Mormons: What are the consquences of Original Sin?

[ParkerD]

God lives in eternity, a state of being that exists outside of time and space. All of history unfolds at once before God’s eyes. He is omniscient. Yes, God knew that we would fall into sin and out of His great love for us, He also knew, “from before the foundation of the world” that He Himself would come to save us from our sins. But this is quite different from the view that God planned the fall. He gave us free will in order that we might choose to love Him. We were made in His image and likeness. We were created to love. That was His plan. We rebelled against His plan for us.

This all sounds rather innocent. You presuppose that Adam and Eve were created less than complete, that they lacked knowledge and that their sin was really just an attempt to acquire more knowledge. Eve found a way to do this and so who could really blame her?

I would disagree. There was much more to their disobedience than a thirst for knowledge. Remember, they had been created in the image and likeness of God and therefore lacked nothing. They did not suffer from a weakening of the will and a dimming of the intellect as they would later. They lived in the Garden and walked with God. They knew goodness and beauty and shared a familial relationship with God. … They now loose all trust in their Creator. He was a tyrant that wanted to keep them down and not allow them to be like Him. They would know everything and be as powerful as God. And so Eve rebelled and Adam followed her, knowingly disobeying God. They chose to believe the serpent rather than trust in their loving Father.
…

There is only a blessing in that Jesus Christ came to save us, not that we experience evil. Yes, we are now in the position of having to choose between good and evil. Adam and Eve were faced with this same choice, before they sinned. Do we or don’t we. They chose sin, and the doubt that was placed in their hearts is the same doubt that we all carry with us. We rebel, just as they did. It is why we require a Savior. You speak of the fall almost as something good, as if this was God’s desire for us, a necessary evil, if you will. God’s desire for us in the beginning is the same as it is now. He desires that we choose to love Him, nothing more.

SteveVH,

If you happen back, I think there are some assumptions that you have made here that are non-Biblical and thus lead to conclusions that are non-Biblical conclusions.

By saying “we rebelled against His plan for us” (and by the way, I agree that the Father had the plan and the Son agreed with the plan of salvation, but the plan included that the Son would come to earth and be the Savior and Redeemer–not the Father), that statement seems to mean that all of humankind after Adam and Eve “rebelled against His plan for us.”

What if I disagree with that assumption, and say that I have never felt “rebellious” about His plan for us, nor have ever felt non-loving toward God or toward Christ? The Bible doesn’t say that “we rebelled against His plan for us,” nor does any apostle teach anything like that in the New Testament.

What if I disagree with the assumption that “God desires that we choose to love Him, nothing more”? Certainly, He desires that we choose to love Him–but I disagree that there is “nothing more”. He desires to be able to teach us, which means that there is much more that we can learn than simply to “love Him”.

I disagree with the ideas of a “weakening of the will” and a “dimming of the intellect” as a result of the fall of Adam and Eve. I also disagree with the use of the word “rebelled” as to their choices. They had a complex circumstance that confronted them. The assumption that they were rebelling is not only non-Biblical, but it is directly contrary to all that the Bible has to say on the subject.

Satan tried to deceive Eve, but the assumption that she really thought there was validity to his temptation about being “like God” is a completely non-Biblical assumption. Certainly, Satan loves for people to think that he had a “success” in that by using those words of temptation that she swallowed them “hook, line and sinker”–but there is nothing in the Biblical account to imply that she was thinking this when she partook of the fruit–only Satan’s temptation. What if Moses was inspired to leave those words as they are, to provide a test to humankind as to whether they will judge Eve harshly, and Adam harshly? Assuming their motives to be “rebellion” and “wanting to be as God” right then and there, immediately, seems to be a pretty judgmental situation for anyone to take upon themselves as they look at our first parents.

A wish of peace to all readers here. I personally am profoundly grateful for the plan of salvation, and rejoice in its perfection in allowing free will choice to humankind, with redemption made possible through the atoning grace of our Redeemer and Savior, Jesus Christ.

 

[GaryTaylor]

“Satan tried to deceive Eve, but the assumption that she really thought there was validity to his temptation about being “like God” is a completely non-Biblical assumption. Certainly, Satan loves for people to think that he had a “success” in that by using those words of temptation that she swallowed them “hook, line and sinker”–but there is nothing in the Biblical account to imply that she was thinking this when she partook of the fruit–only Satan’s temptation. What if Moses was inspired to leave those words as they are, to provide a test to humankind as to whether they will judge Eve harshly, and Adam harshly? Assuming their motives to be “rebellion” and “wanting to be as God” right then and there, immediately, seems to be a pretty judgmental situation for anyone to take upon themselves as they look at our first parents.”

ParkerD…btw how are you? My prayers are with you my Christian brother.

Nonetheless, I’m hearing what your saying here. But not understanding where you are coming from? From the conversation that transpires between the talking serpent and Eve. What would you say Eves thoughts/intention’s were?

I’m not trying to play stump the stars with you, I’m interested in your thinking on this. I’ve read a few interesting theorys on this.

God Bless, Gary

 

[ParkerD]

“Satan tried to deceive Eve, but the assumption that she really thought there was validity to his temptation about being “like God” is a completely non-Biblical assumption. Certainly, Satan loves for people to think that he had a “success” in that by using those words of temptation that she swallowed them “hook, line and sinker”–but there is nothing in the Biblical account to imply that she was thinking this when she partook of the fruit–only Satan’s temptation. What if Moses was inspired to leave those words as they are, to provide a test to humankind as to whether they will judge Eve harshly, and Adam harshly? Assuming their motives to be “rebellion” and “wanting to be as God” right then and there, immediately, seems to be a pretty judgmental situation for anyone to take upon themselves as they look at our first parents.”

GaryTaylor,

Good morning–thanks for asking how I’m doing. My family and I are well as we are getting ready in the ways needed for a wedding this week for one of my daughters, and also in the midst of busy school life for others of our children. Thanks sincerely for your prayers–very kind of you indeed. I hope and pray that you are well also, and join in praying for all those in Japan who may be in the midst of difficult circumstances or tragic loss at this time.

If we look at what Moses was inspired to write as recorded in Genesis 3:6, then he tells the world (and us) Eve’s motives:

1. She saw that the tree “was good for food”;
2. She saw that it was “pleasant to the eyes”; and
3. She perceived or thought that it was a “tree to be desired to make one wise”.

This verse is significantly important in the telling of the circumstances of this very important event that precipitated the changes to our mortal world. Items one and two make it sound like all three must be “temptations” or “poor motives” if a person allows oneself to think they are all three poor motives. But there is nothing in the account that describes item three as being a poor motive for her partaking of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

Again, how one views the situation places one in a position of being “judgmental”, or not. I think it is correct to assume that both God who inspired Moses in the writing, and Moses who did the writing, placed the words that became translated as describing her motives with specific purposes–that we should believe them and believe her motives as they are given by those words.

What did she evidently desire and feel she lacked and became motivated by her desire? The words are that she perceived in her thoughts that it was a “tree to be desired to make one wise.” So it is clear that she felt she lacked being “wise”, and felt that being wise was something she wanted. (The words don’t frame that desire as being “good” or “bad”–but it could just as well be considered “good” as it could be considered “bad” to have had this third motive.)

Thanks again for your kind thoughts you have expressed–very much appreciated! Have a very good and peace-filled day.

 

[GaryTaylor]

GaryTaylor,

Good morning–thanks for asking how I’m doing. My family and I are well as we are getting ready in the ways needed for a wedding this week for one of my daughters, and also in the midst of busy school life for others of our children. Thanks sincerely for your prayers–very kind of you indeed. I hope and pray that you are well also, and join in praying for all those in Japan who may be in the midst of difficult circumstances or tragic loss at this time.

If we look at what Moses was inspired to write as recorded in Genesis 3:6, then he tells the world (and us) Eve’s motives:

1. She saw that the tree “was good for food”;
2. She saw that it was “pleasant to the eyes”; and
3. She perceived or thought that it was a “tree to be desired to make one wise”.

This verse is significantly important in the telling of the circumstances of this very important event that precipitated the changes to our mortal world. Items one and two make it sound like all three must be “temptations” or “poor motives” if a person allows oneself to think they are all three poor motives. But there is nothing in the account that describes item three as being a poor motive for her partaking of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

Again, how one views the situation places one in a position of being “judgmental”, or not. I think it is correct to assume that both God who inspired Moses in the writing, and Moses who did the writing, placed the words that became translated as describing her motives with specific purposes–that we should believe them and believe her motives as they are given by those words.

What did she evidently desire and feel she lacked and became motivated by her desire? The words are that she perceived in her thoughts that it was a “tree to be desired to make one wise.” So it is clear that she felt she lacked being “wise”, and felt that being wise was something she wanted. (The words don’t frame that desire as being “good” or “bad”–but it could just as well be considered “good” as it could be considered “bad” to have had this third motive.)

Thanks again for your kind thoughts you have expressed–very much appreciated! Have a very good and peace-filled day.

Thanks, also just read a Nuclear Reactor exploded in Japan. I don’t ahve all the details just the on-line news link.

I don’t disagree with your thoughts on Genesis. The “Pleasing to the eyes verse” I have thought about about often. Remind me of the saying “All that glitter’s isn’t Gold”. Thats just added to the folly

I see it in few diffent ways, I would think that most miss, not you btw. First though the serpent was very misleading. He actually didn’t lie to them. What Adam and Eve understood the serpent to say wasn’t exactly what he was saying. In other words it was a half-truth. Which we know lucifer is very good at.

But yes the actual “sin” was disobeying the word of God.

What I found most disturbing was the lack of honestly, remorse and the ability to admitt wrong and repent. Had Adam and Even simple said; My Blessed Lord we are sorry, could you find it in our heart to forgive us? We undertstand we have done wrong, could you find it your heart to help us and forgive.

This we hear none of, which is really very early chistian teaching, and I’m psotive with Mormons as well as us. Truth, Honestly and to admit when you are wrong and repent.

I also don’t believe the God placed that particular tree just to tempt Adam and eve. I undestand the chain of events that unfolded. Yet also in retrospect of what happened to the Tree after this incident, then in Revelations. I often wonder is it was just a matter of God as some point further instucting on the truth of the tree.

In essense the Tree is no different than many aspects of evil existing today. Even within the churchs, For example in Christainity if you are not in a stste of Grace. You simply are not the recieve communion, Yet how often does this happen to the pleasure of evil?

The other aspect I find difficult to digest is God apepearing to Adam and Eve and giving them authority over all the creatures of earth. Then God givening then a commandment in regards to the Tree.

So along comes the talking serpent. And propose’s a thought to Eve [and Adam]. Even if this was felt to be valid point? The response still should have been, 'Go about you way Serpent" “get back to your business”. Then when God appeared again in the garden all the question’s should have then been asked to God, their Master and Lord, in reagrds to the Tree and serpent. There are many lessons to be learned here.

I don’t know, just some passing thoughts. Which I’m sure to some extent play into the world or good and evil today also.

God Bless, Gary

 

[ParkerD]

Thanks, also just read a Nuclear Reactor exploded in Japan. I don’t ahve all the details just the on-line news link.

I don’t disagree with your thoughts on Genesis. The “Pleasing to the eyes verse” I have thought about about often. Remind me of the saying “All that glitter’s isn’t Gold”. Thats just added to the folly

I see it in few diffent ways, I would think that most miss, not you btw. First though the serpent was very misleading. He actually didn’t lie to them. What Adam and Eve understood the serpent to say wasn’t exactly what he was saying. In other words it was a half-truth. Which we know lucifer is very good at.

But yes the actual “sin” was disobeying the word of God.

What I found most disturbing was the lack of honestly, remorse and the ability to admit wrong and repent. Had Adam and Even simple said; My Blessed Lord we are sorry, could you find it in our heart to forgive us? We understand we have done wrong, could you find it your heart to help us and forgive.

This we hear none of, which is really very early Christian teaching, and I’m positive with Mormons as well as us. Truth, Honestly and to admit when you are wrong and repent.

I also don’t believe the God placed that particular tree just to tempt Adam and Eve. I undestand the chain of events that unfolded. Yet also in retrospect of what happened to the Tree after this incident, then in Revelations. I often wonder is it was just a matter of God as some point further instucting on the truth of the tree.

In essense the Tree is no different than many aspects of evil existing today. Even within the churchs, For example in Christainity if you are not in a stste of Grace. You simply are not the recieve communion, Yet how often does this happen to the pleasure of evil?

The other aspect I find difficult to digest is God appearing to Adam and Eve and giving them authority over all the creatures of earth. Then God giving them a commandment in regards to the Tree.

So along comes the talking serpent. And proposes a thought to Eve [and Adam]. Even if this was felt to be valid point? The response still should have been, 'Go about you way Serpent" “get back to your business”. Then when God appeared again in the garden all the question’s should have then been asked to God, their Master and Lord, in reagrds to the Tree and serpent. There are many lessons to be learned here.

I don’t know, just some passing thoughts. Which I’m sure to some extent play into the world or good and evil today also.

God Bless, Gary

GrayTaylor,

Perhaps there a couple of things that would be important to think about in the account of Eve and Adam. First, is it a fair assumption that Eve would have known about the ideas of repentance and asking forgiveness, immediately after her very first sin? (I suppose one could assume that God had told her about this wonderful law and principle before, but yet I don’t really think it is a valid assumption, because God had given the expectation that He would be obeyed, and had not given a teaching that we read about concerning what one should do if they sin–about repentance and asking forgiveness.

So to have expected Eve to think, “I had best ask forgiveness and maybe things will be OK” seems to be expecting something that one has to learn about in order to do it. She didn’t hide that she “did eat.” She said she had been beguiled (which she had). She understood that there was a major consequence coming–that she and Adam would die.

We also can look at the situation they faced and admit that most men and women have differences in how they look at practical things like “getting back to business.”

Most men would like to keep things in a “status quo” situation if everything is going along just fine. Women often look more at their relationships around them as a vital component of whether everything is going along just fine. They also desire to improve those relationships, usually. Given this aspect of what we learn by observing men and women through history, it seems not unreasonable to conclude that Eve’s desire to “be wise” had also to do with her wanting Adam to “be wise” along with her–that they “be wise” together. So although I agree that Adam probably said something to the effect of “get back to your business” to the serpent, I think the different personality of Eve could be impacted in a different way (not a wrong way–a “helpmeet” sort of way, a “looking at the big picture of our relationship with each other” sort of way. A “something is missing” sort of way.)

Finally, it is a good thing to have wanted Eve to repent and ask forgiveness, but it is just as good a thing and right a thing for us to “forgive Eve”, truly, and forgive Adam, and allow God to have done what He did in punishment of their sin but yet not us hold it against them. We are indeed taught in the New Testament to forgive others, and this allows us to heal and them to heal if they apply Christ’s atoning grace in their lives.

So why not extend that forgiveness to Eve and Adam with nary a “look back” to wish they had done differently? What if Satan wants to play up a person’s “regret” about that long-time-ago choice and its impact on their posterity (meaning us)? The act of not forgiving in total can become a significant detraction from rejoicing in the wonderful plan of salvation which is ultimately a gift to us from the Lord, Jesus Christ. I think it is worthwhile to rejoice in that plan and the opportunities it affords, so freely given and with such great love.

 

[GaryTaylor]

GrayTaylor,

Perhaps there a couple of things that would be important to think about in the account of Eve and Adam. First, is it a fair assumption that Eve would have known about the ideas of repentance and asking forgiveness, immediately after her very first sin? (I suppose one could assume that God had told her about this wonderful law and principle before, but yet I don’t really think it is a valid assumption, because God had given the expectation that He would be obeyed, and had not given a teaching that we read about concerning what one should do if they sin–about repentance and asking forgiveness.

So to have expected Eve to think, “I had best ask forgiveness and maybe things will be OK” seems to be expecting something that one has to learn about in order to do it. She didn’t hide that she “did eat.” She said she had been beguiled (which she had). She understood that there was a major consequence coming–that she and Adam would die.

We also can look at the situation they faced and admit that most men and women have differences in how they look at practical things like “getting back to business.”

Most men would like to keep things in a “status quo” situation if everything is going along just fine. Women often look more at their relationships around them as a vital component of whether everything is going along just fine. They also desire to improve those relationships, usually. Given this aspect of what we learn by observing men and women through history, it seems not unreasonable to conclude that Eve’s desire to “be wise” had also to do with her wanting Adam to “be wise” along with her–that they “be wise” together. So although I agree that Adam probably said something to the effect of “get back to your business” to the serpent, I think the different personality of Eve could be impacted in a different way (not a wrong way–a “helpmeet” sort of way, a “looking at the big picture of our relationship with each other” sort of way. A “something is missing” sort of way.)

Finally, it is a good thing to have wanted Eve to repent and ask forgiveness, but it is just as good a thing and right a thing for us to “forgive Eve”, truly, and forgive Adam, and allow God to have done what He did in punishment of their sin but yet not us hold it against them. We are indeed taught in the New Testament to forgive others, and this allows us to heal and them to heal if they apply Christ’s atoning grace in their lives.

So why not extend that forgiveness to Eve and Adam with nary a “look back” to wish they had done differently? What if Satan wants to play up a person’s “regret” about that long-time-ago choice and its impact on their posterity (meaning us)? The act of not forgiving in total can become a significant detraction from rejoicing in the wonderful plan of salvation which is ultimately a gift to us from the Lord, Jesus Christ. I think it is worthwhile to rejoice in that plan and the opportunities it affords, so freely given and with such great love.

Interesting thoughts Parker D. I could see you think on deeper level which is often lacking today.

God Bless my brother!

btw sorry about the typos above I blew throught that without regard.

 

[meltzerboy]

And with which part of this belief do you disagree?

That He created us for the purpose of loving Him and being in relation with Him?

That He isn’t just our Creator, He is our Father?

That love cannot exist unless one chooses to love?

That He created us with free will so that we would be capable of choosing love?

That it was not His will that we would experience evil?

That He permitted evil in deference to our free will?

Or that His will was not that we would disobey, but rather that we trust in Him and remain faithful?

As you said, in the presence of God there will be no evil. That is proof that evil does not have to exist in order for good to exist. Adam and Eve lived in the presence of God. They did not have to allow evil to enter our world. We do the same thing when we sin, when we disobey God. But that is not His will. It is exactly when we do not do His will that we sin.
As for hell, it was not necessary that it exist. It exists because of the choices of the angels and ourselves to disobey God rather than to remain faithful. God does not send us to hell, we send ourselves.

This statement presupposes that they did not know, before the fall, that they should not have eaten the fruit; that they had to eat it in order to gain this knowledge. But we know that they did know. God had already warned them. So what did they gain that they did not already have?

Yes, of course, that is my point. But in your scenario, Adam was placed in a position in which he had to break one of God’s commands in order to keep the other. He had to eat of the fruit in order to stay with his wife. If this is true then he had no culpability. If eating the fruit for the purpose of keeping God’s command that they be fruitful and multiply was God’s will then he did not sin. The fact that God tossed him out is proof that he was culpable and therefore violated God’s will. In other words, God did not will that Adam disobey Him in order remain with Eve. He wanted him to remain faithful, just as He wanted Eve to remain faithful.

Fly, I am not at all saying that we should not or cannot learn from our experiences. It is the notion that God willed that we experience evil in order to make us into something better than He had already made. That what God had made in creating Adam and Eve was left wanting. It assumes that the first couple were walking around half stupid, in need of knowledge that could only be gained by disobeying God. It is even implied in your comments that Eve’s disobedience was actually for a noble cause; acquiring knowledge that she would otherwise not have, and that this was God’s will.

Ultimately it is through humbling ourselves so that we might come to the realizaion of our lack of ability to save ourselves, regardless of how strong we think we may be.

Fascinating discussion! I tend to agree that it was not G-d’s Will that we disobey Him and experience a fall from His grace. This is what is taught in Judaism. Satan is supposed to be an emissary sent by G-d to test our loyalty and faith in G-d by tempting us, but Satan (as well as G-d) wishes us to resist the temptation. However, whether we remain faithful to G-d or not depends on our own free will. Satan also has two other roles. One is as the Angel of Death who leads us away from our earthly life and the other is as the executor of G-d’s judgment as to whether we rejoice in the afterlife in the presence of G-d or are separated from G-d. Satan is not viewed as the evil, fallen angel as depicted in Christianity and Islam. I wonder how he became seen in this perspective.

 

[SteveVH]

Fascinating discussion! I tend to agree that it was not G-d’s Will that we disobey Him and experience a fall from His grace. This is what is taught in Judaism. Satan is supposed to be an emissary sent by G-d to test our loyalty and faith in G-d by tempting us, but Satan (as well as G-d) wishes us to resist the temptation. However, whether we remain faithful to G-d or not depends on our own free will. Satan also has two other roles. One is as the Angel of Death who leads us away from our earthly life and the other is as the executor of G-d’s judgment as to whether we rejoice in the afterlife in the presence of G-d or are separated from G-d. Satan is not viewed as the evil, fallen angel as depicted in Christianity and Islam. I wonder how he became seen in this perspective.

He became seen in this perspective because he tempted Adam and Eve to disobey God. He also is seen in this perspective, at least among Christians, because Jesus referred to him as the evil one, a liar from the beginning and the father of lies. At least that is a start.

 

[SteveVH]

SteveVH,

If you happen back, I think there are some assumptions that you have made here that are non-Biblical and thus lead to conclusions that are non-Biblical conclusions.

By saying “we rebelled against His plan for us” (and by the way, I agree that the Father had the plan and the Son agreed with the plan of salvation, but the plan included that the Son would come to earth and be the Savior and Redeemer–not the Father), that statement seems to mean that all of humankind after Adam and Eve “rebelled against His plan for us.”

Each time we sin, we rebel against God. In the next moment we may be on our knees in repentance, but nevertheless, we return to our sin, at some point. We may desire to be holy,and we may progress in holiness throughout our life, but ultimately we fall short of Jesus’ command to “be perfect, even as your Father in heaven is perfect.” It is why we require a Savior.

What if I disagree with that assumption, and say that I have never felt “rebellious” about His plan for us, nor have ever felt non-loving toward God or toward Christ? The Bible doesn’t say that “we rebelled against His plan for us,” nor does any apostle teach anything like that in the New Testament.

Have you ever sinned? Have you ever decided to do something that was against God’s will? If you have, you have rebelled, even if you have never felt rebellious. I don’t think anyone gets up in the morning saying “I feel like rebelling against God”.

What if I disagree with the assumption that “God desires that we choose to love Him, nothing more”? Certainly, He desires that we choose to love Him–but I disagree that there is “nothing more”. He desires to be able to teach us, which means that there is much more that we can learn than simply to “love Him”.

You are free to disagree with anything with which you wish to disagree. But Jesus told us what loving God entails. If we love Him we will love each other and keep His commandments. That sums up His teaching. “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and all your mind and all your strength, and your neighbor as yourself.” That is what is required in order to keep all of the commandments.

I disagree with the ideas of a “weakening of the will” and a “dimming of the intellect” as a result of the fall of Adam and Eve.

Then I guess we disagree, but the state of the world testifies to this truth.

I also disagree with the use of the word “rebelled” as to their choices. They had a complex circumstance that confronted them. The assumption that they were rebelling is not only non-Biblical, but it is directly contrary to all that the Bible has to say on the subject.

No, it is contrary to what you choose to believe. If you don’t believe that disobeying God is rebellious then choose your own word. How is this “directly contrary to all that the Bible has to say on the subject”?

Satan tried to deceive Eve, but the assumption that she really thought there was validity to his temptation about being “like God” is a completely non-Biblical assumption. Certainly, Satan loves for people to think that he had a “success” in that by using those words of temptation that she swallowed them “hook, line and sinker”–but there is nothing in the Biblical account to imply that she was thinking this when she partook of the fruit–only Satan’s temptation. What if Moses was inspired to leave those words as they are, to provide a test to humankind as to whether they will judge Eve harshly, and Adam harshly? Assuming their motives to be “rebellion” and “wanting to be as God” right then and there, immediately, seems to be a pretty judgmental situation for anyone to take upon themselves as they look at our first parents.

Oh my. I really have no other response.

Hope you are well.

 

[catholic-rcia]

Parker, these are our readings for this Sundays Mass. All over the world as we aproach Easter. See how the three flow. See How Jesus is able to say no to Satans temptation perfectly. He was perfect because He did the Fathers will perfectly as a Man. The kind of man that Adam could have been in Christ but failed. As created creatures afer the fall of mankind we all fail, this is why we need to be filled with Jesus, He is are only survival. Read these Scriptures, it everyhting that Steve is bringing to you in his last post.

Genesis
Fist Reading
The LORD God formed man out of the clay of the ground
and blew into his nostrils the breath of life,
and so man became a living being.
Then the LORD God planted a garden in Eden, in the east,
and placed there the man whom he had formed.
Out of the ground the LORD God made various trees grow
that were delightful to look at and good for food,
with the tree of life in the middle of the garden
and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
Now the serpent was the most cunning of all the animals
that the LORD God had made.
The serpent asked the woman,
“Did God really tell you not to eat
from any of the trees in the garden?”
The woman answered the serpent:
“We may eat of the fruit of the trees in the garden;
it is only about the fruit of the tree
in the middle of the garden that God said,
‘You shall not eat it or even touch it, lest you die.’”
But the serpent said to the woman:
“You certainly will not die!
No, God knows well that the moment you eat of it
your eyes will be opened and you will be like gods
who know what is good and what is evil.”
The woman saw that the tree was good for food,
pleasing to the eyes, and desirable for gaining wisdom.
So she took some of its fruit and ate it;
and she also gave some to her husband, who was with her,
and he ate it.
Then the eyes of both of them were opened,
and they realized that they were naked;
so they sewed fig leaves together
and made loincloths for themselves.
Rom 5:12-19 or 5:12, 17-19
Reading** 2**
Brothers and sisters:
Through one man sin entered the world,
and through sin, death,
and thus death came to all men, inasmuch as all sinned—
for up to the time of the law, sin was in the world,
though sin is not accounted when there is no law.
But death reigned from Adam to Moses,
even over those who did not sin
after the pattern of the trespass of Adam,
who is the type of the one who was to come.
But the gift is not like the transgression.
For if by the transgression of the one, the many died,
how much more did the grace of God
and the gracious gift of the one man Jesus Christ
overflow for the many.
And the gift is not like the result of the one who sinned.
For after one sin there was the judgment that brought condemnation;
but the gift, after many transgressions, brought acquittal.
For if, by the transgression of the one,
death came to reign through that one,
how much more will those who receive the abundance of grace
and of the gift of justification
come to reign in life through the one Jesus Christ.
In conclusion, just as through one transgression
condemnation came upon all,
so, through one righteous act,
acquittal and life came to all.
For just as through the disobedience of the one man
the many were made sinners,
so, through the obedience of the one,
the many will be made righteous.
Mt 4:1-11
Gospel
At that time Jesus was led by the Spirit into the desert
to be tempted by the devil.
He fasted for forty days and forty nights,
and afterwards he was hungry.
The tempter approached and said to him,
“If you are the Son of God,
command that these stones become loaves of bread.”
He said in reply,
“It is written:
One does not live on bread alone,
but on every word that comes forth
from the mouth of God.”
Then the devil took him to the holy city,
and made him stand on the parapet of the temple,
and said to him, “If you are the Son of God, throw yourself down.
For it is written:
He will command his angels concerning you
and with their hands they will support you,
lest you dash your foot against a stone.”
Jesus answered him,
“Again it is written,
You shall not put the Lord, your God, to the test.”
Then the devil took him up to a very high mountain,
and showed him all the kingdoms of the world in their magnificence,
and he said to him, "All these I shall give to you,
if you will prostrate yourself and worship me.”
At this, Jesus said to him,
“Get away, Satan!
It is written:
The Lord, your God, shall you worship
and him alone shall you serve.”
Then the devil left him and, behold,
angels came and ministered to him.

 

[ParkerD]

Each time we sin, we rebel against God. In the next moment we may be on our knees in repentance, but nevertheless, we return to our sin, at some point. We may desire to be holy,and we may progress in holiness throughout our life, but ultimately we fall short of Jesus’ command to “be perfect, even as your Father in heaven is perfect.” It is why we require a Savior.

SteveVH,

As far as I’m concerned, the use of the phrase of your first sentence is an incorrect use of both the idea and connotation of “rebel” and the teaching of the Bible about sin as compared with the teachings about those who were “rebellious” against Jehovah by not following Him through allowing Him to be their Savior. They weren’t considered “rebellious” if they sinned, unless the sins were the kinds of rebellious sins that meant they were following false gods.

Have you ever sinned? Have you ever decided to do something that was against God’s will? If you have, you have rebelled, even if you have never felt rebellious. I don’t think anyone gets up in the morning saying “I feel like rebelling against God”.

I think that use of the words “rebel” and “rebellious” should only be used in a way that reflects the Biblical use of that word if it is going to be used in a religious context. Otherwise, the example set by the Bible has been disregarded.

You are free to disagree with anything with which you wish to disagree. But Jesus told us what loving God entails. If we love Him we will love each other and keep His commandments. That sums up His teaching. “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and all your mind and all your strength, and your neighbor as yourself.” That is what is required in order to keep all of the commandments.

He taught much more about what it would mean to follow Him, although He certainly taught to love God, love our neighbor, and to keep all of the commandments. He taught that we should learn from Him, and be shepherded in that learning by Him. This means there is to be growth during that learning process, including repentance and change.

Then I guess we disagree, but the state of the world testifies to this truth.

But the Bible doesn’t teach it, and it is a conclusion that undermines the purposes of the plan of salvation.

No, it is contrary to what you choose to believe [about the use of the word “rebellious”]. If you don’t believe that disobeying God is rebellious then choose your own word. How is this “directly contrary to all that the Bible has to say on the subject”?

As I have noted, the use of the word “rebellious” contains a different connotation and is used when a nation has rebelled against following Jehovah and is instead worshiping false gods such as the gods or ideas about God of the people around them. Paul uses the word “disobedience” and the word “offence” and the word “sin”, but not the word “rebellion” when citing Adam’s disobedient act of partaking the forbidden fruit.

Hope you are well.

Thanks–I appreciate it, and wish you well also along with your family and loved ones.

 

[Peter_John]

.

I think a lot of the issues raised and responded to afterward are getting outside the topic.
The question is what are the consequences of Original Sin.

While we disagree on the details, everyone agrees in all the preceding remarks that Adam and Eve disobeyed God. Further details regarding the nature or motivation of the disobedience divert from the topic.

Catholics believe this disobedience introduces Original Sin along with death to the Human Condition.

Flyonthewall made a post early describing the LDS position on the consequences for humanity of Adam and Eve’s disobedience. This description sounded very similar to the concept of Original Sin as understodd by Catholics, though A) This is not considered to be original sin by LDS and B) This is not consistent with LDS lessons teaching what int the doctrine of original sin is refuted by its 2nd Article of Faith: “We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression.”

Perhaps commenting on this would be a good place to come back to topic.

 

[ParkerD]

Parker, these are our readings for this Sundays Mass. All over the world as we aproach Easter. See how the three flow. See How Jesus is able to say no to Satans temptation perfectly. He was perfect because He did the Fathers will perfectly as a Man. The kind of man that Adam could have been in Christ but failed. As created creatures afer the fall of mankind we all fail, this is why we need to be filled with Jesus, He is are only survival. …

Genesis
Fist Reading
…so man became a living being.
…
Out of the ground the LORD God made various trees grow
that were delightful to look at and good for food,
with the tree of life in the middle of the garden
and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
Now the serpent was the most cunning of all the animals
that the LORD God had made.
The serpent asked the woman,
“Did God really tell you not to eat
from any of the trees in the garden?”
The woman answered the serpent:
“We may eat of the fruit of the trees in the garden;
it is only about the fruit of the tree
in the middle of the garden that God said,
‘You shall not eat it or even touch it, lest you die.’”
But the serpent said to the woman:
“You certainly will not die!
No, God knows well that the moment you eat of it
your eyes will be opened and you will be like gods
who know what is good and what is evil.”
The woman saw that the tree was good for food,
pleasing to the eyes, and desirable for gaining wisdom.
So she took some of its fruit and ate it;
and she also gave some to her husband, who was with her,
and he ate it.
…
Rom 5:12-19 or 5:12, 17-19
Reading** 2**
Brothers and sisters:
Through one man sin entered the world,
and through sin, death,
and thus death came to all men, inasmuch as all sinned—
for up to the time of the law, sin was in the world,
though sin is not accounted when there is no law.
But death reigned from Adam to Moses,
even over those who did not sin
after the pattern of the trespass of Adam,
who is the type of the one who was to come.
But the gift is not like the transgression.
For if by the transgression of the one, the many died,
how much more did the grace of God
and the gracious gift of the one man Jesus Christ
overflow for the many.
…
In conclusion, just as through one transgression
condemnation came upon all,
so, through one righteous act,
acquittal and life came to all.
For just as through the disobedience of the one man
the many were made sinners,
so, through the obedience of the one,
the many will be made righteous.
Mt 4:1-11
Gospel
At that time Jesus was led by the Spirit into the desert
to be tempted by the devil.
He fasted for forty days and forty nights,
and afterwards he was hungry.
The tempter approached and said to him,
“If you are the Son of God,
command that these stones become loaves of bread.”
He said in reply,
“It is written:
One does not live on bread alone,
but on every word that comes forth
from the mouth of God.”
Then the devil took him to the holy city,
and made him stand on the parapet of the temple,
and said to him, “If you are the Son of God, throw yourself down.
For it is written:
He will command his angels concerning you
and with their hands they will support you,
lest you dash your foot against a stone.”
Jesus answered him,
“Again it is written,
You shall not put the Lord, your God, to the test.”
…
At this, Jesus said to him,
“Get away, Satan!
It is written:
The Lord, your God, shall you worship
and him alone shall you serve.”
Then the devil left him and, behold,
angels came and ministered to him.

Catholic-RCIA,

Those scriptures are very similar to those in the KJV, and again do not use the word “rebellious” or the word “rebel” in discussing Adam’s “transgression”. Nor do they say he “failed”. Nor do they say mankind “fails” when they sin.

I disagree with any teaching that uses those particular words (“rebel”, “rebellious” and “failed”) in a non-Biblical way about these important, core subjects with respect to the plan of salvation and our place in it, including accepting that sin is part of what we need to be willing to acknowledge is going to happen (i.e. we are not going to be perfect), and that therefore we not only must accept repentance, but can freely accept Christ’s grace and His offer to change us, heal us, and help us grow to be a completely changed person from where we began.

'A wish of peace and healing to all readers, through allowing His shepherding influence in meaningful ways that bring change into hearts and lives. This He will do, but not by force–only by free will choice that allows Him to bring such change.

 

[Peter_John]

Catholic-RCIA,

Those scriptures are very similar to those in the KJV, and again do not use the word “rebellious” or the word “rebel” in discussing Adam’s “transgression”. Nor do they say he “failed”. Nor do they say mankind “fails” when they sin.

I disagree with any teaching that uses those particular words (“rebel”, “rebellious” and “failed”) in a non-Biblical way about these important, core subjects with respect to the plan of salvation and our place in it, including accepting that sin is part of what we need to be willing to acknowledge is going to happen (i.e. we are not going to be perfect), and that therefore we not only must accept repentance, but can freely accept Christ’s grace and His offer to change us, heal us, and help us grow to be a completely changed person from where we began.

'A wish of peace and healing to all readers, through allowing His shepherding influence in meaningful ways that bring change into hearts and lives. This He will do, but not by force–only by free will choice that allows Him to bring such change.

Then the following words fit your definition of teaching using the word “rebellion” in a non-Biblical manner: “But remember that he that persists in his own carnal nature, and goes on in the ways of sin and rebellion against God, remaineth in his fallen state and the devil hath all power over him. Therefore he is as though there was no redemption made, being an enemy to God; and also is the devil an enemy to God.” and Mosiah 16:5 in the Book of Mormon is a teaching you cannot accept, for all that it describes the consequences of orifginal sin as Catholics understand it. lds.org/scriptures/bofm/mosiah/16?lang=eng&query=rebellion

 

[ParkerD]

Then the following words fit your definition of teaching using the word “rebellion” in a non-Biblical manner: “But remember that he that persists in his own carnal nature, and goes on in the ways of sin and rebellion against God, remaineth in his fallen state and the devil hath all power over him. Therefore he is as though there was no redemption made, being an enemy to God; and also is the devil an enemy to God.” and Mosiah 16:5 in the Book of Mormon is a teaching you cannot accept, for all that it describes the consequences of orifginal sin as Catholics understand it. lds.org/scriptures/bofm/mosiah/16?lang=eng&query=rebellion

Peter John,

Bravo for bringing that scripture up, but you left out a very important verse which preceded the verse you quoted, and included the words “they would have been endlessly lost were it not that God redeemed his people from their lost and fallen state.” Abinadi also taught about the important core principle of “hearkening” “unto the voice of the Lord” as contrasted with those who do not do that (v. 2), “therefore the Lord redeemeth them not.” (One should also read verses 12 and 13 for an extended meaning about this core principle of “hearkening” and “repenting”.)

One who “persists in his own carnal nature” “goes on in the ways of sin and rebellion against God” and “remaineth in his fallen state” and therefore “the devil hath all power over him.”

But Adam didn’t do that, nor did Eve. They didn’t “persist in their own carnal nature.” They repented, they hearkened, they claimed atoning grace and mercy, and they taught these precious applications of the plan of salvation to their children so that their children would see the need for repentance, change, atoning grace, forgiveness, and also the need at that time in history for the law of animal sacrifice to continually remember that there was going to be a Savior who would come to earth and atone and redeem mankind from their fallen state into a state of grace if they would so choose.

 

[Peter_John]

Nor do they say he “failed”. Nor do they say mankind “fails” when they sin.

All Adam failed to do was trust God. All sin, our catechism says, is a failure to Trust God. That is why we must embrace that not even the smallest part of us exists independently of Him, otherwise we cannot trust Him.

When our will is out of communion with his will, we fail to trust God. Original sin, to try a different way of expressing it, means that we are born with a tendency to seek our own will. God did not create Humanityto be that way in Adam and Eve, but their choice not only brought us mortality, but made it so that we are conceived with that willfulness – we do not have to be taught it. It is a part of us as children of men. In this willful state, at some time when our will conflicts with the will of God, we will choose our own will over His. That manifests a failure to trust that God knows better. The tendecy toward that is original sin. The actual act against trust in God is personal sin. Even before the actual act, the tendency separates us from Godand.

One who is truly Holy (and Holy means “set apart”) who is completely free of original sin, would dwell in complete unity and communion with God – even the blood flowing in such a one’s veins would be the blood of the Creator, so complete would be the communion. As humanity it is our common burden, as a consequence of Adam and Eve’s choice, to lack the natural capacity for such a full communion. That is the manifestation of Original Sin. We are in a lost and fallen state unless we rely on (or in other words trust in) our Redeemer.

To acquire this capacity for such holiness we must first trust God, and love Him as completely as he desires. That is our whole duty. It is straining at gnats to say that God wants to be able to teach us, because this love is what He wants to teach us, because that brings us into communion with Him. That is what everything is about. “God is Love.” By being Love we learn Godliness. It is one and the same.

Love is His Plan of Salvation. That Cross the Good Shepherd carries is to brace all those lost sheep, especially the hard cases who can’t walk on their own. The Good Shepherd does not abandon the sheep too battered and scarred to follow, if they really want to go – and he doesn’t say, “Wait, I’ll get you later.” He stretches out His hands against the Cross and says, “I love you this much.”

The cup he wanted to pass over in Gethsemane was not the suffering to come. He embraced that suffering. He had waited for it all His mortal life: It was why he was born. His agony in Gethsemane was over the fact that He couldn’t save everyone – some people would reject Him, He knew it, and He had to drink that cup, that consummate passover drink of wine vinegar. Maybe that was the ultimate consequence for Original Sin – that the very Eternal Father, would have to Himself suffer so He could commune with us. That is how much He wants it.

 

[Peter_John]

Peter John,

Bravo for bringing that scripture up, but you left out a very important verse which preceded the verse you quoted, and included the words “they would have been endlessly lost were it not that God redeemed his people from their lost and fallen state.” Abinadi also taught about the important core principle of “hearkening” “unto the voice of the Lord” as contrasted with those who do not do that (v. 2), “therefore the Lord redeemeth them not.” (One should also read verses 12 and 13 for an extended meaning about this core principle of “hearkening” and “repenting”.)

One who “persists in his own carnal nature” “goes on in the ways of sin and rebellion against God” and “remaineth in his fallen state” and therefore “the devil hath all power over him.”

But Adam didn’t do that, nor did Eve. They didn’t “persist in their own carnal nature.” They repented, they hearkened, they claimed atoning grace and mercy, and they taught these precious applications of the plan of salvation to their children so that their children would see the need for repentance, change, atoning grace, forgiveness, and also the need at that time in history for the law of animal sacrifice to continually remember that there was going to be a Savior who would come to earth and atone and redeem mankind from their fallen state into a state of grace if they would so choose.

There is nothing in the verse you cite that is not in the Bible, and it actually gives a good description of original sin. Your later remarks about Adam are not Biblical insofaras it describes more detail about the promised Messiah than the Biblical account justifies – though Adam and Eve certainly were promised the eventual redemption from the seed of woman alone.

My point in using that verse was that you said you could not accept any teaching using derivatives of rebel to describe these very things. That was the only point I intended to make.

I linked, however, to the full chapter as always. A more extended citation was outside the scope of my post – and you still haven’t answered my statement on that. The expression “goes on in sin and rebellion” indicates the rebellion is already present, conjoined with the sin, prior to the repentance. You only addressed it as somethign that follows failure ot repent, not an initial state. Then you changed the subject… Based on what you wrote about rebellion before, you cannot believe this verse.

I also did not bring up the last verse in the chapter, which identifies Jesus as the very Eternal Father, not separate from the Father. As in the verse you cite above it is the One God, in the person of Jesus, who rescues us from our lost and fallen state.

That lost and fallen state is what original sin is about. It is not about personal responsibility for Adam’s choice. It is about the consequences to humanity, which separate us from full communion with God through our very tendency to sin, not just our personal and intentional acts of sin. That is why we are born children of men, and have to become children of God through baptism…That is why we baptize children first, and they can choose to accept it and be confirmed later – so that they can grow up as Children of God.

 

[ParkerD]

There is nothing in the verse you cite that is not in the Bible, and it actually gives a good description of original sin. Your later remarks about Adam are not Biblical insofaras it describes more detail about the promised Messiah than the Biblical account justifies – though Adam and Eve certainly were promised the eventual redemption from the seed of woman alone.

My point in using that verse was that you said you could not accept any teaching using derivatives of rebel to describe these very things. That was the only point I intended to make.

I linked, however, to the full chapter as always. A more extended citation was outside the scope of my post – and you still haven’t answered my statement on that. The expression “goes on in sin and rebellion” indicates the rebellion is already present, conjoined with the sin, prior to the repentance. You only addressed it as somethign that follows failure ot repent, not an initial state. Then you changed the subject… Based on what you wrote about rebellion before, you cannot believe this verse.

I also did not bring up the last verse in the chapter, which identifies Jesus as the very Eternal Father, not separate from the Father. As in the verse you cite above it is the One God, in the person of Jesus, who rescues us from our lost and fallen state.

That lost and fallen state is what original sin is about. It is not about personal responsibility for Adam’s choice. It is about the consequences to humanity, which separate us from full communion with God through our very tendency to sin, not just our personal and intentional acts of sin. That is why we are born children of men, and have to become children of God through baptism…That is why we baptize children first, and they can choose to accept it and be confirmed later – so that they can grow up as Children of God.

Peter John,

I can see that we are not communicating, nor will we be able to bridge the gap it appears to me–but you have done a great job explaining the Catholic view of “original sin” and why baptism of infants is viewed as necessary.

The words “sin and rebellion against God” had a context in Mosiah 16:5 that tied “carnal nature” to the word “persist” and to the words “cause of all mankind becoming carnal, sensual, and devilish, knowing evil from good, subjecting themselves to the devil.” (16:3) Abinadi had explained that the devil was the cause of the fall of Adam and Eve through having beguiled Eve, and was the cause of all mankind becoming carnal, sensual, and devilish because they are in a condition in which they “subject themselves to the devil” if they “persist in their own carnal nature”. The “rebellion” consists of “persisting in their own carnal nature”. Abinadi had not stated that Adam had rebelled. He had implied that the devil had rebelled against God, and that the devil “caused” the fall of Adam and Eve through beguiling Eve.

So who did the rebelling against God? Answer: the devil.

As to the words “one God,” “Eternal Father of heaven and earth” in Mosiah 15:4 used by Abinadi in that discourse, he had explained why this was–that Christ was both the Father and the Son because He was “conceived by the power of God” and was thus in-and-of-Himself a “Father”, and was also the Son “because of the flesh”.

As to whether children need infant baptism, it is clear to me that we view the atonement of Christ so differently, and what Christ accomplished through the atonement, that the gap between our differences can’t be bridged.

The LDS view is very clear–that “the Son of God hath atoned for original guilt” (Moses 6:54) in that the transgression of Adam and Eve has been forgiven, their sins are not on the heads of any of their children, and “children are whole from the foundation of the world” through having been redeemed by the Savior even though they have been born into a “lost and fallen state”.

When they reach an age of accountability, their situation of what could be called “automatic redemption” changes, and they do become accountable for their own sins, especially as they “persist” in sins through not repenting and not hearkening to the commandments (which were to have been taught to them by their parents) and to the spirit of Christ (their conscience which will lead them toward repentance and toward gaining the gift of the Holy Ghost in their life to be back in the presence of God through the communications of the Holy Ghost.)

 

[Peter_John]

The words “sin and rebellion against God” had a context in Mosiah 16:5 that tied “carnal nature” to the word “persist” and to the words “cause of all mankind becoming carnal, sensual, and devilish, knowing evil from good, subjecting themselves to the devil.” (16:3)

Let’s (as best we can here) diagram these sentences – isloate supportive and subordinate clauses – as in grade shool.

I only use this to demonstrate your professed position that Adam’s sin was not rebellion against God as inconsistent with your"most correct of all books".This passage equates sin with rebellion against God . Rebellion against God is failure to Trust him. That is sin.

“Persist” means continuing action despite discouragement from it. This means the behavior existed before the opportunity to turn. Verse 5 includes two very compound sentences. Let’s diagram the first like in Grade school, so to speak.

The sentence says, “He remaineth.” “He” is the subject, and “Remaineth” is the verb. What modifies the verb’s application can’t modify the subject.

“But remember that he that persists in his own carnal nature, and goes on in the ways of sin and rebellion against God, remaineth in his fallen state and the devil hath all power over him.”
Persists in his own carnal nature=goes on in the ways of sin and rebellion against God
Carnal nature (the consequence of the Fall)=sin and rebellion against God. That is original sin.
“Persists” and “Goes on” indicate the condition exists prior to the event which could end it, hence after the event (the opportunity to repent) the unrepentant do not begin sin and rebellion against God, they continue as they were.

Abinadi had explained that the devil was the cause of the fall … had not stated that Adam had rebelled. He had implied that the devil had rebelled against God, and that the devil “caused” the fall of Adam and Eve through beguiling Eve.
So who did the rebelling against God? Answer: the devil.

Interesting semantic gymnastics. This method would leave the Bible inaccessible.What the rest of the chapter reads can’t modify the integral meaning of the first sentence of verse 5.
“He” the subject of the sentence is not the devil, but the sinful and rebellious man, because – the sentence states, the devil hath all power over him. Because the devil having power over the subject of the sentence, the subject of the sentence cannot be the devil.
Sin is rebellion against God

As to the words “one God,” “Eternal Father of heaven and earth” in Mosiah 15:4 used by Abinadi in that discourse, he had explained why this was–that Christ was both the Father and the Son because He was “conceived by the power of God” and was thus in-and-of-Himself a “Father”, and was also the Son “because of the flesh”.

Mosiah 15: 1-4 describes Incarnation Theology well for non-scripture. It does not specify Jesus as the Fatherjust because of the Incarnation. It gives the Trinitarian description of the relationship between the Father and the Son, “And they are one God, yea, the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth” (verse 4). Only material external to the book’s contents define it any other way.
　
I do not use this to support the Doctrine of the Trinity, but to show that the book Mormons believe the most correct teaches it.

As to whether children need infant baptism, it is clear to me that we view the atonement of Christ so differently, and what Christ accomplished through the atonement, that the gap between our differences can’t be bridged.

Since the Atonement is the central claim of Christianity, understanding this bears directly on our status as Christians.
　
I have started a new thread on this topic called: LDS: Dialogue-What is the Atonement of Christ, and what did it achieve?

The LDS view is very clear–that “the Son of God hath atoned for original guilt” (Moses 6:54) in that the transgression of Adam and Eve has been forgiven, their sins are not on the heads of any of their children, and “children are whole from the foundation of the world” through having been redeemed by the Savior even though they have been born into a “lost and fallen state”.

The Book of Moses is not Biblical, and refers to no ancient manuscripts of which I am aware. It apparently corrupts the Genesis acccount with anachronism. Does this mean you concede that your position on original sin is not Biblical?

When they reach an age of accountability, their situation of what could be called “automatic redemption” changes, and they do become accountable for their own sins, especially as they “persist” in sins through not repenting and not hearkening to the commandments (which were to have been taught to them by their parents) and to the spirit of Christ (their conscience which will lead them toward repentance and toward gaining the gift of the Holy Ghost in their life to be back in the presence of God through the communications of the Holy Ghost.)

“Automatic redemption” sounds like the Catholic dogma of baptism of desire. So Mormons basically believe that Baptism of Desire only applies to unaccountable children, and that children do not need to grow up as Children of God through baptism?

On the first point, if God can do that for children, why can’t he do it for adults who grow up without ever hearing of Jesus, or the Law, instead of them having to wait in something similar (though not exactly the same) to our concept of Purgatory for a baptism by proxy for the dead?

To clarify again. We do not baptize children because they are accountable for any personal sins, as they have none. We baptize them because as children of men they are subject to our common “lost and fallen state” as you describe it. This condition still separates them from God, and baptism as an infant allows them to grow up as Children of God.

 

[SteveVH]

Catholic-RCIA,
I disagree with any teaching that uses those particular words (“rebel”, “rebellious” and “failed”) in a non-Biblical way about these important, core subjects with respect to the plan of salvation and our place in it, including accepting that sin is part of what we need to be willing to acknowledge is going to happen (i.e. we are not going to be perfect), and that therefore we not only must accept repentance, but can freely accept Christ’s grace and His offer to change us, heal us, and help us grow to be a completely changed person from where we began.

Wow, there is something you said here that is very telling. “…including accepting that sin is part of what we need…” We never need sin. And the reason “we are not going to be perfect” is due to the fact that we suffer from the consequences of original sin and are subject to concupiscence. God did not give us sin to teach us a lesson. We have made our own bed. Christ came to save us from the consequences of our sin which came about through the sin of our first parents.