Sin vs. Transgression...Continued...

(The following is the conclusion of the sin vs. transgression post-Another discussion.... It must be noted that these are "green" elders who are trying to find their way through the scriptures. Even with help from some of their teachers, they still may be misinformed. This is Elder Pierce's account of what transpired )

Something must be explained about Elder T. and Elder F. When it comes to debates, they like to instigate. They have very strong opinions. They just don't believe in them.

Elder M. #2 and I were completely dumb-founded when, as soon as Bro McB. left, Elder M#1 said, and I quote..."Adams transgression was the first sin."

"Excuse me!", said Elder M#2. "Did you forget what Bro. McB. showed us in "Preach My Gospel."

Elder M.#1 whipped out his copy of PMG and read from pg. 61: "Sin-sin is disobedience to God's commandments and results in becoming separated from God. Adam was disobedient to God's commandments when he ate the fruit, therefore he sinned. He became separated from God. "

I was stunned that Elder M#1 wasn't giving up on the idea of Adam's transgression being a sin. Elder M#2 was ready, though. He jumped right in with D&C 29:40 , "Wherefore it came to pass that the devil tempted Adam, and he partook of the forbidden fruit and transgressed"-or broke-"the commandment, wherein he became subject to the will of the devil, because he yielded to temptation."

"Do you know how you can break a commandment and still not sin, Elder M#1? asked Elder M#2. After a short pause, Elder M#2 went on to say, "I'll tell you how. " Turn to Mosiah 3:16. It says, "And even if it were possible that little children could sin they could not be saved; but I say unto you they are blessed; for behold"-listen to this-" as is Adam(!), or by nature, they fall, even so the blood of Christ atoneth for their sins."

Adam was like a little child. He was innocent. You can break a commandment and if you don't know what you are doing is wrong, it won't be counted as sin. The bottom line is, it's not a sin if you don't have a knowledge of good and evil.

Then Elder M#1 brought up 1John 5:17. "All unrighteous is sin..." He then asked, "was Adam being righteous when he at the fruit?" Before we had a chance to respond, Elder T. said that Adam's transgression was a sin. It was not a sin when he did it.

I had to think about that one for a moment. Then I said, "Adam's transgression was not a sin. It was a transgression.

Elder T. repeated what he had said.

Elder M#2 said that he agreed.

Elder M.#1 was about to say something when Elder F. shouted, "I've got it! I've got it right here!" I've got this scripture that will settle this mess once and for all!

The whole room went silent as Elder F. read Alma 49:2. "And behold, the city had been rebuilt, and Moroni had stationed an army by the borders of the city, and they had cast up dirt round about to shield them from the arrows and stones of the Lamanites, for behold they fought with stones and with arrows." "Now you see what this verse is saying to us, Elders? They fought with stones and arrows! They were transgressing on Moroni! After a pause, Elder F. said, "I just picked that scripture at random. It wasn't very good for proving a point. " (everyone groaning and eyes rolling)

Anyway, I pondered on what Elder T. had said before. "Adam's transgression was a sin. It was not a sin when he did it." I thought that what Elder T. was saying was that Adam did not sin, but that the act of taking the fruit is a sin IF you know right from wrong. It was so simplistic. So yes, of course stealing is wrong. I didn't want to think that Elder T.'s main point was , "it's a sin if you know it's wrong."

Then I thought that it was what Elder M#2 and I had been saying all the time!

I asked Elder T., "So you are saying that Adam's transgression would be a sin if he knew it was wrong?" "Now you are getting it, Elder Pierce, " he said. I said that I agreed with that. Elder M#1 said, "Okay, that is 7 for and 1 against (referring to Elder M#2).

Elder Mann still said that Adam's fall was not sinning. After the transgression they were subject to sin. Not before. Not during. AFTER!

I went over to him to try to explain that to understand what Elder T. was saying, you had to read between the lines. I said how his point was if Adam had a knowledge of good and evil in the garden , it would have been a sin.

He said that he got it, but it could have been worded a lot simpler. At this point Elder M#1 shouted, "There! You said it! He then wrote on the chalk board, "We WON! I've been saying that Adam's transgression was a sin from the beginning!!!"

Elder Mann and I were dumbfounded. Not wanting to argue with these people any more, I raised my hands over my head and said, "You Sphinxes!!! I am done with you!

We were still arguing a little when our teacher, Bro. A. came in to see what all the fuss was about. I explained that I thought Adam's transgression should not be counted as a sin because Adam was innocent and wasn't able to sin.

Brother A. said Adam's fall technically was the first sin because sin is disobedience to God's commandments.

So I was wrong. Elder Mann was wrong. It doesn't break my spirit, though. I still love to debate.

Oh, just to clarify, Bro. A. said that a transgression is a kind of a sin. He compared it to, "A beetle is an insect, but an insect is not always a beetle. It could be a bee."

He also made the point that discussions are great, but you have to ask yourself, how does this help my salvation?

I then realized that whether Adam's transgression counted as sin or didn't count as sin, in the big scheme of things, it did not matter. We all sin, but we can repent. Through Jesus Christ we can gain a remission of our sins. Ya know, maybe this debate did help me after all.

(Elder Pierce mother's note: As our family came to the end of reading this discussion, we were disappointed in the outcome. Maybe a lesson was learned about the dangers of debating an issue to death, but a vital gospel point had been misunderstood.

I had to get proof positive to send to Elder Pierce so that he would know that he was on the right track after all. I found it! Where does Elder Pierce get that drive to debate ? (wink)

"The prophet Joseph Smith emphatically declared that, 'Adam did not commit sin in eating the fruits, for God had decreed that he should eat and fall.' The Lord refers in a modern revelation to Adam's act as a transgression instead of a sin. He says, 'Wherefore, it came to pass that the devil tempted Adam and he partook of the forbidden fruit and transgressed the commandments. 'D&C 29:40-41

Brother Daniel Ludlow helps us to get a better grasp on the circumstances of our first parents when they dwelt within the boundaries of paradise. He says that, although Adam and Eve had great intellect and powers of reason in the Garden of Eden, they were without experiences; although they had the opportunity of choice and the freedom of choice in the garden...they were not morally free because they did not fully understand the consequences of their choice. Even though they heard the Father speak the words, "in the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die"...what was death to Adam and Eve? The veil of forgetfulness had already been placed over their minds-they had never seen death nor experienced it;they could not understand it. And because they could not fully comprehend the consequences of what they did, their disobedience of the law is referred to as a transgression, not as a sin, and consequently comes under the unconditional part of the Atonement of Jesus Christ." The Plan of Salvation by Matthew Brown pg. 67-68

This is what I sent to Elder Pierce to help him understand a little better that there is a difference between sin and transgression in the case of Adam in the Garden of Eden. )