Do Mormons Believe in the Original Sin?

[zerinus]

Since you are in error, you can not be consistent with the truth.

Since you are in error, you cannot be consistent with the truth.

God will forgive man of Original Sin and all his sins if man asks, but without that man is still guilty.

God has already forgiven man for the Original Sin because of the Atonement, therefore man is no longer “guilty” because for the Original Sin.

The false teachings of the LDS church indicate that it is possible for a man to be sinless, which is false.

Nonsense. Man is never sinless. But the sins he needs to worry about are those he has committed himself, not those committed by Adam.

Every man answers for his own sins, not for the sin of Adam.

zerinus

 

[mormonboy]

I see that. But in order for him to repent, he would need to sin. How could he sin if he did not know good and evil? Would that not make Adam and Eve like Children before the age of reason?

Then why did they get kicked out of the Garden?

What happens to little children who die? Do they go to hell or heaven?

 

[cthulhubryan]

Since you are in error, you cannot be consistent with the truth.

Gee, Polly. Quite the litter parrot.

Nonsense. Man is never sinless. But the sins he needs to worry about are those he has committed himself, not those committed by Adam.

Every man answers for his own sins, not for the sin of Adam.

zerinus

So, by your reasoning a child is born sinless. If the child was able to come to maturity without committing a sin he would be a sinless man.

 

[ralphinal]

What happens to little children who die? Do they go to hell or heaven?

I assume that you mean children who are younger than the age of reason whose parents have not baptised them. If so, they are left to the mercy of God.

 

[zerinus]

So, by your reasoning a child is born sinless.

Yes.

If the child was able to come to maturity without committing a sin he would be a sinless man.

That is a big “if”. In practice that is not possible, because man has acquired a sinful disposition, and because of the weakness of the human nature and the temptations of the devil, he invariably commits sins, and will never be totally sinless. But his sins are those he has committed himself, not those committed by somebody else.

zerinus

 

[zerinus]

I assume that you mean children who are younger than the age of reason whose parents have not baptised them. If so, they are left to the mercy of God.

And what does that mean exactly? Are they saved, damned, or neither? Do they go to hell, heaven, or somewhere in between? Are they happy, miserable, or a little bit of both?

zerinus

 

[ralphinal]

And what does that mean exactly? Are they saved, damned, or neither? Do they go to hell, heaven, or somewhere in between? Are they happy, miserable, or a little bit of both?

zerinus

It means exactly what it says: They are left to the mercy of God. If God wishes, they are in heaven. If he chooses to judge them by a mechanism not understood to us, and by which not all are saved, that is how it is.

Limbo was always theological speculation. We no longer speculate that way, but by accepting that it is up to God.

 

[zerinus]

It means exactly what it says: They are left to the mercy of God. If God wishes, they are in heaven. If he chooses to judge them by a mechanism not understood to us, and by which not all are saved, that is how it is.

Limbo was always theological speculation. We no longer speculate that way, but by accepting that it is up to God.

Thank you. But that doesn’t seem to me to agree with what the Lord has said:

Matthew 19:

14 But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.

Mark 10:

14 But when Jesus saw it, he was much displeased, and said unto them, Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God.

Luke 18:

16 But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God.

That suggests that little children are unconditionally saved. He says, “of such is the kingdom of heaven”. The meaning of that is clear. They are unconditionally saved. They don’t need anything else. Here is another example:

Matthew 18:

1 At the same time came the disciples unto Jesus, saying, Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?
2 And Jesus called a little child unto him, and set him in the midst of them,
3 And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.
4 Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven.
5 And whoso shall receive one such little child in my name receiveth me.
6 But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.

All of them suggest that children are unconditionally saved. There is no room for doubts about it. It is not true that their condition in the next life has not been revealed. It has been revealed, in the scriptures quoted above. The message is unmistakably clear. Little children are unconditionally saved, period. What say ye?

zerinus

 

[ralphinal]

Thank you. But that doesn’t seem to me to agree with what the Lord has said:

Matthew 19:

14 But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.

Mark 10:

14 But when Jesus saw it, he was much displeased, and said unto them, Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God.

Luke 18:

16 But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God.

That suggests that little children are unconditionally saved. He says, “of such is the kingdom of heaven”. The meaning of that is clear. They are unconditionally saved. They don’t need anything else. Here is another example:

Matthew 18:

1 At the same time came the disciples unto Jesus, saying, Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?
2 And Jesus called a little child unto him, and set him in the midst of them,
3 And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.
4 Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven.
5 And whoso shall receive one such little child in my name receiveth me.
6 But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.

All of them suggest that children are unconditionally saved. There is no room for doubts about it. It is not true that their condition in the next life has not been revealed. It has been revealed, in the scriptures quoted above. The message is unmistakably clear. Little children are unconditionally saved, period. What say ye?

zerinus

Did you know that these verses have been used for 20 centuries as part of the claim for infant baptism? Did you also know that these verses have been used for 20 centuries as a basis for teaching that we should have a child-like faith and not a childish one?

If Jesus had been saying that children are unconditionally saved, why did he not say so?

 

[dianaiad]

So, by your reasoning a child is born sinless. If the child was able to come to maturity without committing a sin he would be a sinless man.

Actually, we do believe that a child is born sinless…and yes, if were able to come to maturity with out committing a sin he would be a sinless man. I believe that there are sinless people out there–people who never become responsible for their own choices. These people, even when they do things that to us would be incredible sins, are still sinless because they don’t understand and have no knowledge of right and wrong.

those of us who ARE–well, people who can make choices will make the wrong ones sometimes; it’s part of being mortal and learning stuff. There has only been one sinless Man who consistently made the right choices, and none of the rest of us are Him.

 

[dianaiad]

It means exactly what it says: They are left to the mercy of God. If God wishes, they are in heaven. If he chooses to judge them by a mechanism not understood to us, and by which not all are saved, that is how it is.

Limbo was always theological speculation. We no longer speculate that way, but by accepting that it is up to God.

That’s a cop-out.

Sorry for the harsh term, but it is. Just in my life time I have seen this idea morph from people who consider that little children who die unbaptized go directly to hell, to the idea that some will go to hell and some to heaven according to whether they are of the ‘elect’ or not, to 'Leave it up to God."

In one way it is an improvement…at least you are not automatically consigning them to a hell–or a lesser heaven, anyway. At least you are allowing God to decide it.

I will admit to a sneaky suspicion that, perhaps, it’s because all those Mormons have been running around telling people that infants are headed for Heaven, and the parents we say that to were not getting comfort from their own priests and ministers. So…there is a change of perspective.

I approve and all, but…

It’s quite a change of perspective.

 

[ralphinal]

That’s a cop-out.

No, it is the official teaching of the Church

Sorry for the harsh term, but it is. Just in my life time I have seen this idea morph from people who consider that little children who die unbaptized go directly to hell, to the idea that some will go to hell and some to heaven according to whether they are of the ‘elect’ or not, to 'Leave it up to God."

None of that was Catholic Teaching…well, not the part about them going to hell of being part of the Elect.

In one way it is an improvement…at least you are not automatically consigning them to a hell–or a lesser heaven, anyway. At least you are allowing God to decide it.

Catholic dogma never sent them anywhere. Limbo was a theological speculation of theologins, not a part of the dogmatic teaching of the Church

I will admit to a sneaky suspicion that, perhaps, it’s because all those Mormons have been running around telling people that infants are headed for Heaven, and the parents we say that to were not getting comfort from their own priests and ministers. So…there is a change of perspective.

The day I worry about Catholic teaching being influenced by Mormons is the day I become an Atheist. Write it down.

I approve and all, but…

It’s quite a change of perspective.

No, it is not a change in CAtholic Teaching.

 

[Jerusha]

Just in my life time I have seen this idea morph from people who consider that little children who die unbaptized go directly to hell, to the idea that some will go to hell and some to heaven according to whether they are of the ‘elect’ or not, to 'Leave it up to God."

…

It’s quite a change of perspective.

Perhaps the use of the word “perspective” should be used more here. Can you reach out just a little bit from your anti-Catholic indoctrination? Perhaps you can realize that it is your perception about Catholic beliefs that has changed. And----GASP!!! -- through interaction with REAL Catholics.

 

[dianaiad]

No, it is the official teaching of the Church

None of that was Catholic Teaching…well, not the part about them going to hell of being part of the Elect.

That’s OK. I wasn’t referring to just Catholics. That last part was a very Calvinist doctrine. Come to think of it, it still IS a very Calvinist doctrine.

Catholic dogma never sent them anywhere. Limbo was a theological speculation of theologins, not a part of the dogmatic teaching of the Church

The day I worry about Catholic teaching being influenced by Mormons is the day I become an Atheist. Write it down.

That’s quite all right. I don’t suggest that you ever worry about that.

No, it is not a change in CAtholic Teaching.

It IS, as I have experienced, a change in Catholic perception of Catholic teaching. I’m the last person in the world to tell you what you ‘really believe.’ I’m simply pointing out the change in what Catholics have told me is ‘true’ over the years. I’m sure that they were as sincere in their beliefs in limbo as you are now in your belief that there isn’t one.

Might I suggest that the current idea of ‘leave it up to God.’ is a back door belief that infants go directly to Him (and Heaven?) After all, since Catholics in general believe that God is a loving Father and a just God, the idea that He would send them to hell is a little too far to the predestination side…and too far to the side of ‘God created people specifically to condemn them’ end of the spectrum.

So I think that “leave it up to God” means, to the individual thinking that, “of course He will bring them home to Him.” I hope so, anyway, since my own beliefs along that line are that He will do exactly that.

At any rate, I hope you are having a Happy Easter Day.

 

[Jerusha]

Diana, I just came across this gem from your very own ET Benson. You might want to benefit from reading it.

The Doctrines and Covenants tells us that the Book of Mormon is the “record of a fallen people.” Why did they fall? This is one of the major messages of the Book of Mormon. Mormon gives the answer in the closing chapters of the book in these words: “Behold, the pride of this nation, or the people of the Nephites hath proven their destruction.” … Another major portion of this very prevalent sin of pride is enmity toward our fellowmen. We are tempted daily to elevate ourselves above others and diminish them. The proud make every man their adversary by pitting their intellects, opinions, works, wealth, talents, or any other worldly measuring device against others. ….The scriptures abound with evidences of the severe consequences of the sin of pride to individuals, groups, cities, and nations. “Pride goeth before destruction.” It destroyed the Nephite nation and the city of Sodom. ……Pride results in secret combinations which are built up to get power, gain, and glory of the world. This fruit of the sin of pride, namely secret combinations, brought down both the Jaredite and the Nephite civilizations and has been and will yet be the cause of the fall of many nations. Another face of pride is contention… The scriptures testify that the proud are easily offended and hold grudges….The proud depend upon the world to tell them whether they have value or not. Their self-esteem is determined by where they are judged to be on the ladders of worldly success. They feel worthwhile as individuals if the numbers beneath them in achievement, talent, beauty, or intellect are large enough. Pride is ugly. It says, “If you succeed, I am a failure.”…. The proud are not easily taught. They won’t change their minds to accept truths, because to do so implies they have been wrong. ……God will have a humble people. Either we can choose to be humble or we can be compelled to be humble. Alma said, “Blessed are they who humble themselves without being compelled to be humble.” Let us choose to be humble. ……Pride is the great stumbling block to Zion. I repeat: Pride is the great stumbling block to Zion. We must cleanse the inner vessel by conquering pride.
President Ezra Taft Benson, “Beware of Pride,” Ensign, May 1989, 4

Perhaps LDS have this very problem with pride because of their denial/distortion of Original sin.

 

[zerinus]

Did you know that these verses have been used for 20 centuries as part of the claim for infant baptism? Did you also know that these verses have been used for 20 centuries as a basis for teaching that we should have a child-like faith and not a childish one?

And that proves what exactly? Not much that I can see. It does not wash. The language of the Lord towards adults is vastly different than those towards little children. To adults Jesus said: “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved;” (Mark 16:16). And Peter said: “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins,” (Acts 2:38).

The meaning is clear. The language is unmistakable. Adults need to repent and be baptized for the remission of their sins. Children need not. They are unconditionally saved, for “of such is the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 19:14); and “whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, . . .” (Matthew 18:6). There is a vast difference between the two. Adults need to repent and be baptized to be saved; children need not. They are already “in the kingdom of heaven”. Their condition has already been fulfilled; otherwise how could they set the example of somebody who is already in the kingdom of heaven? It doesn’t make sense otherwise.

If Jesus had been saying that children are unconditionally saved, why did he not say so?

I think that is exactly what He did, in the verses already quoted.

zerinus

 

[dianaiad]

Diana, I just came across this gem from your very own ET Benson. You might want to benefit from reading it.

Perhaps LDS have this very problem with pride because of their denial/distortion of Original sin.

What is it that you are accusing me of, Jerusha?

As to ‘original sin,’ well, we do believe that Adam and Eve’s choice brought death into the world. We also believe that Christ’s atoning sacrifice took care of that.

It seems to me that to continue to believe that Adam’s choices affect our spiritual futures after His great Atoning Sacrifice is to deny Him and the efficacy of that sacrifice and atonement. After all, if we are ALL going to be resurrected (and we all are) then the death that was brought into the world by Adam and Eve has been conquered.

For everybody.

So it is up to us; our choice; do we choose Him, or do we choose–something else? Either way, it is our choice and not something that Adam did to us. HIS sin was taken care of by Jesus Christ.

For everybody. That was, in fact, the POINT.

 

[RebeccaJ]

You make a distinction that we do not recognize. Baptism is not separate from the Atonement. They are bound together.

Ephesians 5

25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ loved the church and handed himself over for her 26 to sanctify her, cleansing her by the bath of water with the word, 27 that he might present to himself the church in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish.

 

[dianaiad]

You make a distinction that we do not recognize. Baptism is not separate from the Atonement. They are bound together.

Ephesians 5

25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ loved the church and handed himself over for her 26 to sanctify her, cleansing her by the bath of water with the word, 27 that he might present to himself the church in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish.

Of course it is. Christ said that we must be baptized, and accept Him to be with Him. That is the choice we make, and the faith we profess and exhibit.

But that has nothing at all to do with ‘original sin.’

 

[RebeccaJ]

Of course it does. Baptism remits both actual and original sin. To believe it does not, is to believe that baptism is not required, as some Protestants do. You are using the same argument, that is, that Jesus’ Atonement has taken care of all sin, no baptism is required. Why would you believe baptism is required for actual sin, but not for original sin?