Disclaimer: to my 5, oh wait I think 6 people read this blog now, readers if you haven't figured it out yet I am a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, or a Mormon. This post will talk about some of the deeper issues associated with Church Doctrine concerning "original sin" or as we like to call it "the fall". This post as always is nothing more than my thoughts, they in no way reflect the CJCLDS stance on the topic. I do use sources that will give a good idea of the doctrine in question, but I in no way speech for the Church. So if you are one of my faithful readers or just some random blog encounter, you can go to http://www.lds.org/ to have any question answered about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.
There is a saying in my Church, "I don't have a problem with the doctrine, I have a problem with the culture." That is to say while I believe the doctrines of my Church I don't necessarily think the way those doctrines are implemented by the members of my church is the best. Another aspect is if those doctrines are taught wrong then sometimes you get bad results. One of those doctrines I think fall into this category for me is the "Fall of Man". While I have come to an understanding of Adam and Eve eating the fruit of knowledge in a way that explains the basics, I think the way it is taught in my Church stifles a fuller understanding of the doctrine and thus the nature of God, free agency, and our own condition here on Earth.
I assume that the only time members of my Church talk about the fall of man in any meaningful manner is in Sunday School. This leads to a bigger problem I have with Sunday School in general. However I still attend Sunday School whenever possible. I still consider it a treat. For those of you who see Sunday School as a free time, then I recommend getting into a situation where you can't go or you are denied to go. The classes that were once a chore will become sweat to you when you are denied them. Also no matter what problems you have with any meeting I highly recommend you attend them. If you are not deriving benefit from a meeting then it is nobody's fault but yours. But back to the point; the perspective I am coming from is the way the topic is taught in Sunday School. I will go over what I think are the basics of the doctrine and then the way I see it being taught and understood, and eventually my concerns with those ways.
According to Lesson 4 of the "Old Testament Gospel Doctrine Teacher's Manual, 12" titled "Because of My Transgression My Eyes Are Opened" There are three foundations for the salvation of man: creation, fall and atonement. The way the lesson presents the pillars the fall is seen as a necessary part of our salvation. The lesson quotes Elder Bruce R. McConkie, "said that our salvation is made possible because of "three divine events—the three pillars of eternity" (A New Witness for the Articles of Faith [1985], 81)." The fall came about because of two commandments given to Adam and Eve, once again from lesson 4 :
" In the Garden of Eden, God commanded Adam and Eve to "be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth" (Moses 2:28). He also commanded them not to eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil (Moses 3:17). As long as they did not partake of the forbidden fruit, they would remain in the garden and would not die. But they also would not be able to obey the command to multiply (Moses 5:11; 2 Nephi 2:23). Heavenly Father gave them agency to choose between the two commands."
The fall isn't all bad according to the lesson. The fall carries with it some benefits. Lesson 4:
"As you discuss these results of the Fall, emphasize how the Fall is beneficial to us. Latter-day revelation clarifies that even before the Creation, Heavenly Father intended our earth life to be a time of testing and proving so we could become more like him (Abraham 3:24–26). This required that we be mortals, able to learn to choose between good and evil, which was made possible through the Fall."
So we know that the fall was a component of our salvation and that with it there are some benefits. I want to go a little deeper. We know that there was a fall but what does that mean? Well it means that Adam and Eve disobeyed a commandment from God. However what does it mean to disobey God? In this sense we use the term transgression instead of sin. The best articulation of the difference between sin and transgression was in the April 1981 Ensign in an article titled, "Salvation: By Grace or by Works?" written by Gerald N. Lund, director of college curriculum in the Church Educational System:
"The concept of sin rests upon the concept of law. If there were no law, there could be no sin (see 2 Ne. 2:13; Alma 42:17), because "sin is the transgression of the law" (1 Jn. 3:4). However, for purposes of understanding the Atonement better, it might be helpful to draw a distinction between two important variations in how the law may be violated. A person may violate the law in spite of his knowledge of it; that is, he breaks the law deliberately. But others may violate the law because they are unaware of its existence (ignorance) or because they do not have sufficient maturity to understand the implications of it (lack of accountability). For clarification, let us use two terms to delineate the important differences in these two concepts. Any violation of the law that is willful and knowing we shall call "sin." But any violation that results either from ignorance or lack of accountability we shall call "transgression." The scriptures do not distinguish between these two terms consistently, but such a distinction may help us understand some important points about the Atonement. For example, it helps us understand why children under the age of accountability cannot sin (see D&C 29:47). Any parent who has observed his children’s behavior knows that they often violate laws of the gospel. They hit brothers and sisters, demonstrate extreme selfishness at times, and can be unmercifully cruel to playmates. But while these are "transgressions" they are not "sins," because as Mormon points out, children are "not capable of committing sin" (see Moro. 8:8). Much the same is true of those who have reached adulthood but have relatively little or no opportunity to learn the principles of righteousness. They also violate the laws of God, sometimes horribly so, as in the case of many primitive peoples, but they are of necessity judged differently because they do not "sin" in the sense of willing and deliberate rebellion against God. (See Rom. 2:12; D&C 82:3; also Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, comp. Joseph Fielding Smith, Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1938, p. 218.)"
So since Adam and Eve did not willfully violate the commandments of God then they made a transgression and thus the fall. One of the natural consequences to the human condition because of Adam's choice was the introduction of death into the world. More importantly we were severed from the presence of God.
Well that is all good and dandy, thanks for the quick lesson in Church Doctrine. Well what is my gripe? My first area of concern is the light in which the choice Adam made is given. Adam was given two choices and made one. It seems that people are of the opinion that it was the best choice or the only choice. I think this is largely due to the wording of lesson 4 and the use of the word benefits. The fact is Adam had two choices either one of which would have led to transgression. It wasn't the best choice it was a choice, a choice that had to be made. I am personally glad that I wasn't the one to be given that choice because well I don't think I could have made either. People point out that because of Adam's choice we have the current plan of salvation and exaltation, thus it was the best choice. In this regard I would like to remind people that nothing is out of the power of God and a different route that preserved our agency and provided for our salvation and exaltation could have been laid out. For if it truly were a choice it could have gone the other way, and I don't see God as one who would gamble on the possibility of failure.
The next issue that is dodged like the plague is why would God put Adam in a situation where he was going to lose no matter what? When asked this question the usual answer is well Adam made the right choice and see how everything works out now? And the class continues without an answer to the question. Once again I would like to restate my opinion that Adam made a choice. One possible answer to the question (which I have yet to discuss in any depth due to dodging of said question) is that maybe God didn't put Adam in that position because of what God was but more because of what Adam was. That is to say, it wasn't that God created, put Adam there and said, do your best which is failure; rather whatever Adam was, it was not enough in the first place so it was impossible for Adam not to fail regardless of the situation created. Adam would fail regardless of what situation created by God because of what Adam was from his first estate. There was a deficiency in Adam and all of us that would prevent us from succeeding. So grace wasn't necessary because of the choice Adam made but because of the inadequacy of what we are. Yeah God's love is deep like that.
Another issue is that of knowledge. In our first estate we chose to go with God and not the Adversary. We were rewarded for that choice by being allowed to be tested and grow on Earth. Well if we chose and the choice meant something doesn't that mean we had a knowledge of good and evil from the get go? So does that mean God took away our knowledge of good and evil? I have to say no because of our belief that Adam gained it when he ate the fruit. So what kind of knowledge of good and evil did we have in our first estate and why is it insufficient for the next estate? This is a serious question for me because if we can learn what the difference is we can learn how to shape our choices so that our understanding of good is magnified and thus our understanding of God.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
This is, I think, an interesting discussion, and I hope to shed some light on some of your questions, or at least help you think about them.
First, let me tell you that much of what you are talking/questioning about is discussed at length in the temple. When you hear that you are taught in the temple it isn't just empty words, there is MUCH to be learned by going.
That being said, I think there are many parts of your discussion that can be talked about learned outside of that special experience.
Okay, to the meat of your discussion.
"Adam was given two choices and made one. ...It wasn't the best choice it was a choice, a choice that had to be made."
-2 Nephi 2 is a great discussion of this entire subject. I think that Lehi puts it very well when he talks about the consequences of both choices. vs. 22-25 seem particularly important.
I have to disagree with you. It was the best choice. (It was the only choice to begin the plan).
Something important to remember, we do not know how long Adam and Eve were IN the garden, how long it took before the decision was made. We do know that life as we know it did not begin until that decision, but before that, since time didn't really matter, we do not know. Why is that important, you may ask. I don't know, maybe it isn't, but when we are discussing the idea of, maybe God could have just done it different if Adam chose wrong, I think it can come into play.
I believe the plan is eternal, it was set up a certain way. God knows how its going to play out. God knew Satan would tempt Eve. God knew they would transgress. God knew the Jews would crucify Jesus. Some believe that this foreknowledge takes away agency, I don't think that is the case, or even the logically conclusion.
You state that in order for it to be a choice, it had to have been able to go both ways. Thats true, and for all we know Adam and Eve chose the other way a million times, but it only takes one time choosing the fruit to start the plan in motion. That isn't much of a gamble. Not only that, but like I said, I believe God knew what would happen.
You see, I don't think our turn here on earth is to prove to God what we would choose, and where we belong in the after life. I think it is to prove it to us. We need the opportunity to make the choices, make the mistakes, repent of those and learn and grow, or we would never be adequately prepared for the responsibilities that eternal life demands.
"The next issue that is dodged like the plague is why would God put Adam in a situation where he was going to lose no matter what?"
-I don't think the issue is accurate. Why assume that the choice Adam made was a failure? In order to be a failure you have to not attain the goal. What is the goal? The goal is for all of God's children to gain a body, have the opportunity to learn and grow, and return.
Think of it this way (the following is my thought process, and as far as I know, can't be backed up by any quotation). God is just. This means, in my opinion, he can't throw you out for no reason. He cannot thrust you from his presence on a whim, or to suit his will. He must live by eternal principles of action and consequence.
If Adam and Eve remained perfect, they could not have been thrust from his presence. If they had not been thrust from his presence there would have been no joy, etc. (see 2 Nephi 2 as stated above).
Adam and Eve had to choose to leave his presence. They had to accept the idea that they would be responsible for the consequences they chose. I would strongly encourage (as you ponder these things) to read The Pearl of Great Price. Particularly in Moses chapters 4 and 5.
As you read about the creation, you will notice that in the way God created the plants, animals, man etc., they could not die. It took the act of Adam to bring death and mortality to the Earth. Maybe that is because it requires imperfection, which God does not have, I don't know.
"Well if we chose and the choice meant something doesn't that mean we had a knowledge of good and evil from the get go?"
I believe we did, yes.
"So does that mean God took away our knowledge of good and evil?"
Yes. Did God take away your knowledge of the first estate? Obviously. You know that everyone who steps foot on this planet knew of the plan. How many of them do now?
This forgetting of everything, and becoming as children (or rather literally becoming children) is necessary. We have to have that clean slate.
I have tried to hit your questions/points. Hopefully the things I have said make sense, and help your thought process. Keep posting on this, I would like to continue to discuss it.
would like to concede that whether it was "a" choice verse the best choice plays little importance in the overall scheme of things. What Adam did and for what reason and his thought process for it are known to God and himself. I'm sure they talk about it all the time. I am open to the idea that it was the best choice. I have a tendency to think that it is. But let me rephrase I think that it wasn't the only choice. The biggest problem I think that comes from this is people tend to give Adam credit for all the benefits of the fall. However none of these benefits are really by Adam's choice, they are derived by God reaction to Adam's actions. I think of it this way; it is like saying well it was a good thing I smoked all those cigarettes because other wise I wouldn't have gotten cancer, and if I didn't get cancer then the doctor couldn't have healed me, and I would have missed out on the blessing of being healed. There is no glory in the fall, only in the redemption given to us by God, and for that only God should be given any glory. There is a propensity in human nature to take credit for things, when the true story is that it is only by the opsis of God that anything good happens. If we realized that from the beginning (literally the beginning) then maybe we would have less problems and would need to be humbled less in life.
A side note about the creation, I think there needs to be a distinction on the capabilities of man and the rest of God's creation. Notice in Moses 2: 22 and 28, God gives to separate command to be fruitful and multiply. Additionally the only time God uses the word replenish was to the command given to man. Another interesting note look to Moses 3: 7. ". . . and man became a living soul, the first FLESH upon the earth. . . " emphasis added. Later God talks about the making of the garden. Notice this key phrase from Moses 3: 9 ". . . I prepared for the use of man; and man saw that it was good for food. . ." My question is if this was paradise and there was no death, then why did man have to eat? In any answer the natural process of consumption leads me to believe that there was some growth going on. Then God goes on and mentions how he then made all the beast of the field, and fowl of the air. Now if you look at the evolutionary record via fossils you make some inferences. The animals of the Devonian (I only use Devonian age because of a movie both you and I have a fondness for) age died off way before the beast of the field took to living. But I'm losing focus on anything meaningful, that is discussion that will lead to a deeper spiritual understanding. So let me continue.
I have no doubt that God knew what was going to happen. Compared to God, Satan is a simpleton. I do agree that all because God knew it would happen doesn't mean there isn't free choice. My issue in this regard comes from the nature of choice in relation to knowing good and evil. It is obvious that man knew something of what good was. As mentioned the reason why Eve was beguiled was that she sought after wisdom. So what is the nature of this knowledge? We talk about how God can not stand transgression and that is the reason why man was expelled. Yet when man ate of the fruit they became aware that they were naked and were ashamed. Now to me shame is felt when you do something wrong. Adam and Eve were naked the whole time. If after you got the knowledge from the fruit and felt shame from activities doesn't that mean those activities were in some way wrong, thus intolerable to God? In this light I think God didn't take away our knowledge of good and evil. Because even without the fruit Eve wanted wisdom, to be like God. In some way we understood what good was. What I want to know is what did the fruit give us exactly that we didn't have before? I realize that this is of little importance as we all know what we are suppose to be doing anyways, but I think it would help make precise the lessons we are to learn about.
Another perspective difference between me and you. You said God is just so he can't throw you out for no reason. Well I don't think he threw anyone out, I think they left. Just like we left our first estate. God didn' t through us out of the first estate we left it. Additionally I think we have a different perspective on 2 Nephi 11. While you interpret it as we need bad in order to understand good, I take it as we need a standard to understand good. For if you take the "opposition in all things" point, the way I think you are taking it, then God could not exist without the devil. Additionally in context with with 2 Nephi 23, it would mean that God could know no good for he does not know sin. I can't find that to be an acceptable conclusion.
Well how do all these thought relate to the fall? Well that will take me a lot longer to put any kind of coherent written text down. But these are just my initial thoughts going into my period of meditation on the subject. I do feel that the number one purpose of the topical exercise it for me to understand what we were before and what we were after so that I know what is accentuated in our positions now. This way we can see better what we have now and learn to focus in on whatever that might be and its development.
This isn't my battle but let me help out a little bit.
"For if it truly were a choice it could have gone the other way, and I don't see God as one who would gamble on the possibility of failure."
I don't think is a necessary worry. A choice entails multiple possibilities; it does not mean any more than one is physically possible. Freewill *could* fall in line with determinism, and so if this is part of some master plan, why not conclude it so?
One example: being a good employee and choosing to stay overtime in your office to finish a project, unaware that the building you're in has actually been locked for security purposes and you'd have been stuck there overtime anyway with nothing better to do...
A related idea: It's idealistically possible that it either may or may not rain here tomorrow. Yet, only one of these possibilities will occur.
Post a Comment