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

[SteveVH]

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.

 

[zerinus]

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?

Yes.

Do you believe the first sin has consequences for our lives?

Yes.

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

The only aspect of the traditional or Catholic doctrine of the Original Sin that we do not accept is the belief that mankind is guilty because of the original sin. We become guilty because of our own sins, not the sin of Adam. Other aspects of the Original Sin that we do not accept are the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of Mary (which ties into the Original Sin), and the belief that Jesus was not affected by the Original Sin. Being sinless (which Jesus was), and not being affected by Original Sin are two different things. Jesus inherited the effects of the Original Sin like the rest of us, but remained without sin by not yielding to temptation (unlike the rest of us).

 

[zerinus]

So did I answer our question? Any further questions I could help you out with?

 

[SteveVH]

The only aspect of the traditional or Catholic doctrine of the Original Sin that we do not accept is the belief that mankind is guilty because of the original sin. We become guilty because of our own sins, not the sin of Adam.

Zerinus, thanks for your response and for laying out these differences in simple fashion. It seems that some clarification is in order as to the actual Catholic position, however, in order to contrast with the Mormon position.

Here is what the Catholic Church says on the matter:

"…original sin is called “sin” only in an anological sense: it is a sin “contracted” and not “committed” - a state and not an act." (CCC par 404)

"Although it is proper to each individual, original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam’s descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it; subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death; and inclined to sin - an inclination to evil that is called “concupiscence”… (CCC par 405)

So, rather than being “guilty”, we have inherited a state of being inclined toward evil, from which our actual sins originate. To me it is much like the children who suffer due to the infidelity of one of their parents resulting in a broken home. The children are not guilty, but they suffer the consequences of their parent’s sin nonetheless. They may even follow this as a pattern in their life. The analogy isn’t exact, but I think you can see what I’m getting at.

Other aspects of the Original Sin that we do not accept are the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of Mary (which ties into the Original Sin), and the belief that Jesus was not affected by the Original Sin. Being sinless (which Jesus was), and not being affected by Original Sin are two different things. Jesus inherited the effects of the Original Sin like the rest of us, but remained without sin by not yielding to temptation (unlike the rest of us).

While we can certainly get into this discussion, for sake of clarity, I am recommending that we stick with your first point and then address the Immaculate Conception and the affects (or not) of original sin on Jesus a little later.

Again, thanks for your thoughts.

 

[SteveVH]

So did I answer our question? Any further questions I could help you out with?

Sorry about the delay in my response. Life has recently “gotten in the way”. I will stay more vigilant. Thanks for your patience.

 

[zerinus]

Zerinus, thanks for your response and for laying out these differences in simple fashion. It seems that some clarification is in order as to the actual Catholic position, however, in order to contrast with the Mormon position.

Here is what the Catholic Church says on the matter:

"…original sin is called “sin” only in an anological sense: it is a sin “contracted” and not “committed” - a state and not an act." (CCC par 404)

"Although it is proper to each individual, original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam’s descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it; subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death; and inclined to sin - an inclination to evil that is called “concupiscence”… (CCC par 405)

So, rather than being “guilty”, we have inherited a state of being inclined toward evil, from which our actual sins originate. To me it is much like the children who suffer due to the infidelity of one of their parents resulting in a broken home. The children are not guilty, but they suffer the consequences of their parent’s sin nonetheless. They may even follow this as a pattern in their life. The analogy isn’t exact, but I think you can see what I’m getting at.

Thanks for your reply. The quotes and explanations you have given are interesting, but have hidden meanings and do not fully explain the historical doctrine, and almost seem designed to hide it. Firstly, the Catechism quotes do not properly explain the historical position. The Catechism has not always been the same. It has changed and modified over the years. But the historical position has been that man is actually guilty because of the Original Sin. That has been the traditional justification of infant baptisms. A newborn infant is guilty because not because of his own sins, but because of the Original Sin. Baptism is required in order to remit that Original Sin. Have a look at this link to see the theological justification for this. The quote from the Catechism has been modified hide this doctrine; but still does not completely cover it up. It does still teach that doctrine in a veiled way. Take a closer look at your own quote:

"…original sin is called “sin” only in an anological sense: it is a sin "contracted" and not “committed” - a state and not an act."

In other words, it is still a sin (attributed to you) though not committed by you. It is contracted but not committed! So what is that supposed to mean? My reading of it is that it is still regarded as a sin attributed to you, even if you had never committed that sin (or any other sin). So the Catechism still teaches that doctrine, but in a hidden and veiled way.

Your own explanation is also somewhat telling. You state:

So, . . . we have inherited a state of being inclined toward evil, from which our actual sins originate.

Are you implying that we have an irresistible urge to sin, one that we cannot help but yield to? That appears to be what you are saying, and I would not agree with that. The fact that our weaknesses causes all of us at some points in our lives to sin in spite of our best efforts, does not mean that we have no choice but to sin. There is no biblical teaching that supports that doctrine.

So to sum it up, I am afraid I am still going to have to stick to what I had said with regard to the traditional or Catholic doctrine of Original Sin. The Catholic teaching has been, and still is, that a man is guilty because of the original sin. I did not say that the sin originates from commission. It comes from contraction, according to the express teaching of the Catechism! The sin of Adam is attributed to the fallen man, so that he is considered guilty because of that sin, even though he has not committed that sin himself. That is still the Catholic teaching, and is still manifest in the Catechism, even though they try their best to hide it.

While we can certainly get into this discussion, for sake of clarity, I am recommending that we stick with your first point and then address the Immaculate Conception and the affects (or not) of original sin on Jesus a little later.

As far as I am concerned, that aspect of the doctrine is settled. I don’t think you can prove otherwise. The next step is discussing the Immaculate Conception and the supposed freedom of Jesus from the effects of the Original Sin.

 

[SteveVH]

Thanks for your reply. The quotes and explanations you have given are interesting, but have hidden meanings and do not fully explain the historical doctrine, and almost seem designed to hide it. Firstly, the Catechism quotes do not properly explain the historical position. The Catechism has not always been the same. It has changed and modified over the years.

The Catechism has had one revision and this section was not changed at all. In fact, the second addition was published due to a translational issue from the Latin text and not substantive. So it has not been “changed and modified over the years”. Nor has the Church’s teaching on original sin.

In addition, the Church is not hiding anything

But the historical position has been that man is actually guilty because of the Original Sin. That has been the traditional justification of infant baptisms. A newborn infant is guilty because not because of his own sins, but because of the Original Sin. Baptism is required in order to remit that Original Sin. Have a look at this link to see the theological justification for this. The quote from the Catechism has been modified hide this doctrine; but still does not completely cover it up. It does still teach that doctrine in a veiled way. Take a closer look at your own quote:

In other words, it is still a sin (attributed to you) though not committed by you. It is contracted but not committed! So what is that supposed to mean? My reading of it is that it is still regarded as a sin attributed to you, even if you had never committed that sin (or any other sin). So the Catechism still teaches that doctrine, but in a hidden and veiled way.

Your own explanation is also somewhat telling. You state:

Are you implying that we have an irresistible urge to sin, one that we cannot help but yield to? That appears to be what you are saying, and I would not agree with that. The fact that our weaknesses causes all of us at some points in our lives to sin in spite of our best efforts, does not mean that we have no choice but to sin. There is no biblical teaching that supports that doctrine.

So to sum it up, I am afraid I am still going to have to stick to what I had said with regard to the traditional or Catholic doctrine of Original Sin. The Catholic teaching has been, and still is, that a man is guilty because of the original sin. I did not say that the sin originates from commission. It comes from contraction, according to the express teaching of the Catechism! The sin of Adam is attributed to the fallen man, so that he is considered guilty because of that sin, even though he has not committed that sin himself. That is still the Catholic teaching, and is still manifest in the Catechism, even though they try their best to hide it.

As far as I am concerned, that aspect of the doctrine is settled. I don’t think you can prove otherwise. The next step is discussing the Immaculate Conception and the supposed freedom of Jesus from the effects of the Original Sin.

 

[SteveVH]

Thanks for your reply. The quotes and explanations you have given are interesting, but have hidden meanings and do not fully explain the historical doctrine, and almost seem designed to hide it. Firstly, the Catechism quotes do not properly explain the historical position. The Catechism has not always been the same. It has changed and modified over the years.

FIrst of all, there is no hidden meaning and the explanations given by the Church are there for that very purpose; to explain the Church’s teaching on the subject. There is no need for the Church to hide anything as the official teachings have not changed.

As for the Catechism, I’m not sure how you arrive at the conclusion that it has been “changed and modified over the years.” The Second Edition was published very soon after the first, and the reason for this was due to translational inconsistencies with the Latin text which were not substantive. The section concerning original sin was not changed in the least.

But the historical position has been that man is actually guilty because of the Original Sin. That has been the traditional justification of infant baptisms. A newborn infant is guilty because not because of his own sins, but because of the Original Sin. Baptism is required in order to remit that Original Sin. Have a look at this link to see the theological justification for this. The quote from the Catechism has been modified hide this doctrine; but still does not completely cover it up. It does still teach that doctrine in a veiled way. Take a closer look at your own quote:

The link you provided is basically a very good and in-depth discussion on various theological opinions. It is not a summation of official Church teaching. You keep stating that the Church is trying to hide its doctrine on this subject as if it is ashamed of it. I’m not sure where this comes from other than you have formed your own opinion of the Church’s stance and the explanation I have given you, from official Church doctrine no less, does not conform to your understanding of what we believe. Catholics are bound to believe wat the CCC Church teaches. It is official Catholic doctrine. Our understanding may grow as the centuries ensue, but the doctrine does not change.

We believe that we have inherited the sin of Adam, through no fault of our own, simply by being human. Adam’s sin changed human nature from original holiness and justice to sinfulness. We suffer the effects of sin, in many and varied ways. The existence of evil, suffering, death, human weakness and wickedness, all of which are rampant in the world, testify to this truth. You don’t suffer the effects of the illness unless you are infected with the virus. I have just listed some of the effects, or symptoms. The virus is the sin of Adam. It has weakened us to the point that we also commit sin, which weakens us further. We have a propensity for sin. It is why we require a Savior. We cannot just progress, on our own, to a point of righteousness. Why? Because we have been infected. We need a physician and his name is Jesus.

The milk has spoiled and it remains spoiled no matter how many new glasses you pour it into.

In other words, it is still a sin (attributed to you) though not committed by you. It is contracted but not committed! So what is that supposed to mean? My reading of it is that it is still regarded as a sin attributed to you, even if you had never committed that sin (or any other sin). So the Catechism still teaches that doctrine, but in a hidden and veiled way.

Well then why don’t we look at what Paul has to say:

"Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned… Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come.
(Rom 5:12-14)

"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)

Paul is not speaking of “actual” sin or sins of commission. So it begs the question. How can anyone be made a sinner when he hasn’t committed a sin? Paul tells us that it is because of the sin of “one man”. Through the sin of one man we are all implicated.

Continued…

 

[SteveVH]

Your own explanation is also somewhat telling. You state:

From SteveVH
So, . . . we have inherited a state of being inclined toward evil, from which our actual sins originate.

Are you implying that we have an irresistible urge to sin, one that we cannot help but yield to? That appears to be what you are saying, and I would not agree with that. The fact that our weaknesses causes all of us at some points in our lives to sin in spite of our best efforts, does not mean that we have no choice but to sin. There is no biblical teaching that supports that doctrine.

You are speaking here of sins committed by man, through his weakness. I certainly do not believe, and cannot find where I said that “we have an irresistible urge to sin, one that we cannot help but yield to”. I said we are inclined toward evil, not that it is irresistible. But when Jesus asked he who was without sin to cast the first stone, He could find no one to cast it. We always have a choice to commit sin or not to commit sin. That is what makes it a sin of commission. If we had no choice, guilt could not be imputed as to the sin we commit. I have not tried imply that there is Biblical teaching that would support the idea that we have no choice but to commit sin.

That is why the Church distinguishes between original (not committed) and actual sin (committed). The Church is just stating a reality and I think they’ve done a great job of doing so. The Magisterium has modified the word “guilt” with its explanations and justifiably so. We are not “guilty” of original sin in the same way that we are “guilty” of actual sin. It is very different than original sin and for the Church not to distinguish between the two would be irresponsible in light of its role as the teaching authority.

So to sum it up, I am afraid I am still going to have to stick to what I had said with regard to the traditional or Catholic doctrine of Original Sin. The Catholic teaching has been, and still is, that a man is guilty because of the original sin. I did not say that the sin originates from commission. It comes from contraction, according to the express teaching of the Catechism! The sin of Adam is attributed to the fallen man, so that he is considered guilty because of that sin, even though he has not committed that sin himself. That is still the Catholic teaching, and is still manifest in the Catechism, even though they try their best to hide it.

Other than your insistence that the Church is trying to hide something, I’m not sure that I would disagree with anything you said, nor would the Church, unless I’m missing some nuance. That is why I say that the Church is not trying to hide anything because it has nothing to hide. But unless you only want to pick and choose in order to prove your point, you should take into consideration the entirety of what the Church says on the matter. It is why the Catechism was written. To give a better understanding of what the Church believes and teaches. There is no change in belief, but hopefully, a better understanding of that belief.

As far as I am concerned, that aspect of the doctrine is settled. I don’t think you can prove otherwise.

Unless you care to address my response. It certainly wasn’t settled for me and I think I have proven otherwise.

The next step is discussing the Immaculate Conception and the supposed freedom of Jesus from the effects of the Original Sin.

I’m fine with that. If you don’t mind, I think it would be helpful, in the logical progression of the theology behind the doctrines, to first discuss the effects, or not, of original sin on Jesus. If Catholic doctrine on this is not true, then the Immaculate Conception is not only unnecessary, but false.

 

[SteveVH]

Originally Posted by zerinus
The next step is discussing the Immaculate Conception and the supposed freedom of Jesus from the effects of the Original Sin.

Originally Posted by SteveVH
I’m fine with that. If you don’t mind, I think it would be helpful, in the logical progression of the theology behind the doctrines, to first discuss the effects, or not, of original sin on Jesus. If Catholic doctrine on this is not true, then the Immaculate Conception is not only unnecessary, but false.

Originally Posted by zerinus
Jesus inherited the effects of the Original Sin like the rest of us, but remained without sin by not yielding to temptation (unlike the rest of us).

My first question would be where do you find any indication that Christ “suffered the effects of original sin like the rest of us”? Which leads to the question, what do you believe are the effects of original sin?

 

[zerinus]

FIrst of all, there is no hidden meaning and the explanations given by the Church are there for that very purpose; to explain the Church’s teaching on the subject. There is no need for the Church to hide anything as the official teachings have not changed.

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.

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

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

Adam’s sin changed human nature from original holiness and justice to sinfulness. We suffer the effects of sin, in many and varied ways. The existence of evil, suffering, death, human weakness and wickedness, all of which are rampant in the world, testify to this truth. You don’t suffer the effects of the illness unless you are infected with the virus. I have just listed some of the effects, or symptoms. The virus is the sin of Adam. It has weakened us to the point that we also commit sin, which weakens us further. We have a propensity for sin. It is why we require a Savior. We cannot just progress, on our own, to a point of righteousness. Why? Because we have been infected. We need a physician and his name is Jesus.

The milk has spoiled and it remains spoiled no matter how many new glasses you pour it into.

I am not sure I can agree with you that “Adam’s sin changed human nature from original holiness and justice to sinfulness;” but in general we agree that as a result of the Fall we have become subject to death, sickness, pain, and a tendency to commit sin. None of this, however, provides a theological justification for the belief that we are actually guilty because of the Original Sin, regardless of whether we have done anything wrong ourselves or not.

Well then why don’t we look at what Paul has to say:

"Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned… Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come.
(Rom 5:12-14)

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.

"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)

Paul is here speaking the language of metaphor. He is saying that because of the Fall of Adam sin has entered into the world, as a consequence of which we all, figuratively speaking, have become “sinners”. He does not say that we are actually made guilty because of, or by, the sin of Adam. We are made guilty by our own sins committed partly as a consequence of the Fall of Adam. And by the way, this is precisely the kind of language that Protestants use to justify their “justification by faith alone” theology. You are misapplying Paul’s words in the same way that they do. How come it is okay for you to do it, but not for them?

Continued . . . /

 

[zerinus]

/. . . Continued

Paul is not speaking of “actual” sin or sins of commission. So it begs the question. How can anyone be made a sinner when he hasn’t committed a sin? Paul tells us that it is because of the sin of “one man”. Through the sin of one man we are all implicated.

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.

That is why the Church distinguishes between original (not committed) and actual sin (committed). The Church is just stating a reality and I think they’ve done a great job of doing so. The Magisterium has modified the word “guilt” with its explanations and justifiably so. We are not “guilty” of original sin in the same way that we are “guilty” of actual sin. It is very different than original sin and for the Church not to distinguish between the two would be irresponsible in light of its role as the teaching authority.

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.

Other than your insistence that the Church is trying to hide something, I’m not sure that I would disagree with anything you said, nor would the Church, unless I’m missing some nuance. . . .

Great; once we can agree that that is the Catholic teaching, we can move on to discuss other differences.

I’m fine with that. If you don’t mind, I think it would be helpful, in the logical progression of the theology behind the doctrines, to first discuss the effects, or not, of original sin on Jesus. If Catholic doctrine on this is not true, then the Immaculate Conception is not only unnecessary, but false.

Agreed!

My first question would be where do you find any indication that Christ “suffered the effects of original sin like the rest of us”? Which leads to the question, what do you believe are the effects of original sin?

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.

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. They are placed in a condition where they can make their own choices between good and evil. The devil tempts them to do evil, and God persuades them to do good. They are caught in the middle, having to decide which way to go. 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). 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 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. 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.

 

[Stephen168]

Yes.

Yes.

In what way?

The only aspect of the traditional or Catholic doctrine of the Original Sin that we do not accept is the belief that mankind is guilty because of the original sin. We become guilty because of our own sins, not the sin of Adam. Other aspects of the Original Sin that we do not accept are the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of Mary (which ties into the Original Sin), and the belief that Jesus was not affected by the Original Sin. Being sinless (which Jesus was), and not being affected by Original Sin are two different things. Jesus inherited the effects of the Original Sin like the rest of us, but remained without sin by not yielding to temptation (unlike the rest of us).

Could you tell us what you DO believe in the same detail you want to tell us what you DON’T believe?

 

[Stephen168]

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;

No, it stems from the Christian belief that Jesus is God; and God is not sin

 

[KathleenGee]

On the side here, people also forget about the growing universality of the Church incorporating more kinds of people – who further enrich the Church – as well as the work of faith, reason, and science.

Catholics do not believe that you assert your faith in Christ as Lord and Savior and then you are entitled for heaven. There is a purgation of self and ego and the inclination to sin in this life. We are given enough crosses in this life to purify us so that we may indeed persevere to the end and be saved in heaven with Christ. But defining limbo is really a proposing…

In the past, there were many bishops who believed in the Albigensian heresy, but the laity rejected it. I heard of limbo…perceived it as proposing, but never accepted in my universal faith all the details…but trusted in God’s mercy.

 

[LongJourney]

Catholics do not believe that you assert your faith in Christ as Lord and Savior and then you are entitled for heaven. There is a purgation of self and ego and the inclination to sin in this life. We are given enough crosses in this life to purify us so that we may indeed persevere to the end and be saved in heaven with Christ.

Our understanding of the problem of pain is so much better than what I see in the BoM.

 

[zerinus]

In what way?

In the same way that is taught in the Book of Mormon:

Mosiah 3:

19 For the natural man is an enemy to God, and has been from the fall of Adam, and will be, forever and ever, unless he yields to the enticings of the Holy Spirit, and putteth off the natural man and becometh a saint through the atonement of Christ the Lord, and becometh as a child, submissive, meek, humble, patient, full of love, willing to submit to all things which the Lord seeth fit to inflict upon him, even as a child doth submit to his father.

Mosiah 16:

3 For they are carnal and devilish, and the devil has power over them; yea, even that old serpent that did beguile our first parents, which was the cause of their fall; which was the cause of all mankind becoming carnal, sensual, devilish, knowing evil from good, subjecting themselves to the devil.
4 Thus all mankind were lost; and behold, they would have been endlessly lost were it not that God redeemed his people from their lost and fallen state.

Alma 42:

6 But behold, it was appointed unto man to die—therefore, as they were cut off from the tree of life they should be cut off from the face of the earth—and man became lost forever, yea, they became fallen man.
7 And now, ye see by this that our first parents were cut off both temporally and spiritually from the presence of the Lord; and thus we see they became subjects to follow after their own will.

D&C 20:

18 And that he created man, male and female, after his own image and in his own likeness, created he them;
19 And gave unto them commandments that they should love and serve him, the only living and true God, and that he should be the only being whom they should worship.
20 But by the transgression of these holy laws man became sensual and devilish, and became fallen man.
21 Wherefore, the Almighty God gave his Only Begotten Son, as it is written in those scriptures which have been given of him.
22 He suffered temptations but gave no heed unto them.
23 He was crucified, died, and rose again the third day;
24 And ascended into heaven, to sit down on the right hand of the Father, to reign with almighty power according to the will of the Father;
25 That as many as would believe and be baptized in his holy name, and endure in faith to the end, should be saved—
26 Not only those who believed after he came in the meridian of time, in the flesh, but all those from the beginning, …

Could you tell us what you DO believe in the same detail you want to tell us what you DON’T believe?

See above. Our doctrines are taught in the Book of Mormon, and in other scriptures we have received, including the Bible. The above scriptures are by no means exhaustive. I am sure later on I will think of other verses that I should have included! But they basically explain the core doctrine. There isn’t a lot that I could add to it off my own head. If you can think of some questions that they do not answer, you can ask them, and I will see if I can answer them.

 

[zerinus]

No, it stems from the Christian belief that Jesus is God; and God is not sin

I don’t see that reply having relevance to anything I had said. I don’t think you had understood what I had said.

 

[jlhargus]

Zerinus, thanks for your response and for laying out these differences in simple fashion. It seems that some clarification is in order as to the actual Catholic position, however, in order to contrast with the Mormon position.

Here is what the Catholic Church says on the matter:

"…original sin is called “sin” only in an anological sense: it is a sin “contracted” and not “committed” - a state and not an act." (CCC par 404)

"Although it is proper to each individual, original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam’s descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it; subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death; and inclined to sin - an inclination to evil that is called “concupiscence”… (CCC par 405)

So, rather than being “guilty”, we have inherited a state of being inclined toward evil, from which our actual sins originate. To me it is much like the children who suffer due to the infidelity of one of their parents resulting in a broken home. The children are not guilty, but they suffer the consequences of their parent’s sin nonetheless. They may even follow this as a pattern in their life. The analogy isn’t exact, but I think you can see what I’m getting at.

While we can certainly get into this discussion, for sake of clarity, I am recommending that we stick with your first point and then address the Immaculate Conception and the affects (or not) of original sin on Jesus a little later.

Again, thanks for your thoughts.

JL: Original sin is the LOSS, of supernatural life, the indwelling Holy Spirit by Adam and Eve and therefore lost for all mankind. That life is now restored by baptism. [Acts2:38 Then PETER SAID unto them, **REPENT, and **BE BAPTIZED **every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ FOR the REMISSION OF SINS, and ye shall RECEIVE the gift of THE HOLY GHOST.]

ACTS 19:1 And it came to pass that, while Apollos was at Corinth Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus and FINDING certain DISCIPLES 2 HE SAID unto them HAVE YOU RECEIVED THE HOLY GHOST SINCE YE BELIEVED? And they said unto him WE HAVE NOT SO MUCH AS HEARD whether THERE BE ANY HOLY GHOST 3 And HE SAID unto them UNTO WHAT then WERE YE BAPTIZED? And THEY SAID UNTO JOHN’S BAPTISM 4 Then said Paul, JOHN verily BAPTIZED WITH the BAPTISM OF REPENTANCE SAYING unto the people that they should BELIEVE ON HIM WHICH should COME AFTER HIM that is ON CHRIST JESUS 5 When they heard this THEY WERE BAPTIZED IN THE NAME OF THE LORD JESUS 6 And when PAUL had LAID his HANDS UPON THEM THE HOLY GHOST CAME ON THEM and they spake with tongues and prophesied ]

With baptism, only the supernatural gifts are restored. The PRETERNATURAL GIFTS, LOST in the fall, are: infused knowledge, absence of concupiscence, and freedom from death and sickness. [Concupiscence would be the spiritual warfare within ourself. The flesh pulls us to fulfill all it’s desires, while the Holy Spirit indwelled soul wants to do the will of God.]

The SUPERNATURAL GIFTS, RESTORED IN BAPTISM, are INDWELLING OF GOD IN OUR SOULS through grace, AND THE theological VIRTUES (FAITH, HOPE, AND CHAIRTY).

John the Baptist was conceived in original sin, but was born without original sin as he received the Holy Spirit while he was in his mother’s womb, Lk1:15 For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be FILLED WITH THE HOLY GHOST, even FROM HIS MOTHER’S WOMB.

catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0502fea5.asp

catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0509fea4sb2.asp

 

[jlhargus]

Thanks for your reply. The quotes and explanations you have given are interesting, but have hidden meanings and do not fully explain the historical doctrine, and almost seem designed to hide it. Firstly, the Catechism quotes do not properly explain the historical position. The Catechism has not always been the same. It has changed and modified over the years. But the historical position has been that man is actually guilty because of the Original Sin. That has been the traditional justification of infant baptisms. A newborn infant is guilty because not because of his own sins, but because of the Original Sin. Baptism is required in order to remit that Original Sin. Have a look at this link to see the theological justification for this. The quote from the Catechism has been modified hide this doctrine; but still does not completely cover it up. It does still teach that doctrine in a veiled way. Take a closer look at your own quote: COLOR=“DarkRed”]In other words, it is still a sin (attributed to you) though not committed by you. It is contracted but not committed! So what is that supposed to mean? My reading of it is that it is still regarded as a sin attributed to you, even if you had never committed that sin (or any other sin). So the Catechism still teaches that doctrine, but in a hidden and veiled way.

Your own explanation is also somewhat telling. You state:

Are you implying that we have an irresistible urge to sin, one that we cannot help but yield to? That appears to be what you are saying, and I would not agree with that. The fact that our weaknesses causes all of us at some points in our lives to sin in spite of our best efforts, does not mean that we have no choice but to sin. There is no biblical teaching that supports that doctrine.

So to sum it up, I am afraid I am still going to have to stick to what I had said with regard to the traditional or Catholic doctrine of Original Sin. The Catholic teaching has been, and still is, that a man is guilty because of the original sin. I did not say that the sin originates from commission. It comes from contraction, according to the express teaching of the Catechism! The sin of Adam is attributed to the fallen man, so that he is considered guilty because of that sin, even though he has not committed that sin himself. That is still the Catholic teaching, and is still manifest in the Catechism, even though they try their best to hide it.

As far as I am concerned, that aspect of the doctrine is settled. I don’t think you can prove otherwise. The next step is discussing the Immaculate Conception and the supposed freedom of Jesus from the effects of the Original Sin.

JL: Original sin is the LOSS, of supernatural life, the indwelling Holy Spirit by Adam and Eve and therefore lost for all mankind. That life is now restored by baptism. [Acts2:38 Then PETER SAID unto them, **REPENT, and **BE BAPTIZED **every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ FOR the REMISSION OF SINS, and ye shall RECEIVE the gift of THE HOLY GHOST.]

ACTS 19:1 And it came to pass that, while Apollos was at Corinth Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus and FINDING certain DISCIPLES 2 HE SAID unto them HAVE YOU RECEIVED THE HOLY GHOST SINCE YE BELIEVED? And they said unto him WE HAVE NOT SO MUCH AS HEARD whether THERE BE ANY HOLY GHOST 3 And HE SAID unto them UNTO WHAT then WERE YE BAPTIZED? And THEY SAID UNTO JOHN’S BAPTISM 4 Then said Paul, JOHN verily BAPTIZED WITH the BAPTISM OF REPENTANCE SAYING unto the people that they should BELIEVE ON HIM WHICH should COME AFTER HIM that is ON CHRIST JESUS 5 When they heard this THEY WERE BAPTIZED IN THE NAME OF THE LORD JESUS 6 And when PAUL had LAID his HANDS UPON THEM THE HOLY GHOST CAME ON THEM and they spake with tongues and prophesied ]

With baptism, only the supernatural gifts are restored. The PRETERNATURAL GIFTS, LOST in the fall, are: infused knowledge, absence of concupiscence, and freedom from death and sickness. [Concupiscence would be the spiritual warfare within ourself. The flesh pulls us to fulfill all it’s desires, while the Holy Spirit indwelled soul wants to do the will of God.]

The SUPERNATURAL GIFTS, RESTORED IN BAPTISM, are INDWELLING OF GOD IN OUR SOULS through grace, AND THE theological VIRTUES (FAITH, HOPE, AND CHAIRTY).

John the Baptist was conceived in original sin, but was born without original sin as he received the Holy Spirit while he was in his mother’s womb, Lk1:15 For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be FILLED WITH THE HOLY GHOST, even FROM HIS MOTHER’S WOMB.

catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0502fea5.asp

catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0509fea4sb2.asp