LDS Belief on the Need to Sin In Order Understand Joy

[RebeccaJ]

It’s actually not Mormon spin… Necessary and essential mean exactly the same thing… I’m just trying to come to a mutual understanding.

Catholicism is a precise in its theological expression. Mormonism is not. That isn’t a dig against Mormonism, it’s just how it is.

So, theologically speaking, the word necessary is purposely used. It is a translation into English, and then you put a Mormon spin on Catholic doctrine.

Fine though, if you want to use necessary or essential, but either way, it doesn’t have the Mormon connotation you’re trying to force onto it. There also isn’t a mutual understanding to be had, in regards to the Fall, Original Sin, Original Grace or Redemptive Grace. Sorry, but Mormonism is so far off from Christain teaching, that it is something else entirely.

 

[Job314]

Catholicism is a precise in its theological expression. Mormonism is not. That isn’t a dig against Mormonism, it’s just how it is.

So, theologically speaking, the word necessary is purposely used. It is a translation into English, and then you put a Mormon spin on Catholic doctrine.

Fine though, if you want to use necessary or essential, but either way, it doesn’t have the Mormon connotation you’re trying to force onto it. There also isn’t a mutual understanding to be had, in regards to the Fall, Original Sin, Original Grace or Redemptive Grace. Sorry, but Mormonism is so far off from Christain teaching, that it is something else entirely.

I would respectfully disagree that Mormonism lacks precision in its theological expression. Obviously you perceive a lack of clarity in Mormonism, I perceive the same in Catholicism.

What’s the unique definition of necessary that you use then? What does it mean that’s different to the translation of necessárium (the Latin word in the Exsultet) as necessary or necessities?

Why yes we do have different understandings, Mormonism is off Catholic teachings, on that we agree. But not off Christian teachings

 

[fhansen]

I would respectfully disagree that Mormonism lacks precision in its theological expression. Obviously you perceive a lack of clarity in Mormonism, I perceive the same in Catholicism.

What’s the unique definition of necessary that you use then? What does it mean that’s different to the translation of necessárium (the Latin word in the Exsultet) as necessary or necessities?

Why yes we do have different understandings, Mormonism is off Catholic teachings, on that we agree. But not off Christian teachings

Doesn’t work that way. Catholicism is Christianity. Everything else is off the mark to one degree or another, arriving on the scene late in the game, going by their private interpretations of scripture and/or their private revelations, all claiming in some way to sort of bypass the historical Church in their exclusive knowledge of ‘how things were’ back in the day.

In your scenario, God directly wills every one of the most heinous crimes committed; the most vicious rape and torture and murder of the most innocent humans, because He directly willed/caused the Fall; He directly wills evil. This is not what the Exsultet means by “necessary sin”. We acknowledge the ultimate good that comes and will come from God allowing evil to have its day within His creation, but to make the jump to His directly willing evil is to read too much between the lines, with the cart ending up too far ahead of the horse. God simply is not the author of evil.

 

[Stephen168]

It’s not a question of God’s omnipotence it’s simply the only way possible for free will to exist…

And we agree that there are things that God “can’t” do. For example lie or be unjust, coukd God not have saved us all without Jesus dying on the cross and being resurrected and going through the pain of gethsemane? Does Satan then deserve our praise for tempting Judas to betray Christ? Or pushing the leaders of the Jews to press the Roman leaders (especially Pilate) until they permitted the crucifixion? Of course not. But God allowed those things to happen because they furthered His plan. Was He not powerful enough to do those things Himself? Of course He was. But He didn’t.

It seem to me that Mormonism teaches that the end justifies the mean. A pregnant woman wants to be happy. Not being a mother would make her happy, and not carrying the child to full term would make her happiest of all. It would be necessary for her to have an abortion to kill the child.
Mormonism teaches this would not be a bad thing to do. It would be just another choice of equal choices. Another display of free will.

Christianity has always taught a moral code of virtue, so the end never justifies the means, abortion is always wrong. While abortion would be necessary to end a pregnancy, it is the not the only option for happiness. Knowing murder is not required to know life.

Christians also believe God is love and would never put man in a situation to be forced to sin or require sin to know joy.

 

[Stephen168]

I would say that St. Ambrose and St. Augustine state pretty specifically that it was, in fact, necessary though.

It was necessary in that, without it, there’d be no reason for so great a Redeemer.

Thanks for the explanation, I do appreciate it. My thought though, is that the gist of the points of St Augustine and St Ambrose (amongst others) is that it was "necessary”.

Man’s ultimate perfection was yet to be achieved, But the Fall wasn’t a necessary path, rather a detour on a journey that could’ve led straight to the more complete union with God that man is made for. Its all about our wills. The exile out of Eden was more reformative, or actually formative, rather than punitive, in nature either way…

I would say that St. Ambrose and St. Augustine state pretty specifically that it was, in fact, necessary though.

AND repeat

It was necessary in that, without it, there’d be no reason for so great a Redeemer.

Thanks for the explanation, I do appreciate it. My thought though, is that the gist of the points of St Augustine and St Ambrose (amongst others) is that it was "necessary”.

Man’s ultimate perfection was yet to be achieved, But the Fall wasn’t a necessary path, rather a detour on a journey that could’ve led straight to the more complete union with God that man is made for. Its all about our wills. The exile out of Eden was more reformative, or actually formative, rather than punitive, in nature either way…

I would say that St. Ambrose and St. Augustine state pretty specifically that it was, in fact, necessary though.

 

[Job314]

AND repeat

Thanks for supplying those. My repetition was mainly in response to RebeccaJ who stated that Catholic belief was that the fall was not necessary.

 

[Job314]

It seem to me that Mormonism teaches that the end justifies the mean. A pregnant woman wants to be happy. Not being a mother would make her happy, and not carrying the child to full term would make her happiest of all. It would be necessary for her to have an abortion to kill the child.
Mormonism teaches this would not be a bad thing to do. It would be just another choice of equal choices. Another display of free will.

Christianity has always taught a moral code of virtue, so the end never justifies the means, abortion is always wrong. While abortion would be necessary to end a pregnancy, it is the not the only option for happiness. Knowing murder is not required to know life.

Christians also believe God is love and would never put man in a situation to be forced to sin or require sin to know joy.

Actually, Mormonism does not teach that that wouldn’t be a bad thing. There absolutely is a moral code of virtue, but that moral code only exists because the fall occurred…

 

[Job314]

Doesn’t work that way. Catholicism is Christianity. Everything else is off the mark to one degree or another, arriving on the scene late in the game, going by their private interpretations of scripture and/or their private revelations, all claiming in some way to sort of bypass the historical Church in their exclusive knowledge of ‘how things were’ back in the day.

In your scenario, God directly wills every one of the most heinous crimes committed; the most vicious rape and torture and murder of the most innocent humans, because He directly willed/caused the Fall; He directly wills evil. This is not what the Exsultet means by “necessary sin”. We acknowledge the ultimate good that comes and will come from God allowing evil to have its day within His creation, but to make the jump to His directly willing evil is to read too much between the lines, with the cart ending up too far ahead of the horse. God simply is not the author of evil.

Well the first part of what you said requires a whole new thread to address, so I’ll leave that for now

I’m not sure where you get that I said or implied that God directly wills every single sin because He allowed to fall to take place?
All I was saying was that the Exsultet states that it was necessary. Why was it “necessary” why not leave the words as “happy fault”? Then, I could understand your position on it.

 

[Stephen168]

Actually, Mormonism does not teach that that wouldn’t be a bad thing. There absolutely is a moral code of virtue, but that moral code only exists because the fall occurred…

Actually, the Mormon Church changed its teaching on abortion, the change required a rejection of a virtuous moral code. There was a moral code before the fall which is why the fall itself is referred to as a sin by Christians, the sin of Adam. (Roman 5:12-14, 1Cor 15:22).

As I said, Mormonism teaches the end justifies the means, and God is not love, but a trickster. Both of these ideas are contrary to Christianity.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Thanks for supplying those. My repetition was mainly in response to RebeccaJ who stated that Catholic belief was that the fall was not necessary.

No, I’m saying it is not necessary in how YOU understand, why it was necessary.

Where we diverge in our understanding is at the point you say God planned the fall. We say, God planned for our redemption, knowing that Adam and Eve were going to sin, he prepared for us a redeemer. In this, God conquers sin and evil. The fall was necessary for so great a redeemer. However we hold no belief that it was ONLY WAY. As you keep asserting. We understand that God can do anything in any way. What God has revealed, in His Son, is our Salvation.

Your statements have been, the fall is necessary for people to progress to becoming gods. Therefore God planned the fall. It’s already been pointed out several times why God planning evil is not necessary.

 

[RebeccaJ]

I would respectfully disagree that Mormonism lacks precision in its theological expression. Obviously you perceive a lack of clarity in Mormonism, I perceive the same in Catholicism.

What’s the unique definition of necessary that you use then? What does it mean that’s different to the translation of necessárium (the Latin word in the Exsultet) as necessary or necessities?

Why yes we do have different understandings, Mormonism is off Catholic teachings, on that we agree. But not off Christian teachings

I think your attempt to commandeer a couple of Saints in support of something they never taught or believed, shows a lack of precision and just how non-Christian Mormon teachings are.

Necessary, as in, a need. God planning for our redemption fulfills our need.

at illi dixerunt quia Dominus eum necessarium habe
Luke 19.34
English
And they said, The Lord hath need of him.

The exultant is expressing our need for a redeemer. Jesus Christ fulfills that need. Our need is because of the fall. So we exclaim Felix Culpa! You can say, our Need has a name, Jesus Christ.

We celebrate our redemption, not the fall.

 

[fhansen]

Well the first part of what you said requires a whole new thread to address, so I’ll leave that for now

I’m not sure where you get that I said or implied that God directly wills every single sin because He allowed to fall to take place?
All I was saying was that the Exsultet states that it was necessary. Why was it “necessary” why not leave the words as “happy fault”? Then, I could understand your position on it.

If it was necessary, then God *willed *it; God willed that Adam sinned, opening the door to all other sins, after telling him not to. That’s different from simply allowing it-that’s directly causing it. Man had no choice in that case.

From our perspective the Fall can be looked upon as positive, as needed, because that’s how we come to meet and know Jesus-that’s how we come to know God. But it’s kind of like saying that an illness is good and necessary because, by it, a man meets a nurse who becomes his future wife. He may be grateful and yet the illness is still an evil.

So the Fall of man is undeniably opposed to the will of God even if, by it, He ended up making lemonade out of lemons. In the case of the Fall, man took the illness upon himself, as a choice. God can still use that situation, obviously, and yet we have to know that, if Adam had made the greater choice, to remain in subjugation to God, his knowledge of and love for Him would’ve grown deeper and deeper. The Fall just helps give us the impetus to return to our starting point, obedient to God, having learned the hard way that He was right all along in His *command *to remain in obedience, *having learned of our need for Him. *

 

[Stephen168]

The logic is not that we personally need to sin to know happiness, but that of no one in the history of the world sinned or experienced suffering, it would be impossible for anyone to comprehend anything different.

This is another example of Mormonism rejecting a virtuous moral code by claiming sin is good for some because it will be a benefit of all. Therefore, God wants us to sin would be how Christianity would understand Mormonism.

Can you explain how we could?

You presume to think we need to know; you are begging the question. Christianity teaches all humanity should act virtuously because that is the will of God.

 

[Horton]

I would respectfully disagree that Mormonism lacks precision in its theological expression. Obviously you perceive a lack of clarity in Mormonism, I perceive the same in Catholicism.

What’s the unique definition of necessary that you use then? What does it mean that’s different to the translation of necessárium (the Latin word in the Exsultet) as necessary or necessities?

Why yes we do have different understandings, Mormonism is off Catholic teachings, on that we agree. But not off Christian teachings

When one is “off” Catholic teaching then he is “off” Christian teaching. Remember, for 1500 years Catholics were the only Christians.

There is nothing in LDS teaching that is Christian in any way. The LDS may call it Christian as a means of appearing to be just another protestant denomination but it is a fallacy of epic proportions.

 

[gazelam]

When one is “off” Catholic teaching then he is “off” Christian teaching. Remember, for 1500 years Catholics were the only Christians.

Something tells me that the Eastern Orthodox would disagree with you.

There is nothing in LDS teaching that is Christian in any way. The LDS may call it Christian as a means of appearing to be just another protestant denomination but it is a fallacy of epic proportions.

Since both LDS and Catholics share the belief that stealing is wrong, does that make Catholic teaching un-Christian? For the record, the LDS church never attempts to “appear Protestant”.

 

[Stephen168]

Something tells me that the Eastern Orthodox would disagree with you.

On the subject of THIS thread, they would agree with us, because Mormon teaching on this subject is outside the teaching of Christianity.

Since both LDS and Catholics share the belief that stealing is wrong, does that make Catholic teaching un-Christian?

Catholic moral teaching is based on the virtues, so Catholics believe sin and therefore stealing is always wrong. Mormons believe that the end justifies the means, so Mormons believe sin and therefore stealing can be good if the final outcome is good for them. While it may appear that Mormons believe stealing is wrong it is actually conditional which is un-christian.

 

[Job314]

I think your attempt to commandeer a couple of Saints in support of something they never taught or believed, shows a lack of precision and just how non-Christian Mormon teachings are.

Necessary, as in, a need. God planning for our redemption fulfills our need.

at illi dixerunt quia Dominus eum necessarium habe
Luke 19.34
English
And they said, The Lord hath need of him.

The exultant is expressing our need for a redeemer. Jesus Christ fulfills that need. Our need is because of the fall. So we exclaim Felix Culpa! You can say, our Need has a name, Jesus Christ.

We celebrate our redemption, not the fall.

Well the Exsultet states “O necessary sin” -we agree on the definition of necessary, I think need suits this context just fine. All you’re doing however, is removing the word sin and replacing it with redemption (also necessary, but referenced in a separate verse in the Exsultet)

I understand that you also exclaim Felix Culpa! indeed it is a happy fault, but that’s not all the Exaultet says about the fall.

In any case, the issue was pretty much resolved about 5 years ago on a thread I just found:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=444694

Essentially what GEddie says is the way that Mormons look at it

 

[fhansen]

Well the Exsultet states “O necessary sin” -we agree on the definition of necessary, I think need suits this context just fine. All you’re doing however, is removing the word sin and replacing it with redemption (also necessary, but referenced in a separate verse in the Exsultet)

I understand that you also exclaim Felix Culpa! indeed it is a happy fault, but that’s not all the Exaultet says about the fall.

In any case, the issue was pretty much resolved about 5 years ago on a thread I just found:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=444694

Essentially what GEddie says is the way that Mormons look at it

The priest cited in that thread made an assumption, unsupported by Catholic teaching. Again, from a purely *fallen human perspective, *Christ is the only door-we know no other way to God. From the starting point of Eden, however, this is not at all necessarily the case, that the Fall and redemption should be the only way. The existence of the Tree of Life, for example, implies that A&E might’ve moved towards complete union with God had they chosen to eat of it instead. Either way, injustice simply does not beget justice.

 

[Stephen168]

Thanks for supplying those. My repetition was mainly in response to RebeccaJ who stated that Catholic belief was that the fall was not necessary.

Actually, it seems that your repetition was mainly to try and equate Mormon teaching with Catholic teaching. This is common in Mormonism, so their teachings sound Christian. You are claiming that Mormonism and Catholicism both teach the fall was necessary. You want to apply the word necessary the same way to Mormon and Catholic teaching, but it is not the same. Mormons say the fall was necessary for the existence of sin; therefore humanity’s knowledge of joy. Mormons say the fall was necessary for the existence of human reproduction. Mormonism teaches the fall was necessary because God demanded it by demanding reproduction. In other words Mormonism teaches the fall was necessary, period.
Mormon teaching is not Christian teaching. I do not have to drive my car into a ditch to get to work. If I did drive my car into the ditch, and I made a great friendship with the tow truck driver that would be a great thing. I could say it was necessary that I drove into the ditch to have gained a great friend. But it was not necessary for me to get to work. In Christian teaching, sin/bad/evil is never necessary, and God would never require it.

Well the Exsultet states “O necessary sin” -we agree on the definition of necessary, I think need suits this context just fine. All you’re doing however, is removing the word sin and replacing it with redemption (also necessary, but referenced in a separate verse in the Exsultet)

Celebrating being pulled out of the ditch and the existence of a tow truck driver (redemption/Redeemer) is not the same thing as celebrating driving into a ditch (sin). At the Easter Vigil we are celebrating our Redeemer and his redemption. Easter is the most Holy and special time of year for Christians for this reason. This is not Mormon teaching or practice.

I understand that you also exclaim Felix Culpa! indeed it is a happy fault, but that’s not all the Exaultet says about the fall.

This is a common Mormon rhetorical technique to imply something without actually proving it. The Exaulet is a hymn of praise about Christ our redeemer. It does nothing to support the Mormon teaching on the fall or make it necessary as Mormons believe it to be.

 

[Horton]

Something tells me that the Eastern Orthodox would disagree with you.

They may, but more importantly they WILL disagree with LDS theology as a whole. But nice try, changing the topic.

Since both LDS and Catholics share the belief that stealing is wrong, does that make Catholic teaching un-Christian? For the record, the LDS church never attempts to “appear Protestant”.