We Were Born Evil?

[Nofear]

There are two aspects to our nature:

 

1) Sins that we actually commit

2) Desire to commit sin

 

For exaltation, both issues have to be dealt with. Fortunately the atonement covers both. But as to the original post: 1) we are innocent of all sins actually commited, we are not punished for Adam's transgression -- we are only accountable for what we do but we also recognize that 2) all of us, even from pre-mortality, have desires and tendencies that are contrary to celestial societies. We don't always call that sinful anymore than we call children who haven't learned the rules of adult society  sinful -- nonetheless if we wish to participate in the celestial realms we must "grow up".

[3DOP]

There are two aspects to our nature:

 

1) Sins that we actually commit

2) Desire to commit sin

 

For exaltation, both issues have to be dealt with. Fortunately the atonement covers both. But as to the original post: 1) we are innocent of all sins actually commited, we are not punished for Adam's transgression -- we are only accountable for what we do but we also recognize that 2) all of us, even from pre-mortality, have desires and tendencies that are contrary to celestial societies. We don't always call that sinful anymore than we call children who haven't learned the rules of adult society  sinful -- nonetheless if we wish to participate in the celestial realms we must "grow up".

It is probably unfortunate that the propensity to sin that resulted from the Fall upon Adam's children was labelled original sin. I am afraid it can be misleading to LDS and others unfamiliar with the way the expression is accurately used. It seems like it could be helpful if we would remember when speaking of original sin to those who do not believe in it, that it must always be strictly distinguished from what is labelled actual sin. Original sin is literally not actual sin. That is why it has been a long standing teaching of the Catholic Church that those who have never actually committed sin could never be justly punished with the sense pain that is associated with hell. 

[thesometimesaint]

Do you think we were born evil? I

 

Two word answer. Hell no.

[theplains]

It is probably unfortunate that the propensity to sin that resulted from the Fall upon Adam's children was labelled original sin. I am afraid it can be misleading to LDS and others unfamiliar with the way the expression is accurately used. It seems like it could be helpful if we would remember when speaking of original sin to those who do not believe in it, that it must always be strictly distinguished from what is labelled actual sin. Original sin is literally not actual sin. That is why it has been a long standing teaching of the Catholic Church that those who have never actually committed sin could never be justly punished with the sense pain that is associated with hell. 

 

'Original sin' should be considered as the 'first sin'.  I'm not sure who morphed the definition

into something else.  Even earlier LDS teachings (found in the series Answers to Gospel

Questions, by LDS President Joseph Fielding Smith) seem to give two aspects of original

sin (one being that all are born with sin, and the second, the sin of Adam in the Garden of

Eden).  

 

Let me know if you need a pdf file with screen prints.

 

Thanks,

Jim

[Calm]

'Original sin' should be considered as the 'first sin'.  I'm not sure who morphed the definition

into something else.

Rory's explanation makes more sense when applied to all of humanity from the moment of birth.

[Guest]

Do you think we were born evil? I know that Mosiah 3:19 says the natural man is an enemy to God and has been since the Fall of Adam but it doesn't say what mankind was like before the fall of Adam and it doesn't say that mankind is evil. Also perplexing is Dc 93:38

38 "Every spirit of man was innocent in the beginning; and God having redeemed man from the fall, men became again, in their infant state,innocent before God."

I agree with the idea that we have the capacity to become evil and carnal and that and we are fallen but are we so disposed that given the chance to do good or bad we would be inclined to choose evil or continous bad acts, as if there is nothing good in us to chose good things?

We come here perfect and paradise is soon lost. Edited May 23, 2014 by Pa Pa

[Stone holm]

Do you think we were born evil? I know that Mosiah 3:19 says the natural man is an enemy to God and has been since the Fall of Adam but it doesn't say what mankind was like before the fall of Adam and it doesn't say that mankind is evil. Also perplexing is Dc 93:38

 

38 "Every spirit of man was innocent in the beginning; and God having redeemed man from the fall, men became again, in their infant state,innocent before God."

 

I agree with the idea that we have the capacity to become evil and carnal and that and we are fallen but are we so disposed that given the chance to do good or bad we would be inclined to choose evil or continous bad acts, as if there is nothing good in us to chose good things?

Nonsense we were born without the capacity to be evil, else would baptize infants. A thought so heinous that it could send you straight to hell if you died believing the need.

[3DOP]

'Original sin' should be considered as the 'first sin'.  I'm not sure who morphed the definition

into something else.  Even earlier LDS teachings (found in the series Answers to Gospel

Questions, by LDS President Joseph Fielding Smith) seem to give two aspects of original

sin (one being that all are born with sin, and the second, the sin of Adam in the Garden of

Eden).  

 

Let me know if you need a pdf file with screen prints.

 

Thanks,

Jim

 

As you see, some Mormons mistakenly think original sin means that pedobaptists believe babies burn in hell unless they are baptized. It has been an unfortunate misunderstanding. But I have also found that it can be corrected with a little dialogue.

[Storm Rider]

How do you know God created an ignorant Adam and Eve?  Did they

have any knowledge or intelligence in the Garden?

 

Gail

 

Hello Gail, they partook of the Tree of Knowledge giving them an understanding of good and evil. I think of this as a state of innocence than knowledge; they were wholly ignorant of any degree of morality. They obviously had enough sense to reason in order to partake, but this line of reasoning was only at the prompting of the evil one. 

[Bikeemikey]

Nonsense we were born without the capacity to be evil, else would baptize infants. A thought so heinous that it could send you straight to hell if you died believing the need.

Do you think the spirit is capable of sin? Or does all sin originate from the physical body?

[Stone holm]

Do you think the spirit is capable of sin? Or does all sin originate from the physical body?

Sin was obviously possible in premortal existence, evidence the 1/3rd of the Host which fell. However, the Book of Mormon is pretty clear about children being incapable of sin. So sin is an acquired taste, although I suppose one might argue that it is a result of hormones and cognitive development. I have never been real keen on the use of the phrase "natural man" being an enemy of God, if that is meant that the natural state of men is to do evil. My personal belief is the opposite is generally true. But then I have only encountered a handful of people in my life who I considered to be truly evil, and half of those the general community feeling was they were saints...so my concept of evil may be just my personal perception. On the other hand have met a fair number of arrogant mean spirited persons in my life.

[Bikeemikey]

Sin was obviously possible in premortal existence, evidence the 1/3rd of the Host which fell. However, the Book of Mormon is pretty clear about children being incapable of sin. So sin is an acquired taste, although I suppose one might argue that it is a result of hormones and cognitive development. I have never been real keen on the use of the phrase "natural man" being an enemy of God, if that is meant that the natural state of men is to do evil. My personal belief is the opposite is generally true. But then I have only encountered a handful of people in my life who I considered to be truly evil, and half of those the general community feeling was they were saints...so my concept of evil may be just my personal perception. On the other hand have met a fair number of arrogant mean spirited persons in my life.

I see no reason that the natural man could be our spiritual selves and have no relationship to the physical body at all. In the pre-earth life 1/3 the host of heaven became an enemy to god... That seems pretty natural manish to me.

Sin is as much about accountability as it is action. Young children engage in sinful behavior all the time (using my own young kids as source for that) however, it is not sin due to the absence of accountability, not the absence of sinful behavior. I think this is a distinction that is important.

Edited May 28, 2014 by Bikeemikey

[JDave]

 

Nonsense we were born without the capacity to be evil, else would baptize infants. A thought so heinous that it could send you straight to hell if you died believing the need.

Unless the heinous thought was denying the mercies and redemptive power of the atonement of Jesus Christ.

[Stone holm]

I see no reason that the natural man could be our spiritual selves and have no relationship to the physical body at all. In the pre-earth life 1/3 the host of heaven became an enemy to god... That seems pretty natural manish to me.

Sin is as much about accountability as it is action. Young children engage in sinful behavior all the time (using my own young kids as source for that) however, it is not sin due to the absence of accountability, not the absence of sinful behavior. I think this is a distinction that is important.

Not sure I agree with you. Sin requires a certain cognitive function, even a grown adult cannot sin accidentally. For something to be sinful it requires a certain level of knowledge . One can neither be righteous or sinful without knowledge, one can only be innocent.

[Bikeemikey]

Not sure I agree with you. Sin requires a certain cognitive function, even a grown adult cannot sin accidentally. For something to be sinful it requires a certain level of knowledge . One can neither be righteous or sinful without knowledge, one can only be innocent.

Hence the distinction between sinful behavior and actual sin. I agree that children can not sin... However, they still perform a range of behaviors that would be sinful for adults.

When I ask my kids to wait until after dinner to have a cookie and leave the room they will often sneak the cookie and then lie about it. They know it's wrong (in the sense the they know they are violating the rules).

They are committing sinful behavior, however, for them it is not sin.

Young children do engage in behavior that would be sinful for an adult. However, due to the lack of some necessary condition we do not consider them accountable... Sin is not defined by the action but by our accountability for the action.

[JDave]

Young children do engage in behavior that would be sinful for an adult. However, due to the lack of some necessary condition we do not consider them accountable... Sin is not defined by the action but by our accountability for the action.

Precisely, and the infinite magnitude of the Atonement of Jesus Christ covers sins for all those who are not accountable -- those that are "without law". But if there was nothing for the Atonement of Christ to cover, then why would Mormon refer to little children being saved due to the "mercies of Christ" and that those who believe otherwise are setting "at naught the atonement of him and the power of his redemption"? (Moroni 8 )

And why would Alma state that those who were "called and prepared from the foundation of the world" were given a "preparatory redemption"? (Alma 13) How could they have been even called to greater callings due to greater faith, unless there were those with less faith? (See also Abraham 3) And if there were those with less faith in the pre-mortal life, would they not also plead the Master "Help thou mine unbelief"?

Edited May 29, 2014 by JDave

[Bikeemikey]

Precisely, and the infinite magnitude of the Atonement of Jesus Christ covers sins for all those who are not accountable -- those that are "without law". But if there was nothing for the Atonement of Christ to cover, then why would Mormon refer to little children being saved due to the "mercies of Christ" and that those who believe otherwise are setting "at naught the atonement of him and the power of his redemption"? (Moroni 8 )

And why would Alma state that those who were "called and prepared from the foundation of the world" were given a "preparatory redemption"? (Alma 13) How could they have been even called to greater callings due to greater faith, unless there were those with less faith? (See also Abraham 3) And if there were those with less faith in the pre-mortal life, would they not also plead the Master "Help thou mine unbelief"?

Agree...

Therefore, the natural man (being and enemy to god) is a condition of spiritual weakness, not simply physical weakness.

[Stone holm]

Agree...

Therefore, the natural man (being and enemy to god) is a condition of spiritual weakness, not simply physical weakness.

Not sure that one can truly associate sin with an act completely separating the act from cognition or accountability. An act in and of itself, such as an insane person inadvertently killing someone because when they were strangling someone thought they were squeezing lemons is not a sin.

[JDave]

Not sure that one can truly associate sin with an act completely separating the act from cognition or accountability. An act in and of itself, such as an insane person inadvertently killing someone because when they were strangling someone thought they were squeezing lemons is not a sin.

Sin cannot be separated from cognition, or willfully choosing.

Accountability does not correlate one to one. A child has cognition, and my younger-than-eight children have definitely willfully chosen to do the wrong thing at times. Also I would strongly suspect that in our pre-mortal state we were capable of cognition. I also strongly suspect that we were accountable for our choices.

Edited May 31, 2014 by JDave

[Stone holm]

Sin cannot be separated from cognition, or willfully choosing.Accountability does not correlate one to one. A child has cognition, and my younger-than-eight children have definitely willfully chosen to do the wrong thing at times. Also I would strongly suspect that in our pre-mortal state we were capable of cognition. I also strongly suspect that we were accountable for our choices.

I may have not expressed myself clearly. An act in and of itself is not sinful. It's like saying coffee is sinful or that alcohol is evil. Sin is a human thing and it is dependent upon a certain mental state. For example some ancient Greeks were pedophiles were they sinners? Is the book The Lord of The Flies right that left to their own devices children will become vicious?

[Bikeemikey]

Not sure that one can truly associate sin with an act completely separating the act from cognition or accountability. An act in and of itself, such as an insane person inadvertently killing someone because when they were strangling someone thought they were squeezing lemons is not a sin.

I don't disagree with this, in fact, that is exactly what I said.

There are actions that may look like sinful behaviors that in fact are not due to a lack accountability.

However, it appears that in the pre-earth life (unembodied) spirits were able to both chose wrong and be accountable for such choices... They were subject to the conditions of the natural man.

It seems reasonable to consider the natural man an attribute of our spiritual selves, not a purely physical of our physical selves.

Edited June 1, 2014 by Bikeemikey

[Stone holm]

I don't disagree with this, in fact, that is exactly what I said.

There are actions that may look like sinful behaviors that in fact are not due to a lack accountability.

However, it appears that in the pre-earth life (unembodied) spirits were able to both chose wrong and be accountable for such choices... They were subject to the conditions of the natural man.

It seems reasonable to consider the natural man an attribute of our spiritual selves, not a purely physical of our physical selves.

I guess in a way it is a glass half full, or glass half empty sort of thing with the word natural. I tend to think of good with the word natural, and bad with the word unnatural. I also tend to view the word artificial as the opposite of natural. So I guess the engineer's response that the glass is oversized probably is appropriate. I suspect it come from my naive view that people naturally are good, not evil.

[JDave]

People are naturally imperfect.  The Atonement is meant to change us from the inside out, and transform us into celestial beings.

 

I would think that since everyone born on the earth chose to follow Heavenly Father's plan, we are all "naturally" inclined more towards the good despite our imperfections.  But I think we are all "naturally" inclined toward evil as well, since we haven't been perfected yet.

[Stone holm]

Not sure that I can agree that God's Creation is imperfect.

[JDave]

Why would God want us to become anything other than an initial perfect creation then?  And how could a third part of God's creations be perfect and yet rebel against God?