LDS Belief on the Need to Sin In Order Understand Joy

[Horton]

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

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]

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.
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.
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.

In using Catholic vocabulary and Catholic Saints my intention was to both show that it’s not just Mormons who believe the fall was necessary, and also to find some understanding on both sides.

if you haven’t already, it may help to read a thread I posted a link to on the previous page.

Just to clarify we do celebrate Easter…

You said a lot of things were “common” in Mormonism and that they’re not Christian. We may nit be Catholic, but one doesn’t have to be Catholic to be a true Christian.

 

[Stephen168]

In using Catholic vocabulary and Catholic Saints my intention was to both show that it’s not just Mormons who believe the fall was necessary, and also to find some understanding on both sides.

So, do you now understand that when a Catholic says necessary, it means something different from when a Mormon says necessary and what you thought we meant by necessary?

if you haven’t already, it may help to read a thread I posted a link to on the previous page.

Which post of yours contained a link to help us understand the Mormon meaning of the fall or sin being required for joy?

You said a lot of things were “common” in Mormonism

I said Mormons use the same rhetoric over and over.

and that they’re not Christian. We may nit be Catholic, but one doesn’t have to be Catholic to be a true Christian.

Lutherans are not Catholic, but they are Christian. Muslims are not Catholic, and they are not Christian. I do understand that one doesn’t have to be Catholic to be a Christian. I also understand that just because someone calls themselves something it doesn’t make it true.

 

[Horton]

…Just to clarify we do celebrate Easter…

You said a lot of things were “common” in Mormonism and that they’re not Christian. We may nit be Catholic, but one doesn’t have to be Catholic to be a true Christian.

One does not have to be Catholic to be Christian. The Catholic Church recognizes many faith traditions as Christian, not just those in communion with Rome, but most of the mainstream protestant churches such as the Presbyterian, Lutheran, Methodist, Baptist, and so on.

The Catholic Church, however, does not recognize the LDS as a Christian Church. When LDS folks convert they must be baptised as the baptism they received is not a valid Christian baptism.

 

[Tarquin]

… the fall of Adam and Eve, their “sin” as it is labelled, …

Huh? What was the lie that God told to Adam and Eve?
Also, you ought to know that LDS take great care in calling it a transgression and not a sin

Today. Not originally. Doctrines change despite denials. Mormon callings and doctrines undergo significant changes through time. Not clarifications or elaborations, but changes.

“As in Adam all die, so in Christ shall all be made alive. Death came into the world by Adam. Adam did not die to redeem the world, but Jesus came forward, vicariously, as the Savior of the world, and died to redeem us from . Through his death Adam’s sin is atoned for.”

• George Q. Cannon, The New Birth—Baptism for the Dead—Temples

“but it is Adam’s sin that makes the little child die, that makes kings, princes, and potentates die, and that has made all generations die from his day down to the present time.”

• Orson Pratt

“The seeds of dissolution are within our tabernacles, because our first parents sinned, and yet we are not guilty of their sins.”
– Orson Pratt

“Jesus Christ is spoken of in the Scriptures as “The Lamb of God that taketh away the sins of the world.” What sins of the world did he take away? We are told that it is the sin which Adam committed.”

• John Taylor, Reflections on the Sacrament, the Atonement and the Second Coming of Jesus

“We could justly excuse ourselves in relation to the sin committed by Adam, but there is no excuse in relation to breaking these second commandments.”
“The original sin is not imputed to them. Why? Because of the atonement. The atonement is just as broad as the original sin and the effects of it. If the original sin extends its effects to the latest generations of Adam, so the atonement will extend its effects to all his posterity, and redeem them from these consequences. But you may inquire, If we are to be redeemed from Adam’s sin and its consequences, unconditionally, by the atonement, shall we not be restored into the condition Adam was in before he fell?” (and passim)

• Orson Pratt, “The Ancient Gospel—Adam’s Transgression, and Man’s Redemption From Its Penalty, &c”

 

[Tarquin]

I’ve read and re-read the responses here, and I’m yet to find someone that has answered it. Perhaps you could enlighten me? If sorrow and pain didn’t exist, how would one comprehend happiness and joy? (The total absence of these things is what I’m talking about, not simply the absence of it in one’s life)

The word “pain” is too ambiguous. Physical, emotional, or some other kind of pain? Some pain is an inconvenience but not necessarily an obstacle to happiness. I am in pain at least part of every day, but I am happy. I have sorrows, but I have joys that have no relation to those sorrows. “If sorrow and pain didn’t exist, how would one comprehend happiness and joy?” Happiness and joy are not results of sorrow and pain! Your question is bizarre. Happiness and joy come from such things as family and social relationships, enjoyable activities, pleasant conversation, learning new things, playing, serving, and so on. Regardless of whether “sorrow and pain” have been experienced or not. Sorrow and pain are inconveniences, *not * primal divine Causal Principles .

 

[Tarquin]

Thank you for your thoughts. I do however, disagree with your assertion that I’ve stared from “Mormon” doctrine, and that there are no groups that give evidence to support it.

I did not say there are no groups arguing in its favor. I will say that your assertions are not doctrinal (not formally taught by the Mormon ‘prophets’ in any of their words that I have read), they were speculative.

There are also some flaws in your reasoning. For instance, one only has to exercise to know that some suffering can indeed be good.

There may be flaws in my reasoning, and I will accept criticism of them. However, in context, you will see I put “good” in quotation marks. I did not want to cause someone to stray from the topic as you just have. I do not reject the idea that there are benefits to activities which activities include suffering. However, it is not the suffering that causes the benefit, but the activity. The suffering is a consequence, not a cause. Exercising (generally speaking) may be good (physically beneficial, generally speaking), but not because “suffering” in the process of exercise is good. It is the exercise itself that is good. The exercising is good even if there is no suffering!

But that was not my point. I thought this thread was about good in the sense of good and evil. Morally, I reject the notion that suffering is morally “good”. Suffering per se is morally neutral. Otherwise you could say that blood atonement was a moral good since the suffering it causes produces great spiritual benefits (as some Mormons have argued).

 

[Tarquin]

I also never said that misery had to come first, only that before one knew the difference between good and evil, even if they were in a state that we would describe as “happy” they would not and could not know it.

Perhaps not in so many words. Certainly, we have heard this from many Mormons and found it in official Church writings, so please, drop the futile attempt at denial. Unless Church doctrine has further evolved (changed its fundamental teachings) when I wasn’t looking. I know there are many Mormons who have gone rogue on long-held doctrines. So while what you now say may be believed by many Mormons, that which you deny is also believed by many, based on discussions with many Mormons and on what many Mormons have written. This illustrates confusion over doctrine among Mormons of all persuasions (bored, disinterested, jack, independent, rogue, etc.).

One pertinent passage is in 2 Nephi 2:22-25, which I consider an illustration of the maxim, “Create a concept and reality leaves the room.”

And now, behold, if Adam had not transgressed he would not have fallen, but he would have remained in the garden of Eden. And all things which were created must have remained in the same state in which they were after they were created; and they must have remained forever, and had no end. And they would have had no children; wherefore they would have remained in a state of innocence, having no joy, for they knew no misery; doing no good, for they knew no sin. But behold, all things have been done in the wisdom of him who knoweth all things. Adam fell that men might be; and men \are, that they might have joy.

Someone named “Vessey” has written,

The Nephi passage is saying that they had to experience misery in order to experience joy, and they had to experience sin in order to experience good; all for the progression of mankind. But is this true in reality? Does one have to go through a beating to know what a loving touch is, does one have to jump into a pile of mud to know what it is to be clean? Does one have to eat a lemon to appreciate the sweetness of an apple pie, or experience darkness to see light? No, this passage is an aberration from reality, and it presents a serious moral problem. For example, if sin is an essential ingredient of human moral growth, then why would God deceptively command Adam and Eve not to eat the fruit from one particular tree, but then severely punished them when they did what He really wanted them to do! What warrant would God have to do such a thing? Would you tell your child not to do something, even though you secretly wanted him to do it, and then punish him when he did what you secretly wanted him to? Of course not! That would be contradictory to your good moral character, and you’d be a moral schizophrenic, but this is precisely what the passage says God did…

The pairing is significant: “having no joy, for they knew no misery; doing no good, for they knew no sin.” To do good according to the Book of Mormon, one must know sin. I am not 100% certain what is meant by “sin” – mere knowledge of sin (and how can one not have a concept of “sin” (wrong-doing), as it seems some form of the concept is ingrained in every normal person) – or the actual commission of sin. If this Mormon principle were true, then for God to be “good”, He must “know sin”, which seems to me to be a contradiction of his Nature (as I accept it, being more in accord with Thomistic Theology than Mormon deification of humans in an uncreated, polytheistic universe).

I recognize that it is *possible *to argue from this passage that it does not say misery must precede joy, and therefore misery and joy could conceivably appear simultaneously. Although that is a possible interpretation, it is contrary to what the Church taught for over a hundred and fifty years. What the Church has taught is that first sin, first the fall, first misery, and then afterwards goodness, salvation and exaltation, happiness, and in the end (not at first, certainly, but after a lifetime or after a thousand lifetimes) joy. This is what the Prophet Orson Pratt and other Mormon prophets have taught:

…suppose you had never tasted anything that was sweet—never had the sensation of sweetness—could you have any correct idea of the term sweetness? No. On the other hand, how could you understand bitter if you never had tasted bitterness? … The tree of knowledge of good and evil was placed there that man might gain certain information he never could have gained otherwise; by partaking of the forbidden fruit he experienced misery , then he knew that he was once happy, previously he could not comprehend what happiness meant, what good was; but now he knows it by contrast…

“He could not comprehend what happiness meant” until he first “experienced misery”. Now I make a fervent plea. If this teaching has in fact changed, if the Church ‘prophets’ now teach that we do not need to experience misery before we can experience (recognize, admit, contrast, or whatever shroud takes the place of “experience,” “feel,” “know directly,” etc.) joy, or sadness before happiness, then I ask you to give the actual sources where I can read for myself the new teaching as presented by the ‘prophets’. I have taken a look at the Aaronic Priesthood Teacher’s Manual, and the Book of Mormon Seminary Teacher’s Manual, and it does look like that may be the direction the teaching is going in, but even those two manuals do not teach it directly and with sufficient clarity to confirm your opinion. Even in those manuals, it could be taken either way – simultaneous or serial experience of misery and joy, good and evil.

Poor Joseph, he would not recognize his church if he were to see it today, given its many doctrinal, organizational, and social changes.

 

[Tarquin]

We of course are the weaker intelligences. There are certain flaws in our character which must be overcome. God did not create them, for we are eternal. Therefore, the fall did not give us a sinful nature, it simply placed us in an environment where our weakness was exposed.

Your prophets disagree with you. forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=13474717&postcount=285

Have you defined “intelligences”?

So I don’t understand this whole idea of misery needing to come “FIRST” in order to experience joy. That is not LDS doctrine. Rather, in order to grow we needed to be placed in a situation where we could experience both misery and joy together.

You are correct. The latter is what Mormons now believe. The former is what Mormons believed at the time of Brigham Young, Orson Pratt, and Joseph F. Smith - and many still do believe today.

 

[RebeccaJ]

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

I think it may help your understanding, if we put the exultet in context. It is an ancient hymn, sung once a year at the Easter Vigil. On Holy Saturday, after sunset, a holy fire is lighted outside the church which is used to light the Paschal candle. The hymn is sung, in a darkened church, around the Paschal candle. This hymn then opens our celebration of Easter, where we celebrate the Resurrection of Jesus. It is a hymn of worship, where we are worshipping Christ, our risen Lord.

Just as Easter is preceded by Good Friday, where we worship Our Lord at the time of His death. Calling that day Good, when it is a solemn and quiet worship. No music, no bells, no incense. Our shrines are darkened, our water fonts are emptied, our Tabernacles are vacant. What is Good about such a day, when Jesus suffered and died? Our Salvation, is that day and that hour! Good, coming from the innocent torture and death of a sinless and perfect Son.

At the Easter Vigil, we recognize that it was a necessary fault, that brought us so great a redeemer.

This is all one long Paschal liturgy, that lasts three days, and is called the triduum. From Holy Thursday evening to evening prayer on Easter Sunday, you can think of it as one unending worship service.

At no time during the triduum are we worshipping the fault, whether Adam’s, Pontius’ or Judas the betrayer’s. We recognize that God uses both moral good and moral evil to do His Good. We recognize God’s mercy towards His imperfect creation, us. You can think of it as, look at the sinful things we do, and look at God’s mercy towards us. It is, as the popular hymn expresses, an Amazing Grace. You can look at it as, God triumphing over evil. Christ, at His Resurrection, is Triumphant.

Recognizing our sins, and how God reveals Himself as ever merciful, never includes a belief or acknowledgement that God causes, plans, or desires, moral evil. That is 180 degrees outside of what we believe about God’s nature.

Hope that helps.

As for GEddie, he is expressing one theological position. St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas, both venerated, had very different positions on the nature of humans before the fall. Some may seem to you close to Mormonism, but neither one would agree with you that God desired that Adam and Eve would, or as Mormons believe SHOULD sin. The Catholic position on this is firmly, God NEVER desires a moral evil (sin).

This is the position if all of Christendom, from the teachings of the Apostles. So while this “Mormonism isn’t really a Christian religion” tangent, may seem harsh to Mormon ears, it is the truthful fact, that this aspect of Mormonism is well outside of Christianity.