Response to Mormon Objections to Original Sin

 Introduction

The following is a refutation of some objections Mormons (and other non-Christians) make in regard to the doctrine of Original Sin.    (UPDATE: Please see my comments below for a response to a recent Mormon critique.)

 

Objection #1:“The Fall was not a sin because God planned it”

The first objection we deal with essentially says that the Fall of Adam was planned from God by the start, so Adam is not to be blamed for it. In fact, say the Mormons, the Fall was even necessary for man to “progress” towards divinity.

Here are some quotations from “The Pearl of Great Price Student Manual”

 

“It was Eve who first transgressed the limits of Eden in order to initiate the conditions of mortality. Her act, whatever its nature, was formally a transgression but eternally a glorious neccesity to open the doorway to eternal life. Adam showed his wisdom by doing the same. And thus Eve and ‘Adam fell that man might be’ [2 Nephi 2:25].”Some Christians condemn Eve for her act, concluding that she and her daughters are somehow flawed by it. Not the Latter-day Saints! Informed by revelation, we celebrate Eve’s act and honor her wisdom and courage in the great episode, called the Fall…Brigham Young declared, ‘We should never blame Mother Eve, not the least’ (in Journal of Discourses, 13:145). 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 sin…This was a transgression of the law, but not a sin…for it was something Adam and Eve had to do!’ [i]Doctrines of Salvation, 1:114-15]” (in Conference Report, Oct. 1993, 98; or Ensign, Nov. 1993, 730.)

So, what these quotes are essentially saying is: Adam and Eve did not rebel against God, they did not sin in eating the forbidden fruit, because God planned it all. It was something they had to do!

But did God really plan that it must happen, or did He merely allow it to happen?

(Note: the article is wrong also in claiming transgression does not mean sin. Transgression is sin. This will be covered in Objection #2 below.)

A point that is brought up to support the idea that the Fall “had to“ happen is the claim that Adam & Eve couldn’t have had children if they’d remained in Eden. (For example, the why prophets website makes this point). In other words, as long as they remained in Eden, they were somehow unable to fulfil the “be fruitful and multiply” command.
This point is not valid. It is not correct to imply that Adam and Eve spent years trying unsuccessfully to conceive before the Fall. There is absolutely no evidence for this in Genesis. In fact, in Genesis there are two separate creation accounts; firstly the six days of creation account then the detailed description of Adam and Eve. Of course there is only one creation, not two, but there are two accounts, the first (Genesis 1:1 –2:4) dealing with the universe, the second dealing specifically with man and woman (Gensesi 2:5-24). The serpent incident comes RIGHT AFTER the second one!. To suggest there is a) a timelapse in which Adam and Eve sought to conceive, but couldn’t , or b) that the Fall was necessary to enable them to conceive, is totally unsupported by the text.

The point is sometimes added that Adam and Eve did not even know they were naked (Genesis 2:25) until they ate the fruit (Genesis 3:7) and therefore they could not conceive children until the Fall!

The problem with this view is that it confuses shame with knowledge. There is absolutely no reason to suppose Adam and Eve did not know how children were supposed to be conceived before the fall. In fact, in Genesis 1:28 God told Adam to have dominion over all the world. Yet the Mormon position would have us believe Adam did not then know how to procreate!

What happened after the Fall was that Adam and Eve first experienced shame. Animals know how to reproduce, but they do not know shame, nor do they know they are unclothed, because, being mere animals, they do not know sin. Yet animals know how to reproduce. Of course the one who was given dominion over them (Adam) knew how children were conceived! So it is quite unreasonable to suggest that just because Adam and Eve had no children before the Fall, the could not have conceived without the Fall.

The Fall was known by God, but not willed by Him. It was part of His permissive will, but not His ordaining will.

Mormons here misunderstand God’s permissive will as opposed to His ordaining will, and His plan for Man without a Fall.

Mormons also makes the mistake of thinking a child must sin in order to face the real world. A child does not have to sin! If it simply obeys its parent, then there is no problem.

Corollary #1: “Without the Fall, man could never get out of Eden.”

This is pure speculation. Mormons cannot say that man would have been stuck forever in Eden. 3) 2 Nephi 2:22-25: presumes Adam and Eve would have spent eternity in the garden of Eden. But this is not the case. (The JWs make this error also). Romans 8:28-30 shows that God’s elect are predestined to glory, with or without the Fall.

Corollary #2: “The Fall must have been planned by God, else the Fall is a punishment and this makes God unfair, punishing us all for something Adam did.”

God is not unjust. We do not have a RIGHT to something SUPERNATURAL. Any more than a cat has a right to something supernatural. We are given supernatural grace as a FAVOUR, and for no other reason. We are not punished for Adam’sin, rather we have lost our inheritance as has been explained earlier. This does not at all make God out to be unjust, any more than the boss who retracts his offer of tickets to the opera.

Note that the alternatives which this corollary proposes are not correct. The corollary fails to mention that the most important alternative to the Fall being a “blessing”as Mormons suppose, is that the Fall did not have to happen. And THIS is why the Fall is a punishment (specifically a loss of inheritance). This corollary’s insistence that the Fall HAD TO happen leads to the conclusion that it mut be a blessing. But this view is false, as I have said, because the Fall did NOT have to happen.

(Note the connection also between the “God planned it” section and the “no free will” section in Objection #4)

Mormons will also sometimes claim that The Fall had to happen because “children have to get hurt so they can learn.“ in other words, Adam had to get hurt so he could get out of Eden. The error with this view is that a) it thinks “getting hurt” was always part of God’s plan. and b) that disobeying God is somehow ok since you have to get hurt to learn. Both points are wrong: a) it was not God’s plan that Adam should get hurt in order to get to heaven; Romans 8:28-30 shows the elct were predestined, to glory without any reference to a necessity of the Fall; b) Adam deliberately disobeyed God, using his free will. He did not have to disobey, else God is the author of sin, which in His nature He cannot be.

The other point to mention is that is that this is a circular argument. It assumes the Fall is important, even necessary, in God’s plan, then tries to fit the prohibition of eating into this picture. What we should understand is that the OBEDIENCE of Adam is more important, and is what God requires. God does not require the Fall. The Fall was not absolutely predestined to happen; it was a result of Adam’s free will. The Mormon view is wrong because it thinks the Fall is important in the sense that it enables us to get to heaven. Again, it is wrong because Romans 8:29-20 shows that we were predestined for glory, with or without the Fall. So the Fall was not important for God’s plan. The Fall only necessitated the Incarnation of the Second Person of the Holy Trinity, but the Fall did not make an entry to heaven open that was not there before.

In contrast, the effects of the Fall have led an untold number of souls to hell as a result of their personal sin, sin they would not have committed had it not been for the fall. So it is safe the say the fall was a terrible disaster for the human race, and not what the Mormons think, a blessing.

Summary of this section

• The Fall did not have to happen. It was dependent on Adam’s free will.
• The comand to “be fruitful, multiply” in no way indicates that Adam and Eve could not have conceived without the Fall. In contrast, the Mormon view would indicate God was tricking man, giving him a commmand he could not achieve.
• There is no reason to believe Adam and Eve (and the rest of the human race) would be stuck forever in Eden with no chance of heaven, if it had not been for the fall. In coontrast, Romans 8 says we were predestined for glory, with or without the fall.
• The Mormon view of the Fall dismisses the fact that so many souls are lost in hell as a result of their personal sin, a result of their disobediece to God. Yet they say Adam’s disobedience was a blessing, not a sin!
• Mormons fail to distinguise God’s ordaining will from His permissive will. His permissive will encompasses those events which he allows,but which he does not desire for man. Yet He has given man free will and man must accept the consequences of his actions.
• Mormons think Adam had to fall in order to learn how to be more like God. But if Adam had been obedient in the first place he would have no need to suffer: his obedience would have been pleasing to God and God would have welcomed him into heaven at the appointed time.

The bottom line: The Fall did not have to happen. It only happened because of Adam’s sinful disobedience of God’s command, not because God “made” it happen.

Objection #2: ” It was not a sin ; it was a transgression”

The next objection we deal with is the distinction made in Mormon theology between sin and transgression.

Elder Dallin H. Oaks said that the

“contrast between a sin and a transgression reminds us to be 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’. 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 some thing different, but the distinction seems meaningful in the circumstances of the fall” (in Conference Report, Oct. 1993, 98; or Ensign, Nov. 1993, 730.)

So, according to Mormonism, it wasn’t a sin, just a transgression , and it HAD to be done. (It had to be done, supposedly, else we’d still be stuck in Eden, see objection #1.) Mormons tend to define “transgress” as “to go beyond the limits or conditions”. They should go to the logical conclusion, however, and accept that “to go beyond the limits” is disobedience and disobedience is sin.
The problem with the Mormon view is that it disregards the plain fact that Adam and Eve DISOBEYED God. And that is a sin, no two ways of looking at it.

(The other point here is: they say men will not be punished for Adam’s sin. There is a sense in which this is quite correct: man will only be for personal sin. However, he lost his inheritance for Adam’s fault. This is not the same as being punished (see my example of the opera tickets in the other file, also see the next paper).

In Mormonism another meaning of the word transgress is “to go beyond the limits or conditions.” Adam and Eve went beyond the limits that would have kept them, so Mormons believe, in the Garden of Eden forever, and in so doing brought death to the human race, and thus an opportunity to get out of Eden and into heaven. The problem with this view of course is that it assumes we were going to be stuck in Eden for eternity had it not been for the fall. However Romans 8 says we are predestined to glory, with or without the Fall.

Let’s take a closer look at the word “transgression”

 

Rom 5:14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam’s transgression [3847], who is the figure of him that was to come.

Here is what Strong’s Concordance has to say:

3847 parabasis {par-ab’-as-is}

AV – transgression 6, breaking 1; 7

 

• 1) a going over
• 2) metaph. a disregarding, violating
• 2a) of the Mosaic law
• 2b) the breach of a definite, promulgated, ratified law
• 2c) to create transgressions, i.e. that sins might take on the character of transgressions, and thereby the consciousness of sin be intensified and the desire for redemption be aroused

So it doesn’t simply mean “disregard” or whatever.

Rom 5:15 speaks of Adam’s “offense”

 

Rom 5:15 But not as the offence [3900], so also the free gift. For if through the offence [3900] of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.

Again from Strong’s:

 

3900 paraptoma {par-ap’-to-mah}AV – trespass 9, offence 7, sin 3, fall 2, fault 2; 23

 

• 1) to fall beside or near something
• 2) a lapse or deviation from truth and uprightness
• 2a) a sin, misdeed

This word is used several times in this part of Paul’s letter.

Summary of this Section:

It is clear that the Bible treats “sin” and “transgression” as meaning the same thing. Mormonism cannot justify the distinction made in their theology. Further, it is quite striking that there is no mention in Paul’s letters that God somehow “wanted” Adam and Eve to eat the fruit? It is not mentioned in Romans 8:28-30 and it is certainly not mentioned in Romans 5.

So it is not valid to say it was not a sin because it was “only” a transgression”!

(See also here for a few additional thoughts on this subject)

Objection #3: “It was not a sin because it was not a command”

Mormons say: God warned Adam and Eve about the tree – it was not a command in the sense that we understand it. Eve understood this is as simply advice, as she explained to the serpent in Genesis 3:2-3.

But what does Strong’s concordance have to say?

 

Gen 3:2 And the woman [0802] said [0559] (8799) unto the serpent [05175], We may eat [0398 ] (8799) of the fruit [06529] of the trees [06086] of the garden [01588 ]:Gen 3:3 But of the fruit [06529] of the tree [06086] which [is] in the midst [08432] of the garden [01588 ], God [0430] hath said [0559] (8804), Ye shall not eat [0398 ] (8799) of it, neither shall ye touch [05060] (8799) it, lest [06435] ye die [04191] (8799).

0559 ‘amar {aw-mar’}

AV – said 4874, speak 179, answer 99, command 30, tell 29, call 7, promised 6, misc. 84; 5308

• 1) to say, speak, utter
• 1a) (Qal) to say, to answer, to say in one’s heart, to think, to command, to promise, to intend
• 1b) (Niphal) to be told, to be said, to be called
• 1c) (Hithpael) to boast, to act proudly
• 1d) (Hiphil) to avow, to avouch

This same word amar is found 11 times in Genesis chapter 1.(verses 3,6,9,11,14,20,22,24,26,28,29). It is certainly not menaing “advice” in these instances.

Strong’s concordance for Gen 2:16 clearly shows it is a COMMAND:

The verb „commanded”

 

Gen 2:16 And the LORD [03068] God [0430] commanded [06680] the man, saying [0559], Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat

06680 tsavah {tsaw-vaw’}

AV – command 514, charge 39, commandment 9, appoint 5, bade 3, order 3, commander 1, misc 4; 494

 

• 1) to command, charge, give orders, lay charge, give charge to, order
• 1a) (Piel)
• 1a1) to lay charge upon
• 1a2) to give charge to, give command to
• 1a3) to give charge unto
• 1a4) to give charge over, appoint
• 1a5) to give charge, command
• 1a6) to charge, command
• 1a7) to charge, commission
• 1a8 ) to command, appoint, ordain (of divine act)
• 1b) (Pual) to be commanded

From the above analysis we see there is no support whatsoever to suggest that God’s command to Adam in Genesis 2:16 can be seen merely as a piece of “advice”. It was a command, no two ways of looking at it.

A corollary that may be suggested to defend the Mormon position is that Adam and Eve disobeyed because they did not know what “to die” meant (in Genesis 2:17). This position, firstly, does not detract from the fact that they DID know it was a command. And secondly, to suggest that God told them they would die without their knowing what it meant would hardly constitute useful advice. It’s like saying “don’t’ do that, else duh duh duh”. If this was the case, and God really wanted the Fall to happen, He need not have said anything!

The verb “die” in Genesis 2:17:

 

Gen 2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely [04191] die [04191].

Again, we see what Strong’s has to say:

04191 muwth {mooth}

AV – die 424, dead 130, slay 100, death 83, surely 50, kill 31, dead man 3, dead body 2, in no wise 2, misc 10; 835

• 1) to die, kill, have one executed
• 1a) (Qal)
• 1a1) to die
• 1a2) to die (as penalty), be put to death
• 1a3) to die, perish (of a nation)
• 1a4) to die prematurely (by neglect of wise moral conduct)
• 1b) (Polel) to kill, put to death, dispatch
• 1c) (Hiphil) to kill, put to death
• 1d) (Hophal)
• 1d1) to be killed, be put to death
• 1d1a) to die prematurely

The meaning of the word can also be to die as penalty. If Adam and Eve did not know what this meant, then it casts doubts on God’s integrity. Of course they knew they should not eat the fruit!

Summary of this section

To claim it was not a sin because God’s command was not really a command is a denial of the plain meaning of the Hebrew word tsavah (to command). To claim Adam and Eve did not know what “to die” meant would indicate God was tricking them, which in His ALL-HOLY nature He cannot do.

Objection #4: “It was not a sin because Adam and Eve did not know right from wrong”

(This objection can also take the form “it was not a sin because Adam and Eve had no free will” )

The Mormon position is essentially saying that Eve has no free will, she was just going about like a robot. Bu the Bible is quite clear that she and Adam were not allowed to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. They chose to disobey God’s clear command. For example, here is what 1 Timothy 2:14 has to say:

 

1Timothy 2:14 And Adam was [538] not deceived [538], but the woman being deceived [538] was in the transgression. [3847].

The word “disobedient”

 

Rom 5:19 For as by one man’s disobedience [3876] many were made sinners, so by the obedience [5218] of one shall many be made righteous.

3876 parakoe {par-ak-o-ay’}

AV – disobedient 3; 3

 

• 1) a hearing amiss
• 2) disobedience

Adam and Eve knew they were disobeying God by eating the fruit. They listened to the serpent instead of to God. By obeying the serpent they were essentially saying God was not being totally truthful with them.

One unofficial LDS website attempts to make a comparison between Adam and Eve before the fall and babies, implying that Adam was no more aware of sin than a baby would be.
The errors in this comparison are that a) Adam was given dominion over the whole world; babies are not. b) Again, Adam was given a command by God, but Adam rejected it. c) Adam’s pre-Fall innocence is not the same as ignorance: Adam was innocent before the Fall, of course, but he knew obedience from disobedience.

Again, from the whyprophets website:

“before eating, Adam did not have knowledge of good and evil. Adam’s transgression was certainly against what God said, but Adam did not appreciate the significance of that at the time, so cannot be condemned for it.”

This view is wrong also because it denies Adam’s free will, it denies that Adam freely chose to disobey,(See objection #4 below), it assumes God’s comand not to eat the fruit was not really a comand, and finally, it bases it’s interpretation on a presupposition that the Fall was planned by God all along, and so could not have been sinful.

Summary of this section

It is clear that Adam and Eve did know that they should have obeyed God, and that by not doing so they were sinning.

Objection #5: “It was not a sin, because Eve was deceived”

Eve was deceived, but this does not mean she did not sin. The enemy deceives all the time today, but people are still sinning. It is no good placing all the blame on the enemy.

This view also necessitates the belief that God wills evil. But God in His infinite goodness cannot will evil.

Eve was not blindly obedient, listening to God one minute and then to the serpent, not knowing God’s voice from that of the serpent. This would mean she had no free will, and was little more than a robot. In contrast Genesis 3: 6 reads:

 

Gen 3:6 And when the woman saw that the tree [was] good for food, and that it [was] pleasant [to the eyes, and a tree to be desired [02530] to make [one] wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.

Yes, Adam and Eve HAD free will, and the has desire for what was forbidden. This is what Strong’s says abouth the word “desired”:

The verb “to desire”

02530 chamad {khaw-mad’}

AV – desire 11, covet 4, delight 2, pleasant 1, beauty 1, lust 1, delectable things 1; 21

 

• 1) to desire, covet, take pleasure in, delight in
• 1a) (Qal) to desire
• 1b) (Niphal) to be desirable
• 1c) (Piel) to delight greatly, desire greatly n f
• 2) desirableness, preciousness

Is this “desire” (02530) in Genesis 3:6 bad? Yes (?) The same word is used in Exd 20:17 Thou shalt not covet [02530] thy neighbour’s house, thou shalt not covet [02530] thy neighbour’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that [is] thy neighbour’s.

And in

 

Deu 5:21 Neither shalt thou desire [02530] thy neighbour’s wife, neither shalt thou covet thy neighbour’s house, his field, or his manservant, or his maidservant, his ox, or his ass, or any [thing] that thy neighbour’s.

The word “deceived”

 

1Timothy 2:14 And Adam was [538] not deceived [538], but the woman being deceived [538] was in the transgression. [3847].

538 apatao {ap-at-ah’-o}

AV – deceive 4; 4

1) to cheat, beguile, deceive

But this deceiving is sinful, as we see in Eph 5:6 Let [538] no man deceive [538] you with vain words: for because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience.

People allow themselves to be deceived because of disobedience. So too did Eve! Ephesians 5:6 is a critical verse here!

What about the claim that “Adam and Eve were deceived, because they did not know what “die” meant?

The verb „commanded” and “die” : an analysis of Genesis 2:17:

 

Gen 2:16:And the LORD [03068] God [0430] commanded [06680] the man, saying [0559], Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:Gen 2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely [04191] die [04191].

We have seen in Strong’s:

06680 tsavah {tsaw-vaw’}

AV – command 514, charge 39, commandment 9, appoint 5, bade 3, order 3, commander 1, misc 4; 494

• 1) to command, charge, give orders, lay charge, give charge to, order
• 1a) (Piel)
• 1a1) to lay charge upon
• 1a2) to give charge to, give command to
• 1a3) to give charge unto
• 1a4) to give charge over, appoint
• 1a5) to give charge, command
• 1a6) to charge, command
• 1a7) to charge, commission
• 1a8 ) to command, appoint, ordain (of divine act)
• 1b) (Pual) to be commanded

04191 muwth {mooth}

AV – die 424, dead 130, slay 100, death 83, surely 50, kill 31, dead man 3, dead body 2, in no wise 2, misc 10; 835

• 1) to die, kill, have one executed
• 1a) (Qal)
• 1a1) to die
• 1a2) to die (as penalty), be put to death
• 1a3) to die, perish (of a nation)
• 1a4) to die prematurely (by neglect of wise moral conduct)
• 1b) (Polel) to kill, put to death, dispatch
• 1c) (Hiphil) to kill, put to death
• 1d) (Hophal)
• 1d1) to be killed, be put to death
• 1d1a) to die prematurely

One of the meanings of the word is to die as penalty. If Adam and Eve did not know what this meant, then it casts doubts on God’s integrity. Of course they knew they should not eat the fruit!

Parting thought

Mormons make no reference to the fact that so many souls are lost and spend eternity in hell as a result of their sin. Yet they say God planned it for Adam to fall by eating the apple!