Original Sin: Is It Biblical?

[3DOP]

USU78

My apologies. I appear to have been so focused upon johnny's stuff that I missed something of yours. More, perhaps, later. I'm off soon to supervise a 12-year-olds' Halloween party. Yikes!

3DOP

I am afraid I cannot add substantially to what johnny has said. I was objecting to the idea of characterizing the teaching as absurd gobbledygook. I wouldn't try to convince you that the doctrine is true. I would only try to convince you that it is not stupid. But I have trouble seeing how you can't distinguish how we reconcile what was happening with the Ezekiel situation, with what has happened to the children of Adam.

Allow me to also offer my apologies. I am too impatient. I am glad to see you are not all polemics. Neither am I. I hope you well...do okay at the party.

Regards,

Rory

[USU78]

My apologies. I appear to have been so focused upon johnny's stuff that I missed something of yours. More, perhaps, later. I'm off soon to supervise a 12-year-olds' Halloween party. Yikes!

I am afraid I cannot add substantially to what johnny has said. I was objecting to the idea of characterizing the teaching as absurd gobbledygook. I wouldn't try to convince you that the doctrine is true. I would only try to convince you that it is not stupid. But I have trouble seeing how you can't distinguish how we reconcile what was happening with the Ezekiel situation, with what has happened to the children of Adam.

Allow me to also offer my apologies. I am too impatient. I am glad to see you are not all polemics. Neither am I. I hope you well...do okay at the party.

Regards, Rory

The problem with johnny is he doesn't actually engage in discussion. I think there is room for discussion here and, at the end of such a discussion, we'll find we have much in common.

The LDS, for example, have a strong belief in man's essential depravity The Natural Man is an Enemy to G-d] . . . but we believe that depravity has a twofold genesis: the fallen state of the World in which Man is placed, and each man's own choices. I think the notion of "original sin" that johnny keeps jargoning around (which is why I called it gobbledygook -- if you don't share a vocabulary, continuing to use your own jargon doesn't get us anywhere) and our LDS notions of "natural man" are not that far different. For both of us, it is G-d's Spirit that, when we embrace His influence, frees us from nature both embraced and imposed.

Where we differ strongly is the capacity of a child to sin and a child's sinful nature.

The Eden mythos makes clear that it is Man himself who cuts himself off from G-d's presence. We cannot blame Him for our condition, and must take responsibility for our own sins. The above Ezekiel passages, in my view, are designed to underscore the Eden lessons, and in a very Book of Mormon way: you [israel] are responsible for your own destruction, not your son, not your father, not anybody else; but G-d will still accept you if you just accept His gracious gift of forgiveness.

The Jonathan Edwards approach, which imbues even (and far too many, in my view) RC discussions on the issue, ignores the distinction between personal responsibility and natural condition.

{Alas for johnny who cannot seem to be able to express himself intelligibly to an LDS audience. Bless him for trying.}

What I would like to have us focus our attention on is the strong differences re children.

USU "Millstone" 78

[rhinomelon]

Vicarious responsibility for somebody else's sin is quite another thing, however, and alien to scripture.

I would disagree that the concept is alien to scripture. Under the "old covenant", such thinking was commonplace. The later prophets looked to a time in which a new covenant would be enacted, in which an individual is responsible for their own sins, and not for their parents.

Some scriptural examples:

Exodus 34:6-7

6 And he passed in front of Moses, proclaiming, "The LORD, the LORD, the compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, abounding in love and faithfulness, 7 maintaining love to thousands, and forgiving wickedness, rebellion and sin. Yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished; he punishes the children and their children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation."

See also Exodus 20:5

Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God [am] a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathersupon the children unto the third and fourth[generation] of them that hate me;

Numbers 14:18

The LORD [is] longsuffering , and of great mercy , forgiving iniquity and transgression , and by no means clearing [the guilty], visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth [generation].

Deuteronomy 5:9

Thou shalt not bow down thyself unto them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God [am] a jealous God , visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth [generation] of them that hate me,

As far as the change between old covenant and new, here's Jeremiah 31:

In those days they shall say no more, The fathers have eaten a sour grape, and the children's teeth are set on edge.

Jer 31:30 But every one shall die for his own iniquity: every man that eateth the sour grape, his teeth shall be set on edge.

Jer 31:31

[rhinomelon]

One other example that comes to mind would be the death of David's infant son because of his adultery with Bathsheba. Just food for thought.

[USU78]

Vicarious responsibility for somebody else's sin is quite another thing, however, and alien to scripture.

I would disagree that the concept is alien to scripture. Under the "old covenant", such thinking was commonplace. The later prophets looked to a time in which a new covenant would be enacted, in which an individual is responsible for their own sins, and not for their parents.

Some scriptural examples: {deleted for space}

Now I'm not saying that Ezekiel is obviously teaching original sin or generational sin (I don't think he does explicitly, especially considering Ezekiel 18), but I do think that you overstepped the evidence when you say such a concept is alien to scripture.

We need to be careful to distinguish between ( a ) Bible writers recognizing G-d's hand in everything that happens and ( b ) natural consequences of bad acts affecting more than just the actor on the one hand and vicarious liability for sin on the other. We don't need to go there, however, since Ezekiel makes quite plain that it is only the one who sins who must pay a penalty for those sins. This is quite a different thing from classical (or even post-Trent) views on original sin, as I understand it.

Now, just to address one of your examples: Bathsheeba's *******. That the child pays a price unearned by him because of natural consequences of his parents' bad acts is quite a differerent thing from being morally or, per Ezekiel, legally liable therefor. As the poet said:

Tenement slum

Ooh, ooh, ooh....aaaahhh

You think that I don't feel love

What I feel for you is real love

In other's eyes I see reflected

A hurt, scorned, rejected

Love child Never meant to be

Love Child Born in poverty

Love Child Never meant to be

Love Child Take a look at me

Started my life

In an old, cold, run-down tenament slum (tenement slum)

My father left he never even married Mom

I shared the guilt my mama knew

So afraid that others knew I had no name

This love we're contemplatin'

Is worth the pain of waitin'

We'll only end up hatin'

The child we may be creatin'

Love Child Never meant to be

Love Child (Scorned by) Society

Love Child Always second best

Love Child (Different from) Different from the rest

(Hold on hold on just a little bit longer) Mmmmm baby

(Hold on hold on just a little bit longer) Mmmmm baby

I started school

In a worn, torn dress that somebody threw out

(Somebody threw out)

I knew the way it felt to always live in doubt

To be without the simple things

So afraid my friends would see the guilt in me

Don't think that I don't need ya

Don't think I don't want to please ya

But no child of mine will be bearing

The name of shame I've been wearing

Love Child Love Child

Never quite as good

Afraid, ashamed, Misunderstood

But I'll always love you

I, too, am curious as to how you would interpret Paul's words in Romans, regarding all dying in Adam.

No question: death comes to Adam & Eva as a specific punishment for a specific set of sins (lying and disobedience and fingerpointing). That we all die because of our Ur-parents' acts is not to say that our deaths are a punishment, but rather a condition of our existence, with the Master providing relief from both our estrangement from Him and Our Father (as Adam and Eva were the original examplars of that estrangement upon their expulsion from Gan Eden) and our deaths.

What of others' assertions of the innocents' guilt, rhino? johnny's pretty passionate about their guilt.

We LDS find such talk abhorrent, as you know.

R

[rhinomelon]

We need to be careful to distinguish between ( a ) Bible writers recognizing G-d's hand in everything that happens and ( b ) natural consequences of bad acts affecting more than just the actor on the one hand and vicarious liability for sin on the other. We don't need to go there, however, since Ezekiel makes quite plain that it is only the one who sins who must pay a penalty for those sins.

So would you say that Ezekiel's words are contradicting God's own words about Himself in Exodus 34 (among other passages)? In the Exodus passage, for example, God explicitly states that He visits the sins of the father to the third and fourth generation. It isn't a simple matter of cause and effect, apart from God's justice in action.

This is quite a different thing from classical (or even post-Trent) views on original sin, as I understand it.

How do you understand the classical position on original sin?

What of others' assertions of the innocents' guilt, rhino? johnny's pretty passionate about their guilt.

What do you mean by "the innocents' guilt"? Which is something of an oxymoron anyway; if you assume a priori that children are completely innocent, than any thought of guilt on their part would naturally be abhorrent. Anyway, there is a difference between being a member of fallen humanity (which, as I understand it, would be original sin) and actually committing sins personally which accrue personal guilt. In terms of the former, I think all human beings are under the curse of sin/flesh/old man. In terms of the latter, I also believe there is an age before which children are not accountable for their sin (hinted at in Isaiah 7). Unlike LDS, I don't believe it is a set age (like 8 years old across the board), but rather a statement of consciousness of sin and doing right or wrong, which varies between individuals.

As far as those die as children, it is God's area of judgment, and I have no difficulty trusting in God's mercy and grace.

Take care, everyone

[USU78]

We need to be careful to distinguish between ( a ) Bible writers recognizing G-d's hand in everything that happens and ( b ) natural consequences of bad acts affecting more than just the actor on the one hand and vicarious liability for sin on the other. We don't need to go there, however, since Ezekiel makes quite plain that it is only the one who sins who must pay a penalty for those sins.

So would you say that Ezekiel's words are contradicting God's own words about Himself in Exodus 34 (among other passages)? In the Exodus passage, for example, God explicitly states that He visits the sins of the father to the third and fourth generation. It isn't a simple matter of cause and effect, apart from God's justice in action.

This is not troubling to an LDS-type person (nor should it be to an evangelical Christian-type person). Isaiah sneered at Israel's need to receive things "line upon line." That we should find evidence of Israel actually receiving moral teaching "line upon line" should trouble us not at all. Ezekiel is teaching something more profound than the author(s) of Exodus: the latter appropriately see G-d's hand in the events of the Exodus and also see the inevitable results of sin (causing the apostacy of generations of Israelites); the former reminds Israel that, notwithstanding Exodus, nobody is actually morally or legally responsible for anybody else's sins.

This is quite a different thing from classical (or even post-Trent) views on original sin, as I understand it.

How do you understand the classical position on original sin?

I'm sure I'm quite limited in my understanding. Perhaps you could give it a shot. I do not wish to misrepresent the teaching while we are pursuing a discussion of its [alleged by me] non-Biblicity.

What of others' assertions of the innocents' guilt, rhino? johnny's pretty passionate about their guilt.

What do you mean by "the innocents' guilt"? Which is something of an oxymoron anyway; if you assume a priori that children are completely innocent, than any thought of guilt on their part would naturally be abhorrent. Anyway, there is a difference between being a member of fallen humanity (which, as I understand it, would be original sin) and actually committing sins personally which accrue personal guilt. In terms of the former, I think all human beings are under the curse of sin/flesh/old man. In terms of the latter, I also believe there is an age before which children are not accountable for their sin (hinted at in Isaiah 7). Unlike LDS, I don't believe it is a set age (like 8 years old across the board), but rather a statement of consciousness of sin and doing right or wrong, which varies between individuals.

The old formula that I have heard batted around for years is that, since the child is born in sin and shares in original sin, immediate baptism is necessary to prevent death from robbing the child of a place in Heaven.

"Original sin" occurs nowhere in Scripture that I can see. It is a construct useful to some, perhaps, in understanding existential problems, but we should be careful in using it, like johnny appears to, to run down the barely born, calling them "conceived in sin" and such. Such an attitude, it could be argued, devalues life and leads the great-great-great-great grandchildren of Puritans to be the proponents of Griswold v. Connecticut and all that follows therefrom.

BTW, don't get caught up in the "8-year-old" absolute. It isn't absolute. It's simply a date on which, on average, children can make moral choice. Some reach that milestone earlier. Some later.

[rhinomelon]

This is not troubling to an LDS-type person (nor should it be to an evangelical Christian-type person). Isaiah sneered at Israel's need to receive things "line upon line." That we should find evidence of Israel actually receiving moral teaching "line upon line" should trouble us not at all.

This strikes me as odd, as LDS commonly use the "line upon line" concept in an affirmative manner, describing how we all learn the things of God bit by bit. "Milk before meat" would be a correlary phrase. I don't see LDS sneering at the idea at all. But that's rather off the subject.

Ezekiel is teaching something more profound than the author(s) of Exodus: the latter appropriately see G-d's hand in the events of the Exodus and also see the inevitable results of sin (causing the apostacy of generations of Israelites); the former reminds Israel that, notwithstanding Exodus, nobody is actually morally or legally responsible for anybody else's sins.

To me, it sounds as though you are trying to "dumb down" the message of Exodus. You either write it off as a primitive, sub-par understanding of sin (to be corrected later), or you make the message more mild and palatable to our modern sensibilities. The fact is that God Himself is seen in the early narrative as holding many people legally responsible for the sins of a few. Think about the Israelite man who committed adultery with a non-Israelite woman, and God sent a plague through the camp until a priest killed the couple off. And in Exodus 34, it is God Himself explicitly saying that He holds the sins of the father to the third and fourth generation. How do you account for this? Is it an interpolation by some bloodthirsty scribe? Or do you read the words in a much different way?

Anyway, I think it is quite understandable to hold up Ezekiel's view as closer to God's character as ultimately revealed in Christ. However, I do not think it is necessary to dismiss the rather clear narrative truth of Exodus in order to claim that the idea of original sin has no possible biblical pedigree.

I'm sure I'm quite limited in my understanding. Perhaps you could give it a shot. I do not wish to misrepresent the teaching while we are pursuing a discussion of its [alleged by me] non-Biblicity.

This I find odd as well. You criticize a doctrine held by hundreds of millions of faithful Christians, dismissing it as absurd, without any biblical warrant whatsoever, and then state that you probably don't understand it. Why not try asking about it, learning what it is from the horse's mouth, and then proceeding from that firmer foundation? And don't worry, I'm not picking on you in particular; I've seen many other people go off similarly half-cocked regarding certain aspects of LDS doctrine.

Such an attitude, it could be argued, devalues life and leads the great-great-great-great grandchildren of Puritans to be the proponents of Griswold v. Connecticut and all that follows therefrom.

I fail to see how the concept of original sin devalues life in any way, unless the only life that has value in your eyes is the completely innocent, perfect one. Which puts all of our lives in the devalued column, I might add.

BTW, don't get caught up in the "8-year-old" absolute. It isn't absolute. It's simply a date on which, on average, children can make moral choice. Some reach that milestone earlier. Some later.

Eight years old seems to be the official benchmark set down by the LDS Church. From the website: Age of Accountability Primary Lesson

Also see D&C 68, which points to a definite age at which accountability comes into effect, necesitating baptism.

It is a construct useful to some, perhaps, in understanding existential problems, but we should be careful in using it, like johnny appears to, to run down the barely born, calling them "conceived in sin" and such.

I agree that the term (like all terms, really) should be used carefully and specifically. Both by people who agree with it and those who do not.

Take care, everyone

[3DOP]

USU78

I think there is room for discussion here and, at the end of such a discussion, we'll find we have much in common.

3DOP

That would mirror my estimation and hope for a probable conclusion as well.

USU78

The LDS, for example, have a strong belief in man's essential depravity The Natural Man is an Enemy to G-d] . . . but we believe that depravity has a twofold genesis: the fallen state of the World in which Man is placed, and each man's own choices.

3DOP

You wrote earlier (below) about the difficulties of communication when we don't share a vocabulary. That is so often at the root of arguments that get nowhere. As Catholics understand the term, man is by nature essentially good. However, natural goodness is inadequate to live a supernatural life. The abundant life that Christ promises is beyond what man can do naturally. We believe that Adam and Eva were created with supernatural grace and supernatural life. When they disobeyed (we understand the act of partaking of the tree forbidden by G-d to be disobedience, i.e. sinful), they lost the abundant life, supernatural life, or supernatural grace (three synonyms). They retained a natural life that can be said to be wounded (prone to defects of the will and intellect resulting in sin and bad reasoning). But they are not essentially depraved according to our understanding of essence or depravity. Defects of the will and intellect are only the absences of perfection. What remains is still good and absolutely necessary. Supernatural Grace can and does build off of the good nature which preceeds it.

When we say that Adam and Eva fell, we do not mean that they lost all ability to do any good. However, they lost the ability for the abundant life that Christ made possible again. Furthermore, not being possessors any longer of the abundant life, their children inherit not something, but virtually nothing when we say they received original sin. The problem of original sin is not something one gets from Adam, it is primarily something that one does NOT get. Following the formula repeated in the previous two chapters of Genesis, we understand that all biological reproductive processes result when fruit is born "after their kind." Having lost the abundant life, Adam cannot possibly pass supernatural grace on to the next generation through ordinary biological reproduction. That is why we believe one must be "born again" through a different process which you will probably agree is the waters of Baptism. That you might best understand it, might be to say that original sin in the unbaptized is the absence of supernatural grace.

I know that there is a passage, maybe in Mosiah (?) where the expression "original guilt" is used. If I understood it correctly, the passage says that Christ's atonement makes satisfaction for this "original guilt" and babies need not be baptized because of the Cross. Where babies are dependent on Christ's atonement for anything, it would seem to have to be something similar to what we call "original sin". The difference between us as it appears to me, is not in regard to the belief in original sin, but in the application of G-d's forgiveness, and His abundant life which Mormons apparently perceive to take place without baptism. We see the need for baptism, either of blood, water, or desire (jargon, gobbledygook, etc.). I list them to show that there are many ways (forms of baptism) we can hope that babies get to heaven while knowing that they won't be suffering the pains of hell (see below).

USU78

I think the notion of "original sin" that johnny keeps jargoning around (which is why I called it gobbledygook -- if you don't share a vocabulary, continuing to use your own jargon doesn't get us anywhere) and our LDS notions of "natural man" are not that far different. For both of us, it is G-d's Spirit that, when we embrace His influence, frees us from nature both embraced and imposed.

3DOP

Fair enough, if you are saying it was gobbledygook to you. I get that. I believe what I am saying here is substantially what Johnny said, sans "gobbledygook" hopefully. Personal/actual sin and original sin are distinctions that aren't universal that I understood perfectly. However, if one starts a thread critical of someone else's doctrine, it would seem that he would need to have familiarized himself with the jargon of those who believe it, in order to exercise any credible critique.

USU78

Where we differ strongly is the capacity of a child to sin and a child's sinful nature.

3DOP

Do we differ strongly? Do you think children are born of their parents with abundant, supernatural life biologically? Does abundant life come from Adam, or from Christ as we believe? We believe that children can have abundant life through Christ in baptism. We do not believe that the unbaptized can possibly receive abundant life merely through their natural parents biologically. We do not believe that a child can sin until he reaches the age of reason. One can only commit sin who can exercise knowledge and consent. Even unbaptized babies are home free as far as any kind of positive eternal punishment goes until and if they reach the age of reason. Only then can they sin, and be accountable. Now, as you know we baptize babies even though I say they are "home free". This is because while they are not liable for actual sin, and therefore they couldn't be suffering any punishments for that, on the other hand, they lack the abundant life, or supernatural grace and could not enter the highest joys of heaven in such a condition. Do Mormons believe that such a one would be a candidate for the celestial kingdom? I was thinking not. In any event we speculate that being naturally good, they could enjoy natural, but not supernatural happiness (a kind of terestrial or telestial kingdom perhaps?). Some have called it Limbo of the Children. I have heard it put that with regards to original sin, since it is contracted without consent, so it is remitted without consent, as a way of understanding the justice of baptizing the little ones of the faithful. As you might see if I have drawn the picture very well, the result for the unbaptized who do not reach the age of reason is not how we think of hell, but it isn't full-fledged heaven either.

USU78

The Eden mythos makes clear that it is Man himself who cuts himself off from G-d's presence. We cannot blame Him for our condition, and must take responsibility for our own sins. The above Ezekiel passages, in my view, are designed to underscore the Eden lessons, and in a very Book of Mormon way: you [israel] are responsible for your own destruction, not your son, not your father, not anybody else; but G-d will still accept you if you just accept His gracious gift of forgiveness.

The Jonathan Edwards approach, which imbues even (and far too many, in my view) RC discussions on the issue, ignores the distinction between personal responsibility and natural condition.

3DOP

I agree strongly that we cannot blame G-d or anyone else as our first parents tried to do. As for Jonathan Edwards, such a neophyte cannot be blamed for what Catholics believe or say! Our beliefs predate him by quite some time.

You had what appear to me to be stronger words ("man's essential depravity"), for the natural condition of man than what I was comfortable with (see above). So soon as the age of reason and consent is reached, personal responsibility is everything. The one who is baptized as a baby has the freedom to reject baptismal grace and the abundant life, the unbaptized has the opportunity to exercise his faculties for good or ill, and we know that G-d will judge according to what a man knows, not what he doesn't know.

USU78

{Alas for johnny who cannot seem to be able to express himself intelligibly to an LDS audience. Bless him for trying.}

3DOP

You are the one who used the expression "original sin". He wasn't merely addressing an LDS audience, but one who more or less called him out by critiquing a doctrine that is central to his beliefs. If I started a thread critical of eternal families and sealing covenants, could I in turn demand that the LDS respond in a Catholic vocabulary. I doubt it. If what I heard from the LDS was gobbledygook to me, I think that would have to be my fault, not theirs. A Catholic vocabulary is probably inadequate to efficiently and economically convey ideas that are uniquely LDS. I think I would need to educate myself in the LDS lingo. Johnny gave you the short version. I've lost track of time but this took me at least two hours I think. It can be a lot of work to ask someone to refrain from using their normal vocabulary and I know it does not suit the style of most posters on these boards. I maintain that what he said made all the sense in the world to me and is substantially what I have said above. I hope I have succeeded in bridging the communication gap a little.

USU78

What I would like to have us focus our attention on is the strong differences re children.

USU "Millstone" 78

3DOP

I have tried to keep that in mind as I composed my response. As you said, we seem to be in much agreement. In the past, Latter Day Saints have seemed adamant upon the idea that pedobaptism and original sin is really really awful and could not be true unless G-d were very villainous (which is of course unthinkable). I have to believe that this is the result of this communication problem upon which we agree.

I have enjoyed this latest exchange and have good hopes, if not for complete agreement, some meeting of the mind anyway.

Cordially,

Rory

[USU78]

I think there is room for discussion here and, at the end of such a discussion, we'll find we have much in common.

That would mirror my estimation and hope for a probable conclusion as well.

Okeydoke.

The LDS, for example, have a strong belief in man's essential depravity The Natural Man is an Enemy to G-d] . . . but we believe that depravity has a twofold genesis: the fallen state of the World in which Man is placed, and each man's own choices.

You wrote earlier (below) about the difficulties of communication when we don't share a vocabulary. That is so often at the root of arguments that get nowhere. As Catholics understand the term, man is by nature essentially good. However, natural goodness is inadequate to live a supernatural life. The abundant life that Christ promises is beyond what man can do naturally. We believe that Adam and Eva were created with supernatural grace and supernatural life. When they disobeyed (we understand the act of partaking of the tree forbidden by G-d to be disobedience, i.e. sinful), they lost the abundant life, supernatural life, or supernatural grace (three synonyms). They retained a natural life that can be said to be wounded (prone to defects of the will and intellect resulting in sin and bad reasoning). But they are not essentially depraved according to our understanding of essence or depravity. Defects of the will and intellect are only the absences of perfection. What remains is still good and absolutely necessary. Supernatural Grace can and does build off of the good nature which preceeds it.

Now we're getting somewhere. This stuff is great. And it's scripturally based, but it's not quite scriptural, is it? And now we're back to the point of the thread.

I asked whether "original sin" is biblical in my initial post in this thread. johnny quotes catechism in support of the notion that "original sin" is RC doctrine and binding. That's fine, but it doesn't help answer the initial question. Moreover, it underscores an issue as problematic as the one faced by our several ancestors when decisions on making scripture accessible to the masses in intelligible form. Concepts like "original sin," and those you just mentioned, "abundant life, supernatural life, or supernatural grace," don't communicate to a non-cognoscento and, indeed, muddy conversation, and lead the man-on-the-street RC incapable, in my experience, of expressing the issues, especially "original sin" in any way other than that commonly understood by Mormons: babies evil because sex evil; babies must be baptized to wash away the stink of Adam and Eva.

I've got to hand it to the RCs, however, in addressing this communication problem much better since my days schlogging the streets of Vienna. I don't think there were more than 3 people (and I talked with more than a couple of thousand in my 22 months in country) who could make the distinctions you're making today. Few had any control over the scriptural bases for the what you would call inspired commentary (catechism), let alone a significant understanding of existential problems described by "original sin." I'm not saying that's anybody's fault particularly, but there it is.

When we say that Adam and Eva fell, we do not mean that they lost all ability to do any good. However, they lost the ability for the abundant life that Christ made possible again. Furthermore, not being possessors any longer of the abundant life, their children inherit not something, but virtually nothing when we say they received original sin. The problem of original sin is not something one gets from Adam, it is primarily something that one does NOT get. Following the formula repeated in the previous two chapters of Genesis, we understand that all biological reproductive processes result when fruit is born "after their kind." Having lost the abundant life, Adam cannot possibly pass supernatural grace on to the next generation through ordinary biological reproduction. That is why we believe one must be "born again" through a different process which you will probably agree is the waters of Baptism. That you might best understand it, might be to say that original sin in the unbaptized is the absence of supernatural grace.

Is that all it is? What you describe is something quite different from what I've had expressed to me by RCs. From a BoM perspective, the state you describe is what we call "The Natural Man." Our understanding is that The Natural Man doesn't even get born until the individual is capable of meaningful moral choice. Prior to that time, as Mormon wrote his son, G-d's Grace is sufficient to redeem them without priestly intervention on G-d's behalf. I know you know the scripture, but I'll set it out here:

For the natural man is an enemy to God, and has been from the fall of Adam, and will be, forever and ever, unless he yields to the enticings of the Holy Spirit, and putteth off the natural man and becometh a saint through the atonement of Christ the Lord, and becometh as a child, submissive, meek, humble, patient, full of love, willing to submit to all things which the Lord seeth fit to inflict upon him, even as a child doth submit to his father.

A nice irony, eh? Upon leaving childhood, we must become like a child. In any case, it is that point at which one can meaningfully "yield to the enticings of the Holy Spirit" that one is required to do so: never before. And it makes quite unnecessary discussions of organic or other causes for conditions that make us prone to particular sin.

I know that there is a passage, maybe in Mosiah (?) where the expression "original guilt" is used. If I understood it correctly, the passage says that Christ's atonement makes satisfaction for this "original guilt" and babies need not be baptized because of the Cross. Where babies are dependent on Christ's atonement for anything, it would seem to have to be something similar to what we call "original sin". The difference between us as it appears to me, is not in regard to the belief in original sin, but in the application of G-d's forgiveness, and His abundant life which Mormons apparently perceive to take place without baptism. We see the need for baptism, either of blood, water, or desire (jargon, gobbledygook, etc.). I list them to show that there are many ways (forms of baptism) we can hope that babies get to heaven while knowing that they won't be suffering the pains of hell (see below).

I believe the scripture you refer to is here:

And he called upon our father Adam by his own voice, saying: "I am God; I made the world, and men before they were in the flesh." And he also said unto him: "If thou wilt turn unto me, and hearken unto my voice, and believe, and repent of all thy transgressions, and be baptized, even in water, in the name of mine Only Begotten Son, who is full of brace and truth, which is Jesus Christ, the only name which shall be given under heaven, whereby salvation shall come unto the children of men, ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost, asking all things in his name, and whatsoever ye shall ask, it shall be given you." And our father Adam spake unto the Lord, and said: "Why is it that men must repent and be baptized in water?" And the Lord said unto Adam: "Behold I have forgiven thee thy transgression in the Garden of Eden." 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.

This is from the Enoch material. And is quite consistent with Mormon's later statements to his son:

And after this manner did the Holy Ghost manifest the word of God unto me; wherefore, my beloved son, I know that it is solemn mockery before God, that ye should baptize little children. Behold I say unto you that this thing shall ye teachâ??repentance and baptism unto those who are accountable and capable of committing sin; yea, teach parents that they must repent and be baptized, and humble themselves as their little children, and they shall all be saved with their little children. And their little children need no repentance, neither baptism. Behold, baptism is unto repentance to the fulfilling the commandments unto the remission of sins. But little children are alive in Christ, even from the foundation of the world; if not so, God is a partial God, and also a changeable God, and a respecter to persons; for how many little children have died without baptism!

So, there we have the scriptural argument laid out: G-d's Grace redeems those incapable of moral choice, of yielding to the Spirit's enticements to good. But it comes from scriptures unbinding on the RC.

Where, pray, is the basis for "original sin's" biblicity?

[3DOP]

Hi USU78,

Thanks for your latest response.

USU78

I asked whether "original sin" is biblical in my initial post in this thread. johnny quotes catechism in support of the notion that "original sin" is RC doctrine and binding. That's fine, but it doesn't help answer the initial question.

3DOP

Well, I think others have tried but you dismissed them. I will continue to offer some of the same passages and offer explanations for how they relate to the subject matter you have raised.

Johnny appealed to the writings of Saul/Paul to the Romans. You dismissed what Saul/Paul said because in your opinion his view is less moral than that of 2nd Temple Jews. You previously asked:

Can we really argue that Romans, which is but Saul/Paul's* take on the same issue, makes G-d less just than He previously was, based upon a hypercalvinist reading of the NT?

---post #8 (USU 78)

Concerning a hyper-Calvinism to which no one admits here, you apparently misread William the Conqueror who was saying that the hyper-Calvinist goes too far in his understanding of what we inherit from Adam. It is distressing that you and many LDS seem firmly intent on insisting that we embrace this hyper-Calvinist view.

Some HyperCalvinists believe that mankind not only receives the sin nature from Adam (Romans 5), but also is under the judgement of Adam's sin. The former I believe but not the latter.

---post #7 (William the Conqueror)

Neither Johnny, nor William, nor Rhinomelon, nor I are advocating any hyper-Calvinist reading of Saul/Paul. We deny that this makes G-d "less just" than he previously was in the 2nd Temple. It seems to me that you aren't considering all of the biblical context of Ezekiel's prophecy. He is dealing with a people who already have Scripture that says that there are consequences to the children for the sins of the parents. Apparently, you are not concerned to reconcile Ezekiel with Jeremiah, Isaiah, or the Pentateuch. The LDS view of fallibility of prophets permits this, and I am not disputing the principle for you. However we don't have that liberty, and I think that in this instance it has necessarily made us ponder these Scriptures a little deeper. While maintaining G-d's justice and goodness at all times, we have to reconcile everything from Genesis to Revelation on this and every subject.

Plainly, the people in Ezekiel's day held to a mistaken view of the relationship between the sins of the father's and their children. That is why there was a proverb common among them, "The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children's teeth are set on edge." (18:2) This represented a distortion of the truth preached first by Moses, and Ezekiel was rightly concerned to put an end to it. "As I live saith the Lord G-d, this parable shall be no more to you a proverb in Israel." (18:3)

There is a context for why the people held to this distortion. Yes, we have to insist that it is not a full blown error, but a misunderstanding of a biblical truth which was expounded from the days of Moses to Jeremiah, and to which most Bible-believing Christians including Catholics must hold to this day.

Thou shewest mercy unto thousands, and returnest the iniquity of the fathers into the bosom of their children after them...

---Jer. 32:18

Prepare his children for slaughter for the iniquity of the fathers: they shall not rise up, nor inherit the land, nor fill the face of the world with cities.

---Is. 14:21

G-d shall lay up the sorrow of the father for his children: and when he shall repay, then shall he know.

---Job 21:19

The Lord is patient and full of mercy, taking away iniquity and wickedness, and leaving no man clear, who visitest the sins of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation...Your children shall wander in the desert forty years, and shall bear your fornication, until the carcasses of their fathers be consumed in the desert.

---Num. 14:18, 33

You shall perish among the Gentiles, and an enemy's land shall consume you. And if of them some remain, they shall pine away in their iniquities, in the land of their enemies, and they shall be afflicted for the sins of their fathers and their own: Until they confess their iniquities and the iniquities of their ancestors...

---Lev. 26:39, 40

Who keepest mercy unto thousands: who takest away iniquity, and wickedness, and sin, and no man of himself is innocent before thee. Who renderest the inquity of the fathers to the children, and to the grandchildren, unto the third and fourth generation.

---Ex. 34:7

...I am the Lord thy G-d, mighty, jealous, visiting the inquity of the fathers upon the children, unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me.

---Ex.20:5

As I hope to have shown, there is context for the proverb which blamed the sour taste in the mouth of the children upon the eating habits of the parents. I take it that Mormons reject these Scriptures as being fallible. Okay. But you have to understand that we can't do that. We can not understand Ezekiel to be pronouncing that Job, Jeremiah, Isaiah, and Moses were all mistaken in these many Scriptures. We see Ezekiel in ch. 18 making commentary on these Scriptures. Whatever they mean, it doesn't mean that children are judged for the sins of the parents. It does not mean that they will suffer eternal death for the sins of the parents. Ezekiel 18 makes that clear, and we are agreed.

However, children are not born in an equal environmental vacuum. Among other things, we inherit stature, temperament, and intellect from our parents. In the passages I have quoted, taken with Ezekiel, and reconciling it with natural norms of morality we cannot say that a good G-d would judge, make accountable, or punish the children of sinners even down to the fourth generation. No, and as Ezekiel reiterates, never is the child judged for anyone's actual sins but his own. The child of the crack addict who is born with addictions and suffers terribly for the sins of his parents, is in no sense guilty, and G-d will undoubtedly take those disadvantages into considersation in judging someone who is born into ghastly circumstances like that. Nevertheless the principle is established, and the consequences are there for all to see, even unto the children's children. This has to be what Moses and company mean, without making valid a derisive proverb (Ez. 18:1) which blames all the problems of children on their parents, relieving everyone of personal accountability.

You have asked if we can accept an interpretation of Saul/Paul that is less moral than that of Ezekiel. Certainly not. We have to reconcile both with what is said in all of Scripture including what preceeds Ezekiel. If you are pleased to believe that the most moral system is that which wouldn't admit of a good G-d to attribute any negative characteristics or consequences of the fathers upon the children, then I think theists are in trouble quite apart from our doctrines and revelations. As Christians, I think we can safely say that all will be taken into consideration in the Final Judgment.

USU78

Moreover, it underscores an issue as problematic as the one faced by our several ancestors when decisions on making scripture accessible to the masses in intelligible form.

3DOP

Ah...You are making a dig with the myth that my church wished to keep the truth of the Scriptures from the masses? If so, I am not biting.

USU78

Concepts like "original sin," and those you just mentioned, "abundant life, supernatural life, or supernatural grace," don't communicate to a non-cognoscento and, indeed, muddy conversation, and lead the man-on-the-street RC incapable, in my experience, of expressing the issues, especially "original sin" in any way other than that commonly understood by Mormons: babies evil because sex evil; babies must be baptized to wash away the stink of Adam and Eva.

3DOP

I used the expression "abundant life" because it was biblical. ("I am come that they may have life, and may have it more abundantly" Jn. 10:10). I told you what the synonyms were because you were belittling what you called johnny's jargon and I wanted to use terms that you wouldn't label gobbledygook. I was talking to you on an LDS message board trying to play by your rules. I wasn't also trying to reach some goofy "man-on-the-street RC" who you say thinks sex and babies are evil and need baptized because of stink, because there aren't any on this forum, and I have never met one in the street, let alone at church.

USU78

I've got to hand it to the RCs, however, in addressing this communication problem much better since my days schlogging the streets of Vienna. I don't think there were more than 3 people (and I talked with more than a couple of thousand in my 22 months in country) who could make the distinctions you're making today. Few had any control over the scriptural bases for the what you would call inspired commentary (catechism), let alone a significant understanding of existential problems described by "original sin." I'm not saying that's anybody's fault particularly, but there it is.

3DOP

I can't explain the apparent stupidity of the Austrians. Maybe, unlike you, the couple thousand Viennese less three you met were not inclined to debate their beliefs on this subject. But I have to inform you that I am unfamiliar with any communications reforms undergone by "the RC's" since your days there, unless you are five hundred years old or more. It is my suspicion that you were asking the wrong people questions in the wrong places at the wrong times when you were "schlogging the streets of Vienna". Allow me to ask you to consider that the theological system of the Viennese you interviewed are not binding on Catholics more interested in knowing what their Church teaches. If I were you, I would consider taking all you "learned" about Catholics while you were on what I take to be your LDS mission, with "grains of salt" as the saying goes.

USU78 commenting on my proposed non-gobbledygook definition of original sin for Mormons

That you might best understand it, might be to say that original sin in the unbaptized is the absence of supernatural grace.

---3DOP's definition

Is that all it is? What you describe is something quite different from what I've had expressed to me by RCs. From a BoM perspective, the state you describe is what we call "The Natural Man." Our understanding is that The Natural Man doesn't even get born until the individual is capable of meaningful moral choice. Prior to that time, as Mormon wrote his son, G-d's Grace is sufficient to redeem them without priestly intervention on G-d's behalf. I know you know the scripture, but I'll set it out here:

3DOP

Yes, I think that definition covers what original sin is in relation to your objections. But I am no authority either, anymore than the Viennese. Perhaps they were giving books to you that were arguing for their beliefs on the "stink" of evil babies who come from evil sex? Allow me to propose an opposing viewpoint from a Catholic author who appears to agree with what I said above:

Original Sin consists in the deprivation of grace caused by the free act of sin committed by the head of the race. (Sent. Communis.)

The Council of Trent defined Original Sin as the death of the soul (mors animae: D 789). The death of the soul is however, the absence [not-being-present] of supernatural life, that is, of sanctifying grace.

---Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, TAN Publishers, 1974, Ludwig Ott, p. 110, Bolded emphasis not mine, but original. (It was a heading of some kind.)

I was disappointed that unless I missed it, you failed to acknowledge in your response, my comparison of Limbo with the telestial/terrestrial kingdoms. Since we affirm that the mere absence of supernatural grace cannot result in any positive punishment, such as living with the demons where fire is always burning you, even allowing a non-heavenly earthly form of happiness, I thought it might soften your opinion of the "immorality" as you appear to see it, of our doctrine. Further, I thought that the parallel with the Mormon view was very clear, unless you are saying that unbaptized babies go straight to the celestial kingdom for the highest joys possible to mankind.

I will keep in mind the LDS usage of the expression natural man. I did not know that babies would not be considered in that category. I mentioned the Scripture but I didn't know it so thank you for providing it.

I do not have a problem with the LDS view of the things we are discussing. I suppose the grace of God according to you, is still needed in babies not because of Adam's fall, but because they did something wrong in the pre-existence? In any event, I am not the one to say that LDS doctrine is incoherent or unbiblical. I trust it is all in good order. I am not here to say anybody is wrong (except maybe those nutballs you met in Austria!). My aims are to show what we believe which I think is plainly misunderstood by Mormons, and to show that given our presuppositions, it is reconcilable with our Scriptures and right reason. Nothing more than defense, no offense at this time. I don't think error is usually as whacky as what you found on your mission. I think it is usually wrong in a subtly brilliant way. You used the word "absurd" to describe our view of original sin, and followed it up with accusing someone who tried to explain it as "gobbledygook". You seem like a smart guy. Smarter than me for sure. But you are wrong if you think Catholic doctrine is absurd and our defense of it is gobbledygook. If I have to think as some Mormons appear to, that the Catholic Church is stupid, incoherent or absurd in its teaching, it is absolutely impossible that I could ever get there. Such persons can't know what they are talking about whatever their IQ's might be.

USU78

For the natural man is an enemy to God, and has been from the fall of Adam, and will be, forever and ever, unless he yields to the enticings of the Holy Spirit, and putteth off the natural man and becometh a saint through the atonement of Christ the Lord, and becometh as a child, submissive, meek, humble, patient, full of love, willing to submit to all things which the Lord seeth fit to inflict upon him, even as a child doth submit to his father.

---Mos. 3:19

A nice irony, eh? Upon leaving childhood, we must become like a child. In any case, it is that point at which one can meaningfully "yield to the enticings of the Holy Spirit" that one is required to do so: never before. And it makes quite unnecessary discussions of organic or other causes for conditions that make us prone to particular sin.

3DOP

I agree, that's a nice irony. I don't know much about LDS teaching as I have admitted and have little interest in trying to do more than defend my view. Yours sounds convenient and ironically pleasing. I would have to think that like ours, your view gives rise to some philosophical problem solving or other. If not, congratulations. But it does not make my position absurd, or my defense gobbledygook.

USU78 quotes several Latter Day revelations which support his position well and closes

So, there we have the scriptural argument laid out: G-d's Grace redeems those incapable of moral choice, of yielding to the Spirit's enticements to good. But it comes from scriptures unbinding on the RC.

Where, pray, is the basis for "original sin's" biblicity?

3DOP

Here:

For as by the disobedience of one, many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one, many shall be made just.

---Rom. 5:19

Obviously this passage cannot be cited to show that sex is evil, babies are evil, or that original sin has a stench. If you still think that is what original sin means, you'll have to go back to Austria if you want someone to argue with. I agree that you are right in thinking they are wrong.

There are those who say that it isn't just that Christ's atonement can be applied to others. How could His goodness deliver someone else from badness? Only because the principle works both ways. Saul/Paul is appealing to the effect of Adam's fall on man to answer that question. He is appealing to the idea that those born of Adam are born with his likeness, while those reborn of Christ, are reborn appearing with His likeness. I could belabor an exegesis on another day but I grow weary. If that's just absurd to you, I think you are blinded by ill will, because there is nothing wrong with your intellect. You are free to think it's wrong. I have presented nothing to try to convince you that this is the exclusive position that every Bible-believer must take. Clearly, to me at least, it is not.

I don't believe that the Bible is self-interpreting. The Bible alone is never sufficient, in my opinion, to settle doctrinal controversies. I think that is a very safe proposition. There has to be an appeal to another authority agreed upon by the differing parties or division is certain. Catholics believe that the Traditions received from the Apostles give us definite guidance on which way to go in settling biblical controversies. When you ask me to show that our belief is biblical, my own beliefs preclude the possibility of violating the rule which says that the Bible alone is inadequate to resolve doctrinal controversies. I hope I have demonstrated what I intended to show...that our position is not biblically absurd. Beginning with the principles laid down by Moses and continuing right through the New Testament, apart from Latter Day revelation, it is impossible to convince me that original sin as I have presented it reaches the level of the biblically absurd. Biblical absurdity is extremely rare in my experience which does not include Catholic Vienna. I don't know that I am familiar with any major sect that doesn't have brilliant Bible-believing scholars who can ably defend their positions from the Bible alone. That is what led me to consider the claims of a church which said that there is more than the Bible needed, if we would discern revealed truth as G-d has given it to man.

I will discuss further if you continue to think we are merely wrong, but if you maintain the biblical absurdity of our position, I wish you my best, but my best could not be adequate for you. USU78, I have actually edited some sharp sarcasm out. If I have at some points appeared to be nasty, it is probably because I am nasty sometimes. I am nice too sometimes. At the end of this long post, I feel brotherly, and I hope you will trust that this is the spirit that usually prevails with me.

Sincerely,

Rory

[USU78]

Rory, I must say that this has been my most pleasurable experience on these boards. My thanks for not making too much of my "absurd" and "gobbledygook," which I hoped to have put into context, and which arose far more from my frustrations with johnny than anything else.

I'll leave the last comment to you, if you choose, but would like to make a point . . . and it's one you may well agree with, but which our protestant friends most assuredly will not agree with.

It is only Ezekiel that can give inspired commentary upon prior prophetic pronouncements. It is only Ezekiel that can be accepted as binding upon the community of believers. And why is that?

G-d Himself called Ezekiel to the prophethood, that is clear from his book . . . but the authority for the calling is nothing more than Ezekiel himself, as far as we know. There is no generally accepted record of a "school of the prophets" which would give imprimitur of legitimacy to Ezekiel's statements. Plainly his writings are important -- important and powerful enough that many believed him, or his writings would not have been preserved at all (or, from an LDS perspective, restored via JSJr). Yet, Ezekiel the priest and prophet of the captivity speaks and we grant it legitimacy without much thought.

Yes, I agree that he knew quite well (and his immediate audience as well) the context of his pronouncements.

Yes, I agree that we cannot understand the clumsy Saul/Paul statements on the subject outside the same context -- plus the additional context provided by Ezekiel.

Yes, the definition of "original sin" as a state outside G-d's Grace is workable definition . . . if understood in an enlightened (and not street-level Viennese) RC (as understood by 3DOP) manner. The Hypercalvinistic view we both agree must be rejected as, ultimately, immoral. Yet it persists.

No, we LDS do not view Moses or Isaiah or Jeremiah or Ezekiel as fundamentally flawed, though their audiences may well have been. As for Moses, we LDS impute great meaning to the destruction of the first tables and their replacement: we see it as both an immediate rejection of the higher covenant by Israel . . . and an emblem of the cycle of apostacy and restoration that informs all human history. Thus, we don't need to have each of the historical prophets (or even modern prophets) to have a full knowledge of all things . . . that knowledge is given to but few . . . and there's nothing requiring the several prophets to say everything they know, even in their preserved writings/sayings. Thus it's perfectly appropriate from our perspective for Moses to teach a lesser covenant and Ezekiel to be dragging recalcitrant Israel into a higher and better understanding of G-d's law than Moses was able to teach.

We must perforce reject the Holy See's assuming the mantle of Ezekiel in his ability authoritatively to give what appears (on a superficial level, admittedly) to be a rejection of prior prophetic pronouncements.

You must necessarily reject GBH's or JSJr's assuming the same.

At the end of the day, that which gave Ezekiel's pronouncements power and importance gives either the Holy See or GBH Ezekiel's authority. Nobody else is even in the running.

Those who have ears.

[3DOP]

USU78

Rory, I must say that this has been my most pleasurable experience on these boards. My thanks for not making too much of my "absurd" and "gobbledygook," which I hoped to have put into context, and which arose far more from my frustrations with johnny than anything else.

3DOP

Coming from one with as many posts as you, I am humbled by your compliment. Thank you. As for not making too much of "absurd" and "gobbledygook", I didn't think I could have hammered on it much harder! Heheh. I am glad you weren't annoyed with me like you were with johnny. He's a good guy USU. From my point of view I almost always agree with the positions he takes. Maybe it points to a bigger problem that comes from posting styles. I thought I was pretty sarcastic, and it didn't bother you. People are in too much of hurry to prove too much. First, they don't take time to consider the other party. I see that from the torrid pace that is pretty common around here. Bam, bam, bam, and people are getting mad at each other and threads are so long that a substantive post gets lost in all the heated banter. I enjoyed our exchange very much too and I suggest it is because we didn't have that. It wouldn't have been near as thoughtful or satisfying in the end if we had been sitting on the computer for a whole afternoon firing a dozen paragraph length retorts back and forth at each other. We were "sleeping" on what we were going to say to the other which tends to cool the temper and give the noggin a chance to ponder. I was anticipating objections and preparing responses in my head all morning long while I was loading my trailer. It's a great way to make physical labor less of a drudgery and makes the time really zip by. I am not disappointed that I don't need the material now and will hopefully retain it for another time and place. It was a good study for me.

USU78

I'll leave the last comment to you, if you choose, but would like to make a point . . . and it's one you may well agree with, but which our protestant friends most assuredly will not agree with.

It is only Ezekiel that can give inspired commentary upon prior prophetic pronouncements. It is only Ezekiel that can be accepted as binding upon the community of believers. And why is that?

G-d Himself called Ezekiel to the prophethood, that is clear from his book . . . but the authority for the calling is nothing more than Ezekiel himself, as far as we know. There is no generally accepted record of a "school of the prophets" which would give imprimitur of legitimacy to Ezekiel's statements. Plainly his writings are important -- important and powerful enough that many believed him, or his writings would not have been preserved at all (or, from an LDS perspective, restored via JSJr). Yet, Ezekiel the priest and prophet of the captivity speaks and we grant it legitimacy without much thought.

Yes, I agree that he knew quite well (and his immediate audience as well) the context of his pronouncements.

Yes, I agree that we cannot understand the clumsy Saul/Paul statements on the subject outside the same context -- plus the additional context provided by Ezekiel.

Yes, the definition of "original sin" as a state outside G-d's Grace is workable definition . . . if understood in an enlightened (and not street-level Viennese) RC (as understood by 3DOP) manner. The Hypercalvinistic view we both agree must be rejected as, ultimately, immoral. Yet it persists.

3DOP

I aim at nothing higher than what you said in the last paragraph. I am deeply gratified that you would say my definition, which is to say, the definition of the Catholic Church as I understand it, is merely "workable". That's enough for now. I wasn't shooting for certitude, or even probability, but mere plausibility (or not absurd), and I don't need a final word if that has been attained.

USU78

No, we LDS do not view Moses or Isaiah or Jeremiah or Ezekiel as fundamentally flawed, though their audiences may well have been. As for Moses, we LDS impute great meaning to the destruction of the first tables and their replacement: we see it as both an immediate rejection of the higher covenant by Israel . . . and an emblem of the cycle of apostacy and restoration that informs all human history. Thus, we don't need to have each of the historical prophets (or even modern prophets) to have a full knowledge of all things . . . that knowledge is given to but few . . . and there's nothing requiring the several prophets to say everything they know, even in their preserved writings/sayings. Thus it's perfectly appropriate from our perspective for Moses to teach a lesser covenant and Ezekiel to be dragging recalcitrant Israel into a higher and better understanding of G-d's law than Moses was able to teach.

We must perforce reject the Holy See's assuming the mantle of Ezekiel in his ability authoritatively to give what appears (on a superficial level, admittedly) to be a rejection of prior prophetic pronouncements.

You must necessarily reject GBH's or JSJr's assuming the same.

At the end of the day, that which gave Ezekiel's pronouncements power and importance gives either the Holy See or GBH Ezekiel's authority. Nobody else is even in the running.

Those who have ears.

3DOP

If I could be convinced of an apostasy, I believe that there are only a few possible alternatives, one being that the true church has not yet reappeared. But I would certainly consider carefully the claims of LDS Christians. I salute you with the prayerful desire that we would one day be able to walk together in the same house of worship. If that is not attained, that we would praise the same G-d in heaven forever. May G-d bless and guide you.

Rory