LDS Free Agency

TasteForTruth said:

I agree that this could get complicated, but that's likely due to some misunderstandings of principles or ideas that are foundational to what we're now discussing. I'm sure we can sort it out though. Once we clear up the foundational stuff, what rests on top of it will be clearer.

I agree, within the confines of what I've already posted, that Adam and Eve were like "little children." There is a certain extent to which that is accurate, but taking it any further does not work.

Adam and Eve were innocent in the Garden of Eden, not knowing good and evil and not feeling any shame or embarrassment over their nakedness. These are emotions that came after the Fall. Adam and Eve were much like [(not exactly like)] little children who are naturally naive and trusting and lacking self-consciousness and knowledge of good and evil because they are innocent. Pearl of Great Price Student Manual - Religion 327 : Moses 3:18 - 25 - Adam and Eve Were Husband and Wife insertion mine
​

And as far as their "sin" in concerned, the reason that we call it a transgression rather than a sin is because the act that they did—eating a piece of fruit—is not inherently wrong. It's not like murder or adultery, for example, which are sinful. It was only wrong in that instance because God had instructed them not to eat that specific fruit, for the reason he spelled out—it would cause their death. Also, the eating of the fruit of Knowledge of Good and Evil was the actual means established by God himself by which man would bring upon himself mortality. He put the tree there precisely so that they would have the choice to enter mortality. The act that brought about the fall was part of the plan from the beginning. It was something Adam and Eve had to do. (Doctrines of Salvation, vol 1., 115) Of course, God would not force them to do it. He would not impose upon them death—spiritual or physical. They had to choose it for themselves.

I can understand why you thought that Adam and Eve were not accountable, in connection with our referring to them as "like little children." But as I mentioned, there is a certain extent only to which that phrase applies to Adam and Eve.

Click to expand...

I agree that accountability is essential to moral agency, but I also believe that moral agency is ours even when we are not facing moral choices (such as with Adam and Eve in the Garden, except in the case of the forbidden fruit), or when, as in the case of little children, accountability is suspended through an act of divine grace. We need to remember that "little children are alive in Christ..." and that "the power of [Christ's] redemption cometh on all them that have no law..." (Moroni 8:22) It is only because God's mercy is extended to them that little children are saved. Otherwise little children—who are simply not capable of fulfilling the law—"must have gone to an endless hell." (v. 13) But as it is, "Little children cannot repent; wherefore, it is awful wickedness to deny the pure mercies of God unto them, for they are all alive in him because of his mercy." (v. 19)

So accountability is essential to moral agency, but its absence is not necessarily indicative of absence of moral agency.

Click to expand...

Now, I don't believe Satan has moral agency anymore. Nor his followers. They are now being acted upon by the law. (2 Ne. 2:11-27) They can no longer choose good. It is not in their power. They can only choose evil. They have no truth in them, and are therefore in total bondage. (John 8:32) That can happen to us as well if we give ourselves wholly over to the influence of Satan. (see Ether 15, where the final destruction of the Jaredites is detailed)

Click to expand...

skylark1 said:

If I remember correctly, the reason why I though that LDS believed that Adam and Eve were not accountable was because of what at least one LDS poster has stated here. Unfortunately those comments cannot be viewed as they were in the old LDS forum, and my request for that forum to be viewable has been met with silence. IIRC, it was also stated that the reason why LDS consider Adam and Eve eating the fruit to be a transgression rather than a sin, was because they did not know good and evil. I had not heard befor that it was due to the act itself not being inherently wrong.

Click to expand...

skylark1 said:

Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I'm not sure if your last comment is logical.

Click to expand...

skylark1 said:

When I brought up those who chose to rebel with Satan (according to LDS theology), I wasn't really concerned with the present but with the time that they chose to do so, the war in heaven, their expulsion and condemnation.

Click to expand...

TasteForTruth said:

Well they didn't have a comprehension of evil. That is true. And they had no comprehension of "good" either. But they did have a comprehension of choice and obedience and consequence. And therein lies their accountability.

I think Elder Oaks talked about the distinction between sin and transgression in GC a while back. No time to look for it now, but it's there.

Click to expand...

skylark1 said:

Is this that you what you were thinking of?

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.

Dallin H. Oaks, "“The Great Plan of Happiness”", Ensign, Nov. 1993, 72
​

Click to expand...

TasteForTruth said:

Yeah, that was the talk I was thinking of. I think it's worth pointing out that the distiction he draws between sin and transgression applies most specifically to the fall, and that it will not usually be applicable in other places where the word "transgression" is used. In fact, if memory serves, Elder Oaks also spoke about sin and transgression in GC at some other time, giving the nuances between the two (to whatever extent there are any) a little more coverage. I could be wrong, but I think it was Oaks.

Click to expand...

bbbbbbb said:

So, it appears to me that Mormonism now draws an ultra-fine distinction between sin and transgression only with the Fall, and not in other cases, Is this correct?

Click to expand...

alfonsobonetti said:

Not sure what gave you that idea, but no that is not correct.
Life itself is full of sin and transgression.

Click to expand...

bbbbbbb said:

Is sin one definite thing in contradistinction to transgression or are they synonymous with each other?

Click to expand...

alfonsobonetti said:

Sin is transgression but not all transgressions are sin.

Click to expand...