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

[Deserwest]

As a long time practicing “Mormon” I think the thoughtful and thought provoking posts on this thread have under-stated the width and depth of the doctrinal diffference on the issue of “original sin”. I would like to as briefly as possible without doing injustice to the topic, re-state the “Mormon” position in such as way that calls attention entirely to the differences to show how profound they indeed are.

First off, Mormonism rejects the doctrine of orignal sin as it is now taught, has been taught, or ever will be taught by both Catholic and Protestant faiths. Mormons accept that there was a “Fall”, that the fall resulted in a general “fallen nature”, but that in no way implies any lack of innocence at birth. In other words, to us a fallen nature does not impute any sin, commited or not.

As large a difference in doctrine this position represents, it still under-states the difference. Even if Mormons were for hypothetical purposes proven wrong as to the innocent nature of humans at birth, we would still rely on the statement of Paul " that by the obedience of one (meaning Christ), many be made rightous." (Roman 5:19). So, simply stated, even if there were original sin, the Atonement would negate it. The only way to dispute this point, would be to argue in favor of a limited attonement or one that was partially ineffectual.

The greater difference between Mormonism and all other faiths that hold a position on the Fall, is that Mormonism actually understands the Fall to be a necessary step in the “eternal progression” of mankind. This beleif is at the core supported by the LDS interpretation of Genesis 3:22, which states that not until AFTER THE FALL had Adam “become as one of us, to know good and evil”.

As a point of departure this verse can not be diminished in importance. Not by logical deduction, but by actual statement of fact, the bible statees that prior to the Fall, Adam had no knowledge of good and evil. He was in effect in a state of blessed ignorance (my own term), i.e. in innocent. The partaking of the fruit in a legalistic sense was a transgression of commandment lacking comprehension that any thing evil was being undertaken.

Mormonism goes on to expound in detail as to the state of being that Adam was in. Adam is depicted in 2 Nehpi 2:22-25, prior to the Fall, as experiencing no joy or misery, doing no good and no evil, having no seed … all of these asepcts of mortality were brought into existannce by the Fall.

Adam understood this, and willfully entered into mortality. His transgression was not one of ignorance of his state of being. We do not term it an “accident”.

Importantly for catholics here, this understanding or worldview of the Fall, while unique not, is not original. Several early accepted chritian writers held the same position and wrote it down. If called upon, i can produce doctrines given by such men as Clement of Alexandria and Irenaeus, who held this view regarding the Fall.

Mormonism also exists in stark contrast to the docrtines of the catholic church regarding the status of little children. Rather than say that those unbaptized go to hell or that their status is unknown, Mormonism finds both those positions contra biblical.

Matthew 19:14 clearly shows, in the opinion of Mormonism, that little children are innocent before Christ. In this depiction, Jesus Christs upbraids his own desciples for not allowing small children to come to Him, saying " of such is the Kingdom of Heaven." Truly, little children and cannot be both in a state of damnation or limbo, if what Christ said regarding them is held to be true.

I apologize if I have left many of the finer points brought out in this excellent thread unanswered. I fear I have posted at too much length already.

 

[RebeccaJ]

As a long time practicing “Mormon” I think the thoughtful and thought provoking posts on this thread have under-stated the width and depth of the doctrinal diffference on the issue of “original sin”. I would like to as briefly as possible without doing injustice to the topic, re-state the “Mormon” position in such as way that calls attention entirely to the differences to show how profound they indeed are.

First off, Mormonism rejects the doctrine of orignal sin as it is now taught, has been taught, or ever will be taught by both Catholic and Protestant faiths. Mormons accept that there was a “Fall”, that the fall resulted in a general “fallen nature”, but that in no way implies any lack of innocence at birth. In other words, to us a fallen nature does not impute any sin, commited or not.

As large a difference in doctrine this position represents, it still under-states the difference. Even if Mormons were for hypothetical purposes proven wrong as to the innocent nature of humans at birth, we would still rely on the statement of Paul " that by the obedience of one (meaning Christ), many be made rightous." (Roman 5:19). So, simply stated, even if there were original sin, the Atonement would negate it. The only way to dispute this point, would be to argue in favor of a limited attonement or one that was partially ineffectual.

The greater difference between Mormonism and all other faiths that hold a position on the Fall, is that Mormonism actually understands the Fall to be a necessary step in the “eternal progression” of mankind. This beleif is at the core supported by the LDS interpretation of Genesis 3:22, which states that not until AFTER THE FALL had Adam “become as one of us, to know good and evil”.

As a point of departure this verse can not be diminished in importance. Not by logical deduction, but by actual statement of fact, the bible statees that prior to the Fall, Adam had no knowledge of good and evil. He was in effect in a state of blessed ignorance (my own term), i.e. in innocent. The partaking of the fruit in a legalistic sense was a transgression of commandment lacking comprehension that any thing evil was being undertaken.

Mormonism goes on to expound in detail as to the state of being that Adam was in. Adam is depicted in 2 Nehpi 2:22-25, prior to the Fall, as experiencing no joy or misery, doing no good and no evil, having no seed … all of these asepcts of mortality were brought into existannce by the Fall.

Adam understood this, and willfully entered into mortality. His transgression was not one of ignorance of his state of being. We do not term it an “accident”.

Importantly for catholics here, this understanding or worldview of the Fall, while unique not, is not original. Several early accepted chritian writers held the same position and wrote it down. If called upon, i can produce doctrines given by such men as Clement of Alexandria and Irenaeus, who held this view regarding the Fall.

Mormonism also exists in stark contrast to the docrtines of the catholic church regarding the status of little children. Rather than say that those unbaptized go to hell or that their status is unknown, Mormonism finds both those positions contra biblical.

Matthew 19:14 clearly shows, in the opinion of Mormonism, that little children are innocent before Christ. In this depiction, Jesus Christs upbraids his own desciples for not allowing small children to come to Him, saying " of such is the Kingdom of Heaven." Truly, little children and cannot be both in a state of damnation or limbo, if what Christ said regarding them is held to be true.

I apologize if I have left many of the finer points brought out in this excellent thread unanswered. I fear I have posted at too much length already.

This conversation has been done before. But the finer point you are leaving out say more than what you have said, and the assumptions you are making about Catholic teaching says more about what Mormons have taught you.

Original Sin has always been believed by all of Christianity. It is taught in the Bible, as has already been pointed out.

As to “limited atonement”, please, let’s discuss unforgivable sins in Mormonism, such as murder. Or, limited access to the highest level of the Mormon heaven, being first of all dependent on one’s spouse and NOT Jesus Christ.

Christ died for all, this is Catholic teaching.

 

[jlhargus]

First off, Mormonism rejects the doctrine of orignal sin as it is now taught, has been taught, or ever will be taught by both Catholic and Protestant faiths. Mormons accept that there was a “Fall”, that the fall resulted in a general “fallen nature”, but that in no way implies any lack of innocence at birth. In other words, to us a fallen nature does not impute any sin, commited or not.

JL: What is the nature of this fallen nature, if it doesn’t leave man in a NATURAL (flesh) state, without the SUPERNATURAL life of God indwelling his soul? Christ tells us in [Jn3:6 That which is BORN OF FLESH IS FLESH; and THAT which is BORN OF SPIRIT IS spirit. Jn3:3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, EXCEPT A MAN BE BORN AGAIN, he cannot see the kingdom of God. Jn3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, EXCEPT A MAN BE BORN OF WATER AND of the SPIRIT, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.] In the Mormon view what changed in Adam’s original nature to render him in a “fallen nature’?

Mormons accept that there was a “Fall”, that the fall resulted in a general “fallen nature”, but that in no way implies any lack of innocence at birth. In other words, to us a fallen nature does not impute any sin, commited or not. Mormonism also exists in stark contrast to the docrtines of the catholic church regarding the status of little children. Rather than say that those unbaptized go to hell or that their status is unknown, Mormonism finds both those positions contra biblical.

Matthew 19:14 clearly shows, in the opinion of Mormonism, that little children are innocent before Christ. In this depiction, Jesus Christs upbraids his own desciples for not allowing small children to come to Him, saying " of such is the Kingdom of Heaven." Truly, little children and cannot be both in a state of damnation or limbo, if what Christ said regarding them is held to be true.

JL: True the fallen nature does not imply the lack of innocence at birth, it simply means that born of flesh IS flesh. Children of a believer is clean yet an unbeliever’s child is unclean. A child is born innocent and remains innocent until they sin. The Church teaches an infant is innocent and will not, in justice, be consigned to hell if unbaptized. Whether that child looses out on something is not known. Since a child can do nothing to help himself, in my personal view, the parent who failed to have the child baptized, would loose, as scripture tells us in, 1Cor3:13 Every man’s work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man’s work of what sort it is. 14 If any man’s work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. 15 If any man’s work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.

As large a difference in doctrine this position represents, it still under-states the difference. Even if Mormons were for hypothetical purposes proven wrong as to the innocent nature of humans at birth, we would still rely on the statement of Paul " that by the obedience of one (meaning Christ), many be made rightous." (Roman 5:19). So, simply stated, even if there were original sin, the Atonement would negate it. The only way to dispute this point, would be to argue in favor of a limited attonement or one that was partially ineffectual.

JL: Then why are children of believers clean and those of unbelievers unclean? [1Cor7:14For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: ELSEelse were your CHILDREN UNCLEAN; but now are they holy].

 

[zerinus]

As a long time practicing “Mormon” I think the thoughtful and thought provoking posts on this thread have under-stated the width and depth of the doctrinal diffference on the issue of “original sin”. I would like to as briefly as possible without doing injustice to the topic, re-state the “Mormon” position in such as way that calls attention entirely to the differences to show how profound they indeed are.

First off, Mormonism rejects the doctrine of orignal sin as it is now taught, has been taught, or ever will be taught by both Catholic and Protestant faiths. Mormons accept that there was a “Fall”, that the fall resulted in a general “fallen nature”, but that in no way implies any lack of innocence at birth. In other words, to us a fallen nature does not impute any sin, commited or not.

That is not really correct. Mormonism does accept most of the traditional teachings regarding the Original Sin, such as sickness and death entering into the world, and the tendency to commit sin (see quotes given earlier in post #16). The only aspect of the Original Sin that Mormonism doesn’t accept is, as I stated, the belief that man is guilty because of the Original Sin, regardless of whether he did anything wrong himself or not.

As large a difference in doctrine this position represents, it still under-states the difference. Even if Mormons were for hypothetical purposes proven wrong as to the innocent nature of humans at birth, we would still rely on the statement of Paul “that by the obedience of one (meaning Christ), many be made rightous.” (Roman 5:19). So, simply stated, even if there were original sin, the Atonement would negate it. The only way to dispute this point, would be to argue in favor of a limited attonement or one that was partially ineffectual.

That doesn’t seem right either. LDS doctrine teaches that the Atonement does in fact negate, or rather cancel out the effect of the Original Sin. See Moses 6:53-54.

The greater difference between Mormonism and all other faiths that hold a position on the Fall, is that Mormonism actually understands the Fall to be a necessary step in the “eternal progression” of mankind. This beleif is at the core supported by the LDS interpretation of Genesis 3:22, which states that not until AFTER THE FALL had Adam “become as one of us, to know good and evil”.

As a point of departure this verse can not be diminished in importance. Not by logical deduction, but by actual statement of fact, the bible statees that prior to the Fall, Adam had no knowledge of good and evil. He was in effect in a state of blessed ignorance (my own term), i.e. in innocent. The partaking of the fruit in a legalistic sense was a transgression of commandment lacking comprehension that any thing evil was being undertaken.

Mormonism goes on to expound in detail as to the state of being that Adam was in. Adam is depicted in 2 Nehpi 2:22-25, prior to the Fall, as experiencing no joy or misery, doing no good and no evil, having no seed … all of these asepcts of mortality were brought into existannce by the Fall.

Adam understood this, and willfully entered into mortality. His transgression was not one of ignorance of his state of being. We do not term it an “accident”.

Importantly for catholics here, this understanding or worldview of the Fall, while unique not, is not original. Several early accepted chritian writers held the same position and wrote it down. If called upon, i can produce doctrines given by such men as Clement of Alexandria and Irenaeus, who held this view regarding the Fall.

That is basically a diversion and digression from the subject of the thread. The thread is about the Original Sin, not the necessity of the Fall or lack thereof. Whether the Fall was necessary or unnecessary, required or not required, is irrelevant to the subject of this thread, which the meaning of the Original Sin, and the differences between Catholic and Mormon understanding of the same.

Mormonism also exists in stark contrast to the docrtines of the catholic church regarding the status of little children. Rather than say that those unbaptized go to hell or that their status is unknown, Mormonism finds both those positions contra biblical.

Matthew 19:14 clearly shows, in the opinion of Mormonism, that little children are innocent before Christ. In this depiction, Jesus Christs upbraids his own desciples for not allowing small children to come to Him, saying “of such is the Kingdom of Heaven.” Truly, little children and cannot be both in a state of damnation or limbo, if what Christ said regarding them is held to be true.

This is also another digression of the thread. The Mormon and Catholic differences on this subject (as well as on the Fall) are well-known and understood on this board, and have been discussed here many times before. Those aspects of infant baptisms that impact specifically on the Original Sin doctrine have already been touched upon on this thread; and the rest that are not related to the Original Sin should be the subject of another thread, not this thread.

I apologize if I have left many of the finer points brought out in this excellent thread unanswered. I fear I have posted at too much length already.

I am afraid you haven’t addressed any “finer points” that have not already been addressed. Maybe you need to think about it more before replying next time.

 

[Deserwest]

This conversation has been done before. But the finer point you are leaving out say more than what you have said, and the assumptions you are making about Catholic teaching says more about what Mormons have taught you.

Original Sin has always been believed by all of Christianity. It is taught in the Bible, as has already been pointed out.

As to “limited atonement”, please, let’s discuss unforgivable sins in Mormonism, such as murder. Or, limited access to the highest level of the Mormon heaven, being first of all dependent on one’s spouse and NOT Jesus Christ.

Christ died for all, this is Catholic teaching.

Sorry, but I already admitted to leaving out many points for the sake of brevity… so your assumption about what assumptions I am making is as yet premature. This is as I understand it a dialog or a discussion, which has to proceed step by step line upon line.

As I read the bible, I have never encountered the term “original sin”. So clearly you are applying some other terminology to imply that orginal sin is an "original " doctrine.

As to your understanding of Mormonism, it appears fuzzy at best. We have no doctrine stating that salvation is dependent upon “one’s spouse”. The Book of Mormon clearly teaches in 2 Nephi Ch 25 that we look to the Savior even Jesus Christ as the one and only being given all power on earth and in heaven to remit our sins. Now, if we compare this doctrine to the Catholic practice of selling indulgances, the contrast is clear and present that it in the catholic faith there are intermediary agents whereby repentence and thus salvaiton occur.

Since we also do not teach a limited attonement, perhaps you should direct that question to a certifed Calvinist or other follower of the TULIP doctrines.

 

[Deserwest]

That is not really correct. Mormonism does accept most of the traditional teachings regarding the Original Sin, such as sickness and death entering into the world, and the tendency to commit sin (see quotes given earlier in post #16). The only aspect of the Original Sin that Mormonism doesn’t accept is, as I stated, the belief that man is guilty because of the Original Sin, regardless of whether he did anything wrong himself or not.

Perhaps you missed the distinction I was making, if so I will repeat it. Sickness and death, etc are products or consequences of the Fall. Mormonism completly rejects the concept of orginal sin for the reasons I outlined in my original post. Since Mormonism does not classify what Adam and Eve did as a sin, but rather a transgression, it is altogether impossible to assert that Mormonism accepts the point you make because we make a clear distinction between sin and transgression.

That doesn’t seem right either. LDS doctrine teaches that the Atonement does in fact negate, or rather cancel out the effect of the Original Sin. See Moses 6:53-54.

You are agreeing with my point. Even if you were to make the leap of doctrine and call a transgression a sin, the effect would be the same, the guilt would be mitigated. Yet, we do not beleive that there is any transferable guilt, actual or imputed. Our doctrine is that we are born into a fallen world. We undergo our own fall as a result of that, but that is not to say that sin is a cause of our own fall. Regardless if we sin or not, we are still subject to all the consequences of mortality and the flesh.

It appears to me, and correct me if I am wrong, that catholicism teaches that not only the flesh, but also the soul of man is tainted by original sin. Apparatnly through some unknown process, call it some type of pyschic copulation, there is effected a trasnfer of guilt to the actual human soul. Mormonism rejects this as heretical nonsense. Paul clearly stated in his epistles that the battle was between the flesh and the spirit, and Jesus confirmed this to Peter stating that his spirit and his flesh were at odds.

That is basically a diversion and digression from the subject of the thread. The thread is about the Original Sin, not the necessity of the Fall or lack thereof. Whether the Fall was necessary or unnecessary, required or not required, is irrelevant to the subject of this thread, which the meaning of the Original Sin, and the differences between Catholic and Mormon understanding of the same.

It is not wholly irrelevant. The purposes of the Fall, when understood correctly, point to the fact that there was no original sin, that Adam was acting in accordance with the will of God.

This is also another digression of the thread. The Mormon and Catholic differences on this subject (as well as on the Fall) are well-known and understood on this board, and have been discussed here many times before. Those aspects of infant baptisms that impact specifically on the Original Sin doctrine have already been touched upon on this thread; and the rest that are not related to the Original Sin should be the subject of another thread, not this thread.

Regardsless if they have been discussed or not, they are relevant to THIS thread. Catholic baptisms of infants is a direct result of the doctrine of orginal sin. They are absoultly related and to state otherwise is just nonsensical and narrow minded.

I am afraid you haven’t addressed any “finer points” that have not already been addressed. Maybe you need to think about it more before replying next time.

I must have addressed some because you still do not understand that Mormonism totally rejects the existance of any orginal sin. You clinging to your false understanding of Mormonism obviates any possibility of discussing any finer point. That was my point basically, that you are completely clueless as to what Mormonism actually teaches.

This is about par for the course … non mormons claiming some special understanding of Mormonism and then passing judgement on it based upon a false understanding. If you chose to remain in the dark, and pursue your false lines of reasoning, you will never grow.

 

[Deserwest]

JL: What is the nature of this fallen nature, if it doesn’t leave man in a NATURAL (flesh) state, without the SUPERNATURAL life of God indwelling his soul? Christ tells us in [Jn3:6 That which is BORN OF FLESH IS FLESH; and THAT which is BORN OF SPIRIT IS spirit. Jn3:3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, EXCEPT A MAN BE BORN AGAIN, he cannot see the kingdom of God. Jn3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, EXCEPT A MAN BE BORN OF WATER AND of the SPIRIT, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.] In the Mormon view what changed in Adam’s original nature to render him in a “fallen nature’?

Excellent question. I will give you the Mormon understanding of what a fallen nature is and is not. You then can tell me if what we teach squares with your understanding of the bible.

In 2 Nehpi 4:27 of the Book of Mormon the prophet Nephi is quoted …" And why should I yield to sin, because of my flesh?" He is essentially teaching that mortal life is a constand struggle between the desires of the flesh and spirit. This exists wholly apart from any “indwelling”. It is teaching that the spirit of man created by God the Father is inherantly good. Thus, you can now see that in so much as catholicism teaches that the sould is tainted by original sin, Mormon doctrine rejects this completely. The very nature of mortal flesh itself, is relatively unrefined, ,and at odds with our very own created spiirt, not to mention the Spirit of God.

what we teach in my opinion on this issue is totally at peace with the Bible. We read in Galatians 5:17, "for the flesh lusteth against the Spirit and the Spirit against the flesh.

I hope and trust that this sufficently answers your initial querry.

JL: True the fallen nature does not imply the lack of innocence at birth, it simply means that born of flesh IS flesh. Children of a believer is clean yet an unbeliever’s child is unclean. A child is born innocent and remains innocent until they sin. The Church teaches an infant is innocent and will not, in justice, be consigned to hell if unbaptized. Whether that child looses out on something is not known. Since a child can do nothing to help himself, in my personal view, the parent who failed to have the child baptized, would loose, as scripture tells us in, 1Cor3:13 Every man’s work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man’s work of what sort it is. 14 If any man’s work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. 15 If any man’s work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.

There is no biblical support given for your statement that the child of a believer is clean and the child of of an unbeliever is not. Jesus did not distinguish which little children should be allowed to come to him. Such is the kingdom of heaven. What is really being said here is that we ourselves in order to inherit the Kingdom of God must become “as little children”. That is the purpose of the new birth, a healing of the spirit so that it can again become what it was in childhood.

I perceive that your lens from which you understand these doctrines is skewed so that your view of children is at odds with what the Savior actually taught through the example of little children. I do not fault you for that, but I am here to challange that view as wholly unbiiblical and from off the mark. I think you may be missing the concept of what it means to be a “child of God”.

JL: Then why are children of believers clean and those of unbelievers unclean? [1Cor7:14For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: ELSEelse were your CHILDREN UNCLEAN; but now are they holy].

So what happens if they divorce or their “relationship” becomes annuled throught the authority of the Catholic Church, do the children revert to unclean status? I think you should exercise more caution how you apply such verses. If you read onto verse 16 if the same chapter, you see it written that the believing spouse can actually “save” the unbeleiving one. The point being if you take the term “save” literally, you arive at a situaiton where there are multiple Saviors and saving processes … a point I am sure you are not wanting to insist upon. Likewise, to say that every child born of a believing parent is saved or made clean, is in reality nonsensical. The point it that in a household with atlease one true believer, truth is taught. The children or the unbelieiving spouse can be santified by that, if the accept it. " For what knoweth thou, that thou shalt save thy husband" (1 Corinthians 7:16)… does not state the ARE made clean, but that they might be or can. Evil children can result from parentage of two believers. We are each held accountable or our own actions, and judged in consideration of our knowledge and circumstances. Adam had no concept of good and evil. When Eve partook first, she now held that knowledge and thus was a source of enlightenment to Adam, in the same way.

 

[Deserwest]

Just wondering what the Mromon take is on the concept of original sin. Do you believe that mankind, and for that matter, all of creation, was affected by our first parent’s sin? Do you believe the first sin has consequences for our lives?

I have had conversations with Mormons that touch on this but, to my knowledge, it has never been addressed directly.

Thanks.

So if the Catholic Church teaches that the Attonement of Jesus Christ covers all sins, including the “original sin”, for what reason and based on what logic does the catholic faith baptize infants?

Job of the bible, who was not a catholic wrote " Naked came I out of my mothrers womb and naked shall i return there, not naked of possessions, for that were a trival and common thing, but, as just man, he departs naked of evil and sin, and of the unsightly shape which follows those who have led bad lives".

It is interesting to note how catholicism has done a flip flop on this issue since the time of its inception. It was in the time of Clement that the Gnostics were scolded by the catholics for Gnostic belief of original sin.

" It is for them to tell us how the newly born child could commit fornication or in what way the child who has never done anything at all has falled under Adams curse"

This above quote is by Clement. Noitce he is asking the Gnostics to defend their belief in Original Sin.

Now, 2000 years later, its the catholic church defending what they once attacked!

The concept of an age of “reason” was not lost on early catholic writers either.

Origens Commentary on Romans - " The words " I once lived wihtout the law" in Romans 7:9 are explained as referring to the fact that ever man lives wihtout the natural law until he reaches the age of reason. During this time sin is dormant, but when he or she reaches the age to be able to distinguish right from wrong, sin revives".

Yet, despite these understandings, the catholic faith had by the 3rd Century negated them and began to practice infant babtisms. Why?

By the time Augustine came into existance, the dogma was set… dogma without and against all reason, even against the earlier teachings of catholics themselves.

I am left wondering if catholics themselves are aware of the roots of their current doctrines and that they in some instances are totally contrary to doctrines followed by the catholic faith for centuries.

How are we to accept the doctrine of infallability on core issues when the Church flipped on core doctrines?

These are fair questions not anti catholic questions because they are rooted in historical fact.

 

[KathleenGee]

If you recall the Acts of the Apostles, entire households were baptized…into the new life of Jesus Christ…the baptizing of infants goes back to the beginning of Christianity. The New Testament of books was drawn into a list about 393…the bishops of Hippo decided through the Holy Spirit which books were inspired…but it wasn’t until 1546 that the list of New Testament books were declared to be the authentic canon of Scripture!!

There was no internet, communications travelled slowly…the bishops represent the faith of us…and there were many regions and cultures of people who assimilated into the faith…what we draw on is our apostolic faith in Christ always centering on the Creed…you have to also take into context and analysis the times statements were made…

I read one time that the Mormon church has changed over 3,000 times in a very short time period compared to the Catholic Church…

 

[zerinus]

I must have addressed some because you still do not understand that Mormonism totally rejects the existance of any orginal sin. You clinging to your false understanding of Mormonism obviates any possibility of discussing any finer point. That was my point basically, that you are completely clueless as to what Mormonism actually teaches.

This is about par for the course … non mormons claiming some special understanding of Mormonism and then passing judgement on it based upon a false understanding. If you chose to remain in the dark, and pursue your false lines of reasoning, you will never grow.

I don’t believe you are a Mormon. You are somebody (ex-Mormon probably) who knows something about Mormonism, and is now falsely pretending to be a Mormon in order to derail this thread. I warn others not to buy into your false claims to be a Mormon, or to represent Mormonism in any way.

 

[SteveVH]

The “hiding” part has a long history behind it. The traditional Augustinian teaching had been that all mankind, including little children, are born “guilty of the sin of Adam,” and thus are destined for hell unless they are baptized for the remission of that sin. A newborn infant who is just a minute old is guilty of that sin, and will go to hell if not baptized for the remission of his original sin. (The same would apply to an adult who had never heard of Jesus Christ and the gospel in his life.) That for a long time remained a thorn in the side of Christian thinkers and believers who considered it patently unjust. Then in the tenth century Peter Abelard introduced the concept of “limbo,” which was supposedly a place in hell where unbaptized infants would go, where they would not be subject to the torments of hell, but would be recipients of the “beatific vision” either. That remained the Catholic teaching until Vatican II, still causing consternation among Christian thinkers and believers who still considered it unjust. At Vatican II the doctrine changed again from “Limbo” to “we don’t know”! They said we don’t know that happens to infants when they die without baptism, but we entrust them to the care of God to deal with them compassionately! That has been the doctrine since Vatican II, and it is what is currently taught in the Catechism. For this reason the Catholic Church has been reticent to teach or formulate unambiguously the full blown doctrine of the Original Sin, because to do so would lead to all the theological implications that have dogged the Catholic Church since St Augustine. But for the purpose of our current discussion, that history can be ignored, so we can focus on the theological points under discussion.

Again, you are speaking of theological theory. There is no doubt that theologians have been struggling with this question and many others over the centuries, but there is a vast difference between theological theory and the Church’s understanding. Let me give you an example. There is a theological truth that if we take our own life, we have committed mortal sin. Only God has authority over our lives. These statements are true, but what does the Church teach about it? It teaches that this sin can be and is mitigated by the mental state of one committing suicide; that there are many factors that can enter into this situation; mental illness, undue stress, etc., but God and only God knows our hearts and He is all merciful. We should never lose hope.

Are you suggesting that Adam before the Fall was not “human”? What was he if he wasn’t human?

How was I suggesting that Adam was not human before the fall? Adam did not exist before God created him out of the dust and breathed life into his nostrils. I really have no idea where you arrived at that conclusion from my words:

Orginally Posted by SteveVH
We believe that we have inherited the sin of Adam, through no fault of our own, simply by being human.

because of the Original Sin, regardless of whether we have done anything wrong ourselves or not.

If you take away the effects of sin that you listed and agreed happened as a result of the fall; “death, sickness, pain and a tendency to sin”, then you will have some idea of what it was like prior to the fall. No death, no sickness, no pain and NO TENDANCY TO COMMIT SIN. If you do not want to call this original holiness and justice, then don’t, but most would describe one who does not commit sin, holy and just.

 

[SteveVH]

continued…

I agree that death has entered into the world because of the sin of Adam; but that still doesn’t make us guilty of the sin of Adam. The sin of Adam has had serious consequences for all of us as described above, but that is not the same thing of being found guilty because of the sin of Adam. We are found guilty for our own sins, not the sin of Adam.

As I have explained, that is why the Church distinguishes between the two types of “guilt”. It has never said they are the same. I agree that the guilt attributed to sins of commission or omission are not the same as the “guilt” attributed to original sin. We were born sick, through no fault of our own. But as I have also said, one does not become sick unless he is infected with something. We are infected with the sin of Adam and there is no getting around that fact.

Originally Posted by SteveVH
"For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous."

Pardon me zerinus, but there is nothing figurative about this statement. It is very straight forward. It doesn’t become metaphor just because it doesn’t agree with your position. As for the Protestant notion of “justification by faith alone”, while their argument is misguided, it does not take away from the truth of Paul’s words here. It is that this, and other verses, are cherry picked and other verses, requiring works as a sign of our faith, are ignored. No Catholic would disagree with these words of Paul.

 

[SteveVH]

See above. Paul isn’t saying that they became sinners without committing any sins. He is saying that we became sinners because the sin of one man brought sin into the world, as a result of which we became sinners because of our own sins.

Please re-read your statement zerinus. It defeats your point. On one hand we became sinners “because of the sin of one man”. That would be original sin. You then continue to say that we became sinners “because of our own sins”. That would be sins committed by man. You have, in essence, made the Catholic argument. We become sinners in two ways, first through original sin, second through sins of commission.

I don’t know what the distinction is. Since it is a Catholic teaching, they can define the distinction anyway they like. The fact remains that they teach that man is guilty because the sin of Adam, regardless of whether he has committed any sin of his own or not. Once you agree with that we can move on.

I agree, of course, with the Catholic postition and so would agree with your statement.

Good question. The effects of the Original Sin were firstly death. We are made subject to death because of the original sin—and so was Jesus Christ, otherwise He could not have died on the cross for our sins. So that is one thing that we share with Jesus Christ because of the Original Sin—the ability to die. So He was made subject to the consequences of the Original Sin in at least one respect, and that is the ability to die to atone or the sins of the world.

Here is the difference. Christ died voluntarily. We do not. He was not subject to death, but voluntarily died on our behalf for no reason other than gratuitous love. One does not have the ability to die. One dies because of the inability to do otherwise. This was not the case with Jesus.

The second consequence of the Original Sin was that is placed mankind in a condition where they are made subject to the temptation of the devil, and thus to sin.

Adam and Eve were subject to temptation prior to the fall, otherwise they would not have been tempted in the first place. Temptation does not equal sin. We still, in the face of temptation, have the choice to make to either give in to the temptation or to resist it.

Jesus too was placed in that same situation. He was subject to the temptations of the devil, just as we are, as Paul said: “For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin” (Hebrews 4:15).

See above.

The difference between Him and us was that He was the Son of God, and therefore possessed divine powers that enabled Him to resist Satan to perfectness, and therefore remain totally without sin; whereas we do not have the same power, therefore we cannot always resist Satan with the same degree of perfectness that He could, and therefore sometimes do things that are not right; and some of us even do horrendous things, and commit terrible crimes.

The point you are making here has been condemned by the Church as heresy. The notion that it was easier for Jesus because he was divine ignores His true humanity. He was made like us in every way but sin. Some go so far as to say that He really didn’t suffer on the cross because He was divine, and only pretending to be human. I know you haven’t taken it that far, but it is the logical conclusion of this line of thought. He resisted the sins that we cannot resist precisely because He was not subject to original sin. He is God Almighty, the Creator, and cannot be subject to any sin.

The Catholic idea of Jesus not being subject to the Origin Sin stems from the Catholic belief that man is actually guilty because of the original sin; and the corollary of that would be that Jesus would have to be guilty too if He was born subject to the consequences of the Original Sin, and we couldn’t have a “guilty Jesus!” And the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception was just a step away from that. In order for Jesus to be free from the consequences of the Original Sin, He had to be born from someone who was free from the Original Sin, so Mary had to be free from that too, hence the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of Mary.

You understand correctly.

None of this of course has any scriptural or theological basis whatsoever. The doctrine if Immaculate Conception has always had serious theological challenges from many Catholic theologians, and It was not until 1854 that Pope Pius IX issued the “infallible” decree which declared the Immaculate Conception to be the official doctrine of the Catholic Church. It was not so before that time.

It is the logical conclusion to Scripturally based revelations as to the nature of Jesus Christ. Scripture cannot be understood fully without considering Sacred Tradition and without the involvement of the teaching office of the Church, the Magisterium. I don’t expect you to agree with this in the least, but it is true nevertheless. The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception was one of the few pronouncements the Church has ever made from the Chair of Peter. While the Bible nowhere states the doctrine of the IC, it is the conclusion that must be drawn from a proper understanding of Scripture.

 

[jlhargus]

Originally Posted by jlhargus
JL: What is the nature of this fallen nature, if it doesn’t leave man in a NATURAL (flesh) state, without the SUPERNATURAL life of God indwelling his soul? Christ tells us in [Jn3:6 That which is BORN OF FLESH IS FLESH; and THAT which is BORN OF SPIRIT IS spirit. Jn3:3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, EXCEPT A MAN BE BORN AGAIN, he cannot see the kingdom of God. Jn3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, EXCEPT A MAN BE BORN OF WATER AND of the SPIRIT, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.] In the Mormon view what changed in Adam’s original nature to render him in a “fallen nature’?

Excellent question. I will give you the Mormon understanding of what a fallen nature is and is not. You then can tell me if what we teach squares with your understanding of the bible.

In 2 Nehpi 4:27 of the Book of Mormon the prophet Nephi is quoted …" And why should I yield to sin, because of my flesh?" He is essentially teaching that mortal life is a constand struggle between the desires of the flesh and spirit. This exists wholly apart from any “indwelling”. It is teaching that the spirit of man created by God the Father is inherantly good. Thus, you can now see that in so much as catholicism teaches that the soul is tainted by original sin, Mormon doctrine rejects this completely. The very nature of mortal flesh itself, is relatively unrefined, ,and at odds with our very own created spiirt, not to mention the Spirit of God.

JL: Did Adam have that struggle before he sinned? I agree man is inherently good, yet weakened by a spiritually dead soul. Again what is the difference in Adam’s NATURE BEFORE, the fall, AND AFTER the fall? I see no distinction in your post above.

 

[SteveVH]

Originally Posted by Deserwest
I must have addressed some because you still do not understand that Mormonism totally rejects the existance of any orginal sin. You clinging to your false understanding of Mormonism obviates any possibility of discussing any finer point. That was my point basically, that you are completely clueless as to what Mormonism actually teaches.

This is about par for the course … non mormons claiming some special understanding of Mormonism and then passing judgement on it based upon a false understanding. If you chose to remain in the dark, and pursue your false lines of reasoning, you will never grow.

I don’t believe you are a Mormon. You are somebody (ex-Mormon probably) who knows something about Mormonism, and is now falsely pretending to be a Mormon in order to derail this thread. I warn others not to buy into your false claims to be a Mormon, or to represent Mormonism in any way.

I also found Deserwest’s comments a little strange in that I don’t think he realizes that he was responding to a fellow Mormon. Whether or not he is Mormon, I have no idea. You would certainly know better than I and so I will take your advice. We may disagree but I do trust you.

 

[RebeccaJ]

I don’t believe you are a Mormon. You are somebody (ex-Mormon probably) who knows something about Mormonism, and is now falsely pretending to be a Mormon in order to derail this thread. I warn others not to buy into your false claims to be a Mormon, or to represent Mormonism in any way.

…damned ex-Mormons.

 

[JohnVIII]

…damned ex-Mormons.

I’m an Ex-Mormon. My ‘first’ baptism was a Mormon baptism. I say ‘first’ because upon joining a mainstream Christian Church the Mormon baptism was considered invalid and re-baptism was required. I was Mormon for 6 years and I think it was 1982 that I left if I remember right; I was Eastern Orthodox for about 25 years, then joined communion with Rome (i.e. became Catholic) for less than one year. I have something to say about Mormon ‘Original Sin’.

…The greater difference between Mormonism and all other faiths that hold a position on the Fall, is that Mormonism actually understands the Fall to be a necessary step in the “eternal progression” of mankind. This beleif is at the core supported by the LDS interpretation of Genesis 3:22, which states that not until AFTER THE FALL had Adam “become as one of us, to know good and evil”…

Mormons don’t like to call what Adam did a “sin”, they are more comfortable with calling it a “transgression”. Brigham Young said that “Adam fell up”. Christ, therefore did not ‘correct’ what Adam did, rather both what Christ did and what Adam did were all apart of the Mormon plan of redemption. Adam’s ‘transgression’ was a part of what was necessary to bring about our eternal ‘exaltation’. In fact Mormons believe that Adam was a ‘God’, just as Jesus was a ‘God’. A long time ago a council of ‘Gods’ got together and planned out how the spirit offspring of Heavenly Father & Heavenly Mother would be able through that “eternal progression” [user]Deserwest[/user] made reference to could themselves become ‘Gods’ one day. You see Adam had to ‘transgress’ as this was the only way that his body could be effected in such a way that the offspring of Adam & Eve would be physical bodies. Thus the spirit offspring of Heavenly Father & Heavenly Mother could obtain physical bodies (a necessity to becoming ‘Gods’) by being born through Adam & Eve after their ‘fall’.

So, it really is quite a bit different from the Catholic doctrine of original sin!

 

[zerinus]

Again, you are speaking of theological theory. There is no doubt that theologians have been struggling with this question and many others over the centuries, but there is a vast difference between theological theory and the Church’s understanding. . . .

Theory or not, that was the historical background to the doctrine of the Original Sin in the Catholic Church, and the struggles that Christian thinkers and theologians have had with it over the centuries; and it does explain the lack of clarity in which the doctrine is currently worded in official Catholic literature such as in the Catechism. Most Catholics today don’t understand the full meaning and implication of the Original Sin because of the ambiguity and lack of clarity with which it is expressed.

How was I suggesting that Adam was not human before the fall? Adam did not exist before God created him out of the dust and breathed life into his nostrils. I really have no idea where you arrived at that conclusion from my words:

If it is the “by simply being human” part of my statement that is confusing you, I could have very well said by simply being born. Hope that helps.

Adam was no less “human” before the Fall than he was after the Fall. His “humanity” hadn’t changed any as a consequence.

If you take away the effects of sin that you listed and agreed happened as a result of the fall; “death, sickness, pain and a tendency to sin”, then you will have some idea of what it was like prior to the fall. No death, no sickness, no pain and NO TENDANCY TO COMMIT SIN. If you do not want to call this original holiness and justice, then don’t, but most would describe one who does not commit sin, holy and just.

It is the commission of sin that makes someone unholy, not having the tendency to commit sin. The tendency is a temptation. The Scriptures teach that Jesus suffered temptation in every way as we are. Did that make Him unholy? Of course not. If He had yielded to the temptation he would have become unholy. But as it is He didn’t, therefore He remained holy. We too would be holy if we never yielded to a temptation to sin. We become unholy when we commit sin. Little children are holy. It is only when they grow up and start committing sin that they become unholy. They do not become unholy because of the Original Sin, but their own sins. Sinners can become holy again through faith in Jesus Christ, repentance of their sins, and baptism. That is why members of God’s true Church are called “saints”. A saint is someone who is sanctified or made holy.

As I have explained, that is why the Church distinguishes between the two types of “guilt”. It has never said they are the same. I agree that the guilt attributed to sins of commission or omission are not the same as the “guilt” attributed to original sin.

That is really an arbitrary distinction that has no meaning in practice. If you are guilty, then you are guilty, and you deserve punishment for your guilt. If you are going to go to hell for either “guilt,” then I dont see a real distinction between the two.

We were born sick, through no fault of our own. But as I have also said, one does not become sick unless he is infected with something. We are infected with the sin of Adam and there is no getting around that fact.

That is something that I have never been able to understand. How can being born guilty be comparable to a sickness? There is no such thing as being “infected with the sin of Adam”. How is one “infected with the sin of Adam”? By being guilty without having done anything wrong? How? I don’t feel guilty for the sin of Adam. I only feel guilty for my own sins. That is an untrue statement by reason of being nonsensical.

Pardon me zerinus, but there is nothing figurative about this statement. It is very straight forward. It doesn’t become metaphor just because it doesn’t agree with your position. . . .

You were commenting on these words of Paul:

“For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.” (Rom 5:19)

That simply does not mean that we inherit the guilt of Adam. It means that we become sinners as a result of the Fall because of our own sins committed as a result of our fallen nature, giving Satan power over us to tempt us to cause us to sin.

No Catholic would disagree with these words of Paul.

Neither would I. But I would disagree with your interpretation of them.

Please re-read your statement zerinus. It defeats your point. On one hand we became sinners “because of the sin of one man”. That would be original sin. You then continue to say that we became sinners “because of our own sins”. That would be sins committed by man. You have, in essence, made the Catholic argument. We become sinners in two ways, first through original sin, second through sins of commission.

No, you are misreading my comment. We become sinners entirely through our own sins, which sins are caused partly as a result of the Fall making us subject to the temptations of the devil.

Continued . . . /

 

[zerinus]

/. . . Continued

I agree, of course, with the Catholic postition and so would agree with your statement.

That is the crux of the matter; the rest is superficial. That is where we disagree. Mormon revelation teaches that we suffer most of the consequences of the Fall that you accept, except the transmission of guilt. Man becomes guilty entirely though his own sins, not the sin of Adam. Children are born innocent and holy, and when they die in infancy they are saved in the highest (third) heaven without the need for any baptism at all, not even proxy baptisms for the dead. The Atonement of Jesus Christ takes care of that unconditionally for them. It is only when we reach the age of accountability that we begin to become responsible for our sins, and when baptism becomes efficacious for their remission.

Here is the difference. Christ died voluntarily. We do not. He was not subject to death, but voluntarily died on our behalf for no reason other than gratuitous love. One does not have the ability to die. One dies because of the inability to do otherwise. This was not the case with Jesus.

I agree that He was God, therefore He had the power to prevent Himself from dying if He wanted to. But what enabled Him to die was the fact that He inherited a mortal body like ours which was naturally subject to death, as the scriptures teach:

Hebrews 2:

14 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;
15 And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.
16 For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham.
17 Wherefore in ALL things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.
18 For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted.

Jesus had to inherit a fallen nature like the rest of us so that He could be subject to both death as well as temptation. It is a major fallacy to suggest that Jesus was not subject to the consequences of the Fall.

Adam and Eve were subject to temptation prior to the fall, otherwise they would not have been tempted in the first place. Temptation does not equal sin. We still, in the face of temptation, have the choice to make to either give in to the temptation or to resist it.

Not exactly. The scripters teach that when we sin, we become “the servant of sin” (John 8:34). Sin has an enslaving power. If we yield to temptation, it becomes harder to resist that temptation the next time. Adam’s sin had that kind of effect on his posterity. Being born in a sinful environment also has a similar effect. Many actions that are culturally acceptable in a society may in fact be sins. One can even inherit a tendency to commit certain sins. If I am not mistaken, Catholicism also teaches that doctrine. None of this, however, is equivalent to being found guilty of the Original Sin. They are simply not the same thing—and that is where our differences lie.

The point you are making here has been condemned by the Church as heresy. The notion that it was easier for Jesus because he was divine ignores His true humanity. He was made like us in every way but sin. . . .

You are misreading what I had said. Paul teaches that God will not allow us to be tempted “above that [we] are able” (1 Corinthians 10:13). That suggest that some people have a greater ability to resist temptation than other. It is logical to conclude that Jesus being who He was, had a greater ability to resist temptation than anybody else. It also implies that He was subjected to stronger temptations than any of us would have been able to bear.

He resisted the sins that we cannot resist precisely because He was not subject to original sin.

I disagree entirely. It is precisely because He inherited a “fallen” body just like us that He was able to be tempted at all. See Hebrews 2:14–18 quoted above.

He is God Almighty, the Creator, and cannot be subject to any sin.

Here you are contradicting yourself! What do you mean by “cannot be subjected to sin”? Do you mean He cannot be tempted? You are wrong, because He was! (While James says that God cannot be tempted! See James 1:13). If you are saying that Jesus could not sin at all, then you are even more wrong, contradicting what you said even more—that Jesus didn’t have it any easier than the rest of us.

You understand correctly.

Again, that is the crux of the matter. The rest is largely superfluous. We of course disagree. Inheriting “guilt” is not one of the consequences of the Original Sin—neither for Jesus, nor for anyone else. And Jesus without question had inherited all of the other consequences of the Original Sin. He inherited death, and the ability to be tempted, see the scriptures quoted above. James says that God cannot be tempted, and Jesus was God, so how was He able to be tempted? Because He inherited a fallen nature like ours. I should think that was obvious. By negating that doctrine you are effectively negating the Atonement of Jesus Christ. Jesus being God, inherited a fallen humanity and deified it. It wouldn’t have been much of an achievement if He hadn’t. Catholic theology is seriously in error on that issue.

 

[RebeccaJ]

I’m an Ex-Mormon.

Me too…raised-as LDS, convert to RC 2008! Nice to meet you.