Mormons: What are the consquences of Original Sin?

[Peter_John]

Peter John,

This question has been discussed in a recent earlier thread, but I don’t recall whether you participated at that time. My response here, above, was in context to the situation that had been described, which talked about “the sacrament of Reconciliation” and about “frequent confession”, which didn’t sound to me like confession between an individual and God.

Confession to an LDS bishop when there has been a sexual sin, a criminal offense, a sin of physical or deep psychological abuse against another person, or an abortion, are required for a person to consider that they have completely repented, although they should confess to God first and foremost and seek forgiveness in prayer. The LDS bishop’s role is to discern worthiness to partake of communion and also to counsel and advise as an LDS member has recognized their particular sin in that kind of case and is seeking to change their life fully and thus to be completely forgiven by having accomplished the objective of “go thy way, and sin no more”. This takes time for the showing by personal behavior through sincerity of ongoing action and confirming with the bishop that this has been accomplished–that one has shown over time that they have fully repented.

But in the personal case I had discussed above, I described an example of anger and contention in a family setting–not accompanied by physical or psychological abuse, but words of disagreement and a tone of voice of anger, and this kind of situation does not result in the need for confession to a bishop–but it just as much requires confession to God in prayer and seeking forgiveness from the person who was hurt by the action, mostly through a complete change in behavior the next time there is a disagreement and through showing forth love and understanding and humility.

Most cases of sin in an LDS member’s life are thus the kinds that would not require confession to a bishop, but that doesn’t make it any less important that they confess their sins to God frequently, “praying always” and earnestly seeking both forgiveness and a complete change of heart and change of attitude and change of future action. This is what happens on the “road” toward the “perfecting of the saints”. (Ephesians 4:12)

This is also what happens when one has recognized that they have placed themselves in a joint “yoke” with the Savior, that they are no more “heavy laden” and have unburdened themselves and received His “rest” by placing themselves in a learning situation where He is the Master Teacher and the Good Shepherd and they are comfortable making ongoing changes in their life toward becoming a better disciple of His. (See Matthew 11:28-30)

Confessing to God specifically in addition to confessing to the priest is an inherent part of the sacrament of reconciliation. The importance of the sacrament involves the role of the Eucharist and the general communion of Saints living and dead. The difference is that while we recognize some sins as mortal and some as venial, all sins need confession.

Also, in confession to LDS officials, at least back when I participated in it, your “confessor” kept records of what you confessed to, which the church maintained, and also kept track if your confessions involved anyone else who was a member of the Church, and you had to report them too. If they were in a different Ward or stake you leader would pass that information on to the appropriate leader.

In the Sacrament of Reconciliation your confessor can never discuss what you say with anyone, and never use it for any other purpose. This is why, except for very extreme purposes, Catholic priests do not confess to their bishops, because that places them in an untenable position regarding their obligations as a confessor.

 

[Peter_John]

Peter John,

This question has been discussed in a recent earlier thread, but I don’t recall whether you participated at that time. My response here, above, was in context to the situation that had been described, which talked about “the sacrament of Reconciliation” and about “frequent confession”, which didn’t sound to me like confession between an individual and God.

Confession to an LDS bishop when there has been a sexual sin, a criminal offense, a sin of physical or deep psychological abuse against another person, or an abortion, are required for a person to consider that they have completely repented, although they should confess to God first and foremost and seek forgiveness in prayer. The LDS bishop’s role is to discern worthiness to partake of communion and also to counsel and advise as an LDS member has recognized their particular sin in that kind of case and is seeking to change their life fully and thus to be completely forgiven by having accomplished the objective of “go thy way, and sin no more”. This takes time for the showing by personal behavior through sincerity of ongoing action and confirming with the bishop that this has been accomplished–that one has shown over time that they have fully repented.

But in the personal case I had discussed above, I described an example of anger and contention in a family setting–not accompanied by physical or psychological abuse, but words of disagreement and a tone of voice of anger, and this kind of situation does not result in the need for confession to a bishop–but it just as much requires confession to God in prayer and seeking forgiveness from the person who was hurt by the action, mostly through a complete change in behavior the next time there is a disagreement and through showing forth love and understanding and humility.

Most cases of sin in an LDS member’s life are thus the kinds that would not require confession to a bishop, but that doesn’t make it any less important that they confess their sins to God frequently, “praying always” and earnestly seeking both forgiveness and a complete change of heart and change of attitude and change of future action. This is what happens on the “road” toward the “perfecting of the saints”. (Ephesians 4:12)

This is also what happens when one has recognized that they have placed themselves in a joint “yoke” with the Savior, that they are no more “heavy laden” and have unburdened themselves and received His “rest” by placing themselves in a learning situation where He is the Master Teacher and the Good Shepherd and they are comfortable making ongoing changes in their life toward becoming a better disciple of His. (See Matthew 11:28-30)

 

[SteveVH]

SteveVH, if I may put my 2 cents in…

I have participated in the Sacrament of Reconciliation many times than I can count so I may have a different perspective here.

You are correct. The Sacrament of Reconciliation with the priest is a very profound experience. I have felt that full cleansing when I truly repent, not just with my lips (or to go just because it’s Palm Sunday, which I was guilty of doing too) but when I kneel down in prayer and admit my guilt to the priest, even if I can’t see him clearly.

I prefer face to face rather than confessing behind a screen. My priest knows me so well that it would be fruitless anyway. lol.

But, similarly, the process of true Repentance that ParkerD is talking about is just as profound. There is no difference between the two except for the presence of the priest which is not required in LDS practice. The transition in my case was not drastic at all. When I am kneeling at the confessional, I usually do not see the priest. When I am kneeling in prayer asking God for forgiveness, I close my eyes and say the same thing I say to the priest… vocally. And yes, the process is not complete until I do restitution to the person wronged (which, if grave enough, like my fights with my husband… may take a while to resolve). But, the feeling of full cleansing - of grace bestowed - when everything is set right - is as profound.

Would you not agree that Christ gave the power to forgive sins to His Church? “Whoever’s sins you forgive shall be forgiven. Whoever’s sins you retain shall be retained”. Why do you suppose He did that? As I said, I always immediately ask God’s forgiveness when I sin. When I can express true sorrow for those sins I understand that He knows what is in my heart. In my experience I would have to disagree that this is just as profound as hearing the words of absolution and feeling God’s grace flow into my soul. Our spiritual disposition when approaching the sacrament has a lot to do with this. If we treat Reconciliation as just something we are obligated to do then we may not receive the grace that we might otherwise have received. It requires a contrite heart, true sorrow for our sins, and a true intention to avoid those sins in the future.

I didn’t see this in this thread. But then, I didn’t read all of the posts - I read all of ParkerD’s posts and I didn’t see that in his posts.

I could very well be wrong here. It was just my impression. Parker seems to have a real thing about the word “rebellion” and in the post in question he was demonstrating how his kids turned out great, supposedly because they have a healthy concept of sin and do not consider sin as “rebellion”.

Here is a portion of that post:

Originally Posted by ParkerD
Another aspect of how I view the outcome of LDS teachings that do not include the word “rebellion” as comparative to “sin” is the positive outcomes in my own children…

For what it’s worth, you and ParkerD are talking about the same exact thing and agree 100% on this matter. I know I can’t speak for neither you nor ParkerD, but I’m about 99.9% sure you are saying EXACTLY the same thing.

Well, I’m not sure I see it that way but I do like your positive outlook. Thanks for your comments.

 

[ParkerD]

Confessing to God specifically in addition to confessing to the priest is an inherent part of the sacrament of reconciliation. The importance of the sacrament involves the role of the Eucharist and the general communion of Saints living and dead. The difference is that while we recognize some sins as mortal and some as venial, all sins need confession.

Also, in confession to LDS officials, at least back when I participated in it, your “confessor” kept records of what you confessed to, which the church maintained, and also kept track if your confessions involved anyone else who was a member of the Church, and you had to report them too. If they were in a different Ward or stake you leader would pass that information on to the appropriate leader.

In the Sacrament of Reconciliation your confessor can never discuss what you say with anyone, and never use it for any other purpose. This is why, except for very extreme purposes, Catholic priests do not confess to their bishops, because that places them in an untenable position regarding their obligations as a confessor.

Peter John,

We don’t describe an LDS bishop as a “confessor”, and I have already told why the membership record has a note to a bishop when a member who has had disciplinary action moves. The reason one bishop may need to contact another bishop is that the apostles really do have the real calling (which they delegate to bishops) that includes keeping the ordinance of communion as sacred and holy and participated in by those who are worthy as they are reasonably able to do–and if they were to ignore when a member of another ward had participated in a grievous sin while disciplining a member of a certain ward about the same occurrence (if circumstances seemed jointly culpable), then they would be ignoring the importance of the specific teaching given by Christ to the apostles.

So that’s why. A bishop in the other ward would follow the Spirit in how they met with the member and found out about the situation. It is viewed of course as a help to the member, not a “discipline” from a negative connotation, but an assist toward repentance and reconciliation.

 

[ParkerD]

No offense Parker, but most people go through this process in the normal course of life. When we realize we may have hurt someone, we should feel some remorse and try to patch things up by reconciling with that person.

You must admit that since you have never participated in the sacrament of Reconciliation, that you really have no idea of the mercy and grace experienced through this channel of grace… .

SteveVH,

Knowing what I know about the atoning grace of Christ, I would consider it an affront to His teachings to not have faith in the power and sincerity of confessing directly to God and receiving both forgiveness and His full atoning grace, including a restoration of the guidance of the Holy Ghost and a further teaching moment where both the Savior and the Holy Ghost guide in how to do better the next time. It is not a slip-shod situation, but is rather the essence of living the New Covenant gospel, which is the gospel of repentance and forgiveness and sanctification.

I also consider it an affront to the Savior’s specific teachings and those of the Bible in all places to use the word “rebellion” as synonymous with the word “sin”. I would never use the word “rebellious” to describe Peter, or Paul, or John, or Melchizedek, or Joseph in Egypt, or Samuel, or Isaiah, or Jeremiah. I would use it to describe those who did indeed rebel against the teachings of Moses by not adhering to his teachings and particularly by adopting the customs of the nations around them including their worship practices, or by changing how they viewed God or their relationship with God because of the teachings of leaders who had lost divine direction and were instead appealing to either “traditions” or to gain favor with the people rather than knowing and following the inspired direction of God. (This did happen in Old Testament times as described many times, and was warned against in New Testament times also but without using the word “rebellious” or “rebellion”.)

 

[Peter_John]

Peter John,

We don’t describe an LDS bishop as a “confessor”, and I have already told why the membership record has a note to a bishop when a member who has had disciplinary action moves. The reason one bishop may need to contact another bishop is that the apostles really do have the real calling (which they delegate to bishops) that includes keeping the ordinance of communion as sacred and holy and participated in by those who are worthy as they are reasonably able to do–and if they were to ignore when a member of another ward had participated in a grievous sin while disciplining a member of a certain ward about the same occurrence (if circumstances seemed jointly culpable), then they would be ignoring the importance of the specific teaching given by Christ to the apostles.

So that’s why. A bishop in the other ward would follow the Spirit in how they met with the member and found out about the situation. It is viewed of course as a help to the member, not a “discipline” from a negative connotation, but an assist toward repentance and reconciliation.

The main point, which I explain in detail in what follows, is that you are wrong to affirm that in Mormonism repentance and confession is all between the individual and the Good Shepherd. I assume your final sentence that this is not a disciplinary action explains why they call the body of authorities who deal with someone who has voluntarily admitted to or been alleged to be in a serious state of sin “disciplinary councils” (instead of “church courts” as they used to).

You add a whole new dimension to this of which I was not aware. I specifically discussed the note on membership rosters of someone previously excommunicated, indicating that their baptism date was a re-baptism. Now you are saying that a Bishop (an equivalent office to a Catholic parish priest) can contact the individual to find out why they had to be re-baptized, even though they had been promised those sins would be remembered no more. That never happened to me just for moving to a new ward, only when I wanted to serve a mission. It did happen once while excommunicated, when a Bishop told me he did not want me attending church – based on the length of time I had been attending and not re-admitted – but never after re-baptism.

To clarify, your remark about a note to the Bishop is not just to the Bishop, but is accessible to anyone with access to the membership records. These include at least all three members of the Bishopric and the Clerk, and could also include leaders of priesthood quorums and others. So four people at a minmum would know – without any specifics – that someone had been disciplined by the Church at some time for serious sinful behavior for which the Church had promised complete forgiveness. It neither indicates if they were caught in this behavior or freely admitted to it of their own conscience. This could be decades after the fact for a youthful indiscretion, serious as it may have been. In any case, it shows that the Church has not kept its promise to forgive the individual.

Truly you state that LDS members who must confess their sins to an individual do not have a confessor, for they may have to confess to any of three to a dozen men (meaning males), plus a clerk, who may at any time just be other members of the congregation.

If someone is found by such a council to not be considered worthy of readmission to full fellowship, and they persist in efforts at repentance, and come before the council a year later, there could be numerous new members of that council who hear their very personal concerns, all of whom may yet be just regular members of the congregation later – and this body of men may still have no authority to grant the Church’s forgiveness of the sin. They may only have authority to pass it on to higher officials who may still deny it. This cycle can go on for years, and if one person involved has a personal prejudice in the matter, it makes no difference.

Before a person is “forgiven” there could be dozens of men involved, most of whom may be regular church members by then. The LDS Church is very specific to affirm that if the councils or individual authorities involved do not grant forgiveness, the individual does not yet have God’s forgiveness either. Your church affirms this without ambiguity or equivocation.

I am not saying that critically. That is just how your organization chooses to do it. Your organization also affirms that this is how God wants it done. This discredits your affirmation that in Mormonism repentance and confession are all between the individual and God.

 

[ParkerD]

The main point, which I explain in detail in what follows, is that you are wrong to affirm that in Mormonism repentance and confession is all between the individual and the Good Shepherd. I assume your final sentence that this is not a disciplinary action explains why they call the body of authorities who deal with someone who has voluntarily admitted to or been alleged to be in a serious state of sin “disciplinary councils” (instead of “church courts” as they used to).

You add a whole new dimension to this of which I was not aware. I specifically discussed the note on membership rosters of someone previously excommunicated, indicating that their baptism date was a re-baptism. Now you are saying that a Bishop (an equivalent office to a Catholic parish priest) can contact the individual to find out why they had to be re-baptized, even though they had been promised those sins would be remembered no more. That never happened to me just for moving to a new ward, only when I wanted to serve a mission. It did happen once while excommunicated, when a Bishop told me he did not want me attending church – based on the length of time I had been attending and not re-admitted – but never after re-baptism.

To clarify, your remark about a note to the Bishop is not just to the Bishop, but is accessible to anyone with access to the membership records. These include at least all three members of the Bishopric and the Clerk, and could also include leaders of priesthood quorums and others. So four people at a minmum would know – without any specifics – that someone had been disciplined by the Church at some time for serious sinful behavior for which the Church had promised complete forgiveness. It neither indicates if they were caught in this behavior or freely admitted to it of their own conscience. This could be decades after the fact for a youthful indiscretion, serious as it may have been. In any case, it shows that the Church has not kept its promise to forgive the individual.

Truly you state that LDS members who must confess their sins to an individual do not have a confessor, for they may have to confess to any of three to a dozen men (meaning males), plus a clerk, who may at any time just be other members of the congregation.

If someone is found by such a council to not be considered worthy of readmission to full fellowship, and they persist in efforts at repentance, and come before the council a year later, there could be numerous new members of that council who hear their very personal concerns, all of whom may yet be just regular members of the congregation later – and this body of men may still have no authority to grant the Church’s forgiveness of the sin. They may only have authority to pass it on to higher officials who may still deny it. This cycle can go on for years, and if one person involved has a personal prejudice in the matter, it makes no difference.

Before a person is “forgiven” there could be dozens of men involved, most of whom may be regular church members by then. The LDS Church is very specific to affirm that if the councils or individual authorities involved do not grant forgiveness, the individual does not yet have God’s forgiveness either. Your church affirms this without ambiguity or equivocation.

I am not saying that critically. That is just how your organization chooses to do it. Your organization also affirms that this is how God wants it done. This discredits your affirmation that in Mormonism repentance and confession are all between the individual and God.

Peter John,

Sorry to have been misunderstood. First, in my experience only the bishop and perhaps the clerk filing the record saw that an incoming membership record had a word of explanation, with no detail at all about the prior action–not the counselors, and not a quorum leader. When I told of a bishop calling another bishop, I meant in the kind of case you had noted when a member confessed a sexual sin involving a member of another ward, and that would be when a bishop would feel it important to briefly identify the situation to the other ward bishop, or to say “it has come to my attention that you should interview such and such person right away.”

So I was not saying a bishop is supposed to ask about the prior disciplinary action if it was resolved, unless there was a calling (such as a mission) where more than just that it had happened may need to be considered. Those are two completely different kinds of situations.

I had remarked previously that the kinds of sins necessitating a confession by an LDS member to a bishop were because of needing to keep sacred the communion ordinance, and because the apostles received the specific instruction to not let a member partake unworthily. This is why that kind of confession is needed, and also for the member to progress toward truly having repented and changed their actions in the future, and having the opportunity to receive counsel and encouragement along the way. It is a protection to the church, and a protection to the member in the long run. It is outlined in the scriptures (the Book of Mormon and the Bible) that such protection be in place.

A wish of peace to all, and to you.

 

[pinay]

Would you not agree that Christ gave the power to forgive sins to His Church? “Whoever’s sins you forgive shall be forgiven. Whoever’s sins you retain shall be retained”. Why do you suppose He did that?

Oh yea. I agree.

But, the significance of that specific quote from John 20:23 is the account of Jesus Christ conferring Priesthood Authority to the apostles after they were given the power of the Holy Spirit. Authority that grants the apostles the power of eternal consequence. Catholic and LDS agree on that one. But, where we have a teeny bit of difference is on the absolution of sins. Absolution of sins rests solely on Jesus Christ.

So, if LDS bishops do not absolve, what exactly is their priesthood power for? Their priesthood power as interpreted from John 20:23 is the power of discernment. To be the “judge in Israel”. This gives them the authority to determine a person’s worthiness to make eternal covenants (e.g. partake of the sacrament), serve in certain callings (temporal), etc., and to guide the person in the necessary steps to conquer the sin and receive forgiveness from God (eternal) and from his church (temporal).

I don’t want to fully comment on Peter John’s experiences because I do not want to diminish his testimony in any shape, way, or form. But, I kinda want to use a small portion of it in a simple example - Peter John, per his account, has been eternally forgiven. But, unfortunately, what he can’t shake off is the temporal consequence of the offense. Therefore, the scriptures are true - even in the LDS interpretation - that his sins are forgiven and forgotten in the eternal perspective. The temporal world is separate. Child molesters, for example, will have a really hard time shaking the consequences of that sin in the temporal world even if their sins have been completely erased for eternity simply by the fact that they cannot serve a calling that involves children just by virtue of the laws of the land (okay, I’m not expert on this. This is my understanding - I may have gotten this part wrong about if they can serve in primary or not). A bishop serves both the temporal and eternal needs of the ward family.

I hope some of this made a little bit of sense…

 

[Peter_John]

Oh yea. I agree.

But, the significance of that specific quote from John 20:23 is the account of Jesus Christ conferring Priesthood Authority to the apostles after they were given the power of the Holy Spirit. Authority that grants the apostles the power of eternal consequence. Catholic and LDS agree on that one. But, where we have a teeny bit of difference is on the absolution of sins. Absolution of sins rests solely on Jesus Christ.

So, if LDS bishops do not absolve, what exactly is their priesthood power for? Their priesthood power as interpreted from John 20:23 is the power of discernment. To be the “judge in Israel”. This gives them the authority to determine a person’s worthiness to make eternal covenants (e.g. partake of the sacrament), serve in certain callings (temporal), etc., and to guide the person in the necessary steps to conquer the sin and receive forgiveness from God (eternal) and from his church (temporal).

I don’t want to fully comment on Peter John’s experiences because I do not want to diminish his testimony in any shape, way, or form. But, I kinda want to use a small portion of it in a simple example - Peter John, per his account, has been eternally forgiven. But, unfortunately, what he can’t shake off is the temporal consequence of the offense. Therefore, the scriptures are true - even in the LDS interpretation - that his sins are forgiven and forgotten in the eternal perspective. The temporal world is separate. Child molesters, for example, will have a really hard time shaking the consequences of that sin in the temporal world even if their sins have been completely erased for eternity simply by the fact that they cannot serve a calling that involves children just by virtue of the laws of the land (okay, I’m not expert on this. This is my understanding - I may have gotten this part wrong about if they can serve in primary or not). A bishop serves both the temporal and eternal needs of the ward family.

I hope some of this made a little bit of sense…

LDS Bishops have limited authority, within its church guidelines, to grant absolution of sins.

I limit my elabortion becuase, while some of my personal posts may not make this apparent, I do not wish to interfere with the bliss of your personal experience. I know the Joy one can feel in LDS teachings, and since I have never and can never experience what one feels in a reverse experience to mine, I have no qualitative basis for comment. That is one reason I started the thread on atonement which I did, because it is one matter that did not change.

Where I may not have not been clear is that I have “shaken off the temporal consequences” of my sin. I have no question that both the temporal and eternal consequences of my sin were both absolved with my baptism. Temporal consequences are the physical/emotional/spiiritual experience needed to align our personal perceptions with God’s perception of ourselves – to allow communion with ourselves and all others in communion with God.

Since my valid baptism as a Catholic I have committed sins which put me out of alignment with that. Reconciliation assures forgiveness of the eternal consequnces for those sins – which can mean any sin, as your LDS bishop will assure you God cannot look upon sin “with the least degree of allowance”.That does not eliminate the need for experience to better align my mind with the mind of God, which experience can be very painful.

Catholicism expresses this as Purgatory, while LDS doctrine expresses this through the doctrine that it is easier to repent of things in this life than in the period between death and the resurrecttion. Neither believes that most of us will achieve the level of perfection needed for full communion with Godhead on this side of death. While different in mechanism, it represnts one of those points of Consilience between Mormonism and Catholicism – a period of resdolution among the just between death and eternal destiny.

Since conversion to Catholicism I have come to understand purgatory as the part of the Celestial realm where we reconcile our perception of ourselves with how God perceives us. Seeing ourselves without blinders the way God sees us can hurt. We will be able to tell where we are, because in purgatory we will still know the benefit of prayers from and for others, but there is no communion of the damned.

Neither baptism nor purgatory resolve my personal responsibility for the physical consequences of my actions in the lives of others. That may be wahat you mean when you say “temporal consequences”. While the Catholic church does not consider my prior marriages as Christian marriages, that does not diminish any personal violation of trust I made in breaking those relationships. While God may have forgiven those, and while I may expect no time in purgatory for them, since they happened prior to my baptism, that does not relieve me of any responsibility to offer any material help or support for the women with whom I broke those temporal obligations.

Since I made my bad choices prior to catechesis and baptism based on the best undersanding I had at the time, since my first reconsiliation I have no feeling of personal guilt for them – no matter how much or often I confessed them to others before. I still feel a responsibility to amelliorate the physical consequences of my actions in the lives of those affected as much as possible, if that makes sense.

In Mormonism, that has to happen, and I would have to convince perhaps dozens of men so, before God could forgive me even of the eternal consequences for my actions, regardless of how well I understood the decisions I made at the time.

 

[Peter_John]

returning to the subject, and attempting to mediate and move the topic back along, let me see if I understand what you are saying:

In LDS liturgy (to use a Catholic word for it) children are not accountable for their actions until they reach an age when they can know good from evil. A 4 year-old whose father says, “do not stick your hand under the lawn mower or you will get hurt,” will not sin by disobeying the commandment to honor parents in ignoring such an instruction. The child is too young too account for good and evil, by LDS doctrine. However, tht will not stop the lawnmower from cutting the child’s hand off.

Even though the passages from your Book of Mormon clearly equates sin with rebellion against God, Adam and Eve were incapable of sin, since that requires accountability. Without the fruit of the tree of knowledge they could not be know good from evil, hence they could not be accountable. That is why your Articles of Faith refer to the choice as a transgression rather than a sin – it is a wroing choice made without accountability. That does not mean that there were no consequences, as the fruit – in LDS theology – produced a physical change in Adam and Eve, taking them from a mortal to an immortal state.

To summarize, you say that they could not make an informed choice, so they could not be held accountable as sinners, but their choice produced an unavoidable physical change which meant that they would someday die. That is why the Book of Mormon can be right to say that sin is rebellion, and you can be right to say that Adam and Eve did not rebel – because before having knowledge, they could not be accountable. That is why you call it a transgression instead of a sin. They still suffer the physical consequences of the choice.

Before I make any further comments, I want to make certain I have expressed that correctly – which I hope will help my Catholic brethren (and sisteren) understand the basis of our crosstalk. The entire concept is quite foreign to a Catholic.

 

[ParkerD]

…

Even though the passages from your Book of Mormon “clearly equates sin with rebellion”…

Peter John,

No, they don’t–I already pointed out that the passage you cited was talking about the priests of King Noah, and they were indeed rebellious in their attitude about God, their attitude about sin, their attitude about repentance, their attitude about serving others, their attitude about Christ and the atonement and His atoning grace, their attitude about being humble or prayerful or grateful or searching the words of the prophets. They were serving in a state of hypocrisy and rebellion, and should have known it but needed it to be pointed out to them by Abinadi.

So when you speak of sin as rebellion, then go ahead and lump whomever you want to lump in with those conditions who haven’t yet found God or the healing balm of repentance or who are living in a condition of hypocrisy by their words compared with their actions, but don’t equate those conditions with the LDS active members because it is an erroneous comparison. To say that the Book of Mormon calls sin, “rebellion”, means either that the person only has a few sins in mind which are the “carnal, sensual and devilish” ones practiced by the priests of King Noah and King Noah himself, or they simply haven’t studied the Book of Mormon.

 

[Peter_John]

Peter John,

No, they don’t–I already pointed out that the passage you cited was talking about the priests of King Noah, and they were indeed rebellious in their attitude about God, their attitude about sin, their attitude about repentance, their attitude about serving others, their attitude about Christ and the atonement and His atoning grace, their attitude about being humble or prayerful or grateful or searching the words of the prophets. They were serving in a state of hypocrisy and rebellion, and should have known it but needed it to be pointed out to them by Abinadi.

So when you speak of sin as rebellion, then go ahead and lump whomever you want to lump in with those conditions who haven’t yet found God or the healing balm of repentance or who are living in a condition of hypocrisy by their words compared with their actions, but don’t equate those conditions with the LDS active members because it is an erroneous comparison. To say that the Book of Mormon calls sin, “rebellion”, means either that the person only has a few sins in mind which are the “carnal, sensual and devilish” ones practiced by the priests of King Noah and King Noah himself, or they simply haven’t studied the Book of Mormon.

I am more curious if the rest of what I wrote sounds like a fair description of the LDS interpretation of Adam’s transgression. Say, it was a transgression, not a sin because he did not know good from evil anyway until he broke the commandment, and he still had to suffer the physical consequences of eating the fruit. Is that much correct?

I will respond to the rest in a separate post.

 

[Peter_John]

Peter John,

No, they don’t–I already pointed out that the passage you cited was talking about the priests of King Noah, and they were indeed rebellious in their attitude about God, their attitude about sin, their attitude about repentance, their attitude about serving others, their attitude about Christ and the atonement and His atoning grace, their attitude about being humble or prayerful or grateful or searching the words of the prophets. They were serving in a state of hypocrisy and rebellion, and should have known it but needed it to be pointed out to them by Abinadi.

So when you speak of sin as rebellion, then go ahead and lump whomever you want to lump in with those conditions who haven’t yet found God or the healing balm of repentance or who are living in a condition of hypocrisy by their words compared with their actions, but don’t equate those conditions with the LDS active members because it is an erroneous comparison. To say that the Book of Mormon calls sin, “rebellion”, means either that the person only has a few sins in mind which are the “carnal, sensual and devilish” ones practiced by the priests of King Noah and King Noah himself, or they simply haven’t studied the Book of Mormon.

The Book of Mormon Institute manual disagrees with you. While it does not comment on that verse, it comments on another.

I believe you are using a narrower definition of rebellion than we are. You are also not appying the verse as it is written in context. While the character Abinadi is addressing King Noah and the corrupt priests with the statement, in the general discourse he does not express the principles as specific terms toward them. He states it as a general principle that applies to anyone, hence them as well. When Jesus gave the Sermon on the Mount, did it only apply to the people present?

Your triple combination index summarizes,Mosiah 2:36–37 as follows “man who transgresses against his knowledge comes out in open rebellion against God,”. I will grant that the verses themselves go into more explicit detail, and may sound like they describe some major apostasy, but the Institute manual does not interpret it that way:

Mosiah 2:34–41. Willfully Rebelling against God
• When a person knows what is right and does not do
it, he or she not only violates the actual law, but puts
himself or herself in a state of opposition to God—a
serious offense in and of itself. President Gordon B.
Hinckley (1910–2008) shared the following simple
illustration of such rebellion: “I recall a bishop’s telling
me of a woman who came to get a recommend. When
asked if she observed the Word of Wisdom, she said that
she occasionally drank a cup of coffee. She said, ‘Now,
bishop, you’re not going to let that keep me from going
to the temple, are you?’ To which he replied, ‘Sister,
surely *you *will not let a cup of coffee stand between
you and the house of the Lord’” (in Conference Report,
Apr. 1990, 67; or *Ensign,
*May 1990, 51).
institute.lds.org/content/languages/english/Institute%20of%20Religion%20Materials/Student%20manuals/Religion%20121-122,%20Book%20of%20Mormon%20Student%20Manual~eng.pdf Page 138

Sin is breaking a commandment, or going contrary to the eill of God, when one knows better. Rebellion against God, according to this, is going contrary to the will of God when one knows better. Sin=rebellion against God.

If you cannot accept your church’s own teaching instruction on this we will have to agree to diagree, and discuss the things on which terms we do agree. The post to which you responded was an attempt to help the Catholic participants better understand the basis for the LDS position. I hope we can move on.

 

[Peter_John]

… but don’t equate those conditions with the LDS active members because it is an erroneous comparison.

So are you saying that no “LDS active members” ever break any commandments at all? No “LDS active members” ever know what the right thing to do is, and do the wrong thing anyway?

 

[ParkerD]

I am more curious if the rest of what I wrote sounds like a fair description of the LDS interpretation of Adam’s transgression. Say, it was a transgression, not a sin because he did not know good from evil anyway until he broke the commandment, and he still had to suffer the physical consequences of eating the fruit. Is that much correct?

I will respond to the rest in a separate post.

Peter John,

Someone cited the passages from one of the Catholic Bible translations that used the word “transgression” when talking about Adam’s having partaken of the forbidden fruit, so the use of the word “transgression” should not be foreign to a Catholic’s mode of expression.

Adam knew he had received three commandments–one pertaining to the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, one pertaining to multiplying and replenishing the earth and taking care of it, and one pertaining to being a companion to Eve and her an helpmeet–all these being very significant commandments.

Granted, Adam did not yet have “knowledge of good and evil” since that is obviously what the fruit represented that he would begin to understand–but he also had the complex situation he faced after Eve had partaken of the forbidden fruit, so he could keep one and break two, or keep two and break one, and he chose the latter which means he also chose to love another person more than to love himself.

I do think “transgression” is the better word to use, and I was glad to read the use of that word in the Catholic translation.

 

[ParkerD]

The Book of Mormon Institute manual from 1950 disagrees with you.
Your triple combination index summarizes,Mosiah 2:36–37 as follows “man who transgresses against his knowledge comes out in open rebellion against God,”.

Here is the entire passage from Mosiah 2, followed by all the passages in the Book of Mormon that use a form of the word “rebellion”:

36 And now, I say unto you, my brethren, that after ye have known and have been taught all these things, if ye should transgress and go contrary to that which has been spoken, that ye do withdraw yourselves from the Spirit of the Lord, that it may have no place in you to guide you in wisdom’s paths that ye may be blessed, prospered, and preserved—

37 I say unto you, that the man that doeth this, the same cometh out in open rebellion against God; therefore he listeth to obey the evil spirit, and becometh an enemy to all righteousness; therefore, the Lord has no place in him, for he dwelleth not in unholy temples.

38 Therefore if that man repenteth not, and remaineth and dieth an enemy to God, the demands of divine justice do awaken his immortal soul to a lively sense of his own guilt, which doth cause him to shrink from the presence of the Lord, and doth fill his breast with guilt, and pain, and anguish, which is like an unquenchable fire, whose flame ascendeth up forever and ever.

39 And now I say unto you, that mercy hath no claim on that man; therefore his final doom is to endure a never-ending torment.

40 O, all ye old men, and also ye young men, and you little children who can understand my words, for I have spoken plainly unto you that ye might understand, I pray that ye should awake to a remembrance of the awful situation of those that have fallen into transgression.

41 And moreover, I would desire that ye should consider on the blessed and happy state of those that keep the commandments of God. For behold, they are blessed in all things, both temporal and spiritual; and if they hold out faithful to the end they are received into heaven, that thereby they may dwell with God in a state of never-ending happiness.

REBEL, REBELLION, REBELLIOUS
see also Apostasy; Contention; Defiance; Devil; Disobedience; Disputations; Dissenter; Excommunication; Hardheartedness; Iniquity; Murmur; Reject; Resist; Stiffnecked; Trample; Transgression; Unbelief; TG Rebellion.
if brothers of Nephi1 rebel, they will be cut off, 1 Ne. 2:21, 23–24 (1 Ne. 7:6).
Lehi1 speaks to sons concerning their rebellions, 2 Ne. 1:2
we would persuade all men not to rebel against God, Jacob 1:8
man who transgresses against his knowledge comes out in open rebellion against God, Mosiah 2:36–37
the Lord redeems none who rebel against him, Mosiah 15:26
those who willfully rebel against God have no part in first resurrection, Mosiah 15:26
Alma2 and sons of Mosiah2 rebel against God, Mosiah 27:11 (Alma 36:13).
Amlicites are cursed because they come out in open rebellion against God, Alma 3:18
converted Lamanites lay down weapons of rebellion, Alma 23:7
Lamanite prisoners rise in rebellion, Alma 57:32
Moroni1 mourns because of those who rebelled against country and God, Alma 62:2
rebellious are slain and driven out of land, Hel. 4:2
Nephites have rejected truth and rebelled against God, Hel. 8:25
Nephites know will of God, but rebel willfully against him, 3 Ne. 6:18

It ought to be very clear to any reader what the context of the word “rebellion” is in the Book of Mormon, and it is significantly different than the word “sin”. We repent of our sins. If we are in a spirit of rebellion, then we repent of the spirit of rebellion and then we start repenting of all of our other sins and keep doing that all through our lives. To rebel against God in this context is to be hard-hearted and stiff-necked, and thus to refuse to sincerely repent because of those qualities the person has chosen to bring into his or her life.

 

[Peter_John]

Peter John,

Someone cited the passages from one of the Catholic Bible translations that used the word “transgression” when talking about Adam’s having partaken of the forbidden fruit, so the use of the word “transgression” should not be foreign to a Catholic’s mode of expression.

Adam knew he had received three commandments–one pertaining to the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, one pertaining to multiplying and replenishing the earth and taking care of it, and one pertaining to being a companion to Eve and her an helpmeet–all these being very significant commandments.

Granted, Adam did not yet have “knowledge of good and evil” since that is obviously what the fruit represented that he would begin to understand–but he also had the complex situation he faced after Eve had partaken of the forbidden fruit, so he could keep one and break two, or keep two and break one, and he chose the latter which means he also chose to love another person more than to love himself.

I do think “transgression” is the better word to use, and I was glad to read the use of that word in the Catholic translation.

I did not mean that Catholics are unfamiliar with the word transgression. I do not think that Catholicism applies it in the same particular manner Mormonism does. I think it is the overall apporach to interpreting the fall with such complexity with which Catholics are unfamiliar, and that makes for crosstalk. The Catechism keeps it fairly simple: Adam and Eve failed to trust God, so it was not a matter of what they knew or did not know. They failed to trust God.

 

[ParkerD]

So are you saying that no “LDS active members” ever break any commandments at all? No “LDS active members” ever know what the right thing to do is, and do the wrong thing anyway?

No, and no.

Active LDS members understand that they need to be repenting daily, and to be listening to the voice of the Good Shepherd who guides toward making changes in life and seeking the sanctifying power of the Holy Ghost also. They know that repentance is a part of life, and accept that it is, and they have a covenant that brings them into a relationship with God and with the Savior which they renew each Sunday. The talk by President Uchtdorf which I had cited and linked, describes some of that process. Anyone can read it and see that these two questions show complete lack of knowledge of LDS beliefs.

 

[Peter_John]

Here is the entire passage from Mosiah 2,…It ought to be very clear to any reader what the context of the word “rebellion” is in the Book of Mormon, and it is significantly different than the word “sin”. We repent of our sins. If we are in a spirit of rebellion, then we repent of the spirit of rebellion and then we start repenting of all of our other sins and keep doing that all through our lives. To rebel against God in this context is to be hard-hearted and stiff-necked, and thus to refuse to sincerely repent because of those qualities the person has chosen to bring into his or her life.

Since you are applying your own private interpretation in opposition to what the LDS Institute Manual says (for Catholics, that is the college level of LDS religion studies), there is really no sense belaboring the point further. It is tangential to the basic question of the consequences of original sin.

 

[Peter_John]

No, and no.

Active LDS members understand that they need to be repenting daily, and to be listening to the voice of the Good Shepherd who guides toward making changes in life and seeking the sanctifying power of the Holy Ghost also. They know that repentance is a part of life, and accept that it is, and they have a covenant that brings them into a relationship with God and with the Savior which they renew each Sunday. The talk by President Uchtdorf which I had cited and linked, describes some of that process. Anyone can read it and see that these two questions show complete lack of knowledge of LDS beliefs.

Then your claim that no LDS active member ever rebels against God must also show complete lack of knowledge of LDS beliefs. Your Institute manual specifically states that when someone knows the right thing to do and does the wrong thing anyway, that is rebellion, a state of opposition to God. I give no minimum time limit on the duration. Therefore if no LDS active member ever rebels against God, no LDS active member ever knows what is right and does wrong anyway.

But again, it is a moot point, since you reject the interpretation in the Institute manual, prefering your own interpretation. If you are intentionally expressing something different from your Church’s formal doctrine, there is no point in discussing it at all.