Gary brought up an interesting issue earlier today. The distinction many, particularly Joseph Fielding Smith, have made between a sin and a transgression. Allow me to quote Gary’s quote of Elder Oaks.
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!†(Doctrines of Salvation, 1:114–15).
This suggested contrast between a sin and a transgression … 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. (Ensign, Nov. 1993, 73.)
For the record, I favor the sin/transgression distinction, although I tend to do it along different lines than Elder Oaks. To me the fundamental problem is that in the garden of Eden Adam and Eve were innocent and did not know good or evil. If sin is to knowingly choose evil, then it is hard for me to understand how it could be a sin in the normal sense of things. I typically appeal to Mosiah 3 and how when little children sin, Christ automatically atones for their sins.
Of course the obvious rejoinder is that Benjamin does call what children do a sin. But he does distinguish between sins we are responsible for and sins we are not. So I think the distinction is present, even if the language isn’t.
What Elder Oaks is discussing seems different. He is discussing a law that represents inherently the good versus a law that one might call expedient. Thus murder is both illegal and wrong whereas speeding is illegal but not necessarily wrong.
While I’m sympathetic to Elder Oaks (especially when speeding down I-15) I have two problems. First, Elder Oaks’ reading entails that what God tells us isn’t always right. That seems to lead to some troubling implications if we take it seriously. Secondly it raises the difficulty of telling, with respect to divine rules, what is just a formal rule versus what is an ethical rule. Certainly in the Eden accounts there is nothing to indicate what Elder Oaks asserts. Now it is true that we can think of commands of God we might term policy. But aren’t we under command to obey even if it is policy?
Consider the Word of Wisdom. It appears only to have been made a formal command since the 1930’s. Even if one takes it as a command since its revelation in the restoration, it also doesn’t appear to have applied to people in Palestine or Zarahemla. Yet, does that mean it isn’t really a sin if I go out and get drunk? I don’t think so. Something can not be inherently wrong, but can be wrong because of the relationship I am in. My relationship with God in my current context entails that drinking alcohol is wrong. Why wouldn’t this be true of Adam and the fruit in the Garden?
I’d be interested in your thoughts.
All right Gary, let’s do this.
And now…
Elder Oaks and Nelson are arguing that Eve was wise which would absolutely require foreknowledge. Elder Talmage says this isn’t so. I don’t see how these two quotes are reconciled.
Even better than continuing our Prophetic poker match, why don’t we let Eve herself tell us why she partook of the fruit:
Moses 4:12..
She saw that the tree was GOOD FOR FOOD and it became PLEASANT TO THE EYES and a tree to be desired to (here’s the kicker) MAKE HER WISE.
She saw that the fruit would make her wise. Not the other way around, not she was wise THUS she did partake of the fruit.
I’ll trust Eve’s words over what somebody thinks Eve was thinking at the time thousands of years after the fact.
One more point Gary,
I believe Elder Nelson and Oaks were talking about Eve’s wisdom in hindsight. And I agree it was a form of wisdom–though ignorant and mislead it was.
Tim Jacob (#68) said,
Adam and Eve were married in the Garden of Eden, not in the spirit world. The commandment to “multiply, and replenish the earth” (Moses 2:28) was spoken as part of the marriage covenant just as it is today (HC 2:320).
It is true that the Lord created all things spiritually before he created them physically (Moses 3:5). But it is not true, as you claim, that a revealed, scriptural account of the spiritual creation exists. It has been clearly stated that the creation narratives recorded in Gen. 1–2, Moses 1–3, JST Gen. 1–2, Abr. 3–5, and the Temple account, all refer to the physical (albeit paradisiacal) creation of earth, plants, animals, and man.
In one of the few Ensign articles ever published about the “Four Accounts of the Creation,†Keith H. Meservy (an associate professor of Ancient Scripture at Brigham Young University and a member of the Gospel Doctrine writing committee) concludes that “the Bible offers no account of the sequential process by which all things were spiritually created.” He then quotes President Joseph Fielding Smith, who said,
Another valuable discussion about whether or not we have a scriptural account of the spirit creation was given by Elder Bruce R. McConkie,
The creation accounts in scripture describe the paradisiacal, physical creation. It was spiritual because it was terrestrial—all things were quickened by the spirit. But that doesn’t mean it wasn’t physical.
The fall of Adam constitutes the mortal creation. Adam and Eve became mortal when their physical bodies changed and “blood began to circulate in their bodies” (see Elder Nelson in #33).
Yes Tim (#101), I’ve read the scriptures and surely Elders Nelson and Oaks have also. Frankly, it is getting tiresome for you to repeatedly assume that we and the apostles are scripturally ignorant.
Nor have you explained how Talmage contradicts Nelson and Oaks. Placing snippets from each in the same proximity just doesn’t seem to explain it. Why don’t you try telling us in your own words what you think each is saying. I am a firm believer that the apostles and prophets disagree a lot less and a lot less often than many of us would like to think they do.
For example, many people believe B. H. Roberts and Joseph Fielding Smith had a big disagreement about evolution in 1930-1931. The truth is, they agreed on evolution—neither one believed it. But they did have a private discussion (since partially made public) about the double creation theory of Elder Roberts who was himself attempting an unauthorized explanation of Gen. 1 versus Gen. 2. His theory was rejected by Heber J. Grant’s First Presidency and his book remained unpublished until nearly sixty years after his death in 1933.
Tim, (#101),
The Lord himself planted “every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food” (Gen 2:9; see also Moses 3:9 and Abr. 5:9). In other words, what the Lord planted was, in fact, pleasant to the eyes and good for food. The tree of knowledge of good and evil, apparently, was no exception. But, as we’ve already discussed, special consequences were associated with partaking of the fruit of that particular tree. And again, you are not allowing modern apostles and prophets to interpret scripture. Why? Do you doubt their spiritual insight? Do you think they are less intelligent than you are?
The wise among us seek wisdom.
Just because Eve desired wisdom doesn’t mean she had none—she and we “lack wisdom,” but those of us not completely devoid of wisdom will follow the counsel of Elder John E. Fowler, of the Seventy, given when he spoke in general conference about “Becoming Wise unto Salvation†(Ensign, Nov. 1992, 78).
Clearly a knowledge of good and evil would increase our wisdom if we define wisdom as what to do. But if I am wiser now than I was at 14, it doesn’t mean I had no wisdom there.
It seems to me Tim that you read the scriptures in rather absolutist terms when I don’t think that is entailed.
Uhhh, Gary, this scripture is clearly during the seventh day. Want more scriptural proof. Okay:
Sorry, since I’m now suffering from carpal tunnel please excuse my editing. Those last two paragraphs shouldn’t have been block quoted.
Clark,
I am simply talking about wisdom in regards to the partaking of the fruit. If she was wise enogh to know she had to partake of the fruit herself, there was no need to have Satan tempt her into doing it. Why do you think God gave Satan such a “grand” introduction in Moses 4? Again, the ONLY reason Eve partook of the fruit was because she was deceived (according to Talmage) by the Devil.
Tim (#107),
(1.) Moses 3:5 is an interpolative summary, giving the larger context for the physical creation (see #103), and D&C 77:12 fits that paradigm better than it fits yours.
(2.) Talmage does not say Eve had zero knowledge of God’s mind and will, he merely contrasts Eve’s knowledge of God’s warning about the fruit with her lack of complete knowledge about God’s mind and will.
(3.) How can you possibly know what “the only thing she knew” was? Your claim is contradicted by the fact that the Father walked and talked with them in the Garden and taught them His gospel (see #51). Your claim is also contradicted by Elders Nelson and Oaks (see #33).
I’m sorry, Tim. It seems we’re now going in circles. Maybe it’s time to shake hands and just accept the fact that we see things differently.
Read the chapter heading of Abraham 5, Gary.
The Gods finish their planning of the creation of all things—They bring to pass the creation according to their plans.
For example, they organized and prepared the earth that it might bring forth fruit, etc. They didn’t create the fruit, plants, etc at this time. They simply prepared the earth that this would be able to be done. Remember, he had yet to cause it to rain upon the Earth. I suppose you could argue that the plants on the earth at the time didn’t need rain to survive, but–then why make it rain at all?
Follow the narrative. The first six days was the Spiritual creation (the planning thereof) and then they brought to pass the creation according to their plans. I can’t figure out how this could be interpreted as anything but happening on the seventh day.
I have used absolutely nothing but scripture to back my assertions. I do not reject prophetic counsel. However, I have found that through my studies (and trust me, I’ve read everything I could find written on the creation and the fall) the counsel has done nothing but confuse and contradict. This is why, in my searching, I made the decision that the answers must be in the scriptures. Why else would God give us the Books of Moses and Abraham? To further our confusion? So we can have those interpreted as well? I say no. I firmly believe these books were given in order to clarify the missing/fallible portions of the Bible. To say that God continued to obscure and omit things even after these two revelations were given is a statement I’m not willing to make.
I hope those out there that have followed this thread and have not commented will understand my POV.
I am in agreement wit Tim in #109 on this one, just think about the temple presentation of this scene and what is Eve’s response to Satan when he presents the temptation to her? Think hard…
When she answers with the question, this most likely indicates that they really hadn’t received any instruction into alternative forms of knowing good from evil and which is probably true for the simple reason that if they walked and talked with God about the plan of salvation, they would have had no temptations from that source, or in other words, no opposition presented to the teachings of God. In fact without temptation, could they have really sinned anyways and therefore again not knowing the difference between good and evil. Eve was truly deceived, and in other words, she was actually ‘beguiled’ which means he captivated, enchanted, or fascinated by Satan which probably made her bait for deception. Yep, Satan deceived her nothing more nothing less!!
However, I do not agree with Tim’s assertion in #98 that they may not have hear the commandment directly from God himself given what the temple teaches about how God presented the Garden to Adam and Eve; unless the temple is way off!?! Not likely, God told them face-to-face that they were not to partake of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. It may not be found in the scriptures, but it is clear in the temple, and always a better view from the temple!!
Anonymoose,
First off, thank you. Finally.
Second, I did say that I was making an assumption that Eve did not hear the commandment directly from God, whereas Adam definitely did without a doubt, and may have passed the commandment on to Eve. I am willing to admit this is false as this is a large assumption on my part. It’s just an observation of the scriptures and how I reasoned Adam not succumbing to Satan (though I’m not sure where we learn outside of the temple that he was actually approached by Satan) and that Eve did. I was just throwing it out there to see what people thought.
Thank you for your feedback.
Tim (#111),
Nice tantrum.
Don’t all of your arguments end this way?
Oh, and thanks.
As for the end part of #114, if we think about this again from the temple point of view, I think we can reason that Adam had rejected Satan not simply in terms of words but by his own will.
You can note that when Eve approached Adam after partaking of the fruit, she asks him if he intends to keep all of God’s commandments, which in turn he replies that he intends to keep all of them. Similarly, before this point, Satan does approach him first, which is in and of itself an interesting question as to why Adam first, and Adam explicitly denies Satan the chance, but again as you have mentioned, it is not clear in the scriptures that we have.
Tim (#112)
I have been reading, and at first you caught my attention. I looked into what you were saying, the scriptures and all, but what you say concerning the apostles being contradictory, one to another, then so does your scriptures. In further reading of the creation and the fall, I would have to side with Gary.
According to what you are saying, the chapter heading for Abraham chapter 4 says that they were planning, same as chapter 5. For all we know, it took them thousands of years to plan this, my limited knowledge would lead me to believe that it took longer than that. However, if the previous chapters took a look into the planning process, which it says they were, and if they were planning on creating man on the sixth day, which they did (see Abraham 4:26 – and then down to verse 31 which states that this was the sixth time), then I would conclude that they would follow their planning and, as stated in chapter four, create man on the sixth day.
Although you made me think and review these scriptures different than I had before, I am more sure now that the creation happened as has been explained.
Concerning D&C 77 – It could very be easily explained as Gary has written (#110).
Last, your thing about Eve and wisdom is not so conclusive either. You have yet, by your Talmage quote, responded that Eve could not have some wisdom. Wisdom does not necesarily mean to have forsight, but as Nephi stated in 2 Nephi 2, Adam very well could have knowing that if he did not partake man would not be. Talmage does not contradict the living apostles testimony. Besides, if you are saying that an apostle could be wrong (which I am not stating, one way or another), then couldn’t it be Talmage who is wrong?
Nathan,
First, I appreciate the well thought-out response. Thank you.
I agree.
Abraham 5:5
According to all that which they had said concerning every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew; for the Gods had not caused it to rain upon the earth when they counseled to do them, and had not formed a man to till the ground.
Later it says that the Gods caused it to rain (bringing forth plant life, which was previously prepared) and “Formed man out of the dust of the ground,” I don’t see how this can be read as happening before the seventh “day”. Like you said, the sixth “day” had ended in Abr. 4:31. And yet we find out there was still no man to till the Earth.
Read the entire verse of D&C 77:12 and the reciprocal comparison made between the creation and then the end of the world. It can’t justify the creation of man as anything but happening on the 7th day.
Couldn’t it be Talmage who is wrong?
Absolutely. Which is why I have only used scriptures to back up my assertions. I still do not see how one can reconcile Gary’s quotes with Talmage’s, though. Talmage clearly states that she had no wisdom in regards to the fruit. Her only action in eating the fruit “with intent to act contrary to the divine command.” Nelson and Oaks, etc. claim is that she ate the fruit with the fulfilling of the “first” commandment (which they never received–doesn’t make sense) in mind. You’re tellingme this doesn’t conflict.
This is what I’m asserting, Nathan. That the only thing Eve knew concerning the fruit was what God told her about it and what Satan told her about it. She chose to follow Satan and reject God.
If God had told Eve anything else about the fruit, he would have compromised his very own plan. IT HAD TO BE EVE’S DECISION COMPLETELY ON HER OWN! Otherwise why give her the choice? Why not force her to do it? Why would God absolutely forbid her to partake of the fruit, and then teach her all of the benefits of eating said fruit? This makes sense?
One more thing (Boy, do I do this a lot),
Interesting tidbit. The first six days of the creation all begin and end. However, the seventh does not–at least not in the scriptures. The seventh day does not end in Genesis, Moses, nor in Abraham. What does this tell us? If resting was all that God did on the seventh day, why didn’t it then say, “and the evening and the morning were the seventh day”, as it did the other six days?
Any guesses as to why this is? Any guesses as to when the seventh day ended?
I have my belief, though it is admittedly not in the scriptures. But I would like to know what thoughts you guys have.
I’m fairly certain Tim is the illegitmate child I gave up for adoption when I was young. Which tells you how strong nature is over nurture.
Tim, do as I say, not as I do. Don’t yell, or they will be annoyed with you. And rightly so, guys. rightly so.
mother
Thanks Mom. Can I borrow the car?
We learn–from other sources even more peculiar to mormons than modern scripture–that somehow Adam knew that by his partaking of the forbidden fruit “man might be.” According to the plot in the allegory, Adam decides to eat the fruit when he discovers that he and Eve will be separated if he doesn’t and, therefore, unable to have seed. Were did he get that wisdom? It could be that he was enlightened as Eve explained the situation to him. Yet, still, one has to wonder at his ability to grasp the paradox while lacking the abilty to comprehend good and evil. Somehow he did have the wisdom to comprehend the *greater* good–which implies that Eve may have possessed that same intuition.
If Adam and Even didn’t sin, why were cheribim and a flaming sword placed to guard the way of the tree of life lest Adam and Eve partake and live forever in their sins?
did it ever occur to anybody that maybe we are not able to comprehend all the details, so we’ve just been given important highlights? Because it seems to me that there’s way more that the Lord hasn’t revealed. Maybe it’s like a highlight reel on SportsCenter–giving highlights, but not the whole story. And again for two reasons: one-to test our faith and 2-we cannot comprehend the whole truth. What happens when you experience information overload? You tune out. By giving us minimal information, the Lord has sucked us in.
Can anyone shoot holes in this theory by Bruce Satterfield (instructor at BYU-I)?
“The reason the fruit was forbidden was a matter of individual responsibility. If God would have commanded Adam and Eve to partake of the fruit, then God would have been responsible for their fall and therefore would not have been in a position to save His posterity. The Fall must come by man’s agency rather than God imposing fallen conditions upon his children. When Adam and Eve chose to eat the fruit by their own volition, God was free to implement a plan that would help them overcome the consequences of the Fall.”
and
“Difference Between Adam’s Fall and Individual Sins
Adam was taught that the atonement would be made effective for each person through the exercise of faith, repentance, and reception of the Holy Ghost (Moses 5:8; 6:51-52). Adam was confused. The only way to initiate mortality was by eating the forbidden fruit. Why must there be an atonement made for something that he was supposed to do? So he asked, “Why is it that men must repent and be baptized in water? (Moses 6:53)
Atonement for Adam’s Fall
In response the Lord first said: “Behold I have forgiven thee thy transgression in the Garden of Eden” (Moses 6:51–53). Adam and Eve had acted appropriately in the garden by eating the fruit thus opening the way for God’s children to come to mortality. However, eating the fruit brought upon Adam, Eve, and all mankind, mortal and eternal consequences. An atonement must be made in order to free man from these consequences. “
They seem plausible to me, but no other authority I’ve heard or read seems to say these things. Are they all dense, or is he just mistaken?
why do you want to shoot holes in a comment founded in the bible. maybe you need to go read Genisis again. If you are suggesting that God should have forced sin into the world youre up in the night. sounds like this satterfield guy has it right on.
@SamP [Visitor]
that is what Joseph Feilding Smith teaches.
It seems that the application of the laws (sin vs transgression) is not solely based on the nature of the commandment (i.e. word of wisdom was not law when revealed but now is). It seems to have a great deal to do with covenants. The Anti-Lehi Nephites had committed physical murder (which is morally wrong), yet they repented and received forgiveness of their sins. They of course covenanted never to kill again, and they did not – even when “kill” actually meant “defending their own life”.
So it seems to me that we can safely say that there are things that are considered sins and transgressions (and many of these may be social rather than religious), but that covenants make it possible to shift activities from being a transgression to being a sin. So, if we covenant not to speed, but we speed, it becomes a sin for us because we have broken our covenant not to speed.
Tim, thanks for the comment below. VERY interesting!
Thanks, Shara
Interesting tidbit. The first six days of the creation all begin and end. However, the seventh does not–at least not in the scriptures. The seventh day does not end in Genesis, Moses, nor in Abraham. What does this tell us? If resting was all that God did on the seventh day, why didn’t it then say, “and the evening and the morning were the seventh day”, as it did the other six days?
Talmage says what he says. It would be unfair to attempt to spin his words (ala clinton – depends on what “is” means). The following article is also definitive, and clearly states how Eve was deceived.
Jess Christensen (an area seventy) gets it right:
“Lucifer was also in the beginning. He “sought to destroy the agency of man, … [and being] the father of all lies” (Moses 4:3–4) entered the garden to deceive our first parents. He first talked with Adam, but Adam did not yield. Lucifer then tried “also to beguile Eve” (Moses 4:6). He questioned her: “Yea, hath God said—Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?” (Moses 4:7). Challenging one’s recollection of a past event can often create doubt. But Eve stood firm. Lucifer’s first stratagem failed.”
“Ye shall not surely die,” protested Lucifer, directly contradicting the word of the Lord (Moses 4:10; see also D&C 29:41–42). “For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil” (Moses 4:11). Lucifer spoke a partial truth mixed with a falsehood. If Eve were to partake of the fruit, her eyes would indeed be opened “as gods” and she would begin to know good and evil; yet the notion that eating the fruit could immediately make Eve as the gods was a clever deception. The purpose of life can be fulfilled only when we have time to prepare to meet God and learn good and evil by our own experience (see Alma 12:22–26; D&C 29:39).
At Lucifer’s suggestion, Eve began to notice that the forbidden fruit was good for food, or delicious, and pleasant to the eyes. Lucifer “knows well how to catch the eye and arouse the desire of the customer.” 4 Eve then chose to partake of the forbidden fruit. She subsequently encouraged Adam to partake (see Moses 4:12). Adam concluded that God’s command to remain with his wife (see Moses 4:18) was more important than His command to abstain from the fruit. Thus in the face of this enticement, “Adam fell that men might be” (2 Ne. 2:25).
Jess L. Christensen, “The Choice That Began Mortality,” Ensign, Jan 2002, 36
When the story is told properly, in sequence, then the inuendo of a courageous or wise choice goes away, or at least is placed where it belongs, in hindsight.