Infant Baptism

[zerinus]

As a side note, one aspect of Catholic Mariology that I am sympathetic towards is the doctrine of the Assumption of Mary---the idea that she was physically taken to heaven (translated) at the end of her life. This idea of being physically taken to heaven is quite strong in Mormonism, much more so than in traditional Christianity. We know from the Bible that Elijah was taken to heaven without tasting death. But he was not the only one. Modern revelation teaches that Enoch and all his city, Melchizedek and his people, Moses, and possibly other unknown individuals were among them. Here is a quote from the Joseph Smith Translation:

JST Genesis 14:

26 Now Melchizedek was a man of faith, who wrought righteousness; ...

27 And thus, having been approved of God, he was ordained an high priest after the order of the covenant which God made with Enoch,

28 It being after the order of the Son of God; ...

32 And men having this faith, coming up unto this order of God, were translated and taken up into heaven.

33 And now, Melchizedek was a priest of this order;

So it is not such a far-fetched idea for me that Mary, faithful, virtuous, and holy as she was, should have had this gift bestowed on her before the end of her life.

Edited September 16, 2012 by zerinus

[mfbukowski]

I have no problem with the idea that Mary was translated either.

Probably lots of righteous people have been - we just don't know.

[thesometimesaint]

Sometimesaint...hey. No one is advocating waiting for the deathbed. Maybe that is what you mean? It is certainly unwise to expect to have the grace to repent after a lifetime of rejecting God's grace. We are probably agree about that. But in theory, it seems like you need to allow like we do, that anyone who is alive can theoretically repent.

So if you are about to die...but not yet dead...it is too late? Or is it too early? Because after you are dead...then you can repent, right? Why can one not repent before death if it is allowed after death?

I would advise against it too, from the simple expedient that none of us knows when we're going to die. God knows, but we don't.

How do we make manifest Christ in our lives if we don't do as Christ commanded? We all make mistakes, and sin. Therefore are required to repent, but that is not a call to be a bump on a log and do nothing. I don't see how anyone can be within minutes of dying laying on their deathbed and doing much repenting. I've got more than enough to keep me repenting for a long time to come.

God is the judge, not me. But I believe that for those that have not had the opportunity to accept the Gospel in this life the opportunity will be given in the next. None will not have that opportunity, but not everyone will accept it.

It never too late until we make that decision. God will force no one to Heaven. We LDS have a principle that what ever spirit we posses in this life that spirit will rise with us. So if someone is a unrepentant scuzbucket in this life that is what they'll be like in the next. We are required to be like Paul, and have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith. Only then after we are safely dead is our mansion assured.

[shalamabobbi]

Are the following the LDS objections to infant baptism?

1) There is no original sin so infants have no need to have their sins cleansed.

2) Baptism must be accepted by our own free-will; infants cannot do this.

3) Baptism must be by immersion; this would be hard for infants.

Any others?

Here are some thoughts and questions on these objections:

1) Obviously we disagree on original sin, but what is the LDS view of the fall? What is different between pre-lapsarian and post-lapsarian humans? In other words, if you don't believe in original sin, what, according to the LDS church, was the consequence of Adam's fall on the human race?

Does the ability to sin begin exactly at age 8? Are 8 year olds, in baptism, being cleansed of sin or simply initiated into the LDS church?

2) I have a difficult time believing that 8 year olds can freely choose baptism or not. Are there any instances of an 8 year old deciding to be baptised when his or her parents did not? Are there any instances of an 8 year old from an active Mormon family rejecting baptism? I would think that the age of free choice would be older than 8, since an 8 year old is overwhelmingly influenced by his or her family, especially if that family is actively religious.

3) The Orthodox practice infant immersion, so it is possible. There are videos on youtube you can check out.

Here are some more LDS verses that I don't think were mentioned by anybody else.

genesis 17:11 JST

http://www.lds.org/scriptures/jst/jst-gen/17?lang=eng

Rather than start a separate thread I would like to understand the Catholic position about the transgression of Adam and Eve. Obviously if you accept original sin then they screwed up according to Catholic theology. Is that correct?

So what would have been the perfect ideal had they remained in the garden state? What would have occurred had they not left the garden? Where would we be now?

If this has already been discussed elsewhere could you direct me to the proper thread? Thanks.

[3DOP]

shalamabobbi, hi. Good questions.

There are a couple of schools of thought. I'll have to review them but the most interesting speculation to me is the argument that the Word (Jesus) would have become incarnate anyway...without of course, being a Saviour for sin. I am thinking that Sts Bonaventure and Thomas Aquinas, who were 13th Century contemporaries developed their thoughts along different lines. Certainly Adam and Eve would have obeyed the command to be fruitful and multiply. They were in a state of sanctifying grace already, but I do not know if they would have progressed in grace, or, if other temptations would have been presented. The angels were only tempted once. It seems possible that A & E's wills would have been permanently fixed at that point, after the first temptation, but that would seem to preclude progress. Anyway...I'll be interested in the answers you get and can hopefully contribute a little more substantively myself over the weekend.

3DOP

[shalamabobbi]

shalamabobbi, hi. Good questions.

There are a couple of schools of thought. I'll have to review them but the most interesting speculation to me is the argument that the Word (Jesus) would have become incarnate anyway...without of course, being a Saviour for sin. I am thinking that Sts Bonaventure and Thomas Aquinas, who were 13th Century contemporaries developed their thoughts along different lines. Certainly Adam and Eve would have obeyed the command to be fruitful and multiply. They were in a state of sanctifying grace already, but I do not know if they would have progressed in grace, or, if other temptations would have been presented. The angels were only tempted once. It seems possible that A & E's wills would have been permanently fixed at that point, after the first temptation, but that would seem to preclude progress. Anyway...I'll be interested in the answers you get and can hopefully contribute a little more substantively myself over the weekend.

3DOP

Alright thanks. Could you clarify if in the Catholic tradition they were considered immortal prior to the fall. Also if that is the case, and they were to have offspring would the offspring have been immortal too? And obvious next question, where were these to be housed as we are pushing the boundaries of over population as it is without immortality. Thanks.

[3DOP]

shalambobbi. Hey.

St. Thomas Aquinas argues that in the state of innocence man was immortal. It is only because of sin that death entered. He further argues against some who suggest that generation occurs only because of the Fall. He cites a moral difficulty with proposing that Adam and Eve would have been childless except for the Fall.

In the state of innocence there would have been generation of offspring for the multiplication of the human race; otherwise man's sin would have been very necessary, in order that such a great blessing be its result.

---Summa Theologica, First Part, Q. 98, art. 1

He implies that the offspring would be immortal when he proposes that original sin and original justice are opposites of the same genus:

Now original justice, in which the first man was created...a gift conferred by God on the entire human nature. This is clear from the fact that opposites are of the same genus; and original sin, which is opposed to original justice, is called the sin of nature, and so it is transmitted from the parent to the offspring. And for this reason also, the children would have been like their parents in original justice.

---ST, First Part, Q.100, art. 1

It would be absurd to hold that an inclination to evil is transmittable while an inclination to good is not.

I think at this point it might be helpful to digress and consider the possibility that non-Catholics sometimes fail to understand the meaning of the common theological expression, original sin. It does not mean that the one who is so born is somehow culpable for the first sin that was committed. What it means though is that the one so born, in original sin, is born with an impediment that can inhibit his flight to God.

On the other hand, if we were born in original justice, it would not mean that we gain credit for the first act of justice that was committed. What it would mean though is that one so born, in original justice, is born with an advantage that can aid his flight to God. St. Thomas further argues in article 2 against the notion that in the state of innocence, children are born confirmed in justice. The first principle of Catholic teaching on whether one may sin has to do with the kind of happiness they enjoy. After an angel or man has been given the clear vision of God, happiness is so complete that it would be impossible to sin. This is the principle for why we hold that there is no sin in heaven. The essence of heaven is this happy, or beatific vision.

It might be more precise to say that the offspring, like the parents, are "conditionally immortal", so long as they do not sin. But they would need, like their first parents to progress unto a state by which they would find their complete happiness, at which time "as soon as Adam had attained at that happy state of seeing God in His Essence, he would have become spiritual in soul and body, and his animal state would have ceased, in which alone is generation." (art. 2)

God's good plan would not have allowed a Paradise which was "over capacity". Unlike here where because of the onset of impotence or death, reproduction ceases, in Paradise reproduction would have limits for the reason given by St. Thomas immediately above. People would not be reproducing forever. Also, instead of death occurring to make room for more, as happens with us, men would grow in grace until they are translated out of Paradise and into Heaven. However, it is probably not easy for us to imagine the advantages of Paradise over our current situation. Would it even be necessary to build domiciles that protect from storms or theft? Assuredly the universe is finite, and so would Paradise have been, but if all of our own earth brought forth food and was as habitable as Paradise, even a world our size would be under populated. For a further discussion of the abode of those who would have been born in a state of original justice, consult the Summa, Part One, Question 102. I'll give the questions being answered in each of the articles:

1) Whether Paradise Is a Corporeal Place?

2) Whether Paradise Was a Place Adapted To Be the Abode of Man?

3) Whether Man Was Placed in Paradise to Work It and Keep It?

4) Whether Man Was Created in Paradise?

Edited October 6, 2012 by 3DOP

[shalamabobbi]

In the state of innocence there would have been generation of offspring for the multiplication of the human race; otherwise man's sin would have been very necessary, in order that such a great blessing be its result.

Interesting. This is why LDS don't buy into the idea that Adam did anything wrong since we view the fall as necessary to allow for procreation to take place.

Physical death was the result rather than a punishment to allow for the possibility of reproduction to fufill the purpose of creation.

Also God knew what would happen beforehand and His purposes were fulfilled as planned.

Is there any earlier discussion of this within Catholicism than St. Thomas Aquinas?

[Nathair/|\]

Is there a distinction in Catholic thought between a sin and a transgression? (Bear with me, there is madness to my method, and it is relevant to the thread.)

[3DOP]

shalamobobbi,

I don't think anyone was ever as comprehensive as St. Thomas. He appeals to different biblical and patristic authorities for his opinions.

Nathair,

There is a distinction in English language between the two words that would seem to be independent of Catholic theology.

All sin is transgression against God. But it is not necessarily sinful to transgress certain social customs and etiquette. Sin implies a self-serving or evil motive that ignores or excludes the will of God. The English Scriptures usually refer to transgressions that are against the laws of God, and for that reason they are sinful. But it would be an improper understanding of the English word transgression to insist that it is always precisely synonymous with sin.

[Nathair/|\]

shalamobobbi,

I don't think anyone was ever as comprehensive as St. Thomas. He appeals to different biblical and patristic authorities for his opinions.

Nathair,

There is a distinction in English language between the two words that would seem to be independent of Catholic theology.

All sin is transgression against God. But it is not necessarily sinful to transgress certain social customs and etiquette. Sin implies a self-serving or evil motive that ignores or excludes the will of God. The English Scriptures usually refer to transgressions that are against the laws of God, and for that reason they are sinful. But it would be an improper understanding of the English word transgression to insist that it is always precisely synonymous with sin.

In LDS thought, to sin requires knowledge and will. We believe that Adam and Eve transgressed the law, but they didn't have the necessary understanding for it to be a sin.

[Carborendum]

If I can reiterate a point that was only briefly mentioned once. The reason we wait for baptism also involves the issue of making a covenant. A covenant must have the same conditions as earthly contracts. It is only the methodology that is different. i.e. instead of papers being signed (although the Church has LOTS of paperwork with regard to covenants) we perform ordinances under proper authority.

The conditions of a valid contract:

1) The parties involved had appropriate knowledge and understanding of the contract conditions.

2) The parties involved were of legal age to engage in a contract.

3) The parties involved were mentally, physically, and emotionally capable of entering into such an agreement.

4) The parties involved must enter into the agreement by their own free will and choice.

Although the specific age of understanding and capability varies for each individual, a "legal" age, if you can call it that is declared for logistical purposes. Just like 18 being the age of majority declared by our legal system, the age of 8 was declared by God.

There are exceptions for those who are mentally incompetent to have baptism. The sufficiently mentally-handicapped are declared innocent and do not need baptism.

On the subject of parental influence on their 8 y.o. I believe many parents (my wife and I are included) properly raise their children to understand the principles, importance of the covenant, and the doctrines involved. Then the child just finds on his own that it is expedient to get baptized. For the parents to put too much undo influence on that choice is exercising unrighteous dominion and would be a violation of gospel principles.

ORIGINAL SIN

When Adam and Eve fell, there was a change to their bodies as well as their spirits. They were also no longer able to access the direct connection with the Father as was enjoyed in the Garden.

While we are not held in any way guilty because of the fall, we do inherit these conditions or consequences of the fall. As the veil begins to cover our minds, we are also introduced to the various sins in this life. Since only one man has been perfect in this life, all of us eventually give in. Thus the veil becomes more substantial and we are separated from God.

While Christ's atonement swallows up these sins from little children, we note that the separation from the Father is still here to a great extent. The full realization of the atonement is largely in the afterlife.

Christ never gave into any temptation. His veil never became substantive. At some point it went away altogether and was completely united with the Father in ways we will not know until the next world.

This is, as I understand it, the Beatific Vision of Catholics. And this is equivalent to the Celestial Kingdom. Yes, it is a constant state. That is what makes it different. The Terrestrial and Telestial do not have the same consistency. And they never see the Father, only "their siblings" if we can call it that.

[3DOP]

In LDS thought, to sin requires knowledge and will. We believe that Adam and Eve transgressed the law, but they didn't have the necessary understanding for it to be a sin.

I don't think your definition of sin is unique to LDS. Ignorance diminishes culpability in Catholic thought as well. Perhaps there is some Latter-day revelation which comments further upon the events, but with only Genesis 3 to go by, it seems difficult to view Adam and Eve as inculpable because of a lack of knowledge. It even appears to me that the author of Genesis is taking pains to highlight the pertinent facts to show that they were thoroughly culpable.

1) God punished the act with death. When the children were small and disobeyed, the first thing to establish before any possible punishment was whether the violation was perhaps because of insufficient knowledge. It was rare, but Daddy loved to be able to let them off the hook (they loved it too!). I am merciful but a loving God gives out the death sentence for a misunderstanding?

2) They behaved like they were guilty. This is a terrible sign of their awareness of their own culpability. Why were they hiding from God if they didn't think He was offended, if they misunderstood the instruction?

3) God's admonition against the eating of the tree was well-remembered and even repeated to the serpent. Before the disobedience we read:

"But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of paradise, God hath commanded us that we should not eat; and that we should not touch it, lest perhaps we die."

Drawn by curiosity, willing to listen to a liar, they disobeyed God with full consent of the will. It was a very simple rule to which they were enjoined to abide.

4) When judgment was pronounced they offer no objections as to how they misunderstood. Instead they just start blaming each other and even God.

Its textbook sinful behavior.

3DOP

Edited October 8, 2012 by 3DOP

[shalamabobbi]

shalambobbi. Hey.

St. Thomas Aquinas argues that in the state of innocence man was immortal. It is only because of sin that death entered. He further argues against some who suggest that generation occurs only because of the Fall. He cites a moral difficulty with proposing that Adam and Eve would have been childless except for the Fall.

---Summa Theologica, First Part, Q. 98, art. 1

He implies that the offspring would be immortal when he proposes that original sin and original justice are opposites of the same genus:

---ST, First Part, Q.100, art. 1

It would be absurd to hold that an inclination to evil is transmittable while an inclination to good is not.

I think at this point it might be helpful to digress and consider the possibility that non-Catholics sometimes fail to understand the meaning of the common theological expression, original sin. It does not mean that the one who is so born is somehow culpable for the first sin that was committed. What it means though is that the one so born, in original sin, is born with an impediment that can inhibit his flight to God.

On the other hand, if we were born in original justice, it would not mean that we gain credit for the first act of justice that was committed. What it would mean though is that one so born, in original justice, is born with an advantage that can aid his flight to God. St. Thomas further argues in article 2 against the notion that in the state of innocence, children are born confirmed in justice. The first principle of Catholic teaching on whether one may sin has to do with the kind of happiness they enjoy. After an angel or man has been given the clear vision of God, happiness is so complete that it would be impossible to sin. This is the principle for why we hold that there is no sin in heaven. The essence of heaven is this happy, or beatific vision.

It might be more precise to say that the offspring, like the parents, are "conditionally immortal", so long as they do not sin. But they would need, like their first parents to progress unto a state by which they would find their complete happiness, at which time "as soon as Adam had attained at that happy state of seeing God in His Essence, he would have become spiritual in soul and body, and his animal state would have ceased, in which alone is generation." (art. 2)

God's good plan would not have allowed a Paradise which was "over capacity". Unlike here where because of the onset of impotence or death, reproduction ceases, in Paradise reproduction would have limits for the reason given by St. Thomas immediately above. People would not be reproducing forever. Also, instead of death occurring to make room for more, as happens with us, men would grow in grace until they are translated out of Paradise and into Heaven. However, it is probably not easy for us to imagine the advantages of Paradise over our current situation. Would it even be necessary to build domiciles that protect from storms or theft? Assuredly the universe is finite, and so would Paradise have been, but if all of our own earth brought forth food and was as habitable as Paradise, even a world our size would be under populated. For a further discussion of the abode of those who would have been born in a state of original justice, consult the Summa, Part One, Question 102. I'll give the questions being answered in each of the articles:

1) Whether Paradise Is a Corporeal Place?

2) Whether Paradise Was a Place Adapted To Be the Abode of Man?

3) Whether Man Was Placed in Paradise to Work It and Keep It?

4) Whether Man Was Created in Paradise?

But if the goal was to remain in the garden then the atonement becomes merely the backup plan.

Doesn't such an idea conflict with 1 Peter 1:19-20?

19 But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:

20 Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world,...

And hence before the creation of Adam and Eve.

[Flyonthewall]

We believe Adam & Eve had an understanding that what they did was against what they were commanded, but that understanding was not complete. It was sufficient to take consequences, but they did not have a knowledge of good or evil. How could they? They had not partaken of the fruit of that tree yet.

In Genesis 3:22, as a result of them eating the fruit, God states: "... Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil ...".

[mfbukowski]

I think we are the only ones with a rational interpretation of the story. The whole thing clearly is a "set up" by God- there is no explanation for what might have happened had they not fallen etc.

Ours is the only explanation which both gives mankind agency and free will and keeps God just.

[urroner]

shalamobobbi,

I don't think anyone was ever as comprehensive as St. Thomas. He appeals to different biblical and patristic authorities for his opinions.

Nathair,

There is a distinction in English language between the two words that would seem to be independent of Catholic theology.

All sin is transgression against God. But it is not necessarily sinful to transgress certain social customs and etiquette. Sin implies a self-serving or evil motive that ignores or excludes the will of God. The English Scriptures usually refer to transgressions that are against the laws of God, and for that reason they are sinful. But it would be an improper understanding of the English word transgression to insist that it is always precisely synonymous with sin.

You use of what I have outlined in your post reminds me of the difference between morals and ethics. Morals are based upon an individual's beliefs while ethics are based on the belief of a group, from what I understand. IMNSHO, sins are committed when one goes against his morals, while going against the "morals" or the ethics of a group, even while being part of that group, isn't necessarily a sin.

For instance, did Paul/Saul sin when he was persecuting the saints of his day? I would say no since I believe he truly thought he was doing what was right. Doing something wrong does not make necessarily make on sin, but it makes them wrong and there are still consequences attached to any action performed, good or bad, intentional or unintentional.

[3DOP]

But if the goal was to remain in the garden then the atonement becomes merely the backup plan.

Doesn't such an idea conflict with 1 Peter 1:19-20?

19 But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:

20 Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world,...

And hence before the creation of Adam and Eve.

The "goal" was for a free choice to love God, in the Garden or not. If Adam and Eve had never sinned, we can speculate about how they might have progressed unto God having never lost their original justice. That does not mean that none of their children would ever have been in need of a Saviour. St. Thomas clearly emphasizes that the offspring of innocent parents would not be confirmed in original justice. This means that like their parents, they could choose sin. As a contingency, Jesus was foreordained if so needed. It doesn't say that Adam and Eve were foreordained to sin, only that a remedy for it would be available.

3DOP

[shalamabobbi]

The "goal" was for a free choice to love God, in the Garden or not. If Adam and Eve had never sinned, we can speculate about how they might have progressed unto God having never lost their original justice. That does not mean that none of their children would ever have been in need of a Saviour. St. Thomas clearly emphasizes that the offspring of innocent parents would not be confirmed in original justice. This means that like their parents, they could choose sin. As a contingency, Jesus was foreordained if so needed. It doesn't say that Adam and Eve were foreordained to sin, only that a remedy for it would be available.

3DOP

Ohhh, ok. As in Adam's offspring some die even so in Jesus Christ some are made alive. I just wanted to be sure that it wasn't just the LDS who utilize mental gymnastics..

[mfbukowski]

The "goal" was for a free choice to love God, in the Garden or not. If Adam and Eve had never sinned, we can speculate about how they might have progressed unto God having never lost their original justice. That does not mean that none of their children would ever have been in need of a Saviour. St. Thomas clearly emphasizes that the offspring of innocent parents would not be confirmed in original justice. This means that like their parents, they could choose sin. As a contingency, Jesus was foreordained if so needed. It doesn't say that Adam and Eve were foreordained to sin, only that a remedy for it would be available.

3DOP

This approach explains absolutely nothing.

The problem with this approach is that in all the generations of mankind, SOMEONE would have sinned anyway.

SOMEONE would have been "Adam"- in the long evolution of humanity, and would get that title by being the first to sin. Golly- that is straight out of the book of Bukowski and BCspace!

So your position becomes essentially the LDS position- sin was inevitable and so was the fall, and Jesus was foreordained to be the Savior.

Welcome to the true church! I will fly to wherever you are to perform your Baptism!

Edited October 9, 2012 by mfbukowski

[altersteve]

The "goal" was for a free choice to love God, in the Garden or not. If Adam and Eve had never sinned, we can speculate about how they might have progressed unto God having never lost their original justice. That does not mean that none of their children would ever have been in need of a Saviour. St. Thomas clearly emphasizes that the offspring of innocent parents would not be confirmed in original justice. This means that like their parents, they could choose sin. As a contingency, Jesus was foreordained if so needed. It doesn't say that Adam and Eve were foreordained to sin, only that a remedy for it would be available.

3DOP

If God provided a Savior "just in case," then the implication is that He didn't know whether they would sin or not. But obviously, He did know, being omniscient and all, although the question remains why He would plant that tree in the garden in the first place. Clearly He had a purpose to do that, right? He didn't do it for no reason. It wasn't there to look pretty. "Hey, don't eat that fruit, Adam and Eve, 'cause that tree's just there for looks." No, it was more than that. He didn't just "know" they were going to sin, He planned on them sinning. It was part of the plan all along. Christ's foreordination was not just a "contingency." The Atonement was not merely plan B.

With this in mind, the LDS position is the only one that makes sense.

[MiserereNobis]

If God provided a Savior "just in case," then the implication is that He didn't know whether they would sin or not. But obviously, He did know, being omniscient and all, although the question remains why He would plant that tree in the garden in the first place. Clearly He had a purpose to do that, right? He didn't do it for no reason. It wasn't there to look pretty. "Hey, don't eat that fruit, Adam and Eve, 'cause that tree's just there for looks." No, it was more than that. He didn't just "know" they were going to sin, He planned on them sinning. It was part of the plan all along. Christ's foreordination was not just a "contingency." The Atonement was not merely plan B.

With this in mind, the LDS position is the only one that makes sense.

However, the LDS position brings up the problem of why would God command Adam and Eve not to do something when all along they were supposed to do it (according to the plan) and then punishes them for what they did, despite the fact that He wanted them to do it. That's rather contradictory. So, while the LDS position appears to resolve one contradiction, it opens up another. I know that there is an LDS explanation for the contradiction (sin vs. transgression), but Christians don't buy that explanation just like the LDS don't buy the Christian explanation.

My point is this: the LDS position is not the only one that makes sense, as it has its own problems as well. I know that the JST and the temple narrative in a sense "fix" these problems by changing the story, but of course Christians don't accept those changes to the story as valid.

I'll also add that of course God "planned" on them sinning, in the sense that He knew that they would, since He is omniscient. His omniscience, however, did not cause them to sin, nor does His omniscience mean that He wanted them to sin. It just means that He knew it would happen, so He lovingly, without requirement of justice, provided a plan where He would give Himself for redemption. In that sense, Christ was not a "contingency." Yet, if Adam and Eve were not going to sin, then God would have known that, and then there would have been no need for Christ. Of course, that is getting into speculation (there is no defined doctrine or dogma on how things would have been in the Garden).

There is in Christian tradition the idea of "felix culpa" -- the fortunate fall. It is a far cry from the LDS position that Adam had to do it and should be praised for it, but it does put a positive spin on the fall by pointing out that the fall shows us the great love and mercy of God in the Person of Jesus Christ.

Psalm 116 (117 for you Protestants ):

Laudate Dominum omnes gentes laudate eum omnes populi

Quoniam confirmata est super nos misericordia eius et veritas Domini manet in saeculum

Indeed, let us praise the Lord for His mercy.

[shalamabobbi]

However, the LDS position brings up the problem of why would God command Adam and Eve not to do something when all along they were supposed to do it (according to the plan) and then punishes them for what they did, despite the fact that He wanted them to do it. That's rather contradictory.

Gen 2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

It's simply a statement of the consequences of eating of the tree.

There can be no commandments the breaking of which would constitute sin at this point in the story since they have no knowledge of good and evil.

Putting that interpretation on the act of eating the fruit of the tree makes the account itself self-contradictory.

Edited October 9, 2012 by shalamabobbi

[3DOP]

Hi mf, shalamabobbi, and altersteve,

If I correctly understand my Catholic faith, we are not allowed to believe that anyone, not even Satan, was foreordained to disobey God. If anyone was foreordained to disobedience, we are still not allowed to believe that God could foreordain their punishment. This is the basis of the speculations which I have referenced from St. Thomas and taken a little further on my own.

Bukowski says:

So your position becomes essentially the LDS position- sin was inevitable and so was the fall, and Jesus was foreordained to be the Savior.

Sure. I don't disagree with that. The positions are not that far apart. I almost always find myself arguing that the respective LDS and Catholic positions are much nearer than antagonists on both sides would have it. I'm cool with that. I always try to find a way to understand your positions in a plausible way, and I seldom fail. This is no exception even if for some reason LDS find my position to be absurd.

As I acknowledged, it is revealed in I Peter that Jesus was foreordained to be the Lamb of God who would save a fallen race. I grant this. Further than that, I see no need. LDS are apparently comfortable with a scenario that makes the whole thing into a singular situation where disobedience to God is commendable. Without some further revelation to assure us that the first disobedience was pleasing to God, it seems rash to me to presume in that direction. I could even be comfortable with the idea that freedom to sin meant that someone (but no particular individuals) would disobey in both angelic and human ranks, but what I am uncomfortable with is if there is a predestination of any individuals to a disobedience where punishments follow. I cannot accept that any individual is predestined, elected to be an original instrument of disobedience and punishment. That is where I think the problem lay, and it seems to me like there could be a little more sympathy for why morally, some of us feel compelled not to accept the full LDS position on this question.

3DOP

Edited October 10, 2012 by 3DOP

[shalamabobbi]

Hey 3DOP,

What is missing from the bible is the understanding that it was not possible to have children in an immortal state.

we are not allowed to believe that anyone, not even Satan, was foreordained to disobey God. If anyone was foreordained to disobedience, we are still not allowed to believe that God could foreordain their punishment. ... I cannot accept that any individual is predestined, elected to be an original instrument of disobedience and punishment. That is where I think the problem lay,

To repeat, disobedience is in principle not possible w/o knowledge between right and wrong. So no one was foreordained to disobey. Also there was no punishment. It was the result of the choice to become mortal. If you look at the details of the "punishment" you see that it is merely a description of what it is to be mortal.