The Catholic definition of original sin is when Adam and Eve partook of the forbidden fruit; they committed sexual sin.
I've come up with a LDS definition of original sin.
I agree with the Catholics, sin was born when Adam and Eve partook of the fruit, but it wasn’t sexual sin, it was sin of another kind. Let me illustrate.
After Adam and Eve ate the fruit, God went to Adam and said “…Have you eaten of the tree where of I commanded you that you should not eat…
Adam’s looking down, his face is concealed by his hair and his toe is kicking at the ground. Then he looks up sees Eve, points toward her and answers, “That woman thou gave me, and commanded that she should remain with me, she gave me of the fruit of the tree and I did eat.
Then God went over to Eve and said, “What is this thing which you have done?”
Eve innocently cups a flower in her hand and smells it’s fragrance, while searching her mind for an answer, spies Lucifer walking among the trees. She looks up at God and says, “The serpent beguiled me and I did eat?
Original Sin= blame shifting or lack of accountability.
What say you?
In addition, why is it as soon as man gets the ability to choose, he denies his culpability?
Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
The Catholics think the sin was sex? Are you sure? I think it was pretty clear that the sin was in disobeying God - the pushing of the blame was just adding fuel to the fire. The painful childbirth WAS said to be a side effect of the punishment, but nowhere is is stated that the crime had anything to do with sexuality.
<--- not Catholic or LDS - proudly protestant.
Posted by T_Smith (Member # 3734) on :
I always thought original sin was something thats NEVER been done before...
"Father, forgive me, for I have loved my toaster more than my wife." "Dear God, thats an original sin! Congratulations! We don't get many of those nowadays."
Edit: BTW, I was joking about the whole "original sin" being original.
[ August 07, 2003, 02:58 PM: Message edited by: T_Smith ]
Posted by msquared (Member # 4484) on :
I am Catholic and I have never heard that Original sin was sexual. Weren't they married in God's eye, so why would sex be wrong for them?
I always thought it was for disobeying God.
msquared
Posted by EllenM (Member # 5447) on :
I quess we will have to query a Catholic, but I was told a long time ago, when I was in my early teens it was sexual sin. Maybe the doctrine has changed. Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
The original sin was one of disobedience, according to doctrine.
Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
T_Smith is a comic genius.
[ August 07, 2003, 03:02 PM: Message edited by: Taalcon ]
Posted by msquared (Member # 4484) on :
Ellen
I am a Catholic, and while it has been decades since my religion classes I am pretty sure I am right. However, I am e-mailing my uncle, the priest, who is a Catholic theologian for over 40 years. He will give us the answer. That is if no one googles it first.
msquared
Posted by ludosti (Member # 1772) on :
Original Sin was the sin committed by Adam in disobeying God's will, thus being brought into a sinful state which all his posterity inherit (also referred to as original sin).
From an LDS perspective there is no such thing as "Original Sin". Certainly, Adam committed a sin in disobeying God, but this does not affect his posterity (or even his ultimate destiny) thanks to Christ.
Also, I used to thing that Adam and Eve's statements when confronted about their sin were a way of trying to deny responsibility, as you suggested. However, in the last few years, I have changed my mind. I think that their statements are merely statements explaining why they did what they did. I no longer see any sense of them trying to "pass the buck", but rather are taking responsibility for the consequences for their actions
[ August 07, 2003, 03:05 PM: Message edited by: ludosti ]
Posted by EllenM (Member # 5447) on :
Ok, I give. Disobedience it is.
But my premise is that they were given a choice, acted on that choice and then failed to hold themselves accountable for that choice.
Aside, as a mother I have learned to never ask, "Who did <whatever>" because I'm not going to get a straight answer. I swear they all have a little tracking device in their heads and quidkly do a mental tally then blame whoever just left the house and can't refute the claim.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
First of all, Adam wasn't trying to shift the blame. He was taking the responsibility square on his shoulders. When Eve first presented him with the fruit, he realized that if he didn't partake he would be left alone without her. So he ate the fruit so that he could remain with her, and so that "Man may be."
When God came and asked him about it, he wasn't trying to pass the blame to her. He was simply explaining why he chose to eat the fruit. He knew that she would be cast out, and he knew that God had commanded that she should remain with him. So he took the fruit and ate. Nowhere was he blaming her for eating the fruit herself, or even casting the act in a condemning light.
Eve, in her turn, was also only telling it how it was. She admitted to being beguiled by the serpent and eating the fruit.
God kept his own judgment and called them forth in turn, and dealt with them as he saw fit.
[ August 07, 2003, 03:08 PM: Message edited by: advice for robots ]
Posted by popatr (Member # 1334) on :
I agree with what AFR said.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Interesting . . . is that an official LDS interpretation of Genesis 3?
Posted by EllenM (Member # 5447) on :
I quess I wasn't trying to get this deep. I was just relating God's experience with his children, to my own. lightheartedly
But really as a parent doesn't it bug you to no end, when you see what happened and you call them on it, they act like you just saw a hallucination.
[ August 07, 2003, 03:17 PM: Message edited by: EllenM ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Pretty much.
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
dkw- not just an interpretation of Genesis 3. We LDS types have 3 separate versions of the creation story just to make things simpler These stories are found in Moses, Genesis and Abraham, and there is also doctrinal commentary on the Garden of Eden story in the Book of Mormon and Doctrine and Covenants.
Posted by msquared (Member # 4484) on :
Ellen,
That is when they get the "Do I have stupid written on my forehead?" speech.
msquared
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
Not to mention James E. Talmage's treatment of it in Jesus the Christ. Posted by EllenM (Member # 5447) on :
msquared, And their eyes glass over, they stare out the window and if you ask them to repeat what you said,they jump, "Ha, what did you say."
EllenM
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
I’m guessing that God is a master of the "Do I have stupid written on my forehead?" speech.
(Even if you don’t think it applies here, there are certainly plenty of other examples of humans attempting to pass the blame. Good thread, Ellen. )
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
We talk of Adam and Eve with the utmost respect, both for being our first parents and for their faith, honor, and righteousness. Their transgression and fall was necessary for humans to come to the earth, and while God punished them by casting them out of the Garden of Eden, almost in the same breath he promised them joy and happiness in their posterity, and promised them that he would send a Savior to redeem humanity from the fall. It was part of the plan. Adam, after they left the Garden of Eden, was a great prophet, not despised for his act.
Posted by EllenM (Member # 5447) on :
I meant no disrespect. Without their noble choice, I would not be here.
I'm just living with a house full of teenagers and am having a hard time imagining the promised "Joy in my posterity."
However, don't you think blame shifting is universal?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
My older brother taught me how.
Posted by Zalmoxis (Member # 2327) on :
I don't know the origins of this idea of the original sin of Adam and Eve being sexual sin, but in my reading experience, this idea seems to be more the province of novelists, poets and intellectuals -- cause, you know, with them everything is about sex.
Posted by EllenM (Member # 5447) on :
In third grade one of the boys brought a punch bowl for a party. At the end of the day, after it had been washed and given back to him to take home, he stood in the middle of the room clutching the punch bowl. It just slipped out of his hands and he exclaimed, "It wasn't me. I didn't do it." The whole class stared in disbelief. Posted by EllenM (Member # 5447) on :
Zalmoxis, Maybe it was all the Freud I was exposed to. Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
I didn't mean you were disrespecting them, EllenM. I was just explaining our stance on Adam and Eve to the general audience.
I know what you mean by passing the blame. I have a two year old who doesn't deny that she did it, but who knows how to pull our strings. My wife says, "I'm frustrated with you," and she immediately folds her arms, scowls, and says, "I fus-trated." How are you supposed to keep a straight face after that? The guilt slides right off of her.
Posted by msquared (Member # 4484) on :
Ellen
You misread that. It is a pain in the posterior.
msquared
Posted by EllenM (Member # 5447) on :
AFR, They are smart little devils. Just remember they have had the soul sum of their existence to study you and your wife. And time is always on their side. Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
One of the effects of original sin (in Catholic and Protestant teaching) is that it makes us more prone to sin. Now imagine generations of religious education teachers telling teenagers whose hormones are starting to act up that what they are feeling is “the effect of original sin which makes us prone to sin.” It’s pretty easy to see why sex and original sin are linked in popular imagination, even though not in doctrine.
Posted by asQmh (Member # 4590) on :
AFR - I always thought that was Milton's take on it.
Q.
Posted by Maccabeus (Member # 3051) on :
Very peculiar notion, Advice...
If I may chime in from yet another perspective?
The churches of Christ don't believe in original sin in the sense of something transmitted through generations; sin is an action, and an action can't pass from one person to another. On the other hand, we see nothing praiseworthy about the sin of Adam and Eve and believe that we (or people, at least) would exist and be able to propagate regardless.
Posted by asQmh (Member # 4590) on :
Psst. Mac - the churches of Christ are also autonomous with no central headquarters and no determining authority except the Bible. I thought we couldn't say "church of Christ think . . . churches of Christ believe . . . " ^_^ you're gonna get us disfellowhipped!!
Isn't that a credo?? ^_~
Q.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
Q: What did Milton say? That was one work I never made it through. (And I call myself an English major.)
Macc: Which notion?
I guess we differ on the necessity and consequences of Adam's fall, but I agree with you about original sin.
Posted by asQmh (Member # 4590) on :
afr: pretty much what you said about the fall. If I had my copy of paradise lost here, I'd dig out a passage or two for you, but I don't.
(How embarrassing - a c of C'er who can't give you bc&v!)
Q.
[ August 07, 2003, 05:03 PM: Message edited by: asQmh ]
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
I did read most of it, but that was in 11th grade more than a decade ago. I remember finding lots of stuff in it that struck me as right on. My best grade on a paper that year was about how Lucifer became the Father of Lies after his fall by subjectively switching his status of lowest of the low to king of the damned.
Beyond that, I keep confusing Milton with Dante.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
I think it's interesting to think about the concept that Adam chose Eve over God. There was a time in the Garden, we don't how long, when Eve was fallen and he was not. He chose Eve.
The fall is referred to as "Adam's sin." It's the fall of man. We never hear that sin came into the world through Eve. It's Adam's legacy. Because he failed - he was supposed to be loyal and obedient to God, and he didn't do it.
I fully think Adam was well aware of what he was doing, he was not deceived by the serpent. He made a choice, an informed one. He knew what it would cost him.
Makes you think, no?
Posted by Lissande (Member # 350) on :
I'm pretty sure Paradise Lost is out of our realm of responsibility, Q.
"we...believe that we (or people, at least) would exist and be able to propagate regardless."
The Bible holds a resounding silence on whether or not many people would exist had Adam and Eve not left the garden; it is not touched on, so is an open question. One or the other may seem more logical to you, but there should be no firmly held belief on the issue either way.
It may seem like a nitpicky point, but this casual (not to mention cavalier, as brought up by Q) use of 'we believe' disturbs me, Maccabeus. As Q said, there is no 'we' that you can speak for, since you can only speak for yourself. My problem, however, lies in the world 'believe'. 'I believe' is a strong term, a profound statement declaring what I hold to be truth from my inmost soul. I believe in a loving God. I believe the tomb was empty. I believe the Bible is the word of God. These things I believe; but smaller things, things that are fallible, things that ultimately don't matter, require an 'I think' or an 'I suppose' or perhaps an 'it seems to me' - not an 'I believe'. Those are special.
Posted by popatr (Member # 1334) on :
Mormons believe that Adam chose right.
This makes sense to me since it was what made the need for Jesus our savior, which in my mind can't be seperated from Heavenly Father's ideal plan for our hapiness.
(We believe that God the father and Jesus are seperate persons)
Posted by dangermom (Member # 1676) on :
quote:I’m guessing that God is a master of the "Do I have stupid written on my forehead?" speech.
A little while ago, I heard of a Jewish midrash that tells about Adam and Eve. The fruit they ate, in that tradition, was a fig. So then they sew aprons of fig leaves, God shows up, and Adam and Eve try to make their excuses. A bit like getting caught with jam on their faces.
Posted by asQmh (Member # 4590) on :
Belle - doesn't that make part of his choice idolatry?
Leaving aside the idea that he couldn't conceive of eternity without her and thus nobly tossed his relationship with God into the gutter in order to experience life, death, everything WITH her (as long as he could rule over her) . . . the basic principal here is that he listened to her voice over the voice of God. He set her on a pedestal she didn't belong, in the place of God and effectively made HER god(dess) of his life.
I don't think you can say that there was AN original sin. I think, as with most times when we sin, it was a mix. Pride, idolatry, disobedience, etc. Very rarely do we commit ONE sin.
Q.
Posted by popatr (Member # 1334) on :
To expand on the fall and its necessity-
God, on an principles level, had to oppose the fall--but on another level he knew that we needed it.
You'd have to read in 2 Ne. 2 to get the full treatment but here are a few quotes:
quote:2 Ne. 2:11 For it must needs be, that there is an opposition in all things. If not so, my first born in the wilderness, righteousness could not be brought to pass, neither wickedness, neither holiness nor misery, neither good nor bad.
This life is all about giving us both sides--so that we could really be good, like he is, not a sheltered ignorant good like Adam and Eve in the garden.
Or course, some of this is my own interpretation.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Q - absolutely. There rarely is a commission of sin that is only a commission of ONE sin. If I lie to my mother, I'm guilty of lying and of not honoring my parents, for example.
Whether it was the "right" choice or wrong choice is really a pointless debate, since it was the choice made. I believe, had they not fallen, they would still be in the garden and none of us would be here. If they were unfallen there would be reason for Christ's redemption, because no one would need it.
So, right - wrong, whatever. That's what happened, and we know God knew it would happen, so that was the way things were supposed to play out.
Posted by popatr (Member # 1334) on :
I want to add that Adam was left with a choice between two of God's commands--don't eat the fruit, or stay with Eve and "multiply and replenish the earth."
Therefore, he was not choosing between God and Eve, but rather had to choose which command was more important.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
Belle, I think Adam was obeying God first. He was commanded that she should remain with him. When Eve offered him the fruit, she reminded him of another commandment God had given them: that they should multiply and replenish the earth. He was obeying God not once, but twice.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
There's still quite a debate over the concept of original sin and what the first sin exactly was.
Disobedience is the most popular view. Another view is that Adam and Eve thought themselves not to need God.
*shrug*
Nothing is a lock.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
My new favorite theory is that it was breaking table fellowship.
Posted by Maccabeus (Member # 3051) on :
as & Lissande> You're right...I overstepped myself and I apologize. On the other hand, there is a general commonality of belief, or we wouldn't be one church, we'd be dozens or more.
As far as I know, most of us agree on every point I made last post except the last one. I freely admit I let personal opinion slip in there.
Posted by Maccabeus (Member # 3051) on :
AFR> I meant the idea that Adam and Eve's sin brought about greater happiness and was for the greater good was peculiar. But I suppose it's not all that odd; I've heard that Catholics sometimes refer to it as a "fortunate fall".
Posted by Yozhik (Member # 89) on :
Wasn't "Satan's Rebellion" the FIRST sin?
Posted by Ryuko (Member # 5125) on :
Yeah, but that's unrelated to us...
I think more important is the fact that the Original sin gave us intelligence. I think God wanted us to choose for ourselves between the existence of a rich spoiled pet, or the chance to work for ourselves, to make it on our own.
Posted by asQmh (Member # 4590) on :
. . . so God was just pretending to be irate when Adam and Eve sinned? And satan was telling the truth. . . interesting. "You will not surely die, . . . for God knows that when you eat of it, your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil." (Ge. 1:4) And God's injunction that man must not be allowed to eat of the tree of life and live forever in his current state doesn't reflect his feelings at all on this?
I dunno. I don't think God wanted man to fall. I don't think it was a good OR necessary thing. I don't think I'm given enough information from the Bible to argue as to its necessity, but as to its goodness. . . if God set it up so that we would sin in order to make the sacrifice of Christ . . .what kind of God is that? If there had been any other way to save us other than the cross of Christ, he would have done it. That's what we learn when Jesus begs that if there is any other way, do that. And God doesn't. So either he's a heartless God who wouldn't save his own son (and therefore couldn't care a whit about you), or the sacrifice of Christ was absolutely necessary.
But if God set it up so man would fall, he made it so that Christ had to die. Doesn't compute. I'm not trying to be obnoxious; I just don't understand how God could have wanted us to fall, knowing the cost. Jesus certainly didn't.
Q.
Posted by Fishtail (Member # 3900) on :
I'm Catholic and have never heard the term "fortunate fall." Maybe it's a guilt thing, but I learned to lament it and the need for God to send His son, even though it was awesome of Him to do so. IMHO, God's plan makes up for how we humans constantly try to mess things up with our free will.
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
quote: . . . so God was just pretending to be irate when Adam and Eve sinned?
Depends completely on your point of view. To me it seems that God is not irate but is rather explaining the consequences of their actions to them.
quote: And satan was telling the truth. . . interesting. "You will not surely die, . . . for God knows that when you eat of it, your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."
Satan was telling a partial truth. Their eyes were opened so that they comprehended the difference between good and evil, just like God. However, just as God had warned them, the consequence of their actions meant that they would surely die (become mortal).
quote:And God's injunction that man must not be allowed to eat of the tree of life and live forever in his current state doesn't reflect his feelings at all on this?
To LDS this injunction was a pure statement of fact. If Adam and Eve ate of the tree of life after having eaten of the knowledge of good and evil it would have ruined God's whole plan which included experiencing mortality and the later redemption from death by the resurrection. As Alma put it:
quote:And now behold, if it were possible that our first parents could have gone forth and partaken of the tree of life they would have been forever miserable, having no preparatory state; and thus the plan of redemption would have been frustrated, and the word of God would have been void, taking none effect.
quote: I dunno. I don't think God wanted man to fall. I don't think it was a good OR necessary thing. I don't think I'm given enough information from the Bible to argue as to its necessity, but as to its goodness. . . if God set it up so that we would sin in order to make the sacrifice of Christ . . .what kind of God is that?
If God set up a plan for man that did not include man falling from the Garden of Eden then the conclusion is that God did not know what man was going to do. That's a pretty bold position for your average Christian to take.
In our theology the reason that God set it up so that Adam and Eve HAD to sin was deeply tied to the whole reason for existence. Man needs to be outside of the presence of God in order to learn to choose between good and evil without restraint or coercion. In order for that to occur man had to choose to leave the presence of God. This was done by choosing to sin.
quote: If there had been any other way to save us other than the cross of Christ, he would have done it.
Right, there was no other way that the plan could be set in motion which would not require an expiatory sacrifice.
quote: But if God set it up so man would fall, he made it so that Christ had to die. Doesn't compute. I'm not trying to be obnoxious; I just don't understand how God could have wanted us to fall, knowing the cost. Jesus certainly didn't.
Again, God must have known from the creation of man that this would be the case, otherwise he is not omniscient. So basically, yeah, God knew from the start that it would require the sacrifice of Christ in order for things to work. Christ knew that too, as did the prophets before Christ. As an example, Isaiah said:
quote: But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.
6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.
7 He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth.
8 He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken.
[ August 08, 2003, 09:38 AM: Message edited by: Jacare Sorridente ]
Posted by asQmh (Member # 4590) on :
quote:If God set up a plan for man that did not include man falling from the Garden of Eden then the conclusion is that God did not know what man was going to do.
That's not true. Just because I know something will or will not happen doesn't mean that I put it into place or didn't.
As to the rest of your post, I'll answer it when I can give it the attention it deserves.
Q.
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
quote:That's not true. Just because I know something will or will not happen doesn't mean that I put it into place or didn't.
I'm trying to understand what you mean by this. My first thought is that the great difference here is that you never created anything from the beginning.
My second thought is that maybe you think I mean that God's foreknowledge caused Adam to sin. I don't mean that at all. What I am trying to say is that if God KNEW that Adam would sin before he did it then there really was never any other option to the sacrifice of Christ.
Posted by asQmh (Member # 4590) on :
The way you worded your statement implied (actually, explicitly said) that God's plan for man included the fall - that God planned the fall.
That's what I was objecting to - that knowledge of man's fall does not mean that he planned it or even thought it beneficial. And that's all I meant; I really didn't think it was that confusing.
Q.
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
quote: The way you worded your statement implied (actually, explicitly said) that God's plan for man included the fall - that God planned the fall.
Ah... I see. Well, then on this I guess we agree to disagree, because I do indeed believe that the Fall was an integral part of God's plan.
Posted by popatr (Member # 1334) on :
For proof that the devil was not lying 100%:
quote:Gen. 3: 22 22 ¶ And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:
God used the same wording that satan used to describe part of what happened to them--"become as one of us"--while maintaining that the other part was a lie, that they were now subject to death.
If satan could only lie, he'd be pretty easy to outthink, while with part-truths he can really muddle us.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
I hold that Satan actually thought he was foiling God’s plan by getting Adam and Eve to eat the fruit. He tempted them any way he could. If they fell, then they would be in his power and not in God’s, and no longer able to be saved.
Posted by Ryuko (Member # 5125) on :
Just saying that I think that if God hadn't wanted to test us, to see what kind of creatures he'd created, he wouldn't have created the tree at all.
Not that it's my place to judge the motives of God, but perhaps he didn't put the tree there just to test whether we'd listen to him, maybe he put it there knowing that we'd disobey him, wanting to know what would happen afterwards.
Posted by TwosonPaula (Member # 5511) on :
I don't even begin to understand the mind of God, so I don't know why he did what HE did, but it seems pretty obvious to me that Adam just ate the fruit because it looked good. God didn't say, "If Eve eats the fruit, she has to leave Eden." He said, "If you eat the fruit you will die." Adam wasn't afraid Eve would have to leave and so therefore they couldn't multiply or whatever. He just saw that she didn't die, so he ate it too. The Bible says the fruit was "pleasing to the eye." I think it was temptation enough for Adam that he just ate it, believing that God was wrong. It's not like there were a lot of babes or porn or anything else to tempt him. Tasty looking fruit was about as good as it got.
(Referring to the beginning of the post.)
Posted by EllenM (Member # 5447) on :
quote: If satan could only lie, he'd be pretty easy to outthink, while with part-truths he can really muddle us.
My feelings exactly.
Let's think of Satan as a general in God's army. He was present at all the strategic planning sessions and then defected to the otherside. Satan uses these truths learn at God's knee to feed us just enough, that we recognize, but not enough that we question. That's were study, prayer, experience and the spirt come into play.
But doing these things takes humility. I was alway puzzled by the scripture, "... less than the dust of the earth." Then it hit me. The dust obey's God's commands, not us wise, can think for ourselves humans.
Posted by Maccabeus (Member # 3051) on :
Jacare> Though as far as I know, most of us agree with asQ, it's not unheard of for folk in the churches of Christ to conclude that in fact God does not know all the future. TW Brents was the first I know of, back in the 1870s.
Posted by asQmh (Member # 4590) on :
I'd be interested to see more of your breakdown of the c's of C, Macabbeus. I get the feeling we come from different sides of the same traditional coin. Maybe I should expose my heresies here and now and take refuge in autonomy while I can. *innocent grin*
Q.
[ August 08, 2003, 09:34 PM: Message edited by: asQmh ]
Posted by Maccabeus (Member # 3051) on :
Should we talk here, start a thread, or send e-mails?
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
These stories are found in Moses, Genesis and Abraham, and there is also doctrinal commentary on the Garden of Eden story in the Book of Mormon and Doctrine and Covenants.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)