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

[zerinus]

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.

I generally agree with that. I find nothing there that would contradict Mormon theology.

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.

It is not actually, there is more to it than that. There are two questions that I would like to ask you, to which I would like you to give me an answer, if Catholic theology provides an answer to them:

(1) Why did God place the tree of the knowledge of good and evil in the Garden in the first place, if He really did not intend Adam and Eve to partake of its fruit? Would you put a bottle of poison in your fridge, and warn your kids not to drink from it; or would you rather not put that bottle in there in the first place?

(2) What is wrong with knowing good and evil anyway? Would you want to be deprived of your knowledge of good and evil? I should think any kind of knowledge is a good thing to have, especially knowledge of good and evil. So what is wrong with knowing good and evil?

Does Catholic theology provide an answer to these questions? I would be interested to know.

 

[KathleenGee]

The Ten Commandments were given to the Jewish people by God through Moses to describe in pretty simple terms what was sinful. There is no other moral code that can beat it for its simplicity and scope of human existence.

 

[zerinus]

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.

I include all of that as one of the acts of committing sin. All of those sins you have mentioned are sins that man has control over, otherwise Jesus would not command us not to commit them. Having lustful desires in your heart, or getting angry in your heart, are all sins that you have control over, and can avoid committing, which is why Jesus commands us not to commit them. I agree that it may be difficult for some of us not to commit them, but that does not mean that we have no choice but to commit them. And we are not guilty until we actually commit them. That is the point I am making. Catholic theology, however, makes you guilty not just of any of those sins, but of the sin that you have never committed, the sin of Adam. Those are two different things.

 

[SteveVH]

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.

First, I would disagree that the KJV is the best translation, but that’s a subject for a different thread. The translation I used was the NAB which I realize that you abhor, nevertheless, it is verse 7 in that translation.

Here is the translation from the NIV (also verse 5 as in the KJV):

"Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me."

This would seem to contradict your interpretation of the verse. This also should be read in the context of the rest of Pslam 51. This is one of the Psalms of repentance and the subject matter of the entire Psalm is David’s own sinfulness and the mercy of God that has cleansed him.

I will say that the wording in the KJV is very interesting and if you are correct in your interpretation of that translation then I would have a serious bone to pick with the translators of the other versions as there is little doubt as to the meaning they intend. If they are wrong, the magnitude of that error is no small thing. If they are correct, the magnitude of the error in the KJV would in turn be no small thing. Thank you for pointing this out. I’ll do a little homework.

Just so I am clear, are you trying to say that he is speaking of his Mother’s sin? That it was she who was in sin when he was conceived?

 

[fhansen]

(1) Why did God place the tree of the knowledge of good and evil in the Garden in the first place, if He really did not intend Adam and Eve to partake of its fruit? Would you put a bottle of poison in your fridge, and warn your kids not to drink from it; or would you rather not put that bottle in there in the first place?

(2) What is wrong with knowing good and evil anyway? Would you want to be deprived of your knowledge of good and evil? I should think any kind of knowledge is a good thing to have, especially knowledge of good and evil. So what is wrong with knowing good and evil?

Does Catholic theology provide an answer to these questions? I would be interested to know.

The tree of the knowledge of good and evil is directly connected with our possession of free will, it’s an element of human free will –and speaks to its proper use, that of always choosing the good. The ability to override Gods will and pursue our own carries with it an awesome responsibility. This is from the Catechism:

**396 God created man in his image and established him in his friendship. A spiritual creature, man can live this friendship only in free submission to God. The prohibition against eating “of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil” spells this out: "for in the day that you eat of it, you shall die."276 The "tree of the knowledge of good and evil"277 symbolically evokes the insurmountable limits that man, being a creature, must freely recognize and respect with trust. Man is dependent on his Creator, and subject to the laws of creation and to the moral norms that govern the use of freedom.
**
I can see absolutely no advantage for us to know evil- -other than to recognize it’s ugliness and futility so we can reject it.

 

[SteveVH]

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

Then I have been given wrong information by other Mormons on this site. Thanks for clearing that up. You might want to speak with Parker about this.

 

[zerinus]

I will say that the wording in the KJV is very interesting and if you are correct in your interpretation of that translation then I would have a serious bone to pick with the translators of the other versions as there is little doubt as to the meaning they intend. If they are wrong, the magnitude of that error is no small thing. If they are correct, the magnitude of the error in the KJV would in turn be no small thing. Thank you for pointing this out. I’ll do a little homework.

The KJV is a very literal translation. It attempts to render the original text word for word as literally as it can possibly be done. Those other translations are as much interpretations as translations. The translators have allowed themselves greater freedom to interpret the original manuscript as they saw fit.

Just so I am clear, are you trying to say that he is speaking of his Mother’s sin? That it was she who was in sin when he was conceived?

I refer you to the quote from the book of Moses. Neither text explains clearly what it meant by being “conceived in sin”. My own interpretation of it is that sin, or rather the tendency or inclination to sin, can be transmitted from parent to offspring. If I am not mistaken, Catholic doctrine also teaches this. The environment can also be a contributing factor. None of this, however, makes a person guilty until he actually commits a sin. Having the inclination to steal does not make you guilty; yielding to that inclination does.

 

[zerinus]

The tree of the knowledge of good and evil is directly connected with our possession of free will, it’s an element of human free will –and speaks to its proper use, that of always choosing the good. The ability to override Gods will and pursue our own carries with it an awesome responsibility. This is from the Catechism:

**396 God created man in his image and established him in his friendship. A spiritual creature, man can live this friendship only in free submission to God. The prohibition against eating “of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil” spells this out: "for in the day that you eat of it, you shall die."276 The "tree of the knowledge of good and evil"277 symbolically evokes the insurmountable limits that man, being a creature, must freely recognize and respect with trust. Man is dependent on his Creator, and subject to the laws of creation and to the moral norms that govern the use of freedom.
**
The ability to override Gods will and pursue our own carries with it an awesome responsibility. I can see absolutely no advantage for us to know evil- -other than to recognize it’s ugliness and futility so we can reject it.

Thank you, that was an interesting quote from the Catechism; and believe it or not, I agree with it! It is pretty close to what Mormonism teaches.

You did not answer my second question though. I am looking forward to your answer to that one too!

 

[SteveVH]

The KJV is a very literal translation. It attempts to render the original text word for word as literally as it can possibly be done. Those other translations are as much interpretations as translations. The translators have allowed themselves greater freedom to interpret the original manuscript as they saw fit.

I trust my Church and the theologians within it. Nevertheless, the KJV translation does, I think, raise an issue which I would like to investigate further.

I refer you to the quote from the book of Moses. Neither text explains clearly what it meant by being “conceived in sin”. My own interpretation of it is that sin, or rather the tendency or inclination to sin, can be transmitted from parent to offspring. If I am not mistaken, Catholic doctrine also teaches this. The environment can also be a contributing factor. None of this, however, makes a person guilty until he actually commits a sin. Having the inclination to steal does not make you guilty; yielding to that inclination does.

Ok. Thanks for clarifying that.

 

[zerinus]

I will say that the wording in the KJV is very interesting and if you are correct in your interpretation of that translation then I would have a serious bone to pick with the translators of the other versions as there is little doubt as to the meaning they intend. If they are wrong, the magnitude of that error is no small thing. If they are correct, the magnitude of the error in the KJV would in turn be no small thing. Thank you for pointing this out. I’ll do a little homework.

Most translations (especially older ones) render it closer to the KJV. Here is a sample:

New International Version (©1984)
Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.

New Living Translation (©2007)
For I was born a sinner–yes, from the moment my mother conceived me.

English Standard Version (©2001)
Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me.

New American Standard Bible (©1995)
Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, And in sin my mother conceived me.

GOD’S WORD® Translation (©1995)
Indeed, I was born guilty. I was a sinner when my mother conceived me.

King James Bible
Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.

American King James Version
Behold, I was shaped in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.

American Standard Version
Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity; And in sin did my mother conceive me.

Bible in Basic English
Truly, I was formed in evil, and in sin did my mother give me birth.

Douay-Rheims Bible
For behold I was conceived in iniquities; and in sins did my mother conceive me.

Darby Bible Translation
Behold, in iniquity was I brought forth, and in sin did my mother conceive me.

English Revised Version
Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.

Webster’s Bible Translation
Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.

World English Bible
Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity. In sin my mother conceived me.

Young’s Literal Translation
Lo, in iniquity I have been brought forth, And in sin doth my mother conceive me.

 

[KathleenGee]

Are you the same Zerinus from last fall? He really dwelled on becoming as gods…just so many draws from Scripture…

 

[The_One_Trinity]

This is why I dont try and talk to Mormons about religion. A religion that is not even 200 years old knows more about the Bible than anyone else. The only problem is that they have false doctrine and a false bible. They believe they will be gods. Very wrong. There is only 1 God. And as for prophets, here in Utah, everyone it seems is a prophet. Try and not understand them or their beliefs, its all bs.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

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”…

Hello Zerinus;

One need not commit a sin by being the target of a tempter. The point is that we not “give in” to tempation. Are you saying that we are made sinners by merely being exposed to the tempations offered by others - or only if we give in to that temptation. If the latter, how much “giving in” is sufficient to be a sin; is it merely entertaining the thought of sin, or some conscious act or omission to act on the part of the person? My understanding is that the “combat” is in how one resists temptation. Resisting temptation does not imply that one has already committed a sin.

zerinus:

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:

I disagree. Are you using tempation as a noun or a verb in this context? Is the tempation what is being offered, or are you saying that the “temptation” is what one feels upon being presented with the offer to sin? If the first, then simply being presented with an “offer” to sin is not evidence of a fallen human nature. Clearly, Jesus was exposed to the greatest form of tempations that Satan could muster, but nowhere does it say anywhere in scripture that Jesus struggled to overcome some desire to sin (if you are even implying that such was the case). Indeed, one of the scandals caused by Kazantzakis’s novel “The Last Temptation of Christ” was that it portrayed Christ as struggling against Satan’s temptations as if he had no divine nature in addition to his perfected human nature. But scripture is clear that Christ was tempted like us in all things but was without sin. (Heb 4:14-16) In other words, he was confronted with the same temptations (i.e. offers to sin) from Satan that the rest of us struggle with, but he did NOT struggle or sin. Nowhere does it say Christ - for even a moment - struggled to overcome Satan’s temptations.

zerinus:

He inherited a body just like ours, subject to the consequences of the Fall. That is made very clear in the above scriptures.

Where in scripture does it say Jesus inherited a flawed human nature? Jesus was always with the Father because He and the Father were One. (Jn 8:58) The “fallen” nature that would cause one to struggle with temptation comes from living apart from God, but because Jesus was God incarnate He could not be separated from who He was. I do not see how you can come to a different conclusion without denying the divinity of Jesus Christ. But I suppose that in a certain sense that is exactly what Mormonism does - it suggests Christ’s divinity was somehow subordinate and/or non-eternal. Perhaps that is the basis of our disagreement - do you see Christ as somehow eternally progressing from something less than fully divine to divine while performing His earthly ministry?

zerinus:

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.

Not sure if I agree with what you’ve stated here. As commented above, I think your language is not very precise. Jesus could be tempted in the same way that God could be tempted, which is to say that Satan could do his best to try to get him to sin, but I disagree with the implication (if indeed you are even making it) that somehow Jesus struggled or wavered in any way. Rather, He succeeded where Adam failed - by not committing any personal sin in even the slightest degree.

Peace,
Robert

 

[SteveVH]

Most translations (especially older ones) render it closer to the KJV. Here is a sample:…

Thanks zerinus, you just saved me a lot of time. It seems, however, that we agree that original sin, at least the effects or consequences of original sin, has been passed down from generation to generation with Adam and Eve as the origin. As I now understand your point of view, the disagreement between the Catholic and Mormon views is not that the human race was not affected by original sin, but whether or not “guilt” is imputed to the newly created human life as a consequence of that sin. Please correct me if I’m wrong here.

It is actually a great question. I think any reasonable human being, with any sense of justice, would rightfully question a God who would act in such a way as to condemn an otherwise innocent person for the sin of his or her ancestors. That is why there must be another explanation. I mean this same God sent his only Son to suffer and die for that same person. Wouldn’t it have made more sense to just not impute the guilt to begin with and, while we’re at it, why subject the innocent even to the consequences of sin (weakness, sickness, death), forget the guilt? Does that even seem fair?

When God gave the command to not eat of the fruit, he did not say “or I will kill you”, he said “on the day you eat of it, you shall surely die”. To me this seems to be a clue as to why any of us would be affected by the sin of another. It is a matter of the spirit, even more than the body. God was stating a fact, not a threat. He created beings with free will and there are, by the nature of the matter, consequences to our actions, both physical and spiritual. It is not a punishment of God, it is a necessary consequence of our actions.

The consequence of Adam and Eve’s action (disobedience) was exactly what God told them it would be. But they didn’t die, did they? Was the serpent right when he told them that they would not die? We know that God did not lie. The death they suffered was worse than physical death. It was spiritual death. More importantly, it is the absence of spiritual life that was passed on to us. The consequence of sin is death. This is the guilt of which our Church speaks.

"Following St. Paul, the Church has always taught that the overwhelming misery which oppresses men and their inclination toward evil and death cannot be understood apart from their connection with Adam’s sin and the fact that he has transmitted to us a sin with which we are all born afflicted, a sin which is the death of the soul. Because of this certainty of faith, the Church baptizes for the remission of sins even tiny infants who have not committed personal sin.". (CCC par. 403)

I truly think that using the word “guilt” causes more confusion than anything and is really not the best description. We require baptism in order to acquire supernatural life, not because we are guilty of sin, but rather because we simply didn’t have it to begin with as a consequence of the original sin. Through baptism, we are born into life, supernatural life. I would be interested in what you think.

God bless.

 

[zerinus]

Hello Zerinus;

One need not commit a sin by being the target of a tempter. The point is that we not “give in” to tempation. Are you saying that we are made sinners by merely being exposed to the tempations offered by others - or only if we give in to that temptation. If the latter, how much “giving in” is sufficient to be a sin; is it merely entertaining the thought of sin, or some conscious act or omission to act on the part of the person? My understanding is that the “combat” is in how one resists temptation. Resisting temptation does not imply that one has already committed a sin.

I disagree. Are you using tempation as a noun or a verb in this context? Is the tempation what is being offered, or are you saying that the “temptation” is what one feels upon being presented with the offer to sin? If the first, then simply being presented with an “offer” to sin is not evidence of a fallen human nature. Clearly, Jesus was exposed to the greatest form of tempations that Satan could muster, but nowhere does it say anywhere in scripture that Jesus struggled to overcome some desire to sin (if you are even implying that such was the case). Indeed, one of the scandals caused by Kazantzakis’s novel “The Last Temptation of Christ” was that it portrayed Christ as struggling against Satan’s temptations as if he had no divine nature in addition to his perfected human nature. But scripture is clear that Christ was tempted like us in all things but was without sin. (Heb 4:14-16) In other words, he was confronted with the same temptations (i.e. offers to sin) from Satan that the rest of us struggle with, but he did NOT struggle or sin. Nowhere does it say Christ - for even a moment - struggled to overcome Satan’s temptations.

Where in scripture does it say Jesus inherited a flawed human nature? Jesus was always with the Father because He and the Father were One. (Jn 8:58) The “fallen” nature that would cause one to struggle with temptation comes from living apart from God, but because Jesus was God incarnate He could not be separated from who He was. I do not see how you can come to a different conclusion without denying the divinity of Jesus Christ. But I suppose that in a certain sense that is exactly what Mormonism does - it suggests Christ’s divinity was somehow subordinate and/or non-eternal. Perhaps that is the basis of our disagreement - do you see Christ as somehow eternally progressing from something less than fully divine to divine while performing His earthly ministry?

Not sure if I agree with what you’ve stated here. As commented above, I think your language is not very precise. Jesus could be tempted in the same way that God could be tempted, which is to say that Satan could do his best to try to get him to sin, but I disagree with the implication (if indeed you are even making it) that somehow Jesus struggled or wavered in any way. Rather, He succeeded where Adam failed - by not committing any personal sin in even the slightest degree.

Peace,
Robert

Sorry Robert, but it is your post that I find too vague to reply to. If you could speak in more concrete terms, and perhaps give specific examples of what you are talking about, I might have a better chance of understanding what you are talking about.

 

[zerinus]

Thanks zerinus, you just saved me a lot of time. It seems, however, that we agree that original sin, at least the effects or consequences of original sin, has been passed down from generation to generation with Adam and Eve as the origin. As I now understand your point of view, the disagreement between the Catholic and Mormon views is not that the human race was not affected by original sin, but whether or not “guilt” is imputed to the newly created human life as a consequence of that sin. Please correct me if I’m wrong here.

Well, actually nowadays in Catholic writings the word “guilt” is less commonly used to describe that phenomenon. They use more ambiguous terms like “we are all sinners because of the sin of Adam”. The concept of “guilt” is hidden inside that statement. You cannot be a sinner without being guilty of sin. It is only when you probe into it that it becomes clear that what they really mean is that man has become guilty because of the sin of Adam, regardless of whether he has done anything wrong himself or not.

It is actually a great question. I think any reasonable human being, with any sense of justice, would rightfully question a God who would act in such a way as to condemn an otherwise innocent person for the sin of his or her ancestors. That is why there must be another explanation. I mean this same God sent his only Son to suffer and die for that same person. Wouldn’t it have made more sense to just not impute the guilt to begin with and, while we’re at it, why subject the innocent even to the consequences of sin (weakness, sickness, death), forget the guilt? Does that even seem fair?

Yes! There are explanations for those; but not for becoming guilty merely because of the sin of Adam.

When God gave the command to not eat of the fruit, he did not say “or I will kill you”, he said “on the day you eat of it, you shall surely die”. To me this seems to be a clue as to why any of us would be affected by the sin of another.

Being “affected by the sin of another” is not the same thing as “becoming a sinner because of the sin of another,” which is another way of saying, “becoming guilty because of the sin of another”.

It is a matter of the spirit, even more than the body. God was stating a fact, not a threat. He created beings with free will and there are, by the nature of the matter, consequences to our actions, both physical and spiritual. It is not a punishment of God, it is a necessary consequence of our actions.

Death was a condition that God had set for partaking of the forbidden fruit. Partaking of the fruit triggered the condition to take effect. God barred Adam and Eve from the tree of life, thus preventing them from living forever.

The consequence of Adam and Eve’s action (disobedience) was exactly what God told them it would be. But they didn’t die, did they?

In Mormon theology there is an explanation for why they didn’t die immediately. That was also part of God’s plan.

Was the serpent right when he told them that they would not die? We know that God did not lie. The death they suffered was worse than physical death. It was spiritual death. More importantly, it is the absence of spiritual life that was passed on to us. The consequence of sin is death. This is the guilt of which our Church speaks.

It isn’t actually. Death and sin are two different things. We accept that the consequence of the Fall was death, both temporal and spiritual; but that is not the same thing as saying that we are all made “sinners” (i.e. guilty of sin) because of the sin of Adam, regardless of whether we committed any sin ourselves or not.

"Following St. Paul, the Church has always taught that the overwhelming misery which oppresses men and their inclination toward evil and death cannot be understood apart from their connection with Adam’s sin and the fact that he has transmitted to us a sin with which we are all born afflicted, . . .

Here is an example of the “vague language” I was talking about! It does not say specifically that we are “guilty” because of the Original Sin; but if you probe it further, that is what it amounts to.

. . . a sin which is the death of the soul. Because of this certainty of faith, the Church baptizes for the remission of sins even tiny infants who have not committed personal sin.". (CCC par. 403)

I truly think that using the word “guilt” causes more confusion than anything and is really not the best description.

The word “guilt” is not used in the above quote from the Catechism; but it is implied! If you probe it deeply, that is what you will end up with.

We require baptism in order to acquire supernatural life, not because we are guilty of sin, but rather because we simply didn’t have it to begin with as a consequence of the original sin. But I would be interested in what you think.

That is entirely incorrect. We participate in baptism in order to obtain a remission of sins. That is written all over the Bible. The only question here is, Which sins, committed sins, or the Original Sin? Catholics say both! We say only committed sins.

 

[fhansen]

It isn’t actually. Death and sin are two different things. We accept that the consequence of the Fall was death, both temporal and spiritual; but that is not the same thing as saying that we are all made “sinners” (i.e. guilty of sin) because of the sin of Adam, regardless of whether we committed any sin ourselves or not.
It is sin because the death of the soul is a soul turned away from God, the source of it’s life. And that constitutes an injustice and that’s how we’re born. To the extent that we don’t fully, truly, uncompromisingly love God with our whole heart, soul, mind and strength and our neighbor as ourselves, injustice still resides in us because our hearts are still drawn towards other, lesser, loves that conflict with the One who deserves our complete affection.

 

[Deserwest]

"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?

He certainly did not know of it as an infant, as a baby, nor as a youth. Certainly, an infant is not capable of repentance because it has no mental capacity to comprehend sin nor repentance. What then, shall we condem an infant to hell because the mother conceived a child in sin?

Truly, if you compare your rendering of the verse to what is given in the KJV, there is no mention of guilt, rather the emphasis is that he was shapen in iniquity and his mother conceived him in sin. There is no mention of original sin in the KJV rendition.

Consider Jesus statements on the nature of children, and you will that your source for this verse is a tortured revision, which completely is debunked by Christ Himself…

Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven (Matt. 18:3).

Then were there brought unto him little children, that he should put his hands on them, and pray: and the disciples rebuked them. But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven (Matt. 19:13-14).

And they brought young children to him, that he should touch them: and his disciples rebuked those that brought them. But when Jesus saw it, he was much displeased, and said unto them, Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God. Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein. And he took them up in his arms, put his hands upon them, and blessed them (Mark 10:13-16).

And they brought unto him also infants, that he would touch them: but when his disciples saw it, they rebuked them. But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God (Luke 18:15-16).

Clearly you have a choice to make here, do you accept the words of Christ Himself, or do you accept the false rendition of the personal account of the birth and upbringing of one man as applicable to all humanity and therefore the basis of your doctrine?

Clearly, original sin is at odds with the true doctrines of Christ when one examines it through the lens of how Jesus related to and considered infants and children to be. Nothing in all these words of Christ states or infers children were suffering from some malady you call “original sin.”

 

[Deserwest]

It is sin because the death of the soul is a soul turned away from God, the source of it’s life. And that constitutes an injustice and that’s how we’re born. To the extent that we don’t fully, truly, uncompromisingly love God with our whole heart, soul, mind and strength and our neighbor as ourselves, injustice still resides in us because our hearts are still drawn towards other, lesser, loves that conflict with the One who deserves our complete affection.

It is not how we are born, it is what we become through exposure to sin via a fallen world.

The conflict between flesh and spirit as described aptly by Paul has already been oft stated.

The Book of Mormon states a remedy, which is very close if not identical to the essence of the sentiments you stated above.

The prophet Mormon counseled us: “Wherefore, my beloved brethren, pray unto the Father with all the energy of heart, that ye may be filled with this love . . . ; that ye may become the sons of God; . . . that we may be purified even as he is pure” (Moroni 7:48).

The verse implies God is willing, predicated upon our sincere and fervent prayer, that we will feel of his love for us individually, and thereby being filled with that love, we become pure as he.

Truly, original sin is not to be the dominant issue or explanation in our lives, it is basically mooted out by the attonement of Christ which becomes applicable to us a we chose to repent.

This is exactly what DAVID desired of God in Psaml 51. Though he was shapen in iniquity, He prayed to God (Psalm 51:10) …

Verse 10 " Create in me a clean heart, oh God, renew within me a right spirit.

Clearly, if David were under original sin, he would not have prayed to have restored in him that State. He asked this his right spirit “be renewed”. A renewal is a restoration of what was in existance already, and what was in existance was a right spirit.

I understand this is a completely different viewpoint that what Catholics are taught and will be difficult to see clearly because of that lens which views all mankind as fallen sinners at birth.

Irregardless the more important point is that whatever evil nature exists can be purged, gotten rid of and removed from existance, through the Attonement.

We do not have to agree as to the doctrine of original sin for this to be true.

 

[zerinus]

It is sin because the death of the soul is a soul turned away from God, the source of it’s life. And that constitutes an injustice and that’s how we’re born. To the extent that we don’t fully, truly, uncompromisingly love God with our whole heart, soul, mind and strength and our neighbor as ourselves, injustice still resides in us because our hearts are still drawn towards other, lesser, loves that conflict with the One who deserves our complete affection.

Thank you for your reply. It seems to me that you are talking in too abstract terms. How does that play out for a small child for example, of whom the Lord said, “Suffer little children to come unto me, for of such is the kingdom of heaven” ? (Matthew 19:14; Mark 10:14; Luke 18:16.) Are they sinners, because of the “injustice” you are talking about? Are they considered guilty in the sight of God, even though they haven’t done anything wrong? Is a newborn infant “unjust” because of the Fall of Adam? The language that Jesus used for little children doesn’t seem to bear that out. When one studies carefully everything that He said about little children, the implied message is that they are already saved. When we speak in too abstract theological terms there is a danger of losing sight of the wood for the trees, and missing the simple, basic elements of the gospel.

Your theological analysis also overlooks the element of freewill in human accountability, and that one becomes a sinner (i.e. guilty of sin) by actually doing something wrong; not just by being “born” into a “sinful condition”. Whatever that “condition” might be, “injustice” or whatever you want to call it, until that condition leads someone to actually do something that is contrary to the will of God, he cannot be considered a sinner, or guilty of sin. That is how I see it. God cannot hold someone guilty simply because of the way they are born; until, and unless, the way they are born somehow causes them to actually do something that is contrary to His will.