On 3月2日, 午後1:52, Jeff <jeff_...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> I was reading the March 2008 edition of the Ensign magazine.
>
> In the article entitled "The Atonement of Jesus Christ", it says on
> page 35, "His ransom for Adam's original transgression so that no
> member of the human family is held responsible for that sin ... while
> all members of the human family are freely given a reprieve from
> Adam's sin through no effort of their own, they are not given a
> reprieve from their own sins unless they pledge faith in Christ ...
> and press forward in faithful endurance the remainder of life's
> journey."
>
> This appears to be a huge theology ****ft in LDS theology.
Perhaps, from the outside, maybe.
But, no. No changes.
> I have spoken to several Latter-day Saints and they do not believe
> that Adam and Eve sinned in the Garden of Eden when they disobeyed
> God's commandment.
Sin has a number of meanings, depending on who's using the word and
what they are talking about. Haven't we gone the rounds on this
before?
For instance, there was a thread here that you participated in last
June titled, "Original Sin - a foolish doctrine?" (I'm not up for a
snurl today, you can search the group on google for "adam sin
transgression" and find it quickly.)
> I have seen conflicting teaching through Mormon history on whether or
> not Adam sinned.
Well, sort of. Depends on whether you read "sin" narrowly or broadly.
> Elder Bruce R. McConkie said, "It is proper and according to the
> scriptural pattern to speak of the transgression of Adam, but not the
> sin of Adam" (Mormon Doctrine, p. 804).
>
> Joseph F. Smith said, "He [mankind] dies in consequence of the sin of
> Adam" (Teachings of Presidents of the Church - Joseph F. Smith, p.
> 89).
>
> And then Joseph Fielding Smith, tenth LDS president, 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" (Pearl of Great Price
> Student Manual, p. 13).
My memory is that you have a comment from a father and son in there.
You might blame the different phrasing on the generation gap, or you
might blame it on "sea changes" in the context of the useage that was
current at the time of each statement.
> If you study the Pearl of Great Price, both Adam and Eve glorify God
> for their transgression (see Moses 5:10-11).
Uhm, no. They glorified God that there eyes were opened and yet they
were (by the grace of Christ) free to repent. The glorified God for
the plan of salvation that gave them the op****tunity to try their
understanding and discover it was not perfect, but still allow them,
having breached a law, to repent and overcome the breach.
Whether you call the breach a transgression or a sin depends on what
you want your audience to understand, as well as what the audience
would understand by each word.
Sin can be used to refer to any breach of a law resulting in
culpability. In that sense, every mistake, however trivial, however
unintentional, is a sin. (And even many things that aren't even
mistakes, just the result of unfortunate combinations of cir***stances
are sins.)
But if the audience would misunderstand the partaking of the forbidden
fruit by two who were innocent as being equivalent, say, to too adults
intentionally disobeying the Lord's commandments relative to ***ual
morality, it was not that kind of sin.
So, some time between the father's time and the son's time as
president of the church, McConkie and others started borrowing the
word "transgression" to help the members see that there is a
difference.
> Is the LDS Church now changing her view again?
Oh, I'm sure there are many members of the church who are continually
changing their views. Has a lot to do with that thing called
repentance. Or, unfortunately, in some cases, with the opposite of
repentance.
joudanzuki, once again out of time for this kind of thing for the
weekend
|
