Mormons: What are the consquences 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.

That is no different from devoted Catholics, except that we can renew our covenants through the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper every day, and many of us do go to mass every day.

 

[ParkerD]

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,

You act as though the 1950 Institute Manual is considered the ultimate LDS authority, which if you know anything about LDS manuals then you know it isn’t, particularly since there have of course been later manuals published than a 1950 manual. But I agree that to belabor the point with you or with Steve is pointless, since neither of you takes the Bible as the basis for the use of the word “rebellion” and instead places your own different use of the word into your language and thinking.

 

[ParkerD]

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.

How about using a manual from at least 2005 at the latest, before accusing me of a “lack of knowledge of LDS beliefs”? That lesson was written by either a committee or by one person, and just because I am more familiar with the Book of Mormon teachings about “rebellion” than such a person or committee, is neither here nor there. It just means people don’t all have equal views of all subjects even in the LDS church, and that some LDS teachers ought to spend more time reading the Book of Mormon and getting it into their thinking.

 

[SteveVH]

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.

The Catholic Church would not argue that the absolution of sins rests solely on Jesus Christ. That is exactly what happens when we confess to our priest. We are confessing to Jesus through our priest, who has been given the power to absolve sins through and on behalf of Jesus Christ.

I own my own company and hold the office of President of this company. In my absence I can grant authority to whomever I wish by signing a “Power of Attorney” granting that authority to another person for a specific purpose. Now, when that person enters into a contract with a third party and signs those documents, they are using my authority, not their individual authority, and I am then bound to that contract, not them. Priests, by virtue of their ordination, have authority to forgive sins on behalf of Christ. They act only through His authority. It is Christ who forgives their sins.

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 do not recall Jesus saying “I give you the power of discernment to determine the worthiness of my people to make eternal covenants”. I recall Him saying “whoever’s sins you forgive shall be forgiven and whoever’s sins you retain shall be retained.” The function of our priests is not to determine worthiness, but to administer the mercy of God to his people. None of us are ever worthy. We all fall short. If we were worthy there would be no point in confessing sins to begin with.

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…

Any time a grave sin is committed, restitution to those we have offended is a necessary component of receiving absolution. I cannot steal a million dollars, go to confession, and then keep the money. I also may have to go to prison. The difference I see is that the Church does not keep some record of this offense because God does not keep a record of the offense. He remembers our sins no more. When we have confessed, received absolution and made restitution, we are as “worthy” as the Pope. I find it unnerving that the LDS church would keep record of anyone’s offenses.

If one had been convicted of child molestation, a background check would probably be enough to prevent that person from entering into the priesthood. If he had not been convicted but had confessed it, he would be advised by the priest to do whatever is necessary, including admitting his offense to the civil authorities and suffering the consequences as part of his penance. But, under the sacred seal of confession, the priest could not tell even the bishop of this man’s offense and if he did, his faculties as a priest would be revoked.

 

[Peter_John]

Peter John,

You act as though the 1950 Institute Manual is considered the ultimate LDS authority, which if you know anything about LDS manuals then you know it isn’t, particularly since there have of course been later manuals published than a 1950 manual. But I agree that to belabor the point with you or with Steve is pointless, since neither of you takes the Bible as the basis for the use of the word “rebellion” and instead places your own different use of the word into your language and thinking.

I quoted, cited, and included a link with a page number to a PDF of the most recent Institute manual. All are now available free online in PDF format.

Perhaps you reacted so immeidately to my statement regarding sin and rebellion that you missed the actual reference in that post. That would also explain antithetical references that followed, so here it is again:

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 [w]ill 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.

 

[Peter_John]

How about using a manual from at least 2005 at the latest, before accusing me of a “lack of knowledge of LDS beliefs”? That lesson was written by either a committee or by one person, and just because I am more familiar with the Book of Mormon teachings about “rebellion” than such a person or committee, is neither here nor there. It just means people don’t all have equal views of all subjects even in the LDS church, and that some LDS teachers ought to spend more time reading the Book of Mormon and getting it into their thinking.

I trust that 2009 is sufficient.
institute.lds.org/content/languages/english/Institute%20of%20Religion%20Materials/Student%20manuals/Religion%20121-122,%20Book%20of%20Mormon%20Student%20Manual~eng.pdf

Same reference I used before, pg. 138 for the specific verses.

I guess that if you understand more about the Book of Mormon teachings on rebellion than President Gordon B. Hinckley, whether it is here nor there depends on the book’s validity to begin with. If not what it claims, any truth in it just regurgitates Catholicism.

 

[Guitarjesus7]

I’m not Mormon anymore, but I like defending both sides . It’s fun for me but anyways. Why would god have allowed Satan to enter the garden had it not been necessary that Adam fall?

 

[Peter_John]

I’m not Mormon anymore, but I like defending both sides . It’s fun for me but anyways. Why would god have allowed Satan to enter the garden had it not been necessary that Adam fall?

Why does God need a reason we can understand for doing anything? Not needing one is kind of a fringe benefit of being God.

Actually my last statement would be heresy. One point of the Book of Job is that not needing to explain is kind of the essence of being God.

 

[Guitarjesus7]

Why soes God need a reason we can understand for doing anything? Not needing one is kind of a fringe benefit of being God.

God doesn’t act (or not act) without reason

 

[Peter_John]

If it wasn’t necessary that man fall, and god didn’t desire them to fall, he wouldn’t have allowed satan to go in and corrupt his creation without intervening. That would make god a failure. Adam and eve did not know good and evil in the garden, Satan tricked eve, she ate the fruit, and Adam ate the fruit to stay with eve. It’s screwed up logic to even think that god just let Satan corrupt man and god decided he wasn’t going to help his creation from the beginning

It’s screwed up logic from our perspective, but God’s thoughts are not our thoughts. To suggest that God wanted Adam to sin denies that God cannot look upon sin with the least degree of allowance.

If you believe what you express above, why are you Catholic?

 

[Guitarjesus7]

It’s screwed up logic from our perspective, but God’s thoughts are not our thoughts. To suggest that God wanted Adam to sin denies that God cannot look upon sin with the least degree of allowance.

If you believe what you express above, why are you Catholic?

Haha I don’t believe what I said, I just saw all these people talking about mormonism and they don’t understand what the lds church teaches. I was just providing insight from a different perspective. I very honestly don’t think that god would ever trick someone into sinning, that would make him deceitful and imperfect.

 

[Peter_John]

Haha I don’t believe what I said, I just saw all these people talking about mormonism and they don’t understand what the lds church teaches. I was just providing insight from a different perspective. I very honestly don’t think that god would ever trick someone into sinning, that would make him deceitful and imperfect.

Just checking. Do not be so sure of who knows and does not know what the LDS church teaches. Some people seem to post things just to fight. Unfortunately, some of the rest of us – myself included – occasionally go for the bait.

 

[SteveVH]

Haha I don’t believe what I said, I just saw all these people talking about mormonism and they don’t understand what the lds church teaches. I was just providing insight from a different perspective. I very honestly don’t think that god would ever trick someone into sinning, that would make him deceitful and imperfect.

While you may have been joking, this is the point I have been arguing for a long time and one that seems to escape the logic of Mormon posters. There was another option for Adam and Eve. They could have remained faithful and resisted the temptation of satan. To believe they could not have is to believe that they were not created with free will. The main fallacy that I see is that there is an assumption that we can understand the mind of God. We are told throughout Scripture that we cannot.

We live in time and space. God lives in eternity. The fact that He sees and knows all of history does not mean that we, with our free will, do not have options. He knows what we will choose but does not cause us to choose. The fact that He knew, and therefore planned from the beginning to save us, does not mean that He “planned” for us to sin. In a manner of speaking, He planned around our sin.

I truly believe that the LDS faith, particularly its notions as to the nature of God, preclude its members from realizing the true glory and majesty of God. He is so far above us that any human attempt at describing Him can only diminish Him. He was never as we are now. He is eternally above us in all ways and to believe that we can comprehend Him makes Him, at best, equal to us. We end up creating God in our image.

 

[Peter_John]

While you may have been joking, this is the point I have been arguing for a long time and one that seems to escape the logic of Mormon posters. There was another option for Adam and Eve. They could have remained faithful and resisted the temptation of satan. To believe they could not have is to believe that they were not created with free will. The main fallacy that I see is that there is an assumption that we can understand the mind of God. We are told throughout Scripture that we cannot.

We live in time and space. God lives in eternity. The fact that He sees and knows all of history does not mean that we, with our free will, do not have options. He knows what we will choose but does not cause us to choose. The fact that He knew, and therefore planned from the beginning to save us, does not mean that He “planned” for us to sin. In a manner of speaking, He planned around our sin.

I truly believe that the LDS faith, particularly its notions as to the nature of God, preclude its members from realizing the true glory and majesty of God. He is so far above us that any human attempt at describing Him can only diminish Him. He was never as we are now. He is eternally above us in all ways and to believe that we can comprehend Him makes Him, at best, equal to us. We end up creating God in our image.

Excellent remarks! It gets to the core of the issue. Joseph Smith specifically taught that we can only worship God insofaras we can understand Him. My life has ultimately taught me that a god I can understand is capable of no more than I am.

Their interpretation of Adam and Eve’s choice has a lot do with knowledge or lack of it as a basis for accountability for sin, and sin simply being informed disobedience. Trust is not a matter of such knowledge, and perceiving the story as the catechism describes, with sin arising from distrust, creates an entirely differnt perspective than simply relating it to knowledge.

 

[Peter_John]

God doesn’t act (or not act) without reason

God can do anything He wants. He is God. His reason might only be that he wants to, so I will grant you that much, if you call that a reason. But we do not speak of God in terms of what he must do, or has to do, because He has no limitations. His will is what matters, and he needs no other reason.

 

[SteveVH]

God can do anything He wants. He is God. His reason might only be that he wants to, so I will grant you that much, if you call that a reason. But we do not speak of God in terms of what he must do, or has to do, because He has no limitations. His will is what matters, and he needs no other reason.

And if I may add, how much reason is there in God, coming to earth in humility to become one of us, and then willingly undergoing suffering, humiliation and death so that the very creatures that nailed Him to the cross might live with Him in eternal happiness?

I submit that this most glorious act of love could never be arrived at through human reason, but rather defies reason altogether.

 

[Peter_John]

And if I may add, how much reason is there in God, coming to earth in humility to become one of us, and then willingly undergoing suffering, humiliation and death so that the very creatures that nailed Him to the cross might live with Him in eternal happiness?

I submit that this most glorious act of love could never be arrived at through human reason, but rather defies reason altogether.

That pretty much says it all regarding is reasons – they certainly do seem foolish by our judgment. No matter how we treat Him, He stretches out His arms on that Cross and says, “I love you this much!”

 

[catholic-rcia]

Catholics correct me if I am wrong. If mankind did not fall we would have all been born into a perfect world. But of course it went as it did as God gave us choice; He did not create us to be His puppets. He allows us to come to that on our own. A Mormon man once said to me. “So is Jesus a puppet? Does God speak through Him like a ventriloquist?” I told him no, Jesus is not a puppet but as a man he did do everything that the Father asked Him to do and He did it perfectly. Every word that came forth from His mouth was the word of God. I asked him, this man…Is there a problem with that?

He was born the way we were all meant to be born. The difference is He is God, we are created by God. He would not succumb to sin. We did and death entered the world.

Did Adam and Eve know right from wrong? I believe they did. They knew what God had asked of them. The Devil told them that He did not really mean what He said to them regarding what to do and what not to do. They chose to rebel against God, setting themselves apart from God, death entered the world.

What makes a Saints is a solid grasp on love. To love our God above all things, in that we are even able to love our enemies. Parker, if you do not know the meaning of loving your enemies than how can you allow God to love you? Jesus came and loved all, Jesus was crucified by all. Who Parker do you think Jesus forgave on the Cross? The guy over there? The women over there? No, He died for you. He forgave you. This is love in the highest degree. As a Catholic I know who the enemy is, I just came out of the confessional 2 days ago. In that I know how much I am loved and forgiven. Unless you come to know who exactly the enemy is I don’t think you will ever know the love that took place for you on a Cross. Who exactly is Jesus forgiving? Parker this may help. It’s called an examination of conscience.
http://www.beginningcatholic.com/catholic-examination-of-conscience.html

The purpose is to take whatever sin you may have, place it on the cross with Jesus and then move on. When you walk out of the Confessional after a sincere confession you should feel the power of Love, freedom, joy.

Shame is Satan’s game.

I know this may all seem to be broken up, ……just the way it came out. I don’t know how one can place an exalted man above everything that one feels is important in this life. With the thinking that you or I could someday be just as great in a Mormon sense. An exalted man for Catholics was not crucified on a Cross. It was our sole Creator who did this. Really the only one who could do this for us. For me Parker the whole plan of salvation is to find God and place Him first in your life. The goal being to be with Him forever just as the Son has always been. Not to be with my own family, rather to be one very large family in Him, through Him and with Him. Love not measured in heaven as we mortal human beings measure it here on earth.

 

[SteveVH]

I would like to ask any Mormon poster here to please answer the following simple questions.

1. Is sin (disobedience, transgression) necessary in our spiritual development?
2. Was it God’s will that Adam and Eve disobey Him so that they may gain knowledge and thus progress toward divinity?
3. If number 1 and 2 above are true, then how is God not complicit in our sinfulness?

Thanks.

 

[ParkerD]

I would like to ask any Mormon poster here to please answer the following simple questions.

1. Is sin (disobedience, transgression) necessary in our spiritual development?
2. Was it God’s will that Adam and Eve disobey Him so that they may gain knowledge and thus progress toward divinity?
3. If number 1 and 2 above are true, then how is God not complicit in our sinfulness?

Thanks.

Hi, SteveVH,

Here are simple answers:

1. No, but free will choice is, which includes knowledge that there is such a thing as “good” and such a thing as “evil”, and that there are consequences from choosing the one or the other.
2. It is a good idea to understand that God really and truly, always desires our free will choice. He gives us an important opportunity to understand how much He does indeed preserve free will choice by the very fact that there was such a tree as the tree of knowledge of good and evil with its fruit. He really did give Adam and Eve a choice, and really did give them three commandments which expressed “His will”. He would not, being Perfect and perfectly good, begin the progress of humankind by not having free will choice operative at the very outset of Adam and Eve being on earth. He also knew perfectly Eve and Adam’s personality traits and innocence.

He desires the progress of His children, and desires them to love Him while also learning to love our neighbor including our family, to serve others as well as serve Him, and to be “vibrant learners”. He gave Adam and Eve the choice of how they would find ways to progress and to be “vibrant learners.” It was their choice to decide what they wanted to do, what seemed best to them to do. He did not impose a choice on them–that would have deprived them of free will choice.

We can each make such a choice, as well. “Am I here to be a vibrant learner, or not?” “Do I seek a static condition and situation, or do I seek to learn, grow, change, and progress as best I can with all my heart toward a “higher” state of being?” It’s a choice we make either consciously or unconsciously.

1. The LDS believe that there really is a Plan of salvation, which God explained to us in pre-mortal life with enough of it for us to understand that there would be of necessity a Redeemer who was going to be needed on this earth because humankind would be in a situation where they would make mistakes that made it so they could not afterward be in the presence of God except for there being a Redeemer and Savior to cleanse our souls from having sinned, through our repentance and His atoning grace.

So if a person thinks that by the fact that God had foreknowledge that humankind would make mistakes (sin), then if this person thinks that means He is “complicit” by having sent us here anyway knowing full well that we would sin, then I suppose that is a way a person can look at it. But I don’t. I look at the situation as that He really does want us to be a vibrant learner, but we are not being forced to do that. Part of the “growth” we are being offered is to even be aware that we have this wonderful opportunity, and that it is not a “bad thing”. The need for a Redeemer and Savior is not a “bad thing”. It is a wonderful thing, a splendid thing–a divinely planned opportunity for us, with the love and perfection of the Savior at its very center.