all brings me to a big important question.  If I am not mistaken, I assume you believe that if Adam and Eve had not partaken of the fruit we would all be living in the Garden of Eden together happily.  Well, despite that there is no scriptural evidence to suggest that, let's suppose for a minute that would be the case.  Considering Eve was convinced to partake of the fruit, what makes you think if she never ate it that you would also never eat it?

EDIT:  Oops, looks like I've been gone for a while, lol 😄

Edited by person0
Link to comment
Share on other sites

For all intents and purposes Adam and Eve were simply children while in the garden. The joy they experienced while there was real but simple. And their lack of experience and exposure to negative influences meant that joy could not mature into the much deeper and fulfilling joy only experienced by those who have had a chance to mature emotionally and spiritually.

When they partook of the forbidden fruit, whether through beguilement or somewhat knowingly, I think there was a recognition that there was something more out there than what they currently had. Eve may not have understood that the cost was having to give up the innocent joy they already had whereas Adam might have had some inkling. 

But the point is that as paradisical as their state in the garden was, it was also very limiting. Perhaps a good analogy would be to compare the exciting young love of a newlywed couple to that deep and mature love of a couple celebrating their 60th wedding anniversary after a life full of ups and downs, sorrows and disappointments, but also moments of great happiness as they endure life together. There is a depth and richness there that cannot be manufactured in paradise. Paradise, like childhood, had to be left behind to pursue what can only be obtained through experience. As such, we don't celebrate what was lost but rather the chance for something far greater.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/15/2022 at 1:15 AM, laronius said:

For all intents and purposes Adam and Eve were simply children while in the garden. The joy they experienced while there was real but simple.

What types of joy do you believe they experienced in the Garden before the fall?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/10/2022 at 3:31 PM, Just_A_Guy said:

But as for our beliefs:  It is not Adam’s and Eve’s disobedience that Latter-day Saints celebrate.  As I said to you nearly two months ago:

The most handy modern-life analogue I can think of is a couple who breaks the law of chastity and, on learning that the woman has become pregnant, marry and keep the child; over the years finding joy and rejoicing in their child and in parenthood generally.  The Lord turned a bad decision into something that served His purpose and, in His mercy, offered forgiveness and redemption to the sinners.  But His mercy does not mean that the sin was not sin or that, were the sinners given the chance to go back in time to repeat or avoid their sin, they would not be expected to chose a more directly-righteous course. 

I see what you are saying.  I did not mean to sound like I was doubling down.  My earlier statement was
based on what I read in the church's manual (Religion 327).

“It was Eve who first transgressed the limits of Eden in order to initiate the conditions of 
mortality. Her act, whatever its nature, was formally a transgression but eternally a glorious 
necessity to open the doorway toward eternal life. Adam showed his wisdom by doing the same. 
And thus Eve and ‘Adam fell that men might be’ [2 Nephi 2:25].

“Some Christians condemn Eve for her act, concluding that she and her daughters are somehow 
flawed by it. Not the Latter-day Saints! Informed by revelation, we celebrate Eve’s act and 
honor her wisdom and courage in the great episode, called the Fall".

I suppose, by extension, Adam's act should also be celebrated and his wisdom honored too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, romans8 said:

I see what you are saying.  I did not mean to sound like I was doubling down.  My earlier statement was
based on what I read in the church's manual (Religion 327).

“It was Eve who first transgressed the limits of Eden in order to initiate the conditions of 
mortality. Her act, whatever its nature, was formally a transgression but eternally a glorious 
necessity to open the doorway toward eternal life. Adam showed his wisdom by doing the same. 
And thus Eve and ‘Adam fell that men might be’ [2 Nephi 2:25].

“Some Christians condemn Eve for her act, concluding that she and her daughters are somehow 
flawed by it. Not the Latter-day Saints! Informed by revelation, we celebrate Eve’s act and 
honor her wisdom and courage in the great episode, called the Fall".

I suppose, by extension, Adam's act should also be celebrated and his wisdom honored too.

If we celebrate the birthday of a child conceived through an adulterous act, are we celebrating adultery?  Your rhetoric here suggests that your answer would be “yes”.  If your answer would be “no”, kindly explain yourself.

As for the Latter-day Saint position re the Fall:  

Yes, we celebrate the fact that they ultimately partook of the fruit and that humankind gained both knowledge of good and evil and a necessary mortal state.  We do not celebrate the circumstances under which that act was done (ie, the fact that it was an act of disobedience), because, as Elder Smith clearly states, it did constitute a transgression.  We also note, as Paul did, that while Eve was deceived, Adam was not (1 Tim 2:14).

There is a significant difference between celebrating the incidental positive benefits of a wrongful decision (and God’s ability to turn all things to the benefit of those who love Him), versus celebrating the wrongfulness of the decision itself.  This has been explained to you on multiple occasions, and yet you seem to keep trying to strawman us into the latter position.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

This has been explained to you on multiple occasions, and yet you seem to keep trying to strawman us into the latter position.

Gee, this sounds so familiar.  Almost like a certain banned individual kept doing for so long.  But, hey, that's just a conspiracy theory.  That's so ridiculous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On 9/17/2022 at 1:24 PM, Just_A_Guy said:

If we celebrate the birthday of a child conceived through an adulterous act, are we celebrating adultery?  Your rhetoric here suggests that your answer would be “yes”.  If your answer would be “no”, kindly explain yourself.

As for the Latter-day Saint position re the Fall:  

Yes, we celebrate the fact that they ultimately partook of the fruit and that humankind gained both knowledge of good and evil and a necessary mortal state.  We do not celebrate the circumstances under which that act was done (ie, the fact that it was an act of disobedience), because, as Elder Smith clearly states, it did constitute a transgression.  We also note, as Paul did, that while Eve was deceived, Adam was not (1 Tim 2:14).

There is a significant difference between celebrating the incidental positive benefits of a wrongful decision (and God’s ability to turn all things to the benefit of those who love Him), versus celebrating the wrongfulness of the decision itself.  This has been explained to you on multiple occasions, and yet you seem to keep trying to strawman us into the latter position.

My answer would be no.  But I would not commit an adulterous act with a woman so that we can 
eventually celebrate the birthday of a child or children that will be born.

What you refer to as "incidental positive benefits" (mortality, child birth) are called "great
blessings" (Gospel Principles, chapter 6).

I believe Adam and Eve, with the animals, already had the ability to procreate before the
Fall. 

What are your beliefs about the animals?  Did they also gain the ability to procreate when
Adam and Eve disobeyed God or did they already have this ability when God commanded them?

I do not understand why you consider it a wrongful decision for Adam and Eve to disobey
God for it was something they had to do. If they made the right decision and abstained from 
eating of the forbidden tree, Cain would not be able to be born (what from I understand of
your church teachings).

Elder Joseph Fielding Smith said: "I never speak of the part Eve took in this fall as a sin, nor do 
I accuse Adam of a sin. ... This was a transgression of the law, but not a sin ... for it was 
something that Adam and Eve had to do!"

The part of this act not being a sin also confuses me since many other church teachings indicate
that it was sin. 

When I look at Moses 5:10-11, it appears that only Eve understood that transgression led them to have 
children.  As for the eyes of Adam being opened, it was the eyes of both of them being opened only
after Adam ate from the forbidden tree.  Eve's eyes (of understanding) were not opened when she first
ate (Genesis 3:7).  Initially they felt fear and shame in their sin. LDS scripture has them becoming glad and
blessing God for their act of disobedience.

Going back to the birthday and adultery example. My wife and I would not say "Thank you God and blessed 
be your name for because of our adultery we could now have this child and today we celebrate his birthday".

I understand we disagree on some theological points but I hope you do not take offence at my comments
or questions.  Hopefully we can continue discussion on this and/or other matters without me be accused by 
others as being "anti'".  I do not think of the members of this forum as as "anti-evangelical" or 
"anti-reformed", etc.  Sometimes contention surely does arise when even those among Christian sects discuss
spiritual things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, romans8 said:

Hopefully we can continue discussion on this and/or other matters without me be accused by 
others as being "anti'".  I do not think of the members of this forum as as "anti-evangelical" or 
"anti-reformed", etc.  Sometimes contention surely does arise when even those among Christian sects discuss
spiritual things.

It does, but you have to remember that LDS constantly have to deal with people who ask questions like yours. The questioners almost always think they possess great knowledge and can “educate” those foolish LDS members.

So, yes, it can be forgiven if some LDS don’t want to engage with you. Even if your intentions are noble. 

Edited by LDSGator
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, romans8 said:

My answer would be no.  But I would not commit an adulterous act with a woman so that we can  eventually celebrate the birthday of a child or children that will be born.

What you refer to as "incidental positive benefits" (mortality, child birth) are called "great blessings" (Gospel Principles, chapter 6).

Exactly!  You don't set out to commit an adulterous act.  Ideally you marry the woman according to God's law, and then--because of the covenants that you've made and the divine instructions that you've followed--the act becomes not adulterous, but holy. 

There are, in the divine economy, tremendously significant acts that are not inherently evil but can nonetheless get us in an awful lot of trouble when we presume to perform those acts outside of divinely-imposed restrictions on time, place, and manner.  Yes, in the eternal scheme of things, Adam and Eve had to partake of the fruit.  They (well, Adam, per the Biblical narrative) had been told by God not to eat of the fruit and that doing so would result in their deaths; and then it seems they were out of God's direct presence for a while (which is why the serpent was able to effectively tempt them).  But--and this is hinted at in the Bible, but more explicitly laid out in LDS thought--they were also expecting God to come back at some point.  They were expecting further light and knowledge and instruction from Him.  If Adam and Eve had been perfectly obedient, then at some point God would have had to have lifted His previous temporal instruction to not partake of the fruit if He expected them to fulfill His other commandment to multiply and replenish the earth.  The only way to synthesize these commands is to read God's prohibition not as "don't partake of the fruit ever", but "don't partake of the fruit yet".  

Put another way: The problem wasn't partaking of the fruit per se; the problem was that they partook of the fruit because Satan deceived them (well, Eve) into seeking god-like powers without developing God-like faith, God-like patience, God-like loyalty, or God-like obedience.

Quote

I believe Adam and Eve, with the animals, already had the ability to procreate before the Fall. 

What are your beliefs about the animals?  Did they also gain the ability to procreate when Adam and Eve disobeyed God or did they already have this ability when God commanded them?

I frankly don't know.  I accept Adam and Eve as historical figures, because as resurrected beings they have appeared to latter-day prophets.  I believe they were the first individuals God saw fit to deem as fully "human" and having a full divine potential.  I believe that they were incapable of having seed who were cognitively and intellectually and spiritually "human" in the same sense they were, until they made certain decisions and covenants before God that had eternal consequences for themselves and for their posterity (which at this point includes every human currently living).  I believe that the essentials of those decisions and covenants are memorialized through some mixture of historicity, allegory, and symbolism in the modern temple endowment; and I believe that the narrative of Adam and Eve as a whole encapsulates the same journey (Presence, innocence, loss of innocence, estrangement, faith, covenant, reconciliation, redemption, salvation, return to Presence) that all humans must take. 

Beyond that, I am not ideologically committed.  I am aware that some (not all) LDS leaders--including some very vocal ones--have chosen to interpret the Genesis/Moses/LDS temple narrative as a literal recounting of the creation of earth and the fall of humankind and are adamant about concepts like young-earth creationism, no proto-humans (or "pre-Adamites"), no evolution, and no death of any living creature prior to the Fall.  I am also aware that other LDS leaders have been less devoted to these ideas and, in some cases, have even embraced some degree of human evolution.  And I understand that the fossil and archaeological record and known science--while ambiguous in a lot of ways--seem pretty darned conclusive that there were plants, animals, and even homo sapiens living and reproducing and dying (and in homo sapiens' case, engaging in social and ritual activities and caring for their sick and burying their dead) well before the period when the scriptures tell us Adam walked the earth.  I am also aware that the Biblical creation and fall narrative is rife with, and responsive to, a variety of creation myths and literary and liturgical thematic tropes from all around the ancient Near East; and that when we read without understanding that context (and particularly when we try to read it as "history" in the modern western sense of the word) we run the risk of missing the entire point.

Which is all a very long way of saying:  I don't know what the animals were doing before or during Adam's time in the garden or how they were affected by the fall, and I frankly don't find it terribly germane (other than the literarily tragic quality of Adam and Eve being clothed, after their fall, with the skins of [dead] animals).

Quote

I do not understand why you consider it a wrongful decision for Adam and Eve to disobey God for it was something they had to do. If they made the right decision and abstained from eating of the forbidden tree, Cain would not be able to be born (what from I understand of your church teachings).

Elder Joseph Fielding Smith said: "I never speak of the part Eve took in this fall as a sin, nor do I accuse Adam of a sin. ... This was a transgression of the law, but not a sin ... for it was  something that Adam and Eve had to do!"

The part of this act not being a sin also confuses me since many other church teachings indicate that it was sin. 

The thing is, Elder Smith did in other instances speak of it as a "sin".  Example:

It is most natural and just that he who commits the wrong should pay the penalty--atone for his wrongdoing.  Therefore, when Adam was the transgressor of the law, justice demanded that he, and none else, should answer for the sin and pay the penalty with his life.  But Adam, in breaking the law, himself became subject to the curse, and being under the curse could not atone for, or undo, what he had done. [Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation 1:126, emphasis added.]

So what's going on here?  

One of the nuances of Mormon thought that you may be missing, is that some LDS leaders have tried to draw a distinction between the concept of a sin versus the concept of a transgression.  The concept here is that a sin constitutes a violation of an eternal and universal standard, whereas a transgression is simply a violation of a commandment of God that may be temporary in nature.  For example, a follower of Jehovah would have been prohibited from eating pork in Mosaic times; a follower of Jehovah is under no such prohibition today.  Under this line of thinking, an Israelite who ate pork would have transgressed, but wouldn't have necessarily sinned.  

The problem with this dichotomy is that we Latter-day Saints aren't always very careful about observing and maintaining that distinction (as Elder Smith himself demonstrates), and our scriptures don't seem to recognize it at all.  Outside the context of discussions about the Fall, we tend to use "sin" and "transgression" interchangeably.  And the more you scrutinize it, the more questions it begs as you start hair splitting over definitions ("adultery" is always wrong and a sin, "sex" is wrong only outside of marriage and is therefore a transgression, but sex outside of marriage is adultery, which we already decided is a sin, so which is it?  A sin, or a transgression?  And our proselytizing materials used to define "sin" as "to knowingly disobey God"--our online Gospel Topics guide still effectively does--which doesn't recognize that sin/transgression distinction at all).

But more to the point, both sins and transgressions result in alienation from God and, in the absence of repentance and Christ's responsive grace, can only result in damnation.

Both sins and transgressions are wrongful.  Adam and Eve's partaking of the fruit was absolutely wrongful because they did something God told them not to do.  They did not make "the right decision".  They should have waited on God, rather than acting out of ambition seeded by an enemy who had rebelled against God and was seeking to co-opt Adam's and Eve's loyalty for him own aggrandizement. 

Now, we don't need to perseverate too much on the wrongfulness of their action, because (frankly) certain other religions do quite enough of that; and the Fall narrative has been used to justify an awful lot of misogyny and oppression and even violence over the years.  The fruit was going to be eaten sooner or later anyways--from the perspective of the alienation from God that we, as Adam and Eve's posterity, experience, it makes little difference whether Adam and Eve ate out of disobedience or obedience; because the result for us (susceptibility to sin and death) is the same either way.  God turned everything to His greater purposes, and there's little point to or need for a lot of flagellation or finger-pointing.  So, for better or for worse, Latter-day Saint rhetoric has tended to give Adam and Eve a sort of pass for their conduct.  But when you get into the nitty gritty of the scriptural account--the act still occurred in a context of disobedience and was, therefore, wrongful.  

Quote

When I look at Moses 5:10-11, it appears that only Eve understood that transgression led them to have children.  As for the eyes of Adam being opened, it was the eyes of both of them being opened only after Adam ate from the forbidden tree.  Eve's eyes (of understanding) were not opened when she first ate (Genesis 3:7).  Initially they felt fear and shame in their sin. LDS scripture has them becoming glad and blessing God for their act of disobedience.

Going back to the birthday and adultery example. My wife and I would not say "Thank you God and blessed be your name for because of our adultery we could now have this child and today we celebrate his birthday".

It is perhaps worth noting here that a) we shouldn't assume that just because one person didn't say something automatically means they didn't know it; and b) because of all the complexities and allusions and layers of the Genesis text as mentioned above, I don't think the sort of hyper-textual historicist scrutiny that you use to analyze Genesis 3:7 is likely to yield particularly reliable insights about either history or theology.

That said:  I do partially agree with you here in that I think the verbiage in the Moses verses you cite is infelicitous; and it begs questions about whether Joseph Smith offered a sub-optimal translation (he was known to tinker with the verbiage of the sacred texts he had generated for decades after producing them) or whether Adam and Eve still, at that point, weren't comprehending the full nature of what had happened or the nuances and philosophical implications of the interplay between "sin" and "transgression" and "wrongfulness".  (Or maybe Adam just never dreamed that a bunch of lawyers and textualists would be nit-picking his exclamations this closely!)  

Whatever Adam and Eve may have said in their exuberance at learning that God Himself would make an atonement so that they would not be be cast off forever, disobeying God is always wrong.  Always.  Latter-day Saints understand this principle, and seek to embody it in the way they live their lives; and it tends to raise our hackles when outsiders seem to be trying drive us into either the Scylla of preaching a works-based soteriology or the Charybdis of lionizing and glorifying outright disobedience.  

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On 10/2/2022 at 1:07 AM, Just_A_Guy said:

If Adam and Eve had been perfectly obedient, then at some point God would have had to have lifted His previous temporal instruction to not partake of the fruit if He expected them to fulfill His other commandment to multiply and replenish the earth. 

I found an aspect of "blood" mentioned in the following teachings that would indicate Adam and Eve gained
the ability to procreate with the fall.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/1993/10/constancy-amid-change?lang=eng

"While I do not fully understand all the biochemistry involved, I do know that their physical bodies did change;
blood began to circulate in their bodies. Adam and Eve thereby became mortal. Happily for us, they could also
beget children and fulfill the purposes for which the world was created".


https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/doctrines-of-the-gospel-student-manual/8-the-fall?lang=eng

"When Adam was in the Garden of Eden, he was not subject to death. There was no blood in his body and he
could have remained there forever. This is true of all the other creations” (Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of
Salvation, 1:76–77)."

 

I wonder if their disobedience also opened the door for the plants and animals to gain the ability to procreate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/2/2022 at 1:07 AM, Just_A_Guy said:

Exactly!  You don't set out to commit an adulterous act.  Ideally you marry the woman according to God's law, and then--because of the covenants that you've made and the divine instructions that you've followed--the act becomes not adulterous, but holy.

I never thought of it that way.  I do have adulterous thoughts in my mind from time to time. Maybe
they will come to fruition some day and lead to a holy outcome. 

But for sure my wife would divorce me if I did this.

Edited by romans8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, romans8 said:

I never thought of it that way.  I do have adulterous thoughts in my mind from time to time. Maybe
they will come to fruition some day and lead to a holy outcome. 

But for sure my wife would divorce me if I did this.

Yeah; I've been sloppy in that I've used "adultery" and "fornication" more or less interchangeably in this analogy.  :) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share