Do Mormons Believe in the Original Sin?

[zerinus]

Do you not see the issue? God has given us all free-will, that is correct. God wants us to choose him and not sin, that is correct. But, by WANTING Adam and Eve to sin, that means God WANTED humanity to be in a situation where most of it would go to hell.

Do you think that most people will go to heaven?

As it happens, we do believe that most people will go to heaven, or one of the three heavens, at some point in their eternal journey. But that is beside the point. The important point is that this world is a testing ground. God sent mankind here on earth in order to test them to see if they would be obedient; and they could not be obedient (or disobedient) without knowing good and evil. Eating of the fruit of the tree facilitated that purpose.

zerinus

 

[Jerusha]

Parker, I never considered myself a victim until I discovered that some of my ancestors may have had something to do with the death of Joseph Smith, and that some Mormons hate me because of my ancestry. :sad_bye:

 

[majick275]

God put the tree there because He wanted them to have a knowledge of good and evil at some point. He also wanted them to have freewill, which they could not have without a knowledge of good and evil.

zerinus

and yet God COMMANDED them NOT to eat it.

 

[majick275]

Then English still remains your problem. By “taint” I don’t understand “guilt”. If that is what you understand by it, then sure I disagree with it. And I didn’t deny it either. I didn’t lie about anything. I made that perfectly clear in my Blog.

So you believe that little babies are guilty because of the “taint” of Adam, as you like to put it, and they will go to hell without baptism, right? Well, at least you are honest enough to admit it, unlike most other Catholics I know.

a fine point of doctrine, we believe that only God knows where babies will go and we trust in his mercy. we also know that original sin taints every human and that baptism removes that. however, we also believe in baptisms of blood and of desire. Mormons have their own version of “original sin” in which they believe their actions in the “preexistence” determine the conditions of their mortal birth. (particularly in regards to race, church membership of the family and time)

Of course not! We do no such thing.

actually Brigham Young DID! he declared that there are sins that the “atonement” cannot atone for.

Yes, we do deny that. Immaculate Conception is unbiblical and a false doctrine.

zerinus

how is it unbiblical? (it isn’t)

 

[ParkerD]

Parker, I never considered myself a victim until I discovered that some of my ancestors may have had something to do with the death of Joseph Smith, and that some Mormons hate me because of my ancestry. :sad_bye:

Jerusha,
I hope you don’t think I harbor any resentment at all toward you. I would be pleased to meet you and enjoy your company. I’m sure you’re a delightful person.

As to the subtle psychology of “victimhood”, doesn’t it seem that by implying that humankind have Adam and Eve to blame for not being in Paradise, they/we are all “victims”? I don’t think that is a healthy psychological approach to life. I would choose not to believe it, even if it had been taught to me.

 

[Jerusha]

It is an allegory with deep spiritual meaning. I don’t blame Adam or Eve, or even JS and his friends. What happened is a story which has deep lessons about man’s sinful nature, and the deceptions of a false religion.

I blame today’s LDS who harbor intergenerational resentments.

 

[ParkerD]

It is an allegory with deep spiritual meaning. I don’t blame Adam or Eve, or even JS and his friends. What happened is a story which has deep lessons about man’s sinful nature, and the deceptions of a false religion.

I blame today’s LDS who harbor intergenerational resentments.

Jerusha,
You speak of false religion yet base a fundamental belief that leads to chronic self-victimization on Aquinas rather than on the Bible. Aquinas wanted Catholics to feel like a victim, so he could control how Catholics would view life and their place in it. Thus you will chronically view the world as a victim views the world. (‘Someone else or something else is always to “blame”.’) You use these words in your posts out of what is inside of your mind. It is in your psychology. But you can change that.

I’ll leave it at that. Peace to you.

 

[Jerusha]

But you can change that. I’ll leave it at that. Peace to you.

Interesting statement. That is what I am doing with my “little writing project”.

 

[ralphinal]

Ralph,
You have made an inference that I disagree with strongly. God wanted Adam and Eve to have a choice whether to remain innocent, or to grow by having opposition in their lives. They could choose either choice.

Wrong. He wanted them to CHOOSE to love him. They chose themselves over God.

You have assumed hell is a consequence for most, but I disagree completely.

So was Jesus wrong when he said that many are called and few are chosen? Or was he wrong when he said that we should travel by the narrow path?

Yes, by your definition in that they are rescued from hell if they didn’t repent during this life. They are rescued when they choose Christ, and they can do that here in this world or in the spirit world. (See 1 Peter 3:18-22)

Wow. How easy then. A second chance. Sorry, that is not Biblical. The interpretation that you use is wrong. Paul said it is first death, then the judgement. No option for a second chance.

 

[ralphinal]

There is a catch in that one. Adam and Eve didn’t know the difference between good and evil before partaking of the fruit. It was the tree that gave them that knowledge. For example, before eating the fruit they didn’t know it was wrong to be naked. It is only by eating the fruit that they knew. So they couldn’t really tell whether what they were doing was right or wrong. So how could they show their love for God by obeying or disobeying Him, when they couldn’t tell the difference between the two anyway?

zerinus

One little rule was all there was. They knew what to do, and they did not do it. Good and evil were not the issue: God said do not, and they did.

 

[zerinus]

One little rule was all there was. They knew what to do, and they did not do it. Good and evil were not the issue: God said do not, and they did.

What do you think this scripture means:

1 Timothy 2:

14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

zerinus

 

[ricko]

Catholics often deny that “Limbo” was the official teaching of the Church; but evidence suggests otherwise:

Pope Innocent III accepted Abelard’s Doctrine of Limbo, which amended Augustine of Hippo’s Doctrine of Original Sin. The Vatican accepted the view that unbaptized babies did not, as at first believed, go straight to Hell but to a special area of limbo,

From zerinus blog, “proof” that the teaching was "Doctrine. His “proof” is from Wikipedia.

Teaching of Saint Augustine.—In his earlier writings St. Augustine himself agrees with the common tradition.
Catholic Encyclopedia

As you can see it says “tradition” with a small “t”. The state of an unbaptised infant was NEVER DOCTRINE. Taking a quote from Wikipedia does not make it so.You need to show a Catholic document that says it was doctrine.

 

[ParkerD]

Interesting statement. That is what I am doing with my “little writing project”.

Jerusha,
Why am I not surprised that you think people like me are a “victim”? I know the Bible ten times better than you do, I’d guess. You are not a victim, and neither am I. We live by what we choose.

When Christ quoted Isaiah by saying “to preach deliverance to the captives”, one of His meanings was to free us from those feelings of victimization. You needn’t think anyone is a victim. Christ gave us that deliverance from those feelings, if we will choose to not “feel acted upon” by others, by our circumstances in life, by our heritage, or by the choice Eve made in the Garden of Eden.

 

[ralphinal]

What do you think this scripture means:

1 Timothy 2:

14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

zerinus

Exactly what it says: Eve was tricked by the Serpent. Adam did not eat because he believed Satan’s lies. No, he ate because he trusted Eve instead of God.

It does not prove your point. There was one rule. There was no “good and evil.” One rule with no gray area.

 

[ParkerD]

Wrong. He wanted them to CHOOSE to love him. They chose themselves over God.

So was Jesus wrong when he said that many are called and few are chosen? Or was he wrong when he said that we should travel by the narrow path?

Wow. How easy then. A second chance. Sorry, that is not Biblical. The interpretation that you use is wrong. Paul said it is first death, then the judgement. No option for a second chance.

Ralph,
So here you are telling God about the choice He gave to Adam and Eve, and re-writing the Bible? Those are pretty big shoes.

Jesus wanted everyone to get as much light as they would choose to get. And yes, narrow is the way and few there be that find it. That doesn’t mean the rest go to hell.

You, for example, have not even come to your “first chance”. By continuing to hold onto traditions instead of accessing scripture (starting with the Bible), that tradition keeps you from getting a real chance to decide for yourself what you want. At some point, hopefully you will want to make a knowledgeable choice.

Re-read 1 Peter 4:6. Re-read Philippians 2:10-11 and Isaiah 45:23 and Romans 14:10-13. If every knee is going to bow and every tongue is going to confess “that Jesus Christ is Lord”, then that means every knee and it doesn’t mean by force, it means by choice–knowledgeable choice. It means there is going to be a big teaching project in the spirit world, giving people valid “first chances”–not “second chances”.

 

[zerinus]

From zerinus blog, “proof” that the teaching was "Doctrine. His “proof” is from Wikipedia.

Teaching of Saint Augustine.—In his earlier writings St. Augustine himself agrees with the common tradition.
Catholic Encyclopedia

As you can see it says “tradition” with a small “t”. The state of an unbaptised infant was NEVER DOCTRINE. Taking a quote from Wikipedia does not make it so.You need to show a Catholic document that says it was doctrine.

The Wikipedia article is sourced. It doesn’t just pull things out of thin air. The source of that particular quotation in that article is this article from the Vatican website. That is as authoritative as you can get.

zerinus

 

[Jerusha]

Jerusha,
Why am I not surprised that you think people like me are a “victim”?
When Christ quoted Isaiah by saying “to preach deliverance to the captives”, one of His meanings was to free us from those feelings of victimization.

You are mind-reading. I am writing to free myself from Mormon harrassment, and therefore from captivity. If you think those women who refused the sexual advances of JS and friends were doing wrong, then you are just as bad as those men.

it doesn’t mean by force, it means by choice–knowledgeable choice

Then why do people naively convert to Mormonism, not knowing about its history or the deeper meanings of its “scripture?” I had no knowledge of why Mormons hated me so, or even that they caused some of my misfortunes, because of Mormon manipulation of the way history is taught, and the silence in my family.

 

[ralphinal]

Ralph,
So here you are telling God about the choice He gave to Adam and Eve, and re-writing the Bible? Those are pretty big shoes.

I am not telling God anything. I am telling you. Who got the big shoes now? I have not re-written anything at all, either.

Jesus wanted everyone to get as much light as they would choose to get. And yes, narrow is the way and few there be that find it. That doesn’t mean the rest go to hell.

How can it mean anything else?

You, for example, have not even come to your “first chance”. By continuing to hold onto traditions instead of accessing scripture (starting with the Bible), that tradition keeps you from getting a real chance to decide for yourself what you want. At some point, hopefully you will want to make a knowledgeable choice.

You have no idea how much of the Bible I have read. Nor do you understand why the Traditions of the Catholic CHurch should be held on to. I could say the same to you.

Re-read 1 Peter 4:6. Re-read Philippians 2:10-11 and Isaiah 45:23 and Romans 14:10-13. If every knee is going to bow and every tongue is going to confess “that Jesus Christ is Lord”, then that means every knee and it doesn’t mean by force, it means by choice–knowledgeable choice. It means there is going to be a big teaching project in the spirit world, giving people valid “first chances”–not “second chances”.

And if they do not accept him, how will their knee bend?

 

[zerinus]

Exactly what it says: Eve was tricked by the Serpent. Adam did not eat because he believed Satan’s lies. No, he ate because he trusted Eve instead of God.

It does not prove your point. There was one rule. There was no “good and evil.” One rule with no gray area.

Not very convincing I am afraid. Your interpretations are arbitrary and do not have a scriptural basis. What those scriptures show is that the theology of the Fall is more complex than you realize. There is a lot more that we don’t know about it than we do. We know a bit more about it than you do, because we have modern scripture that tells us more, that you do not accept. But the truth is not altered depending on who accepts it and who doesn’t. We know whereof we speak.

zerinus

 

[ralphinal]

Not very convincing I am afraid. Your interpretations are arbitrary and do not have a scriptural basis. What those scriptures show is that the theology of the Fall is more complex than you realize. There is a lot more that we don’t know about it than we do. We know a bit more about it than you do, because we have modern scripture that tells us more, that you do not accept. But the truth is not altered depending on who accepts it and who doesn’t. We know whereof we speak.

zerinus

Tell me if I have the LDS postion wrong.

God wanted people to sin because he knew that once they knew good and evil, they would have true free will.

God wanted people to sin because once they could suffer and struggle, they could grow.

God wanted people to sin knowing that some of them would prefer sin to God, sending them to hell.