When Original Sin was taught as true - comparing Catholic and LDS

[telnetd]

What year did the church (LDS) decide that this "truth" was now false?

Two significant leaders taught it, President Joseph Fielding Smith and Charles Penrose, 
counselor in the First Presidency.

“It is most natural and just that he who commits the wrong should pay the penalty—atone
for his wrongdoing. Therefore, when Adam was the transgressor of the law, justice 
demanded that he, and none else, should answer for the sin and pay the penalty with his 
life. But Adam, in breaking the law, himself became subject to the curse, and being 
under the curse could not atone, or undo what he had done. Neither could his children, 
for they also were under the curse, and it required one who was not subject to the curse 
to atone for that original sin. Moreover, since we were all under the curse, we were 
also powerless to atone for our individual sins” (JFS, Chapter 3).

"There are two general divisions of sin, viz., original and actual. Original sin is that 
which was committed by the parents of the race, the consequences of which pass upon
all of their posterity. Actual sin is that committed by each individual and for which he is 
personally responsible. Adam and Eve broke the divine law given to them in the garden, 
the penalty for which was death, natural and spiritual ; the first being the separation of
the spirit and the body, and the second, banishment from the presence of God. The taint
descended to their offspring" (Penrose, Mormon Doctrine Plain and Simple, Second Leaf, 
page 13).                                                                 

"He died not only to atone for original sin but for actual sin, and to become the mediator 
between God and man ... His blood was shed for the sins of the whole world. For original 
sin unconditionally, for actual sin conditionally" (page 14).

The concept of "original sin" was then referred to as foolish, abominable, and erroneous
in other teachings (Book of Mormon Seminary Teacher Manual and the June 2006 Liahona).

One other teaching even says "The Book of Mormon refutes notions that the Fall of Adam 
tainted mankind with original sin" (President Russell M. Nelson, November 2017 Ensign).

The Book of Mormon does teach this "tainting" aspect (Mosiah 16:3-4; Helaman 14:16;
Ether 3:2). Even little children need to have the curse of Adam removed from them (Moroni 8:8).  
Original sin, rephrased as original guilt, is also mentioned in the POGP. "Hence came the
saying abroad among the people, that the Son of God hath atoned for original guilt, wherein
the sins of the parents cannot be answered upon the heads of the children, for they are
whole from the foundation of the world" (Moses 6:54).  The first instance of these parents
is Adam and Eve, referred to as  sinners (Alma 42:1-7).

The Roman Catholic Church, in catechism, teaches baptism removes original sin and all 
personal sin and makes the person a new creature (CCC 1263, 1265, 1267, 1272, 1279). 

[Pyreaux]

21 hours ago, telnetd said:

What year did the church (LDS) decide that this "truth" was now false?

Two significant leaders taught it, President Joseph Fielding Smith and Charles Penrose, 
counselor in the First Presidency.

“It is most natural and just that he who commits the wrong should pay the penalty—atone
for his wrongdoing. Therefore, when Adam was the transgressor of the law, justice 
demanded that he, and none else, should answer for the sin and pay the penalty with his 
life. But Adam, in breaking the law, himself became subject to the curse, and being 
under the curse could not atone, or undo what he had done. Neither could his children, 
for they also were under the curse, and it required one who was not subject to the curse 
to atone for that original sin. Moreover, since we were all under the curse, we were 
also powerless to atone for our individual sins” (JFS, Chapter 3).

"There are two general divisions of sin, viz., original and actual. Original sin is that 
which was committed by the parents of the race, the consequences of which pass upon
all of their posterity. Actual sin is that committed by each individual and for which he is 
personally responsible. Adam and Eve broke the divine law given to them in the garden, 
the penalty for which was death, natural and spiritual ; the first being the separation of
the spirit and the body, and the second, banishment from the presence of God. The taint
descended to their offspring" (Penrose, Mormon Doctrine Plain and Simple, Second Leaf, 
page 13).                                                                 

"He died not only to atone for original sin but for actual sin, and to become the mediator 
between God and man ... His blood was shed for the sins of the whole world. For original 
sin unconditionally, for actual sin conditionally" (page 14).

The concept of "original sin" was then referred to as foolish, abominable, and erroneous
in other teachings (Book of Mormon Seminary Teacher Manual and the June 2006 Liahona).

One other teaching even says "The Book of Mormon refutes notions that the Fall of Adam 
tainted mankind with original sin" (President Russell M. Nelson, November 2017 Ensign).

The Book of Mormon does teach this "tainting" aspect (Mosiah 16:3-4; Helaman 14:16;
Ether 3:2). Even little children need to have the curse of Adam removed from them (Moroni 8:8).  
Original sin, rephrased as original guilt, is also mentioned in the POGP. "Hence came the
saying abroad among the people, that the Son of God hath atoned for original guilt, wherein
the sins of the parents cannot be answered upon the heads of the children, for they are
whole from the foundation of the world" (Moses 6:54).  The first instance of these parents
is Adam and Eve, referred to as  sinners (Alma 42:1-7).

The Roman Catholic Church, in catechism, teaches baptism removes original sin and all 
personal sin and makes the person a new creature (CCC 1263, 1265, 1267, 1272, 1279). 

Firstly, you are confused by how we use the term "original sin". The Church has not changed its doctrine on this topic, it has always maintained a distinction between the consequences of the Fall and innate moral guilt/taint of humanity. When leaders use traditional Christian vocabulary, like "original sin" or "taint", to describe physical mortality and spiritual separation, they wouldn't be ignoring that the Book of Mormon rejects the concept of inherited moral guilt and infant damnation. Nor that the Second Article of Faith also explicitly rejects inherited moral guilt, "We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression."

In classical Roman Catholicism or Calvinism, "Original Sin" carries two components. One, the physical/spiritual consequences of the Fall (mortality, physical pain, spiritual separation from God, inclination toward sin). Two, the inherited moral guilt/depravity (the idea that infants inherit the blame and corrupted nature of Adam's transgression, making them inherently sinful at birth and subject to damnation unless baptized).

Therefore, Joseph Fielding Smith and Charles W. Penrose used the term "original sin" were strictly referring to the physical and spiritual consequences of the Fall. They defined the penalty of the Fall as physical death and spiritual death. The "taint" refers to inheriting mortality, physical weakness, and exposure to a fallen world, not inherited moral guilt. Penrose directly noted in the quote you provided that Christ's atonement covers original sin unconditionally. Because no individual is morally guilty for Adam's act, Christ automatically overcomes physical death and spiritual death for infants without infant baptism. Thusly, when President Russell M Nelson and Church manuals refutes "original sin," they are rejecting inherited moral guilt and infant depravity.

Traditional Christians historically argued that because infants possess "original sin," unbaptized infants who die cannot enter heaven or are subject to damnation. LDS rejects "original sin" due to historical baggage implying that infants are born guilty or unclean before God, which is why modern LDS teachings generally avoid using the phrase altogether to prevent confusion with mainstream theology.

Are you certain you are wanting to argue against the Church, over what is clearly a petty issue over theological precision and definitions, to defend a theology where unbaptized babies are born guilty and spiritually damned?

Edited 8 hours ago by Pyreaux

[teddyaware]

20 hours ago, telnetd said:

What year did the church (LDS) decide that this "truth" was now false?

Two significant leaders taught it, President Joseph Fielding Smith and Charles Penrose, 
counselor in the First Presidency.

“It is most natural and just that he who commits the wrong should pay the penalty—atone
for his wrongdoing. Therefore, when Adam was the transgressor of the law, justice 
demanded that he, and none else, should answer for the sin and pay the penalty with his 
life. But Adam, in breaking the law, himself became subject to the curse, and being 
under the curse could not atone, or undo what he had done. Neither could his children, 
for they also were under the curse, and it required one who was not subject to the curse 
to atone for that original sin. Moreover, since we were all under the curse, we were 
also powerless to atone for our individual sins” (JFS, Chapter 3).

"There are two general divisions of sin, viz., original and actual. Original sin is that 
which was committed by the parents of the race, the consequences of which pass upon
all of their posterity. Actual sin is that committed by each individual and for which he is 
personally responsible. Adam and Eve broke the divine law given to them in the garden, 
the penalty for which was death, natural and spiritual ; the first being the separation of
the spirit and the body, and the second, banishment from the presence of God. The taint
descended to their offspring" (Penrose, Mormon Doctrine Plain and Simple, Second Leaf, 
page 13).                                                                 

"He died not only to atone for original sin but for actual sin, and to become the mediator 
between God and man ... His blood was shed for the sins of the whole world. For original 
sin unconditionally, for actual sin conditionally" (page 14).

The concept of "original sin" was then referred to as foolish, abominable, and erroneous
in other teachings (Book of Mormon Seminary Teacher Manual and the June 2006 Liahona).

One other teaching even says "The Book of Mormon refutes notions that the Fall of Adam 
tainted mankind with original sin" (President Russell M. Nelson, November 2017 Ensign).

The Book of Mormon does teach this "tainting" aspect (Mosiah 16:3-4; Helaman 14:16;
Ether 3:2). Even little children need to have the curse of Adam removed from them (Moroni 8:8).  
Original sin, rephrased as original guilt, is also mentioned in the POGP. "Hence came the
saying abroad among the people, that the Son of God hath atoned for original guilt, wherein
the sins of the parents cannot be answered upon the heads of the children, for they are
whole from the foundation of the world" (Moses 6:54).  The first instance of these parents
is Adam and Eve, referred to as  sinners (Alma 42:1-7).

The Roman Catholic Church, in catechism, teaches baptism removes original sin and all 
personal sin and makes the person a new creature (CCC 1263, 1265, 1267, 1272, 1279). 

The Book of Mormon does indeed assert the reality of original sin as a doctrinal concept, one that’s very similar to the original sin doctrine of the Catholic Church. Where the Latter-Day Saints part company with the Catholics on this point is we believe that the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ mitigates the utterly destructive spiritual and temporal effects of the fall, and does so by mercifully allowing every member of the human family to be endowed at birth with the indwelling and uplifting light of Christ so that each individual isn’t left utterly bereft of a spiritual connection with God

While it’s true that the Book of Mormon does testify that the fall, if allowed to stand alone without counteraction, would have left man in a state of total spiritual depravity, it’s also true it the Book of Mormon testifies that thanks to the atonement of Christ the totally devastating spiritual effects of the fall are mitigated to the point that all accountable humans are free to draw upon the inner light of Christ to choose good over evil. This means that while the fall could have been the worst possible calamity that could possibly befall the children of men, nevertheless, thanks to the atonement of Christ the fallen state has been transformed into a wisely designed spiritual proving ground in which men and women are able to freely choose between good and evil, and if one so desires, follow Christ on the covenant path to glory. Anything less than this would make God unjust.

6 For as death hath passed upon all men, to fulfil the merciful plan of the great Creator, there must needs be a power of resurrection, and the resurrection must needs come unto man by reason of the fall; and the fall came by reason of transgression; and because man became fallen they were cut of from the presence of the Lord.

7 Wherefore, it must needs be an infinite atonement—save it should be an infinite atonement this corruption could not put on incorruption. Wherefore, the first judgment which came upon man must needs have remained to an endless duration. And if so, this flesh must have laid down to rot and to crumble to its mother earth, to rise no more.

8 O the wisdom of God, his mercy and grace! For behold, if the flesh should rise no more our spirits must become subject to that angel who fell from before the presence of the Eternal God, and became the devil, to rise no more.

9 And our spirits must have become like unto him, and we become devils, angels to a devil, to be shut out from the presence of our God, and to remain with the father of lies, in misery, like unto himself; yea, to that being who beguiled our first parents, who transformeth himself nigh unto an angel light, and strirreth up the children of men unto secret combinations of murder and all manner of secret works of darkness.

10 O how great the goodness of our God, who prepareth a way for our escape from the grasp of this awful monster; yea, that monster, death and hell, which I call the death of the body, and also the death of the spirit.

11 And because of the way of deliverance of our God, the Holy One of Israel, this death, of which I have spoken, which is the temporal, shall deliver up its dead; which death is the grave. (2 Nephi 9)

 

Edited 10 hours ago by teddyaware

[telnetd]

18 hours ago, Pyreaux said:

Are you certain you are wanting to argue against the Church, over what is clearly a petty issue over theological precision and definitions, to defend a theology where unbaptized babies are born guilty and spiritually damned?

Unbaptized babies are not damned but they are tainted by the Fall.

Moroni 8 says "little children are whole, for they are not capable of committing sin;
wherefore the curse of Adam is taken from them in me, that it hath no power over 
them; and the law of circumcision is done away in me".

What is the curse of Adam and when do little children inherit that curse that is done 
away from them in Him?

[telnetd]

19 hours ago, Pyreaux said:

Nor that the Second Article of Faith also explicitly rejects inherited moral guilt, "We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression."

Adam sinned. See Alma 42:1-7.

[telnetd]

14 hours ago, teddyaware said:

The Book of Mormon does indeed assert the reality of original sin as a doctrinal concept, one that’s very similar to the original sin doctrine of the Catholic Church. Where the Latter-Day Saints part company with the Catholics on this point is we believe that the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ mitigates the utterly destructive spiritual and temporal effects of the fall, and does so by mercifully allowing every member of the human family to be endowed at birth with the indwelling and uplifting light of Christ so that each individual isn’t left utterly bereft of a spiritual connection with God

@Tony uk Tony is a Catholic. I am not aware that Catholics hold a different position.

[Tony uk]

Although no expert by any means. From a Catholic perspective. Original sin is passed down to the individual, however it is washed away at Baptism, at which we become part of one body in Christ, the body being the Church,from whom grace is given to the person. This has been my understanding, in basic form of the matter. Hope that proves useful to the post.

Edited 5 hours ago by Tony uk
Grammar

[Pyreaux]

1 hour ago, telnetd said:

Unbaptized babies are not damned but they are tainted by the Fall.

Moroni 8 says "little children are whole, for they are not capable of committing sin;
wherefore the curse of Adam is taken from them in me, that it hath no power over 
them; and the law of circumcision is done away in me".

What is the curse of Adam and when do little children inherit that curse that is done 
away from them in Him?

At birth, the "curse of Adam" is understood as the fallen condition that came through Adam, but not personal culpability for Adam’s transgression. Christ’s Atonement removes the condemning effect of Adam’s Fall from little children. They are not required to repent or be baptized because they have not become morally accountable.

From birth everyone enters mortality in a fallen world. We inherit mortality, weakness, corruption, and eventually physical death. In that sense, children are born into the consequences of the Fall.

A child does not become personally subject to condemnation for sin merely by being born. Moroni's point is that the Fall has no condemning power over little children. Once a person becomes capable of knowingly choosing sin, however, their own sins become relevant and they need repentance and Christ's grace.

This is why Moroni immediately contrasts little children with those who are "understanding" and "capable of committing sin." The issue isn't that the child somehow possesses Adam's guilt and then has it removed at baptism. Rather, Christ prevents Adam's transgression from counting against the child in the first place.

If by "tainted" you mean born into mortality with fallen human nature and subject to physical death, that's compatible with Moroni 8.

If you mean born spiritually guilty, because of Adam, Moroni 8 strongly rejects that idea.

So what exactly is the curse that Christ removes from little children? I would describe it as the condemning/spiritual consequence of the Fall, not Adam's guilt transferred to them.

Yes, Alma does call Adam's act a transgression. Adam actually transgressed a command, and that transgression initiated the fallen condition. But Adam's transgression isn't identical to our personal sins. Mosiah 3:11 says Christ's blood atones for those people who died without knowing God's will or who sinned ignorantly like baby's that transgress the law before knowing good from evil or Adam before he knew good from evil. 

Edited 5 hours ago by Pyreaux

[Pyreaux]

15 minutes ago, Tony uk said:

Although no expert by any means. From a Catholic perspective. Original sin is passed down to the individual, however it is washed away at Baptism, at which we become part of one body in Christ, the body being the Church,from whom grace is given to the person. This has been my understanding, in basic form of the matter. Hope that proves useful to the post.

If I recall, the RCC wisely long retracted the fate of unbaptised babies and unbaptised believers. They might be stuck but not doomed forever. They have to wait until God shows them mercy. They don't know when or how, but confident God will eventually do so.

[3DOP]

2 hours ago, Pyreaux said:

If I recall, the RCC wisely long retracted the fate of unbaptised babies and unbaptised believers. They might be stuck but not doomed forever. They have to wait until God shows them mercy. They don't know when or how, but confident God will eventually do so.

So in our times, a Catholic wisely believes that unbaptised believers and babies are "stuck" and "temporarily doomed"? So what do we say will happen while being "stuck" that could change the situation for the better? We teach that they do not know how or when, but are confident that something we do not understand will make God have mercy at some point in the far or near future?

In other words, we wisely don't know what we are talking about! You gotta tell us, if we are that stupid today, what kind of nonsense did Catholics believe before we made our "wisely long retraction"? Hehe

Pyreaux, not to be difficult, but I have seen much better work from you than that!

God bless...and thanks for the laugh!

Regards, 3DOP

 

Edited 2 hours ago by 3DOP

[Pyreaux]

1 hour ago, 3DOP said:

So in our times, a Catholic wisely believes that unbaptised believers and babies are "stuck" and "temporarily doomed"? So what do we say will happen while being "stuck" that could change the situation for the better? We teach that they do not know how or when, but are confident that something we do not understand will make God have mercy at some point in the far or near future?

In other words, we wisely don't know what we are talking about! You gotta tell us, if we are that stupid today, what kind of nonsense did Catholics believe before we made our "wisely long retraction"? Hehe

Pyreaux, not to be difficult, but I have seen much better work from you than that!

God bless...and thanks for the laugh!

Regards, 3DOP

 

Umm... Historically, Catholic theologians did teach the idea of limbo. The Vatican's International Theological Commission explicitly acknowledges that the theory of limbo was a traditional theological teaching concerning infants who died without baptism, as deprived of the beatific vision but did not suffer the pains of hell.

But limbo was never defined as a dogma. Today the Catechism does not teach limbo. It says the Church entrusts such children to God's mercy and hopes there is a way of salvation for them. The Vatican theological commission saying there are serious theological and liturgical grounds for hope that unbaptized infants who die will be saved, while emphasizing that this is a hope rather than sure knowledge.

So, if your point was to dispute Catholics used to teach limbo but the Church has moved away from that position and me calling the modern position a "retraction." I understand its likely more nuanced, like limbo was a common teaching, not a defined dogma, so abandoning it isn't formally the same thing as retracting a dogma.

https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070419_un-baptised-infants_en.html "The Hope of Salvation for Infants Who Die Without Being Baptised"