LDS Mormon Scriptures Regarding the Forbidden Fruit

[Rescued One]

Doctrine and Covenant 20
20 But by the transgression of these holy laws man became sensual and devilish, and became fallen man.
Doctrine and Covenants 20

When Adam and Eve received the first commandment, they were in a transitional state, no longer in the spirit world but with physical bodies not yet subject to death and not yet capable of procreation. They could not fulfill the Father’s first commandment without transgressing the barrier between the bliss of the Garden of Eden and the terrible trials and wonderful opportunities of mortal life.
Dallin H. Oaks, The Great Plan of Happiness, General Conference, October 1993
“The Great Plan of Happiness” - Dallin H. Oaks

Pearl of Great Price, Moses 5
10 And in that day Adam blessed God and was filled, and began to prophesy concerning all the families of the earth, saying: Blessed be the name of God, for because of my transgression my eyes are opened, and in this life I shall have joy, and again in the flesh I shall see God.
11 And Eve, his wife, heard all these things and was glad, saying: Were it not for our transgression we never should have had seed, and never should have known good and evil, and the joy of our redemption, and the eternal life which God giveth unto all the obedient.
Moses 5

In the course of mortality, we would become subject to death, and we would be soiled by sin. To reclaim us from death and sin, our Heavenly Father’s plan provided us a Savior, whose atonement would redeem all from death and pay the price necessary for all to be cleansed from sin on the conditions he prescribed (see 2 Ne. 9:19–24).
Dallin H. Oaks, The Great Plan of Happiness, General Conference, October 1993
“The Great Plan of Happiness” - Dallin H. Oaks

The Lord extends special protection to children and shares jurisdiction with earthly parents, even as we enjoy their presence. They cannot sin until they reach the age of accountability, which the Lord has declared to be eight years (see D&C 18:42; D&C 29:47). In fact, the power to even tempt them to commit sin has been taken from Satan. The prophet Mormon taught that “little children are whole, for they are not capable of committing sin. …
Merlin R. Lybbert, The Special Status of Children, General Conference, April 1994
The Special Status of Children - Merlin R. Lybbert

That's it.

 

[Rescued One]

...Apostle John A. Widtsoe said that "In Joseph Smith's philosophy of existence Adam and Eve were raised to a foremost place among the children of men, second only to the Savior. Their act was to be acclaimed. They were the greatest figures of the ages. The so-called 'fall' became a necessary, honorable act in carrying out the plan of the Almighty" (Joseph Smith—Seeker After Truth, p. 160).

Joseph Fielding Smith also said that "the fall of man came as a blessing in disguise, ... I never speak of the part Eve took in this fall as a sin, nor do I accuse Adam of a sin.... it is not always a sin to transgress a law" (Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 1, pp. 114-15).

Sterling W. Sill, a member of the First Quorum of Seventy, made the same point in colorful language:

This old sectarian doctrine, built around the idea of man's natural depravity and weakness inherited from Adam, is at the root of innumerable problems among us. Adam was one of the greatest men who has ever lived upon the earth....

Under Christ Adam yet stands at our head.... Adam fell, but he fell in the right direction. He fell toward the goal....

Adam fell, but he fell upward. Jesus says to us, "Come up higher" (Deseret News, Church Section, July 31, 1965, p. 7).
Changing World Chapter 8

 

[mmksparbud]

Oh what Joy--can you imagine--if it weren't for Satan--we'd never have existed---for Adam and Eve would never had had a single child!!! Which means all those "spirit children" that God and the heavenly mother had---would have had the horrible ordeal of living in the presence of God without ever having known the trails and tribulations of being human---PERISH THE TH0UGHT!

They could not fulfill the Father’s first commandment without transgressing the barrier between the bliss of the Garden of Eden and the terrible trials and wonderful opportunities of mortal life.

How about that! When God speaks, even the elements obey Him. But Adam and Eve couldn't obey His command "without transgressing the barrier between the bliss of the Garden of Eden and the terrible trials and wonderful opportunities of mortal life." What, pray tell, was that barrier???
Their God is so puny--He can't create something from nothing, and can't be obeyed when He commands. Makes some sort of barrier which they couldn't break yet He commands them to??? And now we have Satan for making that command of God possible??? Sounds like their Satan is more powerful than their God. No wonder they honor him with this "sacred" ritual of the aprons! And they wonder why we don't accept this wonderful "truth?" Beats me.

 

[mmksparbud]

...Apostle John A. Widtsoe said that "In Joseph Smith's philosophy of existence Adam and Eve were raised to a foremost place among the children of men, second only to the Savior. Their act was to be acclaimed. They were the greatest figures of the ages. The so-called 'fall' became a necessary, honorable act in carrying out the plan of the Almighty" (Joseph Smith—Seeker After Truth, p. 160).

Joseph Fielding Smith also said that "the fall of man came as a blessing in disguise, ... I never speak of the part Eve took in this fall as a sin, nor do I accuse Adam of a sin.... it is not always a sin to transgress a law" (Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 1, pp. 114-15).

Sterling W. Sill, a member of the First Quorum of Seventy, made the same point in colorful language:

This old sectarian doctrine, built around the idea of man's natural depravity and weakness inherited from Adam, is at the root of innumerable problems among us. Adam was one of the greatest men who has ever lived upon the earth....

Under Christ Adam yet stands at our head.... Adam fell, but he fell in the right direction. He fell toward the goal....

Adam fell, but he fell upward. Jesus says to us, "Come up higher" (Deseret News, Church Section, July 31, 1965, p. 7).
Changing World Chapter 8

 

[Ken Rank]

Do you all really expect anyone to consider anything you have to say when you spend so much time mocking them? If somebody from another religion went after Protestantism the you all attack Mormonism, you wouldn't listen to them.... you would tune them out. Do you really think the Mormons haven't tuned you out when you call their God "puny" and otherwise mock them?

 

[mmksparbud]

Do you all really expect anyone to consider anything you have to say when you spend so much time mocking them? If somebody from another religion went after Protestantism the you all attack Mormonism, you wouldn't listen to them.... you would tune them out. Do you really think the Mormons haven't tuned you out when you call their God "puny" and otherwise mock them?

I am always telling them they have a puny God---for many years now. They wouldn't know what to do if I didn't have some stupid thing to say. I'm SDA---I get mocked on a regular basis! I'm surprised when I'm not! I've developed quite a thick skin now---I have a very sarcastic streak down my back--I do try to curb it, but on here---sometimes I just can't. And I will not back off when it comes to Satan getting the credit for us being able to have children!! That gets my claws out every time--it'll be a cold day in hell when I take that one laying down!

 

[Ken Rank]

I am always telling them they have a puny God---for many years now. They wouldn't know what to do if I didn't have some stupid thing to say. I'm SDA---I get mocked on a regular basis! I'm surprised when I'm not! I've developed quite a thick skin now---I have a very sarcastic streak down my back--I do try to curb it, but on here---sometimes I just can't. And I will not back off when it comes to Satan getting the credit for us being able to have children!! That gets my claws out every time--it'll be a cold day in hell when I take that one laying down!

I understand, I really do. But perhaps their would be a more effective way to go about it. You see... you have to decide if there is ignorance here or outright rebellion. Does the Mormon (or anyone else) KNOW the truth and is taking a deliberate stand against it... or are they raised in what you might call a lie and just don't know better? The latter is still sin, but it isn't one of a bad heart, it is simply not having the full facts.

And... who are we posting for? Our edification or do we seek to help those who are off track? If you are not posting for you but for others... then where they are in their walk, who they are as people, all of that and more needs to be considered before we post.

 

[Ironhold]

Any particular rhyme or reason behind those assembled verses?

That being said -

While what happened in the Garden was a transgression,

1. It demonstrated that human beings did indeed have free will

2. Heavenly Father knew in advance that something of that sort would eventually happen, and so already planned for it.

So rather than wail and gnash teeth over what took place, we understand that we exist *because* of what took place and what it represents for each of us individually.

 

[Ironhold]

Do you all really expect anyone to consider anything you have to say when you spend so much time mocking them? If somebody from another religion went after Protestantism the you all attack Mormonism, you wouldn't listen to them.... you would tune them out. Do you really think the Mormons haven't tuned you out when you call their God "puny" and otherwise mock them?

Mormon Apologetic Scholarship and Evangelical Neglect

In 1997, Carl Mosser & Paul Owens were a pair of graduate students at an Evangelical seminary. They decided to do their paper on the difference between pro-Mormon and anti-Mormon publications.

Their conclusion?

Far too many anti-Mormon authors had gotten sloppy. They just took canned arguments, put their own spin on them, slapped them together, and declared the battle over. That is, assuming they were making actual arguments and not just making things up.

Because of this, the pair determined, mainline Christianity was getting curb-stomped when it came to the theological debate.

As they discovered, subsequent generations of Mormon apologists were making it a point to build off of the work of the previous generations. As time went on, apologetic material became more professional in nature due to not only more people becoming educated but also specifically educated on relevant topics. Between this and the ever-increasing number of people engaging in it, the body of apologetic literature was so vast and thorough that pretty much every major anti-Mormon argument in use at the time had been either defeated outright or tabled for lack of evidence either way.

When they released their paper to the public, far too many voices within mainline Christianity declared the pair to be traitors to the cause and tried to shunt everything down the memory hole.

21 years later, and nothing has changed. The body of pro-Mormon material keeps expanding to address issues as they arise; the biggest challenge is getting it all translated into other languages since most of the major apologetic voices hail from English-speaking countries. Meanwhile, anti-Mormon material is still a mix of "people making stuff up", "old arguments being continuously rehashed", and "people throwing things against the wall to see what sticks".

Every few years some big anti-Mormon author emerges and is hailed as the Second Coming because they seem like someone who can't get bested, but before long they flame out as people start asking questions and things unravel. I practically had a front row seat for the Martha Beck debacle, and by the time that was over and done with Writer's Digest name-dropped her in an op/ed piece about memoir authors who'd been caught lying: Do Memoirs Have to Be True? | WritersDigest.com .

So yeah - this kind of drama is daily for us.

 

[dzheremi]

Serious question here (not mocking; just following from the train of thought begun in the quote from John A. Widtsoe): if Adam and Eve are to be praised as the great because of their part in fulfilling God's plan via the fall, then why do Mormons not similarly praise Satan for his part (in the form of the serpent) in having convinced Eve to take the first bite, which directly led to the fall?

 

[dzheremi]

Do you all really expect anyone to consider anything you have to say when you spend so much time mocking them? If somebody from another religion went after Protestantism the you all attack Mormonism, you wouldn't listen to them.... you would tune them out. Do you really think the Mormons haven't tuned you out when you call their God "puny" and otherwise mock them?

Please let's have a thread -- just one thread -- that does not almost immediately turn into whining and/or shaming of non-Mormons in the name of preserving Mormons' feelings. If we can do so, we might learn something about the content of the quotes given by the OP.

 

[Ironhold]

Serious question here (not mocking; just following from the train of thought begun in the quote from John A. Widtsoe): if Adam and Eve are to be praised as the great because of their part in fulfilling God's plan via the fall, then why do Mormons not similarly praise Satan for his part (in the form of the serpent) in having convinced Eve to take the first bite, which directly led to the fall?

UHF (film) - Wikipedia

In 1989, Orion Pictures was in dire financial straits. This led to the creation of the film that is "UHF".

The premise of the film is that an everyman who is largely unemployable because of his constant daydreaming is given a chance to start over when his uncle wins ownership of a struggling independent television station. Our hero finds that the station's issues are the result of a vicious cycle, and finds himself so mentally and emotionally drained by trying to salvage it that it affects his personal life. This leads to him - in an act of frustration - bailing on the morning kids' show he was hosting and handing the duties over to the station janitor.

...Who is a natural at it. Soon, the morning show becomes so popular that advertiser revenue from it is subsidizing the creation of more original in-house programming. In time, the station is so popular that it threatens the status of a local affiliate station that's consistently been #1 in the ratings in that media market.

Problem is, the uncle loses his shirt on some bad gambles, and is faced with the prospect of having to sell the station to pay for it all. If the everyman can't cough up a rather large sum of money by a set deadline, the owner of the affiliate station is going to buy the station for the sole purpose of taking them offline.

Thing is, earlier in the movie the affiliate station owner gave a penny to a homeless person so that he could appear to be charitable without actually being such. Turns out that the penny was a very rare and valuable coin, and the homeless person understood just how much it was worth. When the homeless person realizes that the independent station is in trouble. he uses a big chunk of what he made by selling the coin to buy stake in it, giving the everyman more than enough to pay everything off.

The station is safe, the everyman & his girlfriend are able to afford a wedding, the homeless guy now has a steady source of income from the dividends he'll be getting, and the affiliate station owner's actions bring the attention of the FCC. The end.

In this situation, would you consider the owner of the affiliate station to be the hero? After all, he gave the homeless person the rare coin whose proceeds enabled the independent station to pay off what the uncle owed. Or is he still the villain for trying to quash the competition in an unfair fashion?

(edit - if anyone here doesn't remember the film, don't feel bad. 1989 produced an absolutely absurd number of blockbuster movies, and a niche comedy like this just ended up getting smeared by the competition.)

 

[mmksparbud]

I understand, I really do. But perhaps their would be a more effective way to go about it. You see... you have to decide if there is ignorance here or outright rebellion. Does the Mormon (or anyone else) KNOW the truth and is taking a deliberate stand against it... or are they raised in what you might call a lie and just don't know better? The latter is still sin, but it isn't one of a bad heart, it is simply not having the full facts.

And... who are we posting for? Our edification or do we seek to help those who are off track? If you are not posting for you but for others... then where they are in their walk, who they are as people, all of that and more needs to be considered before we post.

All of the above!! And yes--at times I am too sarcastic---hard to control--but I won't hold back at anything that smacks of Satanism, which this one particular thing does--we have gone at this before---time after time, since I first found out about it. They have what they call a very sacred ceremony where this scene of the fall is depicted and they put these green aprons on. Satan, if I remember correctly, has a blue one. The apron is a sign of his authority and power and he has them put on the green ones. You can look under "The Mormon green apron ceremony" and you will get pictures of the whole thing---they usually will not discuss the posts that talk anything about what they consider their sacred ceremonies. On this topic they usually stay away. But once in a while they will come on and defend this saying it is not honoring Satan. They may not consider it doing that--never the less-- it does.

 

[dzheremi]

In this situation, would you consider the owner of the affiliate station to be the hero? After all, he gave the homeless person the rare coin whose proceeds enabled the independent station to pay off what the uncle owed. Or is he still the villain for trying to quash the competition in an unfair fashion?

First of all, I love UHF. One of my favorite movies. It's so silly and wonderful.

Unfortunately, I think this is a slightly different view than the one I was asking about.

But if you wanted to go this route, the argument could be made that Adam and Eve were more like George's uncle, and the real hero (the real 'George') is Christ. Think about it: the effect of Adam and Eve's fall (~ the gambling loss and subsequent selling of the station) was what required that Christ come to redeem us, leaving the serpent (RJ Fletcher) that was the proximate cause of the fall (and by his continuing menace via the influence of that fall upon humanity the most immediate threat to its ultimate completion to the doom of humanity) to play something of a bit part. Yes, he's around and he's a bad guy, but he's no match for Christ (George), who beats him and turns him back at every turn ("you shall not tempt the Lord your God", "get behind me, Satan!", etc.).

So I ask you: How large of a role does George's uncle have in that movie? Would it be right to praise George's uncle as a great man for having set off the chain of events that he sets off? And if you would praise him for that, then why would not also praise RJ Fletcher, who has an even bigger role in the events?

According to the Revelation of St. John, it is Satan who will be bound at the end times, not Adam and Eve. Adam and Eve and their progeny (us) were rather released from their own bondage (to sin and death) with the sacrifice of Christ upon the cross and His glorious resurrection, hence traditional Christianity has preferred to focus on that and sing praises about that instead. Adam and Eve are a done deal, as are all of us who accept Christ and put on Christ by taking up the cross and following Him.

A Coptic hymn for the Resurrection of our Lord and God Jesus Christ, sung in English:

All ye heavenly multitudes, sing unto our God melodies of praise; rejoice together with us today, in the Resurrection of the Lord Christ. Today were fulfilled the prophecies and the sayings of the forefathers were realized. The Lord is risen from the dead, and He is the Firstfruit of them who slept. The Lord has awakened as one out of sleep, and as a mighty man shouting by reason of wine; He granted us eternal joy, and freed us from the bitter bondage.

A Byzantine (Arab Greek Orthodox) hymn, sung in Arabic by Lebanese legend Fairuz (translation in video):

Jesus Christ is "He Who freed Adam in the Jordan" (a reference to our Lord's baptism).

So I guess a new question could be: Why does Mormonism focus on Adam and Eve to begin with? All the mentions of either that I can find in our (Coptic) hymns and songs are things like "You did not listen to the serpent" (a popular song about St. Mary the Theotokos being the new Eve) and similar allusions that make clear that what we have now -- with the coming of Christ -- completely overturns what was done before, and is infinitely superior to it. It's hard not to see any focus on Adam and Eve as a step backwards, in this context. (cf. Mormonism's insistence on building temples and worshiping in them, Mormonism's historical defense of polygamy by reference to OT figures, etc.)

 

[Ken Rank]

Mormon Apologetic Scholarship and Evangelical Neglect

In 1997, Carl Mosser & Paul Owens were a pair of graduate students at an Evangelical seminary. They decided to do their paper on the difference between pro-Mormon and anti-Mormon publications.

Their conclusion?

Far too many anti-Mormon authors had gotten sloppy. They just took canned arguments, put their own spin on them, slapped them together, and declared the battle over. That is, assuming they were making actual arguments and not just making things up.

Because of this, the pair determined, mainline Christianity was getting curb-stomped when it came to the theological debate.

As they discovered, subsequent generations of Mormon apologists were making it a point to build off of the work of the previous generations. As time went on, apologetic material became more professional in nature due to not only more people becoming educated but also specifically educated on relevant topics. Between this and the ever-increasing number of people engaging in it, the body of apologetic literature was so vast and thorough that pretty much every major anti-Mormon argument in use at the time had been either defeated outright or tabled for lack of evidence either way.

When they released their paper to the public, far too many voices within mainline Christianity declared the pair to be traitors to the cause and tried to shunt everything down the memory hole.

21 years later, and nothing has changed. The body of pro-Mormon material keeps expanding to address issues as they arise; the biggest challenge is getting it all translated into other languages since most of the major apologetic voices hail from English-speaking countries. Meanwhile, anti-Mormon material is still a mix of "people making stuff up", "old arguments being continuously rehashed", and "people throwing things against the wall to see what sticks".

Every few years some big anti-Mormon author emerges and is hailed as the Second Coming because they seem like someone who can't get bested, but before long they flame out as people start asking questions and things unravel. I practically had a front row seat for the Martha Beck debacle, and by the time that was over and done with Writer's Digest name-dropped her in an op/ed piece about memoir authors who'd been caught lying: Do Memoirs Have to Be True? | WritersDigest.com .

So yeah - this kind of drama is daily for us.

It is a shame, you shouldn't have to put up with it. I don't agree with some of your beliefs, but I wasn't aware that our doctrinal beliefs are what ultimately save us.

 

[Ken Rank]

Yes.



Everyone is my neighbor. That doesn't mean that everyone's theology is correct. You seem to be confusing different precepts.



I don't know what you're talking about. Christ, Who is God, corrected the errors of those around Him ("You have heard it said... , but I say unto you..."), and sometimes used very harsh language in chastising those who were not following the right way (calling them whitewashed tombs full of dead men's bones and such). It is not across-the-board wrong to be blunt in your criticism of others' religions or approaches to religion, if this is appropriate within the context of the conversation, though I do agree with you that there are more effective ways and less effective ways. Personally, I feel like I've already tried the potentially more effective (or at least 'nicer') ways -- just ask anyone here about the length I have gone to in order to talk to Mormons about the traditional Christian belief in the Holy Trinity -- and found those just as ignored and mocked and rejected as anything I might say that is more openly confrontational. Given that, it is at least understandable to me that some people would prefer barbs to hugs, as I also occasionally do. Lord have mercy.



Charming, but I'd rather actually discuss the topic, as I am currently trying to do with Ironhold.

Just so you know... I wasn't thinking of anything you said when I spoke about those who demean Mormons. It wasn't your post(s) I had in mind.

 

[dzheremi]

I know. That's fine. I'm not personally offended or anything, I just don't think it is right to bring up Mormon (or anyone's) feelings in a thread that is about theology. Theology is not about feelings, and if everything gets derailed by questions of how others may feel about a point being made, or how that point is made, then we never actually discuss the point itself to see what it is about, or if it is true or not.

 

[Ken Rank]

I know. That's fine. I'm not personally offended or anything, I just don't think it is right to bring up Mormon (or anyone's) feelings in a thread that is about theology. Theology is not about feelings, and if everything gets derailed by questions of how others may feel about a point being made, or how that point is made, then we never actually discuss the point itself to see what it is about, or if it is true or not.

It isn't there feelings. If I began to demean the Oriental Orthodox, attack the aspects of your walk that you consider holy, profane those holy things, teach others ardently that your path is no different than a cult.... would you come to me for answers if you had questions? No... you would distance yourself as quickly and efficiently as you could. In fact, you would warn others within your sect/denomination to avoid me because of my anti-missionary type efforts. Well... that is what goes on here, thread after thread after thread. Mormons are demeaned, belittled, ridiculed and more because they have beliefs we don't hold to. Since it is coming from all Protestant circles, then do you think they might... if looking for answers outside of the realm in which they currently live.... come to anyone here for answers? No... they won't... just like you wouldn't.

So this isn't about feelings, this is about being a light. When we name call and demean others we are not being a light... we are walking in darkness and defending our steps with our assumed superior understanding.

 

[Ironhold]

I know. That's fine. I'm not personally offended or anything, I just don't think it is right to bring up Mormon (or anyone's) feelings in a thread that is about theology. Theology is not about feelings, and if everything gets derailed by questions of how others may feel about a point being made, or how that point is made, then we never actually discuss the point itself to see what it is about, or if it is true or not.

As Paul noted in 1 Corinthians, any truth not spoken with love and wisdom is meaningless.

Yet far too often, critics display no love or wisdom at all in their attacks.

 

[Ken Rank]

As Paul noted in 1 Corinthians, any truth not spoken with love and wisdom is meaningless.

Yet far too often, critics display no love or wisdom at all in their attacks.

That is the I am trying to make. Like Paul said, if whatever it is we are doing lacks love, there is no point. There are some folks on this forum that just say the most vile and mean things to Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses that are just not called for.