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

  • Thread starter Thread starter SteveVH
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
OK, so which is it? Do we all commit an OS for ourselves or did Adam’s sin mean nothing except for himself? What is a fallen nature? You don’t seem to be saying that only adults have this characteristic. What is different about children?
Before I answer that question, you need to come to terms with the reality that according to the teachings of Jesus, children are already in a saved condition. That is the meaning of the scriptures that I had quoted. Until you come to terms with and accept that reality, it is pointless trying to answer the larger questions you are asking.
 
I have answered your question in as much detail as I am capable of doing. You refuse, in turn, to answer my question and ignore the Scriptures I have placed in front of you because they absolutely refute your position. Instead, you prefer to just insult me. I actually expected a lot more from you.

Peace, zerinus.
You never answered my question, evidently because you don’t have an answer, which you don’t want to admit; and unless you do, I don’t see how we can take this discussion any further.
 
You never answered my question, evidently because you don’t have an answer, which you don’t want to admit; and unless you do, I don’t see how we can take this discussion any further.
What part of this is not an answer to your question?

STEVE’S ANSWER
Originally Posted by SteveVH
The verse in James which reads "Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted by evil, neither tempteth he any man." is not speaking of God incarnate. James is a very Jewish document and the use of the word God refers always to the Father, in which evil finds no allure. It was Jesus, in his humanity, that was subject to temptation, as I have documented, and it was Jesus who remained perfect, not giving in to temptation. Jesus was tested, not his Father.
Originally Posted by SteveVH
"Then Jesus was led by the Spirit into the desert to be tempted by the devil. He fasted for forty days and forty nights, and afterwords he was hungry. The tempter approached and said to him, “If you are the Son of God, command that these stones become loaves of bread.” (Matthew 4:1-3)
If that is not enough then take a look at Hebrews:
"For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are - yet was without sin." (Heb 4:15)
How in the world have I not answered your question? And why do you keep refusing to address, in any way, the verses from Matthew and Hebrews which refute your position entirely. Sorry, I guess I just answered my own question. I will assume that you have no answer and are too proud to admit it.
 
What part of this is not an answer to your question?

STEVE’S ANSWER

How in the world have I not answered your question? And why do you keep refusing to address, in any way, the verses from Matthew and Hebrews which refute your position entirely. Sorry, I guess I just answered my own question. I will assume that you have no answer and are too proud to admit it.
Again Clarity, Zerinus.
It’s been answered. My question now is why are you here?
Do you know why?
Sincerely curious

.
 
Before I answer that question, you need to come to terms with the reality that according to the teachings of Jesus, children are already in a saved condition. That is the meaning of the scriptures that I had quoted. Until you come to terms with and accept that reality, it is pointless trying to answer the larger questions you are asking.
It seems to me you’re not answering the question. There are plenty of children who lack humility- from a quite young age. At what point, exactly, do they become “unsaved”? Are you saying that there’s a point in time when all people face the same question as Adam & Eve were faced with-whether or not to follow the God they already knew and walked with?
 
It seems to me you’re not answering the question.
Believe it or not I am trying to!
There are plenty of children who lack humility- from a quite young age. At what point, exactly, do they become “unsaved”?
Are you questioning the words of Jesus? Jesus did not say, “Only children who do not lack humility are of the kingdom of heaven”. His assertion was unconditional with regard to children. “Of such is the kingdom of heaven,” He declared unconditionally. How do you understand this? Do you think that did not include children who “lacked humility”? On what basis?
Are you saying that there’s a point in time when all people face the same question as Adam & Eve were faced with-whether or not to follow the God they already knew and walked with?
Well, little children will become adults someday. Evidently what applies to little children does not apply to adults. So at what point they stop being children and start being adults is a valid question; but it does not alter the fact that what Jesus said about little children is applicable (unconditionally), regardless of the rule by which you determine when a child stops being a child and starts being an adult. Don’t you agree?
 
Believe it or not I am trying to!

Are you questioning the words of Jesus? Jesus did not say, “Only children who do not lack humility are of the kingdom of heaven”. His assertion was unconditional with regard to children. “Of such is the kingdom of heaven,” He declared unconditionally. How do you understand this? Do you think that did not include children who “lacked humility”? On what basis?

Well, little children will become adults someday. Evidently what applies to little children does not apply to adults. So at what point they stop being children and start being adults is a valid question; but it does not alter the fact that what Jesus said about little children is applicable (unconditionally), regardless of the rule by which you determine when a child stops being a child and starts being an adult. Don’t you agree?
I never question Jesus’ word but Catholics don’t subscribe to a sola scriptura doctrine so we weigh scripture in light of our God-led tradition along with the rest of scripture in context-so His word can be ascertained correctly, with the Holy Spirit’s guidance.

Of course we recognize the innocence of children and, as such, they can provide a great model for the attitude we must have towards God, our Father. This does not, however, explain why, invariably, they lose that innocence, as if something was already at work towards that end. Serial killers more often than not probably start out as someone’s dearly loved infant.

If there’s not a basic flaw of some kind within mankind; if there was never a higher level from which he fell, then all individual sin is inevitable and unavoidable-and absolutely natural for man. God had no right to give man the Law, in this case.
 
I never question Jesus’ word but Catholics don’t subscribe to a sola scriptura doctrine so we weigh scripture in light of our God-led tradition along with the rest of scripture in context-so His word can be ascertained.
Thank you. I respect that position entirely. Mormons have additional revelation/scripture that you could say does the same thing for us that “sacred tradition” does for you; and I will tell you shortly what that additional Mormon scripture teaches on this subject.
Of course we recognize the innocence of children and, as such, they can provide a great model for the attitude we must have towards God, our Father. This does not, however, explain why, invariably, they lose that innocence, as if something was already at work towards that end. Serial killers more often than not probably start out as someone’s dearly loved infant.
I agree, there is “something at work,” but for us Mormons that “something” does not look exactly like the way it does in Catholic theology.
If there’s not a basic flaw of some kind within mankind; if there was never a higher level from which he fell, then all individual sin is inevitable and unavoidable-and absolutely natural for man. God had no right to give man the Law, in this case.
I am not sure exactly how you draw that conclusion from the given premise, but the premise is not far out. I accept the premise to a large extent. Now I will tell you what the doctrine is in Mormonism, and you can compare it with what is taught in Catholicism. Here I will just talk about the fate of little children, because to discuss the whole business of the Fall and what it entailed is a bigger and lengthier subject to talk about. Here is what Mormon revelation teaches about the fate of children in the gospel:

Mosiah 3:

16 And even if it were possible that little children could sin they could not be saved; but I say unto you they are blessed; for behold, as in Adam, or by nature, they fall, even so the blood of Christ atoneth for their sins.

Moroni 8:

11 And their little children need no repentance, neither baptism. Behold, baptism is unto repentance to the fulfilling the commandments unto the remission of sins.
12 But little children are alive in Christ, even from the foundation of the world; if not so, God is a partial God, and also a changeable God, and a respecter to persons; for how many little children have died without baptism!

22 For behold that all little children are alive in Christ, and also all they that are without the law. For the power of redemption cometh on all them that have no law; wherefore, he that is not condemned, or he that is under no condemnation, cannot repent; and unto such baptism availeth nothing—

D&C 29:

46 But behold, I say unto you, that little children are redeemed from the foundation of the world through mine Only Begotten;
47 Wherefore, they cannot sin, for power is not given unto Satan to tempt little children, until they begin to become accountable before me;

D&C 74:

7 But little children are holy, being sanctified through the atonement of Jesus Christ; and this is what the scriptures mean.

D&C 93:

38 Every spirit of man was innocent in the beginning; and God having redeemed man from the fall, men became again, in their infant state, innocent before God.

D&C 137:

10 And I also beheld that all children who die before they arrive at the years of accountability are saved in the celestial kingdom of heaven.

Moses 6:

53 And our father Adam spake unto the Lord, and said: Why is it that men must repent and be baptized in water? And the Lord said unto Adam: Behold I have forgiven thee thy transgression in the Garden of Eden.
54 Hence came the saying abroad among the people, that the Son of God hath atoned for original guilt, wherein the sins of the parents cannot be answered upon the heads of the children, for they are whole from the foundation of the world.

I think that is pretty much self-explanatory. We believe that little children, until they reach the age of accountability, are essentially sinless. Whatever the effect of the Fall might be on them, it does not make them sinful, in the sense of make them guilty of sin, or unholy. Satan in fact does not have the power to tempt little children. It doesn’t mean they can’t do anything wrong. They can be naughty. They can be mischievous. But they are not held accountable for it, and the Atonement of Jesus Christ redeems them unconditionally.

As far as the subject of the Fall itself is concerned, and what effects and consequences it has or has not for the rest of us, that is a bigger subject that is best discussed separately.

I hope that has answered your question. If not, fire on!
 
I hope that has answered your question. If not, fire on!
Regarding the matter of children-a matter which unavoidably involves the fall: while they were easily attracted to Jesus, lacking the pride and guile of adults (although I’m often surprised at how mean a 7 year-old can be!), I don’t believe it’s correct in any case to say they had faith in God to begin with-innocence, yes, but faith, no.

Humankind is separated, internally and by any other perspective, from God by virtue of having been cast out of the garden and banned from the Tree of Life-by virtue of having rejected His authority. This rebellion, resulting from a preference for a man-based righteousness as opposed to a God-based one, holds sway within us, rearing it’s head as soon as we’re able; even the most humble adult we know, for example, is probably far more self-righteous than God would have us be in a perfect world. Anyway, I’m not sure you’re allowing for or perceiving the extent of the gap that separates man from God-a gap only He can bridge.

The viewpoint you expressed earlier, of God knowing the fall would occur and using Adam & Eve as a part of His ultimate plan for man, has some resonance with Catholic thought; we even call the Fall a “Blessed Fault”-though it’s not a precise fit; your view could run the risk of minimizing the seriousness of sin and man’s responsibility for it, IMO.
 
Regarding the matter of children-a matter which unavoidably involves the fall: while they were easily attracted to Jesus, lacking the pride and guile of adults (although I’m often surprised at how mean a 7 year-old can be!), I don’t believe it’s correct in any case to say they had faith in God to begin with-innocence, yes, but faith, no.
Well, according to Jesus, they “believe in” Him. I suppose you could ask, if they had never heard of Him, how could they believe in Him? Perhaps what the Lord meant was that they have a disposition to believe in Him when they do hear of Him, without a stubbornness of heart. I think that is what it really means. They have a natural tendency to believe in Him when they hear of Him, without skepticism or guile.
Humankind is separated, internally and by any other perspective, from God by virtue of having been cast out of the garden and banned from the Tree of Life-by virtue of having rejected His authority. This rebellion, resulting from a preference for a man-based righteousness as opposed to a God-based one, holds sway within us, rearing it’s head as soon as we’re able; even the most humble adult we know, for example, is probably far more self-righteous than God would have us be in a perfect world. Anyway, I’m not sure you’re allowing for or perceiving the extent of the gap that separates man from God-a gap only He can bridge.
To me that is speculation. It is not a theologically accurate statement. You are stringing a whole bunch of thoiughts and ideas together which appears to be quite arbuterary. Somebody else could string up a different set of propositions, and it would be just as valid as yours. If that is your opinion about the Fall, that is fine with me; I think we have equally valid reasons to believe as we do about the Fall (if not more so).
The viewpoint you expressed earlier, of God knowing the fall would occur and using Adam & Eve as a part of His ultimate plan for man, has some resonance with Catholic thought; we even call the Fall a “Blessed Fault”-though it’s not a precise fit; your view could run the risk of minimizing the seriousness of sin and man’s responsibility for it, IMO.
Your initial observation is interesting; but your conclusion I would not agree with.
 
To me that is speculation. It is not a theologically accurate statement. You are stringing a whole bunch of thoiughts and ideas together which appears to be quite arbuterary. Somebody else could string up a different set of propositions, and it would be just as valid as yours. If that is your opinion about the Fall, that is fine with me; I think we have equally valid reasons to believe as we do about the Fall (if not more so).
It’s somewhat speculative but stays within the range of Catholic thought-not arbitrarily arranged if you were to look into it. It’s consistent Catholic teaching that we’re in exile here on earth, preferring ourselves to God, and so cut off from the source of our life and happiness. And that by coming to be justified again we’re made capable of seeing God, ready for heaven. This is a process whereby, to the extent we’re willing to turn away from ourselves and back to Him, He writes His Laws on our hearts and in our minds, fulfilling the New Covenant prophecy in Jer 31.
 
It’s somewhat speculative but stays within the range of Catholic thought-not arbitrarily arranged if you were to look into it. It’s consistent Catholic teaching that we’re in exile here on earth, preferring ourselves to God, and so cut off from the source of our life and happiness. And that by coming to be justified again we’re made capable of seeing God, ready for heaven. This is a process whereby, to the extent we’re willing to turn away from ourselves and back to Him, He writes His Laws on our hearts and in our minds, . . .
Generally I agree with that. There is nothing in there that I could seriously object to. A Mormon might express the same thoughts using different words and concepts, but wouldn’t disagree with it either. The problem with it is that it is basically unrelated to the subject of the thread. Two main points have emerged in the discussions in this thread highlighting the theological differences between Catholicism and Mormonism with regard to the Fall: firstly, that in Catholicism man is considered guilty because of the Fall, irrespective of whether he has done anything wrong himself or not. The other is the question of whether Jesus was subject to the consequences of the Fall or not (the Immaculate Conception of Mary being a corollary to it). These are the main differences between Mormon and Catholic theologies that has been highlighted in this thread. Your comments so far haven’t contributed much to that aspect of the debate.
. . . fulfilling the New Covenant prophecy in Jer 31.
I don’t see a problem with that interpretation either; except that to us Jeremiah 31 has a much wider significance than the limited interpretation you have put on it.
 
Your comments so far haven’t contributed much to that aspect of the debate.
I’ll try one more time anyway.

Sometimes I think we miss the forest for the trees, getting lost in our dogma. Regarding man’s “guilt”:

The disorder inherent in mans separation from God-a disorder we should be able to observe everywhere we look-within and without-is a radical offense against Him –one He knows is destructive to us and one that leads to or allows for all moral evil (sin) in this world. This disorder is constituted firstly of a lack of faith because it resulted from a lack of faith, i.e. God was no longer the God of man for all practical purposes once man rebelled against His authority. And our purpose here on earth-what we’re called to do- is to restore or reconcile that disorder (through His initiation) and return to Him-this generally begins with a conscious restoration of that faith by hearing the Word of God, by hearing about Him, about His nature and will for us. And if children already, truly, sufficiently possessed said faith, let alone the other virtues He seeks to restore in us, they would have no need to ever hear the Word themselves. The children who did respond to Jesus, heard His Word-they experienced the immediate presence or the express image of God in action and were drawn to Him spontaneously. This was “just” -and is ideally the way we should all respond to God when we meet Him.
 
I’ll try one more time anyway.

Sometimes I think we miss the forest for the trees, getting lost in our dogma. Regarding man’s “guilt”:

The disorder inherent in mans separation from God-a disorder we should be able to observe everywhere we look-within and without-is a radical offense against Him –one He knows is destructive to us and one that leads to or allows for all moral evil (sin) in this world. This disorder is constituted firstly of a lack of faith because it resulted from a lack of faith, i.e. God was no longer the God of man for all practical purposes once man rebelled against His authority. And our purpose here on earth-what we’re called to do- is to restore or reconcile that disorder (through His initiation) and return to Him-this generally begins with a conscious restoration of that faith by hearing the Word of God, by hearing about Him, about His nature and will for us. And if children already, truly, sufficiently possessed said faith, let alone the other virtues He seeks to restore in us, they would have no need to ever hear the Word themselves. The children who did respond to Jesus, heard His Word-they experienced the immediate presence or the express image of God in action and were drawn to Him spontaneously. This was “just” -and is ideally the way we should all respond to God when we meet Him.
Those are nice sounding words; but they leave me in the dark about the need for infant baptism in Catholic theology, and whether baptism remits Original Sin or committed sin; or whether Jesus was subject to the Original Sin or not, and what are the theological, scriptural basis for all of this if any.

This thread began with Steve asking a question about the Mormon understanding Original Sin, to which I responded, explaining the differences as I saw them. Are you agreeing with the Mormon position or disagreeing? If you are agreeing, then I suppose we have nothing further to argue about. If you are disagreeing, you haven’t provided me with a valid explanation why.
 
What part of this is not an answer to your question?
STEVE’S ANSWER
Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveVH
The verse in James which reads “Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted by evil, neither tempteth he any man.” is not speaking of God incarnate. James is a very Jewish document and the use of the word God refers always to the Father, in which evil finds no allure. It was Jesus, in his humanity, that was subject to temptation, as I have documented, and it was Jesus who remained perfect, not giving in to temptation. Jesus was tested, not his Father.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveVH
*"Then Jesus was led by the Spirit into the desert to be tempted by the devil. He fasted for forty days and forty nights, and afterwords he was hungry. The tempter approached and said to him, “If you are the Son of God, command that these stones become loaves of bread.” (Matthew 4:1-3)
If that is not enough then take a look at Hebrews:
“For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are - yet was without sin.” (Heb 4:15)
How in the world have I not answered your question? And why do you keep refusing to address, in any way, the verses from Matthew and Hebrews which refute your position entirely. Sorry, I guess I just answered my own question. I will assume that you have no answer and are too proud to admit it. *
Still waiting zerinus…
 
Those are nice sounding words; but they leave me in the dark about the need for infant baptism in Catholic theology, and whether baptism remits Original Sin or committed sin; or whether Jesus was subject to the Original Sin or not, and what are the theological, scriptural basis for all of this if any.

This thread began with Steve asking a question about the Mormon understanding Original Sin, to which I responded, explaining the differences as I saw them. Are you agreeing with the Mormon position or disagreeing? If you are agreeing, then I suppose we have nothing further to argue about. If you are disagreeing, you haven’t provided me with a valid explanation why.
You questioned the use of the term “guilt” in Catholic theology. It was explained by Steve how guilt is contracted, not the result of a sin committed for Adam’s descendants. I’ve attempted to explain how “sumpin’s wrong” here on planet earth, how man is turned from God without necessarily knowing it and how this constitutes an offense against nature, a disorder in the universe, resulting from, again, “a sin “contracted” and not “committed” - a state and not an act.” From there the Church has always simply followed Jesus’ words where He instructed that one must be born of water and spirit to enter the kingdom of God.
 
What was it that made it possible for Jesus to be tempted, whereas He was God, and by definition God cannot be tempted, as James said?
If, by the use of the word “tempted”, we mean to question if God can be asked to do something wrong by His creation or whatever, then, yes, of course God can be tempted.

If, on the other hand, we mean by that term “swayed” into contemplation or consideration of doing something wrong, then, no, God cannot be tempted in such manner, and neither was Jesus.
 
You questioned the use of the term “guilt” in Catholic theology.
I didn’t question the use of the “word”. I questioned the doctrine that man is considered guilty as a result of the Original Sin, irrespective of whether he has done anything wrong himself or not.
It was explained by Steve how guilt is contracted, not the result of a sin committed for Adam’s descendants.
That is right; and I explained why we disagree with that doctrine.
I’ve attempted to explain how “sumpin’s wrong” here on planet earth, how man is turned from God without necessarily knowing it and how this constitutes an offense against nature, a disorder in the universe, resulting from, again, “a sin “contracted” and not “committed” - a state and not an act.”
I see a problem, and possible contradiction in the above statement. Being wrong, or guilty, because you yourself have done something wrong (for whatever reason, even if it was without knowing it was wrong); and being considered wrong, or guilty, purely because somebody else did something wrong, without you ever having done anything wrong, are two different things. You seem to be unable to make that distinction.

Let us suppose that Sumpin was born miraculously with the ability to never make a mistake, and never do anything wrong in all his life. Would he still be considered “guilty” because of the sin of Adam, even if he never put a foot wrong in all his life? That is the question that you are not really answering.
From there the Church has always simply followed Jesus’ words where He instructed that one must be born of water and spirit to enter the kingdom of God.
Yes, but the rest of the scriptures make it clear that baptism must preceded by faith and repentance, otherwise it won’t do you any good. That informs us that the words of the Savior was intended for adults, not people who are incapable of sinning, repenting, or exercising faith, such as a newborn infant for example.
If, by the use of the word “tempted”, we mean to question if God can be asked to do something wrong by His creation or whatever, then, yes, of course God can be tempted.

If, on the other hand, we mean by that term “swayed” into contemplation or consideration of doing something wrong, then, no, God cannot be tempted in such manner, and neither was Jesus.
You seem to be suggesting that the word “tempt” is used differently by James than by other writers in the Bible. That presents a problem with the following verse:

Hebrews 4:

15 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.

Was Jesus indeed tempted in every way as we are, or wasn’t He?
 
Was Jesus indeed tempted in every way as we are, or wasn’t He?
Hebrew 4:15 says that He was. If you want to say that the Author of Hebrews was incorrect, then say so. I realize that you are obviously ignoring me, but the question still remains. The language in Hebrews is anything but ambiguous.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top