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

[zerinus]

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.

I am not ignoring you. But you are trying to be a smart alec, and I don’t have time for that.

 

[fhansen]

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.

The problem is that man isn’t just born as someone who can and does make mistakes or do wrong things. The issue at the heart of this matter is why man does wrong. And the answer is that He fails to love God with his whole heart, soul, mind, and strength and his neighbor as himself. This is what is lacking in man and this is what, when reconciled, will makes him just again. And this fault is due to the separation that took place when man rejected God as his God. Again, it’s an offense, a disorder, one which we’re not individually responsible for but one which explains the existence of evil in the world and one which nonetheless we can only overcome as individuals by seeing the error of Adams way and turning back to God. This is Gods plan and we stand to benefit enormously from it in the end.

And isn’t it the case that we, in any event, suffer due to the sin of one man? Is that any more fair? God couldn’t have started *each *of us out in Eden? And yet evils committed against us at the hands of man, pain, suffering, and death all await everyone of us here due to Adams sin and we can only surmise that, in God’s wisdom, good will be brought out of this evil.

 

[fhansen]

Was Jesus indeed tempted in every way as we are, or wasn’t He?
Yes, in the same way anyone, including God, could be but He never gave consideration to the offer-He immediately opposed it.

 

[SteveVH]

I am not ignoring you. But you are trying to be a smart alec, and I don’t have time for that.

Zerinus, as I have demonstrated, I have answered your question. Again, why won’t you answer mine? It is you who have been hurling insults and engaging in name calling as evidenced by this very post. I just want a simple answer as to how you address the verses in Matthew and Hebrews. I have no desire to get into a personal battle with you.

 

[zerinus]

The problem is that man isn’t just born as someone who can and does make mistakes or do wrong things. The issue at the heart of this matter is why man does wrong. And the answer is that He fails to love God with his whole heart, soul, mind, and strength and his neighbor as himself. This is what is lacking in man and this is what, when reconciled, will makes him just again.

The problem I see with that statement is that it implies that people who love God never make a mistake or do something wrong. All we have to do is to get people to love God with all their hearts, and they will never do anything wrong. We know that that is not the case. Loving God etc. alone doesn’t stop people from doing something wrong or making mistakes. All the great prophets and Apostles and saints who have loved God have made mistakes or done things wrong at some point in their lives. Peter’s denial of Jesus, and Moses’ error at the waters of Meribah are typical examples. On the other hand, there are people who have no faith or belief in Jesus Christ, but live pretty decent lives, possibly as good as those who do. Paul says of Gentiles who live decent lives:

Romans 2:

13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.
14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another; )

And this fault is due to the separation that took place when man rejected God as his God. Again, it’s an offense, a disorder, one which we’re not individually responsible for but one which explains the existence of evil in the world and one which nonetheless we can only overcome as individuals by seeing the error of Adams way and turning back to God. This is Gods plan and we stand to benefit enormously from it in the end.

But none of the above addresses the central issue of whether the sin of Adam makes us guilty regardless of whether we have done anything wrong ourselves or not; and if so how? How can the sin of Adam make a newborn infant guilty without having done anything wrong? Under every legal system, including the scriptures, you become guilty when you actually do something wrong. Just the thought of it coming to your mind doesn’t make you guilty, until you act on that thought. You haven’t answered the central question as I see it.

And isn’t it the case that we, in any event, suffer due to the sin of one man? Is that any more fair? God couldn’t have started eachof us out in Eden? And yet evils committed against us at the hands of man, pain, suffering, and death all await everyone of us here due to Adams sin and we can only surmise that, in God’s wisdom, good will be brought out of this evil.

That is a good question; and Mormon theology has a good explanation for it! The purpose of the Fall was to give all mankind the knowledge of good and evil. This meant more than just theoretical knowledge of good and evil. It meant that he should be placed in a condition where he would learn by experience the difference between good and evil. It meant a condition where he could be tempted, and learn by experience the consequences of good and evil. The sufferings and pains of mortality are the result of that.

 

[zerinus]

Yes, in the same way anyone, including God, could be but He never gave consideration to the offer-He immediately opposed it.

Temptation is more than just an “offer”. It is combat with Satan. When somebody is tempted to steal, commit adultery, or bear false witness, that is more than just an “offer”. James describes it as follows:

James 1:

13 Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:
14 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.
15 Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.

That describes the process of how someone is tempted, enticed, and then sins. I think you are thinking of the temptations of the Jesus after His forty day fast in the wilderness. I think that is a scriptural representative of His temptations; it does not describe all or the severity of them. If that was all the temptations that He suffered, He couldn’t have been tempted in avery way as we are, as Paul says. Some temptations for some people may be no more than just an offer; but the hardest temptations are not like that. It takes a struggle to overcome them. And Jesus suffered those. You seem to be trying to make an arbitrary distinction between the Jesus’ temptations and everybody else’s temptations. The scriptures don’t. The scriptures explain exactly why He was able to be tempted as we are:

Hebrews 2:

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.

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.
16 Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need.

The reason why He could be tempted as we are, according to the above scriptures, is that He inherited a body just like ours, subject to the consequences of the Fall. That is made very clear in the above scriptures. I don’t see how anyone can deny it. It also explains why Jesus could be tempted, whereas God cannot be. Jesus was God, but He decided to be born as a mortal, take on Him the (fallen) flesh of the seed of Abraham, precisely so He could be tempted in every way as we are, and work out our salvation for us in a manner that we ourselves could have never done. That is the meaning of the above scriptures.

The bottom line is that man becomes guilty by his own sins, not the sin of Adam; and Jesus could be tempted just as we are precisely because He inherited a mortal, physical body like ours subject to the Fall of Adam as we are. He was made “in ALL things … like unto his brethren,” so that He could “in ALL points tempted like as we are,” I can’t see how it could be made any plainer than that.

 

[Deserwest]

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.

I am surprized that someone of your obvious intelligence, based upon your writing, would make such a leap of logic. You appropriatly quote Hebrews 4:15, and then make a leap of logig that Jesus ability to resist sin was because He “possessed divine powers”

You provided no basis for connecting one with the others. On what basis can you say that even if Jesus possessed divine powers that those powers were the cause of His ability to resist sin.

Jesus instructs that we be perfect even as He was. You are in effect mooting Jesus command on this poing and will by stating that we lack the essential powers or ingrediants to perform in such a way.

This is a troubling aspect of catholic doctrine … how it tends to seperate man from god, by rendering Jesus as some type of odd case, having no similarity with humanity. Even in catholicism, there is the concept of a dual natured God, so at least give Him and us credit for the 50% we have in common.

And by the way, the whole thread is basically moot, because Mormons totally reject the concept of original sin. So, argue all you want, but its all pointless. Mormonism is not an abridgment of catholic thought, rather a complete rejection of the basis of sin and suffering, and the point thereof, in this world.

 

[Deserwest]

That is a well known tactic: when you have no more answers to give, create a diversion by attacking Mormonism!

You still haven’t answered my question: How was it possible for Jesus, who was God, to be tempted, whereas James tells us that God cannot be tempted?

Funny, he also states that man lived in a state of innocence, not being naive. That of course could ONLY occur after Adam partook of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. This of course is the basis of the LDS objection to catholic thought on O.S. which keeps on being overlooked on this silly thread. If one has no knowledge of good or evil, how can one not be considered naive? Of course Adam and Eve were naive. The legitmacy of catholic doctrine on O.S. is dependent upon pointing the finger of shame on Adam. Mormonism knows no such shame. Mormonism does not shame, hate or rise up Jesus based upon the transgressions of Adam. Mormonism does not see Adam has having committed some kind of sexual sin, which so many catholics seem to insist that is represented by the partaking of an apple! How many catholics do we see that have been manipulated into thinking and feeling sex is some kind of dirty act instilled in us by Adam despite Gods command to “multiply and replentish” the earth.

It really is time for catholics to get back to their roots and realize that in the first several centuries of the existance of the Church, the doctrine of O.S. was considered a Gnostic heresy and condemmed by the Church. O.S. was then and is now false doctrine.

The entire concept of original sin is based on a totally illogical thought pattern, and whatever doctrine is based on that is likewise tainted. I guess that is the original sin they are talking about.

 

[SteveVH]

Funny, he also states that man lived in a state of innocence, not being naive. That of course could ONLY occur after Adam partook of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. This of course is the basis of the LDS objection to catholic thought on O.S. which keeps on being overlooked on this silly thread. If one has no knowledge of good or evil, how can one not be considered naive? Of course Adam and Eve were naive. The legitmacy of catholic doctrine on O.S. is dependent upon pointing the finger of shame on Adam. Mormonism knows no such shame. Mormonism does not shame, hate or rise up Jesus based upon the transgressions of Adam. Mormonism does not see Adam has having committed some kind of sexual sin, which so many catholics seem to insist that is represented by the partaking of an apple! How many catholics do we see that have been manipulated into thinking and feeling sex is some kind of dirty act instilled in us by Adam despite Gods command to “multiply and replentish” the earth.

It really is time for catholics to get back to their roots and realize that in the first several centuries of the existance of the Church, the doctrine of O.S. was considered a Gnostic heresy and condemmed by the Church. O.S. was then and is now false doctrine.

The entire concept of original sin is based on a totally illogical thought pattern, and whatever doctrine is based on that is likewise tainted. I guess that is the original sin they are talking about.

"True, I was born guilty, a sinner, even as my mother conceived me."
(Psalm 51:7)

Would you not say that even David knew of original sin?

 

[fhansen]

The problem I see with that statement is that it implies that people who love God never make a mistake or do something wrong. All we have to do is to get people to love God with all their hearts, and they will never do anything wrong. We know that that is not the case. Loving God etc. alone doesn’t stop people from doing something wrong or making mistakes. All the great prophets and Apostles and saints who have loved God have made mistakes or done things wrong at some point in their lives. Peter’s denial of Jesus, and Moses’ error at the waters of Meribah are typical examples. On the other hand, there are people who have no faith or belief in Jesus Christ, but live pretty decent lives, possibly as good as those who do. Paul says of Gentiles who live decent lives:

Romans 2:

13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.
14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another; )

**…love is the fulfillment of the law. **Rom13:10
We don’t give God enough credit. He’s designed man to fulfill the law and nothing’s changed in that-His will will be done. And man fulfills it as he fulfills the greatest commandments. This is the promise of the New Covenant, the Potter molding us, writing His laws on our hearts and in our minds. And this is our justification-that which makes us just.
**With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”**Matt 19

But none of the above addresses the central issue of whether the sin of Adam makes us guilty regardless of whether we have done anything wrong ourselves or not; and if so how? How can the sin of Adam make a newborn infant guilty without having done anything wrong? Under every legal system, including the scriptures, you become guilty when you actually do something wrong. Just the thought of it coming to your mind doesn’t make you guilty, until you act on that thought. You haven’t answered the central question as I see it.
To me the question is whether or not man has a flaw-a characteristic that he’s not responsible for having but nonetheless is responsible for getting rid of-with the help of His patient and merciful Maker. It’s a question of his will starting out in the wrong place-oriented towards himself, rather than towards God.
zerinus;7225086:

That is a good question; and Mormon theology has a good explanation for it! The purpose of the Fall was to give all mankind the knowledge of good and evil. This meant more than just theoretical knowledge of good and evil. It meant that he should be placed in a condition where he would learn by experience the difference between good and evil. It meant a condition where he could be tempted, and learn by experience the consequences of good and evil. The sufferings and pains of mortality are the result of that.

And with this I can agree.

 

[SteveVH]

Originally Posted by zerinus
That is a good question; and Mormon theology has a good explanation for it! The purpose of the Fall was to give all mankind the knowledge of good and evil. This meant more than just theoretical knowledge of good and evil. It meant that he should be placed in a condition where he would learn by experience the difference between good and evil. It meant a condition where he could be tempted, and learn by experience the consequences of good and evil. The sufferings and pains of mortality are the result of that.

…
And with this I can agree.

And with this I cannot agree. This presupposes that God intended for man to sin and placed him in a position to where had had no choice but to sin. Freedom lies in choosing good, not in choosing evil. Christ, who is God, had no need to “experience” evil in order to have knowledge. He certainly experienced the effects of evil on humanity when he was crucified, but did not have to commit evil in order to gain knowledge. Likewise, we gain true wisdom by doing good, not evil. That entire idea is preposterous.

 

[fhansen]

And with this I cannot agree. This presupposes that God intended for man to sin and placed him in a position to where had had no choice but to sin. Freedom lies in choosing good, not in choosing evil. Christ, who is God, had no need to “experience” evil in order to have knowledge. He certainly experienced the effects of evil on humanity when he was crucified, but did not have to commit evil in order to gain knowledge. Likewise, we gain true wisdom by doing good, not evil. That entire idea is preposterous.

The banishment from the garden and into a world where man’s will reigns, and evil, along with good, can be experienced, is not a case of God placing man in a position where he had no choice but to sin. It’s an exile into a pigsty so we Prodigals can learn our need for our Father. Of course Jesus had no need for this experience. He came to rescue us from the pit.
God knew man would fall and determined to bring good out of this evil. But, yes, He did not intend the evil.

 

[SteveVH]

The banishment from the garden and into a world where man’s will reigns, and evil, along with good, can be experienced, is not a case of God placing man in a position where he had no choice but to sin. It’s an exile into a pigsty so we Prodigals can learn our need for our Father. Of course Jesus had no need for this experience. He came to rescue us from the pit.
God knew man would fall and determined to bring good out of this evil. But, yes, He did not intend the evil.

If you question the Mormons a little deeper, you will find that they indeed believe that Adam’s choice to disobey God was a good thing because it was necessary in order for man to gain knowledge and wisdom. They believe that Adam was basically suck in a dilemma between two commandments. On the one hand, God commanded them not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. On the other hand, Adam was commanded to be a helper to his wife Eve. What was he to do? In order to help his wife, to remain with her, he was forced to disobey God and eat of the tree. In other words, poor Adam. And when God asked him what he had done he blamed it on Eve.

This is akin to the following scenario. It is as if God commanded you to get to a destination, 90 miles away in a half hour without speeding. In order to accomplish this goal you would be placed in a situation which required you to break one the commandments. You cannot, through no fault of your own, obey both. God does not, in fact, He cannot cause one to sin and would never place His children in that situation. Remember, the serpent lied to them and they bought into the lie out of their own selfishness. He had given them the entire garden. There was only one tree of which they were not to eat. They abused this freedom. Free will was given in order that they might choose to love God, not that hey might choose to disobey Him.

I don’t have to experience murdering someone in order to know that it is evil. Yes, I would gain the knowledge of having experienced murder, but what good would that knowledge do me? Taking that a little further, I don’t have to experience any sin in order to gain wisdom. They had the choice and they blew it. So do we each and every time we choose to sin. Wisdom does not come through sinning. Death comes through sinning.

 

[jlhargus]

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?

JL: To apply the fruit of that attonement to those who are CLEAN and will be raised in the FAITH of their believing parent. Do you hold that the attonement covers all, and is auto applied to all, including those who even reject Christ?

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!

JL: Well you attack the Church’s view of OS, so does that mean you don’t believe in OS? There is no flip flop on teaching, except in your own mind. Tell me from what epistle of Clement did you take the remarks? The word FALLED seems to be out of place, an alteration, it doesn’t fit. I am not aware Clement ever wrote on original sin. In any case I don’t see that, the above statement, would be any different than what is taught today. Can a new born commit fornication? No. Can a child ever DO ANYTHING and fall into sin? No. They are born of flesh only and need to be BORN AGAIN by water AND the Spirit.

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

JL: Nor is it lost today, to sin one must understand what they are doing is wrong.

 

[fhansen]

I don’t have to experience murdering someone in order to know that it is evil. Yes, I would gain the knowledge of having experienced murder, but what good would that knowledge do me? Taking that a little further, I don’t have to experience any sin in order to gain wisdom. They had the choice and they blew it. So do we each and every time we choose to sin. Wisdom does not come through sinning. Death comes through sinning.

But the wisdom that can come from experiencing a world unaligned with Gods will is the wisdom that comes to know that Gods will is perfect-the wisdom to choose life over death. Otherwise, there’d be no purpose for creating a race He knew would fall-then arbitrarily saving them later anyway. It’s a matter of our wills aligning with His-and something has to cause this to happen- for us to change, and this is a matter of our coming to cooperate with, rather than rebelling against, God. This is the significance of the parable of the Prodigal. And even our Exultet’s Blessed Fault concept implies that the Fall will yield far more good than otherwise. This is my opinion, maybe wrong.

OTOH I’m largely ignorant of Mormon theology and thank you for the info. It appears they see the fall as essentially good or admirable, relieving Adam of any genuine guilt; the evil of the fall and all sin that followed a part of Gods plan as if He willed the evil itself. Don’t know if that’s accurate but it’s certainly not the Catholic God if so.

 

[zerinus]

"True, I was born guilty, a sinner, even as my mother conceived me."
(Psalm 51:7)

Would you not say that even David knew of original sin?

I have no intention of endorsing, approving, or even commenting what Deserwest has said; but to give a general reply to your post, firstly the reference you have given for that verse is incorrect. The correct reference I presume is Psalm 51:5, which in the KJV reads as follows:

“Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.”

Which in turn reads differently from your quote, which must come from a different translation–you didn’t tell us which.

If you are using your original quote to justify the doctrine that man is guilty when he is born because of the Original Sin, then you are wrong. The KJV version is the more correct translation, and it does not say that, nor does it in any way contradict LDS doctrine. Here is a quote:

Moses 6:

55 And the Lord spake unto Adam, saying: Inasmuch as thy children are conceived in sin, even so when they begin to grow up, sin conceiveth in their hearts, and they taste the bitter, that they may know to prize the good.
56 And it is given unto them to know good from evil; wherefore they are agents unto themselves, and I have given unto you another law and commandment.
57 Wherefore teach it unto your children, that all men, everywhere, must repent, or they can in nowise inherit the kingdom of God, for no unclean thing can dwell there, or dwell in his presence; for, in the language of Adam, Man of Holiness is his name, and the name of his Only Begotten is the Son of Man, even Jesus Christ, a righteous Judge, who shall come in the meridian of time.

One only becomes guilty when he actually commits a sin, not just because he has tendency, inclination, or desire to sin. He is innocent until he yields to that temptation and actually commits sin.

 

[zerinus]

**…love is the fulfillment of the law. **Rom13:10
We don’t give God enough credit. He’s designed man to fulfill the law and nothing’s changed in that-His will will be done. And man fulfills it as he fulfills the greatest commandments. This is the promise of the New Covenant, the Potter molding us, writing His laws on our hearts and in our minds. And this is our justification-that which makes us just.
**With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”**Matt 19

To me the question is whether or not man has a flaw-a characteristic that he’s not responsible for having but nonetheless is responsible for getting rid of-with the help of His patient and merciful Maker. It’s a question of his will starting out in the wrong place-oriented towards himself, rather than towards God.

Thank you for your reply. You are saying things that basically I find difficult to disagree with; except that they do not address the central issue of how someone can be consitered guilty because of the Original Sin, until he has actually committed a sin himself, for whatever reason that might be.

 

[zerinus]

And with this I cannot agree. This presupposes that God intended for man to sin and placed him in a position to where had had no choice but to sin. Freedom lies in choosing good, not in choosing evil. Christ, who is God, had no need to “experience” evil in order to have knowledge. He certainly experienced the effects of evil on humanity when he was crucified, but did not have to commit evil in order to gain knowledge. Likewise, we gain true wisdom by doing good, not evil. That entire idea is preposterous.

Nobody has to commit evil in order to gain knowledge, neither Jesus nor any other man, and that is not what Mormonism teaches.

 

[fhansen]

One only becomes guilty when he actually commits a sin, not just because he has tendency, inclination, or desire to sin. He is innocent until he yields to that temptation and actually commits sin.
On the Sermon on the Mount Jesus tells us otherwise-not merely our actions but our hearts must be in the right place. If one has anger he’s already committed murder. If one has lust, they’ve already committed adultery.

 

[zerinus]

The banishment from the garden and into a world where man’s will reigns, and evil, along with good, can be experienced, is not a case of God placing man in a position where he had no choice but to sin.

Agreed.

It’s an exile into a pigsty so we Prodigals can learn our need for our Father.

I would say it is a condition where we experience evil not just by our own actions, but more often by other people’s actions, and experience the consequences of evil. Equally important, it is an environment where we can be tested and tried to see if we are obedient to God or not, as Job was tested.

Of course Jesus had no need for this experience.

Well, he had to go through the same experiences that we have to go through, and “learn obedience by the things that he suffered” (Hebrews 5:8). That does not mean that He had to sin. None of us have to, in order to learn that “obedience”. It just proves that He was no different from the rest of us from that point of view.

He came to rescue us from the pit.

Agreed.

God knew man would fall and determined to bring good out of this evil.

Also agreed.

But, yes, He did not intend the evil.

We think that partaking of the forbidden fruit was a sin of disobedience, but an unavoidable one. I know that is hard to fathom, but we think that the Fall was a necessary part of the plan of salvation.