Mormons: Your take on the concept of "Orginal Sin"

[SteveVH]

No. What I am saying is that you can’t have your cake and eat it. You can’t say that little children who die in infancy are saved (which you do), but on the other hand say that they are spiritually dead. You have to make up your mind which side of the fence you want to jump.

Your point is well taken zerinus and I am not trying to pretend that this is a simple matter for any of us to grasp. The Church recognizes that it is a mystery, something that we cannot fully understand. It also recognizes that God, in His infinite mercy and goodness, can be relied upon for his perfect justice. Baptism of infants, however, is not only done to save them in case of death, but to prepare their soul for life.

You are distorting and twisting your own Catholic theology here. Catholicism teaches that infant baptisms are performed for the remission of the Original Sin.

I am distorting nothing. As I have previously said the “sin” of Adam is the “death of the soul.” As the CCC says “It is a sin which will be transmitted by propagation to all mankind, that is, by the transmission of a human nature deprived of original holiness and justice. And that is why original sin is called “sin” only in an analogical sense: it is a sin “contracted” and not “committed”, a state and not an act.” (CCC par 404)

So yes, it is for the remission of original sin which is the “death of the soul” which requires “new life” through Baptism.

I’ll have to address the rest of your post later as I am off to a meeting.

 

[KathleenGee]

And then there is the pastoral sense in the spirit of the Church in addressing the innocent…

When dealing with the specific care of souls, then we draw to the pastoral guidance of the Church.

Devout Catholics have always been concerned for the welfare of the innocent and trusting in God’s mercy, even though all of mankind has the inclination to sin.

 

[zerinus]

Your point is well taken zerinus and I am not trying to pretend that this is a simple matter for any of us to grasp. The Church recognizes that it is a mystery, something that we cannot fully understand. . . .

Okay, for us that “mystery” has been solved by the revelations of Jesus Christ. The Lord has made known to us in modern day revelation and scripture that infants are not subject to Original Sin or spiritual death, their souls having been redeemed unconditionally by the Atonement of Jesus Christ. I don’t know how many more times I am going to have to repeat this, but as long as you keep repeating yours I suppose I am going to have to repeat mine.

I am distorting nothing. As I have previously said the “sin” of Adam is the “death of the soul.” As the CCC says "It is a sin which will be transmitted by propagation to all mankind, that is, by the transmission of a human nature deprived of original holiness and justice. And that is why original sin is called “sin” only in an analogical sense: it is a sin “contracted” and not “committed”, a state and not an act." (CCC par 404)

So yes, it is for the remission of original sin which is the “death of the soul” which requires “new life” through Baptism.

Which I have already addressed several times before. I am not sure it is going to do any good if I were to repeat it again.

 

[flyonthewall]

Dear FOTW;
Thanks for the response.

I think this is an interesting comment. I think it is actually closer to the Catholic positions than some protestant positions that would say we can do nothing good at all, and we are either saved or not saved. However, I think your comment diverges from the Catholic position insofar as the Catholic would say we lack the ability to choose the good absent the grace of Christ. Thus, the only good we do is done in and through Him. I’m not sure if you would agree with that, but I certainly don’t doubt your stated commitment to follow Christ’s example.

I guess that might depend on your definition of the “grace of Christ”. I believe we were given free agency by God, and we are able to make choices, both good and bad on our own. If the “grace of Christ” includes free agency then yes, it is because of the grace of Christ we can make good choices.

Being “dead to sin” does not mean we lose the free will to commit sin. Rather, it means we are, reborn to life in Christ. It is a statement that acknowledges baptism’s removal of the removal of the “stain” of original sin and the restoration of a right relationship with God.

Then we believe the same thing about being reborn, as baptism is a symbolic death and burial of our old life and a re-birth to a new life in Christ. We have differing beliefs about “original sin” but the re-birth to a new life in Christ is a restoration of a right relationship with God.

We would part company - doctrinally - as to the first part. We believe that, because we have inherited the effects of original sin, we need baptism (as the normative sacrament) to restore to a right relationship with God - which is necessary for heaven. However, we also believe that all persons are born without “personal sin” such that infants who die before committing personal sins would not be “damned.” We also believe that absent the grace of God, one cannot be (or remain) justified. Thus, a man in his natural state is going to commit personal sin, which is - as a practical matter - similar to your own belief.

Fair enough.

Catholics would say there were two, Christ and his mother. But that’s a topic for another thread.

Agreed. However, Catholics believe the normative method for obtaining this forgiveness (after baptism) is the sacrament of reconciliation (sometimes called confession).

As you may already know, we believe confession is part of repentance.

What I was asking was what role does Jesus Christ play in the present life of the average LDS member, beyond the ordinance of baptism? Is he praying to Jesus Christ for the grace to overcome personal sin? Is he cultivating a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, asking Him to remove the occasion of sin, etc.

We believe Jesus Christ is our mediator to the Father. No one comes to the Father wihtout first coming to Christ.
We take upon ourselves the name of Christ. We preach of Christ. We pray to the Father through Jesus Christ. We worship the Father through Christ. We strive for a Christ centered life.

 

[catholic-rcia]

Okay, for us that “mystery” has been solved by the revelations of Jesus Christ. The Lord has made known to us in modern day revelation and scripture that infants are not subject to Original Sin or spiritual death, their souls having been redeemed unconditionally by the Atonement of Jesus Christ. I don’t know how many more times I am going to have to repeat this, but as long as you keep repeating yours I suppose I am going to have to repeat mine.

Which I have already addressed several times before. I am not sure it is going to do any good if I were to repeat it again.

“their souls having been redeemed unconditionally by the Atonement of Jesus Christ.”

Redeemed from what?
**What were they born with that needed to be redeemed? **

 

[SteveVH]

Then we believe the same thing about being reborn, as baptism is a symbolic death and burial of our old life and a re-birth to a new life in Christ. We have differing beliefs about “original sin” but the re-birth to a new life in Christ is a restoration of a right relationship with God.

No, we do not believe the same thing. The sacraments are anything but symbolic. They actually accomplish what the outward action signifies. In baptism, we truly die to our old lives and are truly reborn in Christ. Catholic sacraments have a real effect and are not just symbolic.

 

[KathleenGee]

The other great grace of the Catholic Sacraments is that not only are they the visible presence of Jesus Christ remaining here with us, but that they are concrete…there is no arguing or debating.

Either you believe in the Sacraments or you do not. They are actual and concrete.

There were many followers of Christ. But when He began to speak of leaving His body and blood for nourishment, the followers thought He was referring to cannibalism and left.

St. Luke said many followers left Christ. And it is also reflective that those who persevere to the end will be saved. So we cannot call ourselves saints.

Only when we arrive in heaven at the Lord at His heavenly Banquet Table can we say we are saved…and down here, how do we know? As St. Paul said, we cannot even judge ourselves.

Our righteousness is found in Christ alone. And this faith has been working for 2,000 years.

 

[zerinus]

“their souls having been redeemed unconditionally by the Atonement of Jesus Christ.”

Redeemed from what?

From the original sin, or original guilt.

What were they born with that needed to be redeemed?

They were not “born” with anything. The “redemption” means that they are born innocent, without the guilt of the Original Sin.

 

[SteveVH]

From the original sin, or original guilt.

They were not “born” with anything. The “redemption” means that they are born innocent, without the guilt of the Original Sin.

If we are not born with anything then original sin can have no effect on us. Yet the world around us testifies to the fact that original sin does, indeed, have an effect; suffering, misery, death, the existence of evil, etc. How do you reconcile the self-evident existence of these things with your beliefs that we are born free from original sin?

 

[catholic-rcia]

If we are not born with anything then original sin can have no effect on us. Yet the world around us testifies to the fact that original sin does, indeed, have an effect; suffering, misery, death, the existence of evil, etc. How do you reconcile the self-evident existence of these things with your beliefs that we are born free from original sin?

I don’t think God would send a child/ infant / creature into the world without sin. I think only God would be able to handle this. Because we know what the world did to the one who entered without original sin. We all played a part in killing this babe. We still do every time we tell a lie, gossip, think we are more important than the next, on and on and on as even one small sin brings death. Just look at what has happened when mankind sinned just once.

Being born without original sin would make us all like Jesus. I think this is the problem with the LDS as they believe they are in the same line as Him. They do not know the Jesus we know (God) He is just more ahead of them. It’s an attempt to justify their miss guided belief that there is a multitude of gods and that Jesus is just a god that has had the chance to progress further up the line. Not that He is more special than them, just ahead of them. So they respect that. Like Steve young respected Joe Montana while waiting for his turn to lead. I also believe they would see others ahead of Jesus, they just do not know them yet. It’s a lot like the way the Romans looked at the after life as they worshipped gods rather than the one God we worship….Jesus. I believe the Romans also beleioved they could attain godhood, maybe I am wrong.

All of this stems from our fallen nature. Even us Catholics can fall into the same trappings when we worship things like money, ourselves etc… (Confession comes in handy here) As Catholics we just have a better understanding and have been blessed, gifted this Christian understanding. Does not make us better than the Mormons, just better informed. I have always seen the core of our faith as Jesus Himself, the Gospel itself. I can never be like Him but I can grow in Him to be what I was created to be. That would be created for Jesus Himself, to be forever loved by my Lord and God.

 

[zerinus]

If we are not born with anything then original sin can have no effect on us.

What I meant by that was that we are not born with the guilt of the original sin—something that might require “baptism” to be “remitted”. But we are born with an inclination towards committing sin, which is not the same thing as being guilty of the original sin. We become actual sinners when we yield to that inclination to commit sin. If we never yielded to that inclination, then we would not sin at all, and we wouldn’t need baptism at all either. Baptism does not get rid of that inclination to commit sin. It was not designed to. Baptism only removes the guilt of sin by the forgiveness of the sinner. And since the original guilt was automatically taken care of by the Atonement of Christ, baptism removes only the guilt of personal sins, not of the original sin.

Yet the world around us testifies to the fact that original sin does, indeed, have an effect; suffering, misery, death, the existence of evil, etc.

See above.

How do you reconcile the self-evident existence of these things with your beliefs that we are born free from original sin?

By being born free from the original sin I meant the guilt of the original sin. No one is held accountable, or guilty, because of the original sin; hence baptism is not required to remit anybody’s inherited original sin, or original guilt. The inclination to commit sin is a different thing entirely. Baptism does not remove anybody’s inclination to commit sin, neither was it intended to do, otherwise nobody would sin after their baptisms. But we know that they do. Baptism has only one function, and that is to remit (forgive, absolve) sins. And it only absolves one’s personal sins, not Adam’s original sin, because that has already been take care of by the Atonement unconditionally.

 

[flyonthewall]

No, we do not believe the same thing. The sacraments are anything but symbolic. They actually accomplish what the outward action signifies. In baptism, we truly die to our old lives and are truly reborn in Christ. Catholic sacraments have a real effect and are not just symbolic.

You are under the simple misunderstanding that “just because something is symbolic, it has no meaning or effect”. You are absolutely WRONG!
There is no “Just” in front of symbolic. By discounting the effect that symbolism has, you discount the teachings of the prophets, the ordinances established by God, and the teachings of Jesus Christ Himself.
LDS ordinances have just as much real effect as Catholic sacraments.
But wait, you say “they accomplish what their ‘outward’ action SIGNIFIES”? You mean the “outward” action signifies something else? You mean the outward action isn’t “it”.
Careful there you are talking symbolism.

 

[KathleenGee]

flyonthewall…

Then what is wrong with the Eucharist, 2000 years among us???

The universal practice of the Catholic/Orthodox liturgy coincides with the words of Christ at the Last Supper. Pretty straightforward with no omissions or deletions or new spins.

 

[flyonthewall]

flyonthewall…

Then what is wrong with the Eucharist, 2000 years among us???

The universal practice of the Catholic/Orthodox liturgy coincides with the words of Christ at the Last Supper. Pretty straightforward with no omissions or deletions or new spins.

I have never stated that there was anything WRONG with the Eucharist, only that I disagree with the notion of a* real *presence. I believe in a spiritual presence.
Now if there is anything WRONG with it, I would have to mention the proper authority to administer it, but that should already be understood given my religion…same as I understand you don’t believe my church has the proper authority.

 

[KathleenGee]

Flyonthewall,

What I spoke is the truth. And I already know that Mormons are not to criticize or question anything about their own religion.

The real crux of the issue is history and the practice of Christians up to the Protestant Reformation. Mormonism came out of the Reformation and turned to look at it, and rejected it as well.

To change the story, to call on angels that are not in Scripture in Judeo-Christian history is what St. Paul warned us about.

Christ gave us His church. It took time to institutionalize or codify — our beliefs. The canon of Scripture was completed at the Council of Trent restoring the 7 books Martin Luther removed as inspired and correct.

We did not grow from one person. We grew from Jesus Christ, the true cornerstone of our Church, appointed His apostles who in turn appointed their successors through the Holy Spirit. The finer aspects of original sin came later…the source was always the fall in the Creation Story…truth coming out of myths shared by many people in Mesopotamia before Abraham.

Abraham is the beginning of the faith of the Jews, Christians and and through Hagar and Ismael, the Muslims.

Our culture is based on many peoples, many cultures. And when you see the same convictions of faith of the same values all over the world, and sustained for 2,000 years…there is truth there.

Mormonism created new dimensions of ancient myths that go against Judeo Christian history of 5,600 years --Hebrew time.

 

[SteveVH]

I have never stated that there was anything WRONG with the Eucharist, only that I disagree with the notion of a* real *presence. I believe in a spiritual presence.

Just curious. Is a spiritual presence not a real presence? What is it that you believe you receive? In other words, does this just provide an opporunity to sit around and remember Christ’s sacrifice, or do you actually receive something?

 

[flyonthewall]

Just curious. Is a spiritual presence not a real presence? What is it that you believe you receive? In other words, does this just provide an opporunity to sit around and remember Christ’s sacrifice, or do you actually receive something?

A spiritual presence is not a physical presence. I have heard over and over again that the real presence is a physical presence, that the physical flesh and blood of Christ are in the bread and wine(though is not perceptible through physical means).
To me, a spiritual presence IS a *real *presence.
We believe our sacrament is a way to renew the covenants we made at baptism, and to have our sins cleansed again, provided we partake of it worthily, that is with the right frame of mind. By partaking of the sacrament, we partake of the atonement.

 

[SteveVH]

A spiritual presence is not a physical presence. I have heard over and over again that the real presence is a physical presence, that the physical flesh and blood of Christ are in the bread and wine(though is not perceptible through physical means).
To me, a spiritual presence IS a *real *presence.
We believe our sacrament is a way to renew the covenants we made at baptism, and to have our sins cleansed again, provided we partake of it worthily, that is with the right frame of mind. By partaking of the sacrament, we partake of the atonement.

I would like to discuss this more with you but it is getting way off topic. There is another thread concerning the Mormon definition of Sacrament to which we could move this discussion.

 

[SteveVH]

You are under the simple misunderstanding that “just because something is symbolic, it has no meaning or effect”. You are absolutely WRONG!
There is no “Just” in front of symbolic. By discounting the effect that symbolism has, you discount the teachings of the prophets, the ordinances established by God, and the teachings of Jesus Christ Himself.
LDS ordinances have just as much real effect as Catholic sacraments.
But wait, you say “they accomplish what their ‘outward’ action SIGNIFIES”? You mean the “outward” action signifies something else? You mean the outward action isn’t “it”.
Careful there you are talking symbolism.

No, the outward sign doesn’t signify “something else”. It signifies what is being done spiritually. Water signifies cleansing. Our souls are cleansed, however, not by water, but by the Holy Spirit. Immersion in water signifies death to our old lives; coming out of the water signifies new life and the sacrament, through the power of the Holy Spirit, actually gives us new life. The sacrament actually accomplishes what the elements and actions signify. Is this difficult to understand? And why does this upset you so much?

As for symbols, I don’t know why you placed quotes around your words “just because something is symbolic, it has no meaning or effect” as if they were mine. I have never said symbols don’t have meaning, but a symbol, by itself, lacks any power. It may stand for something, but it is not that something. A sacrament is very real and not JUST a symbol. It has true power and affects our lives profoundly. It is the very life of God interacting with ours.

 

[flyonthewall]

No, the outward sign doesn’t signify “something else”. It signifies what is being done spiritually. Water signifies cleansing. Our souls are cleansed, however, not by water, but by the Holy Spirit. Immersion in water signifies death to our old lives; coming out of the water signifies new life and the sacrament, through the power of the Holy Spirit, actually gives us new life. The sacrament actually accomplishes what the elements and actions signify. Is this difficult to understand? And why does this upset you so much?

The outward sign does indeed signify something else. As you say our souls are cleansed, but not by water, so the outward sign of baptism is symbolic of a spiritual cleansing. The physical ordinance/sacrament is symbolic of what goes on spiritually.
I do think we are stating the same thing, that the sacraments/ordinances have a real effect, whether they are symbolic as I state or…well I see you stating the same thing as I am only using different words.
And I am not upset, just placing emphasis.

As for symbols, I don’t know why you placed quotes around your words “just because something is symbolic, it has no meaning or effect” as if they were mine. I have never said symbols don’t have meaning, but a symbol, by itself, lacks any power. It may stand for something, but it is not that something. A sacrament is very real and not JUST a symbol. It has true power and affects our lives profoundly. It is the very life of God interacting with ours.

I put quotes around that phrase, not because you made it but to identify it as the misconception…I can see I could have done it better.
I still disagree, with the phrase that symbols lack any power. I believe symbols can be very powerful especially when they were set up by the Lord and administered with the proper authority.
I say ordinances/sacraments are physical representations of something spiritual, and have a very real and profound effect on peoples lives.
You say ordinances/sacraments are the actual event and have a real and profound effect on people’s lives.
We are stating the same thing about the oridnances, just disagreeing on the term symbolic.