Mormon apologetics 101

[RebeccaJ]

Hi Jerusha. interesting. I’ve been trying to read the BoM but just not able to digest it. I keep being distracted by the “and it came to pass” fillers, and once I get aggrivated I just put it down and go to sleep. I accept this as part of my own learning disability, because obviously there are mnay who read and even study the BoM without being irritated over these little things the way I am. I wish I could read the thing, then I wouldn’t have to ask so many questions about it.

Anyway i am curious about what you say above, Jerusha, about cross generational punishment for sins being an important part of the BoM story. Joseph’s articles of faith, I think it is article #2, says:

"We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression."

when I first saw that, I felt like it is a repudiation of original sin. Is this one of those things in which the BoM tells one thing, and then Joseph’s developed mormon doctrine tells something else?

My dad once told me that I would be responsible for the sins of my daughter, because I raised her “outside the church”. There is a mormon scripture somewhere that says the sins of the children will be on their parents. This is an example, going the other way.

All in all, Mormons don’t really believe your sins are forgiven. God remembers them all.

 

[PaulDupre]

RebeccaJ:

It is a fine line the Mormons walk when they embrace such beliefs. The older Mormon temple ritual included a few clues. A wife promised to obey her husband as her god. The Mormon doctrine of men becoming gods is also in this realm. Polygamous societies, by nature, require that equality between man and wife be replaced by one person who is dominant to the rest. In Mormonism, it is the man.

This is also seen in the secular groups who practice various forms of polygamy. There is one, dominant person, and the others obey that person, sometimes slavishly so.

How anyone can believe this is how God intended anyone to live is beyond me.

So true, Rebecca. One of the key features of true Christianity is the equal dignity of man and woman. I love how the Catholic Church stresses this equality in the context of marriage. Pope JPII was especially eloquent in this area.

God love you,
Paul

 

[RebeccaJ]

So true, Rebecca. One of the key features of true Christianity is the equal dignity of man and women. I love how the Catholic Church stresses this equality in the context of marriage. Pope JPII was especially eloquent in this area.

God love you,
Paul

Agreed. It is what helped me get over the hump of understanding a stance for life, including no contraceptives.

 

[PaulDupre]

I remember a cartoon drawn by a disaffected Mormon artist. It showed a woman on a pedestal, but she was barefoot, in rags and chained to the pedestal.

I like equal dignity better.

God love you,
Paul

 

[RebeccaJ]

I remember a cartoon drawn by a disaffected Mormon artist. It showed a woman on a pedestal, but she was barefoot, in rags and chained to the pedestal.

I like equal dignity better.

God love you,
Paul

haha. That was probably Steve Benson. Very good with getting to the point in his drawings. But he is one Angry exmormon.

 

[LaMar]

I remember a cartoon drawn by a disaffected Mormon artist. It showed a woman on a pedestal, but she was barefoot, in rags and chained to the pedestal.

I like equal dignity better.

God love you,
Paul

That cartoon could just as easily be drawn by a Catholic artist, couldn’t it?

Where are the women serving as priests in the RC church? Why are women told they’re going to be tormented for ever for the crime of various medical procedures and the use of prophylactics?

I respect you Paul, but your new religion is at least as sexist as the one you left (which we can both laugh at for hours).

 

[PaulDupre]

Hi LaMar,

The male-only priesthood is a result of the fact that Jesus never ordained women, and that the priest is supposed to be “in persona Christi” (in the person of Christ) and He was a man.

We haven’t the authority to ordain women contrary to Jesus’ own practice and the historical male-only priesthood from Moses to the present.

God love you,
Paul

 

[RebeccaJ]

That cartoon could just as easily be drawn by a Catholic artist, couldn’t it?

Where are the women serving as priests in the RC church? Why are women told they’re going to be tormented for ever for the crime of various medical procedures and the use of prophylactics?

I respect you Paul, but your new religion is at least as sexist as the one you left (which we can both laugh at for hours).

You are applying Mormonism to Catholicism, which doesn’t work, in any area.

I once wrote a paper for school that was about sexism in Mormonism. I still believe everything in it is correct.

Coming into the Catholic church, this is something I checked out pretty thoroughly. And I found a difference that is important to me. The two priesthoods are not the same, are not viewed the same by the adherents of the two religions. The differences are many, and some are subtle and some are not so subtle. But I think the biggest difference for me is that a Catholic Priest, is a representative of Christ. In the liturgy of the Eucharist, the Priest IS Christ. So to me, to be offended that a Priest is male, is to be offended that Jesus was male.

Gender of a Priest, in the Catholic church, has NOTHING to do with gender equality.

 

[LaMar]

Hi Paul,

Thanks for an interesting response.

Have you ever read the (post-feminist) philosopher Camille Paglia?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camille_Paglia

You might like her if you ever get asked this again. She has a lot of very interesting rebuttals to the feminist critique of Catholicism. She writes as an openly gay woman who left the Catholic church (she still calls herself a Catholic, but she makes it clear that’s a secular definition), which gives her an added measure of street cred in defense of the male heirarchy, in the eyes of many critics of the patriarchy.

God love you too…

LaMar

 

[LaMar]

Gender of a Priest, in the Catholic church, has NOTHING to do with gender equality.

Of course it does. It’s sexist, through and through. Same with ultra-Orthodox Jews, Brighamite Mormons, and Fundamentalist Protestants.

Someday (Soon!) a Pope will come out with a declaration that women can be ordained, and at that point you’ll agree with me.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Of course it does. It’s sexist, through and through. Same with ultra-Orthodox Jews, Brighamite Mormons, and Fundamentalist Protestants.

Someday (Soon!) a Pope will come out with a declaration that women can be ordained, and at that point you’ll agree with me.

No,the Pope will never do that. Catholicism isn’t like Mormonism, doctrines don’t change with the winds.

I suggest you learn more about sexism, what it is, and what it is not. And then learn what the Catholic church teaches.

This is my views on sexism in Mormonism. (I wrote it, as I was investigating Mormonism, after years of atheism. I didn’t use my real name then because I was working at a Mormon-owned company and I feared losing my job. Mormon-owned, as in, by the Corporation of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.)

 

[majick275]

Hi Paul,

Thanks for an interesting response.

Have you ever read the (post-feminist) philosopher Camille Paglia?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camille_Paglia

You might like her if you ever get asked this again. She has a lot of very interesting rebuttals to the feminist critique of Catholicism. She writes as an openly gay woman who left the Catholic church (she still calls herself a Catholic, but she makes it clear that’s a secular definition), which gives her an added measure of street cred in defense of the male heirarchy, in the eyes of many critics of the patriarchy.

God love you too…

LaMar

you think her a philosopher? i would say columnist is more accurate. she’s kind of a liberal democrat bill o’reilly

 

[LaMar]

you think her a philosopher? i would say columnist is more accurate. she’s kind of a liberal democrat bill o’reilly

Of course. Sexual Personae is philosophy, and she wrote it. She’s a columnist at the same time. Same way Fanon and Camus wrote columns.

She’s not a liberal democrat, by the way. (Liberal Democrats everywhere are furious at that association lol!) She’s more an anarchist/libertarian type. She comes up with a lot of interesting stuff, not all of which appeals to me personally, but which tends to be very well thought out.

 

[zerinus]

Joseph’s articles of faith, I think it is article #2, says:

"We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression."

when I first saw that, I felt like it is a repudiation of original sin. Is this one of those things in which the BoM tells one thing, and then Joseph’s developed mormon doctrine tells something else?

It is a repudiation of the “original sin” as understood by traditional Christians, especially as understood in the Catholic Church, but also I believe to some extent in Protestantism. We do believe in the original sin in the sense that we accept that as a consequence of the Fall of Adam, all mankind have inherited a disposition or a propensity to commit sin. That is to say, they are inclined to commit sin; and if left to themselves they would sin, unless that inclination is tamed through correct moral and religious teaching, and the person is willing to make the effort to obey those teachings. But we do not believe in “original sin” in the sense in which is it historically understood in the Catholic Church. The traditional Christian doctrine of the original sin states that a person is guilty by virtue of the sin of Adam. In other words, if someone lived a perfect life from the day he was born to the day he died, he would still be considered a sinner in the sight of God, not because he did something wrong, but because Adam did something wrong. We believe that doctrine is false, and is neither biblical nor taught in the Book of Mormon.

The fallacy of this doctrine becomes apparent when one considers the question of the salvation of little children. Historical (Catholic) Christianity has taught that little children (even newborn infants) are considered sinners in the sight of God, and must be baptized before they died or they will go to hell. The reason why they are considered sinners in the sight of God is not because they have done anything wrong; but because Adam did something wrong. The sin of Adam is imputed to them as a consequence of the Fall, so that they are considered guilty even though they haven’t done anything wrong themselves to deserve it. The obvious injustice of that doctrine has weighed heavily on the conscience of many Christians over the centuries; and the Catholic Church has made various attempts to soften the obvious injustice of that erroneous theology at various times in its history but without much success, because the erroneous doctrine of the “original sin” still remains in force. In modern LDS scripture the Lord has revealed that that doctrine is fundamentally erroneous. This is taught both in the Book of Mormon, as well as in other books of LDS scripture. The following verses explains the LDS stance regarding original sin. The first point to note is that we do believe in the original sin as I have described above, but not as understood by Catholics. Here are some verses that illustrate that point:

Mosiah 3:

19 For the natural man is an enemy to God, and has been from the fall of Adam, and will be, forever and ever, unless he yields to the enticings of the Holy Spirit, and putteth off the natural man and becometh a saint through the atonement of Christ the Lord, and becometh as a child, submissive, meek, humble, patient, full of love, willing to submit to all things which the Lord seeth fit to inflict upon him, even as a child doth submit to his father.

Ether 3:

2 Now behold, O Lord, and do not be angry with thy servant because of his weakness before thee; for we know that thou art holy and dwellest in the heavens, and that we are unworthy before thee; because of the fall our natures have become evil continually; nevertheless, O Lord, thou hast given us a commandment that we must call upon thee, that from thee we may receive according to our desires.

D&C 20:

20 But by the transgression of these holy laws man became sensual and devilish, and became fallen man.

So man has inherited a propensity to commit sin as a consequence of the Fall. That we do accept. But we do not accept that a man is considered a sinner by virtue of the sin of Adam, even if he himself has not done anything wrong. In other words, we do not accept the doctrine of the imputation of the sin of Adam to man, even though he himself has not committed any sins (as in the case of infants, for example). This is what the Book of Mormon teaches:

zerinus

Continued . . . /

 

[zerinus]

/. . . Continued

Moses 6:

53 And our father Adam spake unto the Lord, and said: Why is it that men must repent and be baptized in water? And the Lord said unto Adam: Behold I have forgiven thee thy transgression in the Garden of Eden.

54 Hence came the saying abroad among the people, that the Son of God hath atoned for original guilt, wherein the sins of the parents cannot be answered upon the heads of the children, for they are whole from the foundation of the world.

Moroni 8:

4 And now, my son, I speak unto you concerning that which grieveth me exceedingly; for it grieveth me that there should disputations rise among you.

5 For, if I have learned the truth, there have been disputations among you concerning the baptism of your little children.

6 And now, my son, I desire that ye should labor diligently, that this gross error should be removed from among you; for, for this intent I have written this epistle.

7 For immediately after I had learned these things of you I inquired of the Lord concerning the matter. And the word of the Lord came to me by the power of the Holy Ghost, saying:

8 Listen to the words of Christ, your Redeemer, your Lord and your God. Behold, I came into the world not to call the righteous but sinners to repentance; the whole need no physician, but they that are sick; wherefore, little children are whole, for they are not capable of committing sin; wherefore the curse of Adam is taken from them in me, that it hath no power over them; and the law of circumcision is done away in me.

9 And after this manner did the Holy Ghost manifest the word of God unto me; wherefore, my beloved son, I know that it is solemn mockery before God, that ye should baptize little children.

10 Behold I say unto you that this thing shall ye teach—repentance and baptism unto those who are accountable and capable of committing sin; yea, teach parents that they must repent and be baptized, and humble themselves as their little children, and they shall all be saved with their little children.

11 And their little children need no repentance, neither baptism. Behold, baptism is unto repentance to the fulfilling the commandments unto the remission of sins.

12 But little children are alive in Christ, even from the foundation of the world; if not so, God is a partial God, and also a changeable God, and a respecter to persons; for how many little children have died without baptism!

13 Wherefore, if little children could not be saved without baptism, these must have gone to an endless hell.

14 Behold I say unto you, that he that supposeth that little children need baptism is in the gall of bitterness and in the bonds of iniquity; for he hath neither faith, hope, nor charity; wherefore, should he be cut off while in the thought, he must go down to hell.

15 For awful is the wickedness to suppose that God saveth one child because of baptism, and the other must perish because he hath no baptism.

16 Wo be unto them that shall pervert the ways of the Lord after this manner, for they shall perish except they repent.

This mercy is also extended to those who have ignorantly sinned, not knowing the will of God, for they are more or less in the same situation as Children are:

Mosiah 3:

11 For behold, and also his blood atoneth for the sins of those who have fallen by the transgression of Adam, who have died not knowing the will of God concerning them, or who have ignorantly sinned.

12 But wo, wo unto him who knoweth that he rebelleth against God! For salvation cometh to none such except it be through repentance and faith on the Lord Jesus Christ.

So as you can see, there is no difference or disagreement between the doctrine of the original sin as taught in the Book of Mormon, and in other scriptures and teachings of the church. This idea that LDS doctrine has “changed” between the Book of Mormon and its later history or scripture I am afraid is a bit of a myth invented by apostates and anti-Mormons to lead people like you astray. If you are seriously interested in learning about Mormonism, I suggest you learn it from Mormons, not from Mormon apostates and anti-Mormons.

That clause in the LDS Articles of Faith: “We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression” which you had mentioned is designed to emphasize this fundamental difference between LDs doctrine and traditional Christianity. So you had judged it correctly; it does repudiate the doctrine of the original sin as taught in Catholicism, but not as taught in the Bible.

zerinus

 

[majick275]

this seems to clash with the mormon teaching about those who have been punished for “Cain’s transgression”.

Actually the reconciliation of the two as taught by many mormon leaders is that technically all are punished for their own transgressions in the pre-existence by the specifics of their birht here on earth. (most “valiant” born into mormon “royalty”, least valiant go to horrid 3rd world homes)

the problem is even with forgiveness mormon doctrine leaves you in a pretty bad state since it’s works based exaltation.

 

[majick275]

Of course. Sexual Personae is philosophy, and she wrote it. She’s a columnist at the same time. Same way Fanon and Camus wrote columns.

She’s not a liberal democrat, by the way. (Liberal Democrats everywhere are furious at that association lol!) She’s more an anarchist/libertarian type. She comes up with a lot of interesting stuff, not all of which appeals to me personally, but which tends to be very well thought out.

I view that book as the same level as desmond morris or sherry Hite I guess. (more sociology than philosophy) I disagree with her on just about everything BUT she is eloquent and erudite in her writings.

 

[J_C]

thank you z, excellent reply, and I will read it slowly to digest it fully.

one question, though, about the distinction between having a propensity to sin, and actually being a sinner. Without getting into quotes which I am sure you know by heart, Jesus i believe taught that the contemplation of sin is the same as the sin itself. while I’m sure there is a difference between the thinking and the doing, the thinking is often/usually unavoidable (therefore venial) while the doing (mortal) is almost always avoidable. Either way they are both sin, the one leading to death, the other a byproduct of the propensity to sin, and of a type that weakens the grip on Grace and realtionship with God.

I have been taught, and i am not insisting that all of my knowledge is correct doctrine, that the original sin is part of the Plan whcih God insists we go along with; which is that we are born into a state of sin and must be regenerated through baptism in order to establish a relationship of Grace with God. If it were otherwise then a man could attain salvation apart from God. Jesus states that idea in the Bible where he says that the essence of the sin is in the thought and conception of it, even if the overt act never occurred. How do mormons interpret these teachings of Jesus regarding the nature of sin?

 

[zerinus]

thank you z, excellent reply, and I will read it slowly to digest it fully.

one question, though, about the distinction between having a propensity to sin, and actually being a sinner. Without getting into quotes which I am sure you know by heart, Jesus i believe taught that the contemplation of sin is the same as the sin itself. while I’m sure there is a difference between the thinking and the doing, the thinking is often/usually unavoidable (therefore venial) while the doing (mortal) is almost always avoidable. Either way they are both sin, the one leading to death, the other a byproduct of the propensity to sin, and of a type that weakens the grip on Grace and realtionship with God.

I have been taught, and i am not insisting that all of my knowledge is correct doctrine, that the original sin is part of the Plan whcih God insists we go along with; which is that we are born into a state of sin and must be regenerated through baptism in order to establish a relationship of Grace with God. If it were otherwise then a man could attain salvation apart from God. Jesus states that idea in the Bible where he says that the essence of the sin is in the thought and conception of it, even if the overt act never occurred. How do mormons interpret these teachings of Jesus regarding the nature of sin?

I do not question the fact that we can sin in thought and in mind, as well as in act. Sin is sin, of whatever kind it is, and cuts us off from God. The Book of Mormon teaches this as well:

Mosiah 4:

29 And finally, I cannot tell you all the things whereby ye may commit sin; for there are divers ways and means, even so many that I cannot number them.

30 But this much I can tell you, that if ye do not watch yourselves, and your thoughts, and your words, and your deeds, and observe the commandments of God, and continue in the faith of what ye have heard concerning the coming of our Lord, even unto the end of your lives, ye must perish. And now, O man, remember, and perish not.

The question is not what kind of sin is permissible and what kind is not. The issue is the imputation of the sin of Adam to someone who has not committed any sin at all, of thought or of deed. Take the case of a newborn infant who hasn’t had a chance to commit any kind of sin, of thought or of deed. But according to traditional Christian theology, he is a sinner, not because he did something wrong, but because Adam did something wrong. That is the Christian doctrine of the original sin, and it is wrong. The Sin of Adam is not “imputed” to anybody. We stand or fall on the basis of our own sins, not the sin of Adam—even though the sin of Adam has given us the inclination to commit sin, be it of thought or of deed. We become guilty when we sin ourselves, not when Adam sinned.

zerinus

 

[J_C]

The question is not what kind of sin is permissible and what kind is not. The issue is the imputation of the sin of Adam to someone who has not committed any sin at all, of thought or of deed. Take the case of a newborn infant who hasn’t had a chance to commit any kind of sin, of thought or of deed. But according to traditional Christian theology, he is a sinner, not because he did something wrong, but because Adam did something wrong. That is the Christian doctrine of the original sin, and it is wrong. The Sin of Adam is not “imputed” to anybody. We stand or fall on the basis of our own sins, not the sin of Adam—even though the sin of Adam has given us the inclination to commit sin, be it of thought or of deed. We become guilty when we sin ourselves, not when Adam sinned.

zerinus

sorry i’m so late getting back to this, I’ve re-read your paragraph above and have a question and a comment.

First, what do you mean by “sin that is permissable and sin that is not”?

second, it appears from this that you are under the impression that Catholic teaching is that people are to be punished as a result of Adam and Eve sin. This is not true. The original sin does not lead to punishment but rather leads to concupiscience, which is normally the tendency to choose a lesser good rather than th e ultimate good, or even to choose out and out evil. I hope I’ve got that right someone please step in and correct me if I am wrong.

I’m not sure that in Catholic teaching a baby would be considered a “sinner” by virtue of original sin, but there is no doubt that in time, that human will commit sins in fact, in thoughts and in words, in the doing and the failure to do. I believe Jesus taught that the tendency to sin is so deeply ingrained that there is no avoiding it, and this was amplified by Paul where he talks about death coming via the law, and that he does what he does not want to do. I believe the lesson is that we cannot be good enough to please God by our own efforts. If we could then we would not need a Savior. Jesus said there is no difference between the contemplation of the sin, and the doing of the sin. This means we have no escape from sin except through the saving work of Jesus on the cross, and through the authority to reconcile that Jesus delegated to the priests of the Catholic Church.