Original Sin

[Cobalt-70]

That is a common claim of the critics of course, and it is a load of crap. Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon by the gift and power of God at lightning speed, and published it in March 1830. D&C 20 was received one month later in April 1830, almost as soon as the Church was organized. And Chapter one of the book of Moses was received two months after that in June 1830. All this time Joseph Smith was very busy organizing the Church, preaching the gospel, and dodging his persecutors. He didn't have any time to "evolve doctrine". He didn't even have time to fully absorb all the great doctrine that was being revealed to him, never mind about "evolving" any doctrine.

The Book of Mormon was translated at least a year before Smith got to the part of his translation of the Bible that we now call Moses 5, and quite a few months before D&C 20. There is plenty of time for Smith to receive new revelation on the theology of salvation. But I don't think these scriptures actually deny original sin. Note that D&C 20 refers to man becoming "fallen man." The section is not referring to any one man, but "man" in general, meaning all of humanity. Also, Moses 5 is referring to the children of men in general as being "carnal, sensual, and devilish." It doesn't say that the children of Adam and Eve were each, individually born in a state of grace and then individually corrupted their human natures. It doesn't make any sense unless it was Adam and Eve who caused the general corruption of human nature.

Another interpretation of these later scriptures is a more Catholic interpretation: that after the Fall, humanity entered a "second death" and their capacity to do good was at least wounded if not severely compromised as a result of temptation by the devil. (This is the Catholic idea of original sin.) And then, if you add a Protestant twist to explain your interpretation of Moses 5: a few generations after the Fall, human nature became "carnal, sensual, and devilish," or in other words, totally depraved. So the "natural man" ended up being totally depraved through a two-step process. I don't think that's what Smith had in mind, but it's more plausible than that he simply abrogated Book of Mormon theology relating to original sin just a few months after he published the book.

Regardless of what these later scriptures say, we do know what the Book of Mormon says, and its teachings on original sin are very clear, and that book itself is very consistent. It says that the fall "was the cause of all mankind becoming carnal, sensual, and devilish." Interestingly, the word "all" here is cross-referenced in the LDS Edition of the Book of Mormon to Ps. 14:3 ("there is none that doeth good, no, not one"), which is one of the main scriptures people use to support the Protestant doctrine of total depravity. So the Book of Mormon doesn't just teach that the Fall of Adam made it possible for people to sin. It teaches that it caused all of humanity to fall into a depraved state, so that the natural inborn state of humanity became an "enemy to god."

We also know that Alma 42 teaches that the fall "brought upon all mankind" (v. 9) a spiritual death, and that as a result of this spiritual death, humanity "became carnal, sensual and devilish by nature." (v. 10). Further, Mosiah 3:16 states that even though children cannot sin, "as in Adam, or by nature, they fall" and are in need of the atonement of Jesus. If the Fall were merely the opportunity to sin, and not a fallen state of humanity, then children who cannot sin would not be in need of the grace of Jesus.

These statements in the Book of Mormon are clear. Whether later scripture says something different, that doesn't change what the Book of Mormon teaches. Surely you don't think that all Mormon scripture is consistent with all other Mormon scripture, do you? Even though the Book of Mormon is supposed to be "the most correct book..," Mormons believe in "line upon line," and should not be surprised that later revelations often revised what was taught in the Book of Mormon.

Edited September 26, 2011 by Cobalt-70

[Calm]

These statements in the Book of Mormon are clear. Whether later scripture says something different, that doesn't change what the Book of Mormon teaches. Surely you don't think that all Mormon scripture is consistent with all other Mormon scripture, do you? Even though the Book of Mormon is supposed to be "the most correct book..," Mormons believe in "line upon line," and should not be surprised that later revelations often revised what was taught in the Book of Mormon.

Are you suggesting that revisions in doctrine were the result of the Nephite authors having less information about the gospel than was given to JS and later prophets or are you suggesting the revisions were a result of the alteration of JS's knowledge, being originally grounded in Protestant doctrine which was slowly corrected over time through revelation.

Since Nephites would not have been influenced by Protestant thought, if you believe there are Protestant influences on BoM doctrine, it would seem that you see JS as the primary author of the text, if not the only one, at least it needs to be a modern text. Perhaps you could clarify your position on why there is Protestant doctrine in the BoM.

[zerinus]

The Book of Mormon was translated at least a year before Smith got to the part of his translation of the Bible that we now call Moses 5, and quite a few months before D&C 20. There is plenty of time for Smith to receive new revelation on the theology of salvation. But I don't think these scriptures actually deny original sin. Note that D&C 20 refers to man becoming "fallen man." The section is not referring to any one man, but "man" in general, meaning all of humanity. Also, Moses 5 is referring to the children of men in general as being "carnal, sensual, and devilish." It doesn't say that the children of Adam and Eve were each, individually born in a state of grace and then individually corrupted their human natures. It doesn't make any sense unless it was Adam and Eve who caused the general corruption of human nature.

Another interpretation of these later scriptures is a more Catholic interpretation: that after the Fall, humanity entered a "second death" and their capacity to do good was at least wounded if not severely compromised as a result of temptation by the devil. (This is the Catholic idea of original sin.) And then, if you add a Protestant twist to explain your interpretation of Moses 5: a few generations after the Fall, human nature became "carnal, sensual, and devilish," or in other words, totally depraved. So the "natural man" ended up being totally depraved through a two-step process. I don't think that's what Smith had in mind, but it's more plausible than that he simply abrogated Book of Mormon theology relating to original sin just a few months after he published the book.

Regardless of what these later scriptures say, we do know what the Book of Mormon says, and its teachings on original sin are very clear, and that book itself is very consistent. It says that the fall "was the cause of all mankind becoming carnal, sensual, and devilish." Interestingly, the word "all" here is cross-referenced in the LDS Edition of the Book of Mormon to Ps. 14:3 ("there is none that doeth good, no, not one"), which is one of the main scriptures people use to support the Protestant doctrine of total depravity. So the Book of Mormon doesn't just teach that the Fall of Adam made it possible for people to sin. It teaches that it caused all of humanity to fall into a depraved state, so that the natural inborn state of humanity became an "enemy to god."

We also know that Alma 42 teaches that the fall "brought upon all mankind" (v. 9) a spiritual death, and that as a result of this spiritual death, humanity "became carnal, sensual and devilish by nature." (v. 10). Further, Mosiah 3:16 states that even though children cannot sin, "as in Adam, or by nature, they fall" and are in need of the atonement of Jesus. If the Fall were merely the opportunity to sin, and not a fallen state of humanity, then children who cannot sin would not be in need of the grace of Jesus.

These statements in the Book of Mormon are clear. Whether later scripture says something different, that doesn't change what the Book of Mormon teaches. Surely you don't think that all Mormon scripture is consistent with all other Mormon scripture, do you? Even though the Book of Mormon is supposed to be "the most correct book..," Mormons believe in "line upon line," and should not be surprised that later revelations often revised what was taught in the Book of Mormon.

You are just determined to read what you want to read in your favourite texts, and are not prepared to consider an alternative reading. You pass over the obvious. In those passages in the Book of Mormon that you are determined to read in the way you want, the word "fall" of Adam is used in a sense "generically," as a kind of metaphor for everything else that has happened to man subsequently, meaning everything else that is described in Moses 5 and D&C 20. All of those is classified and generalised in the Book of Mormon passages under the title of the "fall" of man. It does not mean that the actual Fall of Adam literally hard-wired mankind to sin. It means that it brought about the conditions that are described in greater detail, and more clearly in Moses 5 and D&C 20. In other words, what the Book of Mormon refers to by using the word "fall" of man, is the same as the phenomenon described in greater detail and more clearly in Moses 5 and D&C 20. There is no "contradiction" between them. The "contradiction" is the result of your incorrect reading of the Book of Mormon passages, and turning a blind eye to the D&C and Book of Moses.

Edited September 26, 2011 by zerinus

[altersteve]

These statements in the Book of Mormon are clear. Whether later scripture says something different, that doesn't change what the Book of Mormon teaches. Surely you don't think that all Mormon scripture is consistent with all other Mormon scripture, do you? Even though the Book of Mormon is supposed to be "the most correct book..," Mormons believe in "line upon line," and should not be surprised that later revelations often revised what was taught in the Book of Mormon.

Yes. I do believe that. Other scriptures have clarified things in the Book of Mormon, just as the Book of Mormon clarified things in the Bible, but that doesn't mean that the scriptures contradict each other. No honest, believing Latter-day Saint should believe that.

Edited September 26, 2011 by altersteve

[Calm]

Yes. I do believe that. Other scriptures have clarified things in the Book of Mormon, just as the Book of Mormon clarified things in the Bible, but that doesn't mean that the scriptures contradict each other. No honest, believing Latter-day Saint should believe that.

If scriptures are not inerrant, then surely there is a possibility for contradiction?

[altersteve]

If scriptures are not inerrant, then surely there is a possibility for contradiction?

I mean in terms of doctrine. I don't believe there are any doctrinal errors in any of the scriptures, or at least I haven't found any (although I accept the presence of historical errors, etc.). There are, like I said, revelations that clarify and expound on previous revelations, but that doesn't mean they're teaching two different things entirely. Critics are simply mistaken when they make the claim that LDS doctrine evolves, or changes. It does not.

[Senator]

The sinfulness is not a natural inbuilt hard-wired sinfulness, but a cumulation of sinfulness acquired over many generations of disobedience to the will of God.

Would you be one to posit that the mind (or behavior) of a small child is a good snapshot of our human "hardwiring"?

[zerinus]

Would you be one to posit that the mind (or behavior) of a small child is a good snapshot of our human "hardwiring"?

I shouldn't think so, no; because children are known to inherit the personality traits and behavioural patterns of their parents and progenitors, as well as their physical characteristics.

Edited September 26, 2011 by zerinus

[Senator]

I shouldn't think so, no; because children are known to inherit the personality traits and behavioural patterns of their parents and progenitors, as well as their physical characteristics.

So then, are you postulating that at some time in man's primative ancestory (some time before man became disobedient to God and became carnal, sensual, devislish) that a child born would not exhibit the strict self interest that a child does now?

And if that's the case would children not have a inherited the physical charactoristics of their parents as well?

Edited September 26, 2011 by Senator

[seriously honestly]

Original sin means that you are born with sin. We believe that infants are innocent and don't need to be baptized.

I don't believe it needs to be one or the other; I believe both are correct in that everyone is born into (and with) sin, but those incapbable of making a decision for Christ are not held responsible until such a time.

[Cobalt-70]

Are you suggesting that revisions in doctrine were the result of the Nephite authors having less information about the gospel than was given to JS and later prophets or are you suggesting the revisions were a result of the alteration of JS's knowledge, being originally grounded in Protestant doctrine which was slowly corrected over time through revelation.

Since Nephites would not have been influenced by Protestant thought, if you believe there are Protestant influences on BoM doctrine, it would seem that you see JS as the primary author of the text, if not the only one, at least it needs to be a modern text. Perhaps you could clarify your position on why there is Protestant doctrine in the BoM.

The Book of Mormon itself says that it was written mainly for people in the days of Joseph Smith when the book was to come forth out of the ground. So the book is full of very Protestant discourse on every doctrinal issue that was vexing minds of Protestants at the time. The author, whoever it was, knew his audience. Also, we know that when Joseph Smith translated, his translations are not always a word-for-word translation of the source material. See the Book of Abraham, for example, and his Bible translation. There is no reason not to think that at the very least, Joseph Smith put a Protestant spin on what he was translating.

[altersteve]

Also, we know that when Joseph Smith translated, his translations are not always a word-for-word translation of the source material.

How do you know? Do you have the source material to prove it?

[Cobalt-70]

You are just determined to read what you want to read in your favourite texts, and are not prepared to consider an alternative reading. You pass over the obvious. In those passages in the Book of Mormon that you are determined to read in the way you want, the word "fall" of Adam is used in a sense "generically," as a kind of metaphor for everything else that has happened to man subsequently, meaning everything else that is described in Moses 5 and D&C 20. All of those is classified and generalised in the Book of Mormon passages under the title of the "fall" of man. It does not mean that the actual Fall of Adam literally hard-wired mankind to sin. It means that it brought about the conditions that are described in greater detail, and more clearly in Moses 5 and D&C 20. In other words, what the Book of Mormon refers to by using the word "fall" of man, is the same as the phenomenon described in greater detail and more clearly in Moses 5 and D&C 20. There is no "contradiction" between them. The "contradiction" is the result of your incorrect reading of the Book of Mormon passages, and turning a blind eye to the D&C and Book of Moses.

It's not quite accurate to depict original sin as an inborn "hard-wiring" for sin. It just means (in the Catholic version of original sin) that human nature is imperfect and "wounded" as a result of the Fall. It means that by nature, we struggle with sin and are constantly tempted by the devil. Or (in the most popular Protestant version of original sin, which is also basically what the Book of Mormon says) all good comes from the grace of Jesus, and that without that grace, which is experienced via the Holy Spirit, humans are incapable of doing good.

The classical Christian original sin doctrine does not focus on any particular acts of sin. Rather, the focus is on the "carnal, sensual, and devilish" state of humanity. How humanity got that way is not quite as important as the fact that it got that way. So Moses 5 and D&C 20 are consistent with the idea of original sin. Where these post-Book of Mormon scriptures seem to differ (at least superficially) is in the exact instant when humankind entered its fallen state. Moses 5 and D&C 20 seem to suggest this "fall" occurred some time after Adam and Eve were expelled from the Garden of Eden. The Book of Mormon says it happened when Adam and Eve took the forbidden fruit.

The problem with linking the Fall with the individual sins of any persons other than Adam and Eve is that this leaves open the possibility that someone could be born, and avoid any need for the Atonement of Jesus simply by not sinning. But the Book of Mormon states that even innocent children, who are without sin, still need the Atonement because of their fallen nature. These children do not need any sins washed away--they need the grace of Jesus to reverse their natural tendency to do evil, because they can't take that tendency with them into the heavenly kingdom.

[zerinus]

So then, are you postulating that at some time in man's primative ancestory (some time before man became disobedient to God and became carnal, sensual, devislish) that a child born would not exhibit the strict self interest that a child does now?

And if that's the case would children not have a inherited the physical charactoristics of their parents as well?

Your post sounds confusing, and I am not really sure what you are driving at. The Fall itself didn't "hard-wire" anyone to sin. It brought on mankind death (physical and spiritual death), and made them subject to the temptation of the devil. Spiritual death meant that they were shut out from the presence of God, meaning that man is born oblivious to the existence of God (and the need to keep His commandments), unless he is taught and instructed, and gains a testimony of His being, which enables him to see the obligation to obey Him. That is what is meant by the scripture that says, "the natural man is an enemy to God". He is an enemy to God because He doesn't know Him, hence the obligation to obey Him. When they are in that condition, they can easily be misled by the temptations of the devil, and commit many sins without realizing that it is really a sin--a condition which is then reinforced over several generations. That is what the scriptures mean by talking of mankind becoming "carnal, sensual, and devilish". And as the generations are passed, this condition is reinforced, unless something happens to reverse the trend, such as the warning voice of a prophet, or more drastically, a new dispensation of the gospel. The Fall of Adam did not in and of itself "hard-wire" mankind to sin. It merely created a condition for the undesirable situation described above to develop. Thus when Alma for example says that as a consequence of the Fall mankind became "carnal sensual and devilish" (Alma 42:10), he means the phenomenon explained above. It does not mean that the Fall of Adam in and of itself caused that situation to come on mankind. Moses 5 and D&C 20 help clarify that for us--unless you have blinkers on, and you are bent on seeing it your way, and not the way God has intended it to be understood, by giving us all the scriptures that are necessary to clarify the issue for us.

[Calm]

The Book of Mormon itself says that it was written mainly for people in the days of Joseph Smith when the book was to come forth out of the ground. So the book is full of very Protestant discourse on every doctrinal issue that was vexing minds of Protestants at the time. The author, whoever it was, knew his audience.

But why would the author teach Protestant doctrine that is later put aside in the evolution on LDS doctrine? (assuming here that you view of LDS doctrine is correct.)

Have you read Brant Gardner's work where he places doctrinal issues in the context of practices that were occurring in Mesoamerica during the time period of the BoM, especially his discussion about infant baptism?

Edited September 26, 2011 by calmoriah

[zerinus]

It's not quite accurate to depict original sin as an inborn "hard-wiring" for sin. It just means (in the Catholic version of original sin) that human nature is imperfect and "wounded" as a result of the Fall. It means that by nature, we struggle with sin and are constantly tempted by the devil. Or (in the most popular Protestant version of original sin, which is also basically what the Book of Mormon says) all good comes from the grace of Jesus, and that without that grace, which is experienced via the Holy Spirit, humans are incapable of doing good.

The classical Christian original sin doctrine does not focus on any particular acts of sin. Rather, the focus is on the "carnal, sensual, and devilish" state of humanity. How humanity got that way is not quite as important as the fact that it got that way. So Moses 5 and D&C 20 are consistent with the idea of original sin. Where these post-Book of Mormon scriptures seem to differ (at least superficially) is in the exact instant when humankind entered its fallen state. Moses 5 and D&C 20 seem to suggest this "fall" occurred some time after Adam and Eve were expelled from the Garden of Eden. The Book of Mormon says it happened when Adam and Eve took the forbidden fruit.

The problem with linking the Fall with the individual sins of any persons other than Adam and Eve is that this leaves open the possibility that someone could be born, and avoid any need for the Atonement of Jesus simply by not sinning. But the Book of Mormon states that even innocent children, who are without sin, still need the Atonement because of their fallen nature. These children do not need any sins washed away--they need the grace of Jesus to reverse their natural tendency to do evil, because they can't take that tendency with them into the heavenly kingdom.

See my previous reply to senator. That reply applies to you as well.

[Cobalt-70]

But why would the author teach Protestant doctrine that is later put aside in the evolution on LDS doctrine? (assuming here that you view of LDS doctrine is correct.)

Why does any scripture become obsolete? It's because the context changes, and the prophets develop a different and improved paradigm. The old paradigm doesn't become false, because it remains true in the context in which it was given.

So, for example, there was an evolution in early Mormon thought as to the idea of universalism. Mormonism started with the strict heaven vs. h*** theology and rejection of universalism of the Book of Mormon, to the hints of universalism in D&C 19, to the quasi-universalist three degrees of glory of D&C 76, to the even more universalist introduction of baptism for the dead in the late 1830s, to the essentially universalist exaltation theology of the King Follett discourse, wherein Joseph Smith said that all sin will be forgiven (except the unpardonable one), and that even wicked spirits in spirit world may end their suffering, become forgiven, and be exalted if they accept Christ in the afterlife. In this example, Mormon doctrine went from a complete rejection of universalism toward almost complete universalism. It's not that the Book of Mormon theology was wrong. It's just that it was a different and more conservative way of looking at things.

[orion88]

Man is not preprogrammed to sin. The Fall did two things: It brought on mankind physical death; and it made them subject to the temptations of the devil. But it did not "hard-wire" them to sin. The sinful nature came as a result of yielding to temptation, and passing on that tradition to future generations.

Moses 5:13 does not refer to the fall of mankind.

In regards to D&C 20,

"And that he created man, male and female, after his own image and in his own

likeness, created he them; And gave unto them commandments that they should

love and serve him, the only living and true God, and that he should be the only

being whom they should worship. But by the transgression of these holy laws

man became sensual and devilish, and became fallen man."

Not sure why it says this ... for man was considered "fallen" since Adam and Eve,

not through the transgression of these other holy laws.

Tony

[zerinus]

Why does any scripture become obsolete? It's because the context changes, and the prophets develop a different and improved paradigm. The old paradigm doesn't become false, because it remains true in the context in which it was given.

So, for example, there was an evolution in early Mormon thought as to the idea of universalism. Mormonism started with the strict heaven vs. h*** theology and rejection of universalism of the Book of Mormon, to the hints of universalism in D&C 19, to the quasi-universalist three degrees of glory of D&C 76, to the even more universalist introduction of baptism for the dead in the late 1830s, to the essentially universalist exaltation theology of the King Follett discourse, wherein Joseph Smith said that all sin will be forgiven (except the unpardonable one), and that even wicked spirits in spirit world may end their suffering, become forgiven, and be exalted if they accept Christ in the afterlife. In this example, Mormon doctrine went from a complete rejection of universalism toward almost complete universalism. It's not that the Book of Mormon theology was wrong. It's just that it was a different and more conservative way of looking at things.

You are as much in error about that as you have been about the Fall. There has been no "evolution" of anything. The Book of Mormon tells us all that the Lord wanted to reveal to us through the Nephite records that were abridged by Mormon and Moroni. In subsequent revelations to Joseph Smith, God has revealed to us additional knowledge which goes beyond that which was revealed through the Nephite records. This is a dispensation in which God has promised to reveal things which had never been revealed before (D&C 128:18). Just because God continued to reveal to the Church things that had not been revealed before, it does not mean that Church doctrine has "evolved". It simply means that they knew more at a later stage than they had known before.

[zerinus]

Moses 5:13 does not refer to the fall of mankind.

In regards to D&C 20,

"And that he created man, male and female, after his own image and in his own likeness, created he them; And gave unto them commandments that they should love and serve him, the only living and true God, and that he should be the only being whom they should worship. But by the transgression of these holy laws man became sensual and devilish, and became fallen man."

Not sure why it says this ... for man was considered "fallen" since Adam and Eve, not through the transgression of these other holy laws.

Tony

If you read more carefully all of my posts in this thread on this subject, your question will be answered.

[Cobalt-70]

You are as much in error about that as you have been about the Fall. There has been no "evolution" of anything. The Book of Mormon tells us all that the Lord wanted to reveal to us through the Nephite records that were abridged by Mormon and Moroni. In subsequent revelations to Joseph Smith, God has revealed to us additional knowledge which goes beyond that which was revealed through the Nephite records. This is a dispensation in which God has promised to reveal things which had never been revealed before (D&C 128:18). Just because God continued to reveal to the Church things that had not been revealed before, it does not mean that Church doctrine has "evolved". It simply means that they knew more at a later stage than they had known before.

I provided an example of such doctrinal evolution in the evolution of Mormon universalism. To disprove that Mormon doctrine has evolved, you have to disprove that my example represents an evolution.

[altersteve]

I provided an example of such doctrinal evolution in the evolution of Mormon universalism. To disprove that Mormon doctrine has evolved, you have to disprove that my example represents an evolution.

Like I said, though, the fact that modern revelation clarifies and expounds on past revelations does not mean that they're teaching two completely different things. LDS doctrine does not change.

[zerinus]

I provided an example of such doctrinal evolution in the evolution of Mormon universalism. To disprove that Mormon doctrine has evolved, you have to disprove that my example represents an evolution.

It just doesn't; no "proof" is required. Everything that was revealed in the Book of Mormon is just as true and valid now as it was then, before the additional revelations were received; so how does that amount to an "evolution"? "Evolution" would imply one doctrine superseding another. But if both doctrines are still valid, and the latter doctrine only helps to clarify and expand on the earlier doctrine without superseding it, how can that be called an "evolution"? Since when did the Book of Mormon become obsolete in Mormonism? I never heard of that. Perhaps you know something I don't.