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

[KathleenGee]

The Eucharist is the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus Christ.

(The Catholic Church has a tremendous history of the witness of the Eucharist in the lives of the saints and ordinary Catholics…you cannot just debate what you think it is or play on the definitive words that Christ spoke at the Last Supper. The context of His words were already given when He first brought the concept up beforehand, and many followers left Him. Only those faithful to Him were present at the Last Supper.)

 

[KathleenGee]

Zerinus…Check out the Catechism of 289…that the first three chapters of Genesis may have had diverse sources.

In regards to your draw on original sin and condemning the unbaptized to hell, you have to turn back to 397 in the CC: ‘Man, tempted by the devil, let his trust in his Creator die in his heart and, abusing his freedom, disobeyed God’s command. This is what man’s first sin consisted of. All subsequent sin would be disobedience toward God and lack of trust in his goodness.’

The devil does not tempt the unborn, the little children, those who do not have reason. The final comment, the lack of trust in his goodness–this implies that we must trust in God’s goodness in His care of all creation, including the Innocent.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Yes, the Spirit of God is a real presence. But, redefining the Catholic understanding of Real Presence, as a spiritual presence, is incorrect.

The Son of God is the Father’s Sacrifice, which is made present at every Mass. Mormonism, like most of Protestantism has watered the meaning down. To what purpose? As far as I can tell it is only for the reason of rejecting what Christ’s Church has always taught and practiced.

The Liturgy is not an add-on, as Mormons seem to perceive it to be. It is an integral part of the Church, very rich in meaning and purpose. The Real Presence of Christ has always been the center. Without it, there is no purpose to the Mass, or our churches and cathedrals.

One only has to look at history to see that communities of believers have existed from the beginning, who have celebrated Mass, who have built churches. All descriptions of these activities describe the Real Presence in the Eucharist as central.

Mormonism has nothing to answer to this but conspiracy theories. It is a denial of history, but further, a denial of God’s presence in it.

May God have Mercy.

 

[KathleenGee]

‘Amen’, Rebecca…I just do not understand how people can deny the presence of Christ through the Holy Spirit at work through the history of Christianity…

 

[SteveVH]

Yes, the Spirit of God is a real presence. But, redefining the Catholic understanding of Real Presence, as a spiritual presence, is incorrect.

The Son of God is the Father’s Sacrifice, which is made present at every Mass. Mormonism, like most of Protestantism has watered the meaning down. To what purpose? As far as I can tell it is only for the reason of rejecting what Christ’s Church has always taught and practiced.

The Liturgy is not an add-on, as Mormons seem to perceive it to be. It is an integral part of the Church, very rich in meaning and purpose. The Real Presence of Christ has always been the center. Without it, there is no purpose to the Mass, or our churches and cathedrals.

One only has to look at history to see that communities of believers have existed from the beginning, who have celebrated Mass, who have built churches. All descriptions of these activities describe the Real Presence in the Eucharist as central.

Mormonism has nothing to answer to this but conspiracy theories. It is a denial of history, but further, a denial of God’s presence in it.

May God have Mercy.

Thanks Rebecca. It is not difficult to see the significance of the Eucharist in the Church, historically. It is difficult to see the significance of the Eucharist through eyes blinded by bias and preconceived ideas. Mormonism isn’t alone, as you say. I’m amazed that the most central doctrine, the source and summit of Christianity, is completely absent from most non-liturgical Protestant churches. They focus on a personal relationship with Jesus and then deny the most personal relationship possible.

The enemy has made great headway on this front and is an area on which the Church Militant should focus more attention. The Real Presence should be shouted from the rooftops.

 

[catholic-rcia]

Thanks Rebecca. It is not difficult to see the significance of the Eucharist in the Church, historically. It is difficult to see the significance of the Eucharist through eyes blinded by bias and preconceived ideas. Mormonism isn’t alone, as you say. I’m amazed that the most central doctrine, the source and summit of Christianity, is completely absent from most non-liturgical Protestant churches. They focus on a personal relationship with Jesus and then deny the most personal relationship possible.

The enemy has made great headway on this front and is an area on which the Church Militant should focus more attention. The Real Presence should be shouted from the rooftops.

Amen

 

[SteveVH]

Yes, the Spirit of God is a real presence. But, redefining the Catholic understanding of Real Presence, as a spiritual presence, is incorrect.

Rebecca, it just occured to me that you may have been under the impression that it was I who was attempting to redefine the Catholic understanding of Real Presence. Nothing could be further from the truth, but I after re-reading my own words below…

Just curious. Is a spiritual presence not a real presence? What is it that you believe you receive? In other words, does this just provide an opportunity to sit around and remember Christ’s sacrifice, or do you actually receive something?

…I can see how one might come to that conclusion.

Actually I was trying to probe a little deeper into the Mormon understanding of what they call “the sacrament”. It was mentioned that they believed in a “spiritual” presence and so I was trying to find at least some common ground in that even a true “spiritual presence” would at least be a real presence in some sense, rather than just a symbol. It had nothing to do with our belief that the Real Presence to us means the real presence of the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ. Thank you for bringing this to my attention, however, as I certainly don’t want to give the wrong impression of what we believe.

 

[zerinus]

Rebecca, it just occured to me that you may have been under the impression that it was I who was attempting to redefine the Catholic understanding of Real Presence. Nothing could be further from the truth, but I after re-reading my own words below…

…I can see how one might come to that conclusion.

Actually I was trying to probe a little deeper into the Mormon understanding of what they call “the sacrament”. It was mentioned that they believed in a “spiritual” presence and so I was trying to find at least some common ground in that even a true “spiritual presence” would at least be a real presence in some sense, rather than just a symbol. It had nothing to do with our belief that the Real Presence to us means the real presence of the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ. Thank you for bringing this to my attention, however, as I certainly don’t want to give the wrong impression of what we believe.

On the subject of the Real Presence I wrote an article in my Blog around two years ago that you may find interesting. You can read it here. Have a look at that, and tell me what you think.

 

[SteveVH]

On the subject of the Real Presence I wrote an article in my Blog around two years ago that you may find interesting. You can read it here. Have a look at that, and tell me what you think.

I think you have quoted credible sources but you have reached the wrong conclusions. I do not want this thread to go off topic and so do not want to start a conversation on Transubstantiation. While I am more than happy to discuss this issue, the subject of this thread is Original Sin.

I will, only in this post, make a few comments on your blog since you were kind enough to take me there. Here is an example of how you have reached a wrong conclusion:

From your blog:
*** "On Real Presence the passage clearly states that the whole body, blood, and divinity of Christ is contained in the substance of the Sacrament (i.e. in the bread and wine); and it goes on to categorically state that that substance undergoes a change, or a transmutation, so as to make that Presence within it possible—that change being dubbed Transubstantiation. It defines Transubstantiation as an integral part of Real Presence.***

Your first sentence in the above paragraph is evidence of a basic misunderstanding of the doctrine. The substance of the Sacrament is not*“i.e. bread and wine”*, it is the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ. That is precisely what Transubstantiation means. The substance has changed, rather than the form (bread and wine). The elements of bread and wine are no longer bread and wine; their substance has changed completely, even though the form or appearance remains bread and wine. There is no presence within the bread and wine because there is no longer bread and wine.

As I said, I will be happy to discuss this but it will have to be on another thread and so forgive me for not addressing your entire blog here.

 

[KathleenGee]

Zerinus,

I just read your post’s and it really and deeply pained me, and now at my age, my blood pressure just went up and I got dizzy…still am.

I feel so bad for the Mormons because you are denying them and putting concepts into their head that are not true…it is just a piece on dismantling…Christ was explicit.

The next step you are missing is how then the practice of worship came about through the Apostles, and what was worship like in the years following the death of the last apostle. Any scholarly research will verify the common practice of the Mass that has endured up to today and will continue until we are given a new heaven and earth.

And you are totally not knowledgeable of any personal practices and effects of Catholic believers in their reception of the Eucharist…

Gee, is there a way I can have access to your site and give the Mormons our explanation…the words of Christ Himself are most explicit and actual. And our priesthood comes from Jesus Christ, not the take from Joseph Smith. Jesus Christ is the founder of the new priesthood fulfilling the prophecy of Malachi that some day there would come a perfect sacrifice.

And as we are not even allowed to witness a Mormon reception of yours, we cannot draw on your references from experience. You can attend a Catholic Mass any time and see with your eyes the devotion and proclamation by the Amen that we are indeed receiving through the Epiclisus – the calling down of the Holy Spirit by the presbyter – to make ordinary bread and wine to become the real body, blood, soul, and divinity of Jesus Christ.

As I finish this post, I have to get going now with my long day…but I leave deeply afflicted…and violated…it really hit me…I am not one to debate the living presence of the Eucharist…there is one guy who comes on constantly arguing and is a self-made minister…obsessed with the Catholic Church who gives us the impression his debates are being seen to keep people away from the true apostolic faith.

There were some nuns who wanted to become priests. Then they had this big meeting with the local priests. They did not want to become spiritual mothers, but spiritual fathers. Then they told the priests that if they were priests, they would want to see the end of the daily Mass. They ended up blaspheming the priesthood and were kicked out. They had been on seminary council and turned away good faithful men. We were so glad they were finally put out showing their true colors.

I am going to pray that all Mormons seek the truth of the fullness of Jesus Christ and come into the glory of the daily sacrifice to receive the True Manna from Heaven…I have a very sick feeling from this link, and must go pray…for you, that link and the damage that it is doing. Sorry, I am no diplomat here at this point. I literally get sick when people use a high educational style to deny the living presence of God among us to people who are constantly being warned about the great abomination church. I like the Mormon people but didn’t realize until now just how intense the fight is going on against our faith inspite of all the congenial talk to us here on CAF.

 

[zerinus]

I think you have quoted credible sources but you have reached the wrong conclusions. I do not want this thread to go off topic and so do not want to start a conversation on Transubstantiation. While I am more than happy to discuss this issue, the subject of this thread is Original Sin.

I will, only in this post, make a few comments on your blog since you were kind enough to take me there. Here is an example of how you have reached a wrong conclusion:

From your blog:
"On Real Presence the passage clearly states that the whole body, blood, and divinity of Christ is contained in the substance of the Sacrament (i.e. in the bread and wine); and it goes on to categorically state that that substance undergoes a change, or a transmutation, so as to make that Presence within it possible—that change being dubbed Transubstantiation. It defines Transubstantiation as an integral part of Real Presence.

The “substance” is the bread and wine which (supposedly) transmutes into the flesh and blood of Christ. And that is not what the main point of my blog post was anyway.

 

[SteveVH]

The “substance” is the bread and wine which (supposedly) transmutes into the flesh and blood of Christ. And that is not what the main point of my blog post was anyway.

I will not turn this thread into a commentary on your blog. If you would like you are free to start another thread on this subject. When and if you do I will finish reading your blog and will be happy to comment.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

What I meant by that was that we are not born with the guilt of the original sin—something that might require “baptism” to be “remitted”. But we are born with an inclination towards committing sin, which is not the same thing as being guilty of the original sin. We become actual sinners when we yield to that inclination to commit sin. If we never yielded to that inclination, then we would not sin at all, and we wouldn’t need baptism at all either. Baptism does not get rid of that inclination to commit sin. It was not designed to. Baptism only removes the guilt of sin by the forgiveness of the sinner. And since the original guilt was automatically taken care of by the Atonement of Christ, baptism removes only the guilt of personal sins, not of the original sin.

If you don’t need baptism, except for forgiveness of sins, then isn’t baptism redundant of reptentence. If we are born without any original sin, and we only incur damnation for our personal sins, and if our sins are forgiven when we repent of them, what purpose does baptism serve, that is not already served by repentence, in your understanding? Your explanation of the LDS position seems inconsistent here.

zerinus:

By being born free from the original sin I meant the guilt of the original sin. No one is held accountable, or guilty, because of the original sin; hence baptism is not required to remit anybody’s inherited original sin, or original guilt. The inclination to commit sin is a different thing entirely. Baptism does not remove anybody’s inclination to commit sin, neither was it intended to do, otherwise nobody would sin after their baptisms. But we know that they do. Baptism has only one function, and that is to remit (forgive, absolve) sins. And it only absolves one’s personal sins, not Adam’s original sin, because that has already been take care of by the Atonement unconditionally.

Again, wouldn’t that make baptism redundant of reptentence and seeking forgiveness from God? If God forgives our personal sins by repentence (as I understand from other LDS posters on this forum) then shouldn’t the ordinance of baptism doe something other than this, or it seems unnecessary. If it’s not please explain what it does beyond the forgiveness of sins?

Peace,
Robert

 

[zerinus]

If you don’t need baptism, except for forgiveness of sins, then isn’t baptism redundant of reptentence. If we are born without any original sin, and we only incur damnation for our personal sins, and if our sins are forgiven when we repent of them, what purpose does baptism serve, that is not already served by repentence, in your understanding? Your explanation of the LDS position seems inconsistent here.

Again, wouldn’t that make baptism redundant of reptentence and seeking forgiveness from God? If God forgives our personal sins by repentence (as I understand from other LDS posters on this forum) then shouldn’t the ordinance of baptism doe something other than this, or it seems unnecessary. If it’s not please explain what it does beyond the forgiveness of sins?

Peace,
Robert

Baptism accomplishes more than just the remission of sins. It is a required sacrament for entering into the kingdom of God. It makes us a member of God’s church and kingdom on earth. It is a sign by which we keep God’s commandments, or demonstrate our willingness to keep His Commandments, and it is a rite by which we answer a “good conscience” before God (1 Peter 3:21). Have a look at these verses in LDS scripture. They help to answer your question better:

2 Nephi 31:

14 After ye have repented of your sins, and witnessed unto the Father that ye are willing to keep my commandments, by the baptism of water, . . .

Alma 7:

15 Yea, I say unto you come and fear not, and lay aside every sin, which easily doth beset you, which doth bind you down to destruction, yea, come and go forth, and show unto your God that ye are willing to repent of your sins and enter into a covenant with him to keep his commandments, and witness it unto him this day by going into the waters of baptism.

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.

Moroni 8:

25 And the first fruits of repentance is baptism; and baptism cometh by faith unto the fulfilling the commandments; and the fulfilling the commandments bringeth remission of sins;

Baptism is a sign by which we witness, or show our willingness to take upon us the name of Christ (i.e. be identified as Christians), and to keep all of His commandments.

 

[SteveVH]

If you don’t need baptism, except for forgiveness of sins, then isn’t baptism redundant of reptentence. If we are born without any original sin, and we only incur damnation for our personal sins, and if our sins are forgiven when we repent of them, what purpose does baptism serve, that is not already served by repentence, in your understanding? Your explanation of the LDS position seems inconsistent here.

Again, wouldn’t that make baptism redundant of reptentence and seeking forgiveness from God? If God forgives our personal sins by repentence (as I understand from other LDS posters on this forum) then shouldn’t the ordinance of baptism doe something other than this, or it seems unnecessary. If it’s not please explain what it does beyond the forgiveness of sins?

Peace,
Robert

My only comment is, good Luck! I hope you can make more progress than I did. You make way too much sense. I have asked the same questions and can’t wait to see how your post is answered.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

Zerinus;

First you said this:
"zerinus:

Baptism has only one function, and that is to remit (forgive, absolve) sins. And it only absolves one’s personal sins, not Adam’s original sin, because that has already been take care of by the Atonement unconditionally.

Which was what led my to post my response.

Now you say this:

Baptism accomplishes more than just the remission of sins. It is a required sacrament for entering into the kingdom of God…

So, I was a bit confused to see your assertion that, contrary to your earlier position, there is more to baptism than just forgiving personal sins. Which of your two comments is correct, the former or the latter? You choose, and I’ll work with your assertion. I don’t want to force a position onto you, but I do ask that once you take a position you stick to it. It’s not really a fair discussion if your position becomes a moving target.

Peace,
Robert

 

[KathleenGee]

A moving target…he is gleaning as much as he can…I have had a very hard time understanding his line of thinking for some time…I don’t see how any lurker can follow the thought in discerning the right way for themselves either.

It is a game to me. I am longer participating with this individual. He can use somebody else.

 

[Marie5890]

When I think of devout Mormons participating on this board one of two things generally come to mind;

They are either wanting to debate and defend Mormonism

Or they (in error)

Think they are planting seeds to further missionary work.

For instance Zerinus used the word “sacrament” to describe baptism. In ordinary Mormon-speak that word would not be used. It would be “ordinance”. The only times a Mormon would use “sacrament” is in referring to partaking of the sacrament during sacrament meeting.

Its a way of trying to find common ground with Catholics and other Christians.

I have thought a lot about this over the past few days. There have been a couple Mormons, former Mormorns who have expressed interest in Catholicism and are in or wanting to be in the RCIA processes. But naturally they are hitting up against some stumbling blocks when it comes to theology and dogmas etc.

And I know what they mean. I hit them, too when I was going thru RCIA.

It wasn’t until I was willing to admit that Mormonism was more than just “distorted” in it’s views. It was corrupt. I dont mean that in an uncharitable way. I mean that sincerely and it’s purest sense.

Im not sure how get past those stumbling blocks that a Mormon or someone with a Mormon background/prism/filter without the aid of grace, without the aide of the Holy Spirit.

Someone who has been exposed or lived Mormonism has a corrupted view of Christianity in general, and esp Catholicism given their dogma of the “Great Apostacy”

But they are unable to see that their teachings are corrupt.

I realize it really is God who converts people. We arent in management.

 

[zerinus]

When I think of devout Mormons participating on this board one of two things generally come to mind;

They are either wanting to debate and defend Mormonism

Or they (in error)

Think they are planting seeds to further missionary work.

For instance Zerinus used the word “sacrament” to describe baptism. In ordinary Mormon-speak that word would not be used. It would be “ordinance”. The only times a Mormon would use “sacrament” is in referring to partaking of the sacrament during sacrament meeting.

Its a way of trying to find common ground with Catholics and other Christians.

It is a way of making Mormonism understandable to Catholics, who use different theological expressions for the same theological concepts.

 

[zerinus]

Zerinus;

First you said this:

Which was what led my to post my response.

Now you say this:
So, I was a bit confused to see your assertion that, contrary to your earlier position, there is more to baptism than just forgiving personal sins. Which of your two comments is correct, the former or the latter? You choose, and I’ll work with your assertion. I don’t want to force a position onto you, but I do ask that once you take a position you stick to it. It’s not really a fair discussion if your position becomes a moving target.

Peace,
Robert

You have a point there. My apologies for that. It is difficult in an online discussion to always be precise in your language. In the first expression I was trying to emphasize the fact that baptism was for the remission of sins, and not for receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost, which is what SteveVH was asserting.