do religious jews teach that people are not basically good?

[rpn]

Quote

Here is my response (this is a word-for-word transcription, except for the words in parentheses added for clarity):

She wrote that in her diary, the most famous Holocaust document. (She was) a teenage girl, a Dutch Jewish girl, who hid with her family until they were betrayed by someone to the Nazis, who then shipped them to death camps. And she died, murdered by the Nazis in the death camps. She was about 16 years old, maybe 15. Her diary is very famous. It gives a face to the horror of the Holocaust.

I know she wrote that, and my answer is it doesn’t matter that she wrote it. I don’t get my wisdom from teenagers. That she was a wonderful young woman and wrote an unbelievably powerful document that will last forever is beside the point. I don’t expect 16-year-olds, unless they grew up in a religious Jewish or Christian home (where it is taught as basic religious doctrine that people are not born basically good). She was a secular Jew. Most kids believe that (people are basically good). But it is not true. So, it has never been an issue for me—‘Well, you disagree with Anne Frank.’ So what?

And, by the way, to be very serious for a moment, I would be very curious—I’ve thought about this a lot—if I were to be able to visit Anne Frank while in a concentration camp, would she have still believed that? We don’t know.    Quoted within   https://www.dailysignal.com/2020/01/07/newsweek-hits-a-new-low/

I know that one of Christianity's historical doctrinal distortions is the idea of the "original sin" affecting everybody who is ever born  (succinctly contradicted in "We believe that men will be punished for their own sins and not Adam's transgression."  Articles of Faith    What I'm wondering is how modern religious Jews are taught about the issues?    And if Jews are taught it, then how/where did they start teaching, what is essentially a bastardization of doctrine.   I cannot think of an Old Testament scripture that teaches it ----- unless the scriptures that say the earth will be cursed for their sakes and they will need to work could only be seen as punishment instead of the opportunity for growth that work really is, or somehow that the spirit needs to come to control the natural man and that makes a newborn evil --- (or for that matter that the New Testament either).

Anyone have any idea about how the notion of being born makes one inherently evil got started?   And where it came from scripturally and whether it is the same in Judaism.

[Calm]

This has the scriptures used as evidence  for original sin:

https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/what-is-the-biblical-evidence-for-original-sin

Quote

Scripture says that we are born sinners and that we are by nature sinners
Psalm 51:5 states that we all come into the world as sinners: “Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin my mother conceived me.” Ephesians 2:2 says that all people who are not in Christ are “sons of disobedience.” Ephesians 2:3 also establishes this, saying that we are all “by nature children of wrath.” If we are all “by nature children of wrath,” it can only be because we are all by nature sinners — for God does not direct His wrath towards those who are not guilty. God did not create the human race sinful, but upright. But we fell into sin and became sinful due to the sin of Adam.

https://outreachjudaism.org/original-sin/
 

Quote

The term “original sin” is unknown to the Jewish Scriptures, and the Church’s teachings on this doctrine are antithetical to the core principles of the Torah and its prophets...

Despite the zealous position missionaries take as they defend this creed, the Christian doctrine of original sin is profoundly hostile to the central teachings of the Jewish Scriptures. The Torah loudly condemns the alien teaching that man is unable to freely choose good over evil, life over death. This is not a hidden or ambiguous message in the Jewish Scriptures. On the contrary, it is proclaimed in Moses’ famed teachings to the children of Israel.

In fact, in an extraordinary sermon delivered by Moses in the last days of his life, the prophet stands before the entire nation and condemns the notion that man’s condition is utterly hopeless. Throughout this uplifting exhortation, Moses declared that it is man alone who can and must merit his own salvation. Moreover, as he unhesitatingly speaks in the name of God, the lawgiver excoriates the notion that obedience to the Almighty is “too difficult or far off.” According, he declared to the children of Israel that righteousness has been placed within their reach. The thirtieth chapter of Deuteronomy discusses this matter extensively, and its verses read as though the Torah is bracing the Jewish people for the Christian doctrines that would confront them in the centuries to come. As the last Book of the Pentateuch draws to a close, Moses admonishes his young nation not to question their capacity to remain faithful to the mitzvoth of the Torah:

…if you will hearken to the voice of the Lord your God, to keep His commandments and His statutes which are written in this Book of the Law; if you turn unto the Lord thy God with all your heart and with all your soul; for this commandment which I command you this day is not too hard for you neither is it too far off. It is not in heaven, that you should say, “Who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it to us, and make us hear it, that we may do it?” Neither is it beyond the sea that you should say: “Who shall go over the sea for us, and bring it unto us, and make us to hear it that we may do it?” The word is very near to you, in your mouth and in your heart, that you may do it.

 

Edited January 8, 2020 by Calm

[Calm]

I like this article better as it doesn’t lump all Christians into one belief system (more Calvinism imo as he uses “total depravity” as equivalent to “original sin” imo).  Though it falls into the trap by claiming easy grace is what a Christian believes, ‘all she needs to do is believe’.  As with most comparisons, the writers do better describing their own faith as opposed to the other’s.

https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/judaism-s-rejection-of-original-sin

Quote

The doctrine of original sin is totally unacceptable to Jews (as it is to Christian sects such as Baptists and Assemblies of G-d). Jews believe that man enters the world free of sin, with a  soul that is pure and innocent and untainted. While there were some Jewish teachers in Talmudic times who believed that death was a punishment brought upon mankind on account of Adam's sin, the dominant view by far was that man sins because he is not a perfect being, and not, as Christianity teaches, because he is inherently sinful.

https://www.aish.com/sp/pg/48892107.html?mobile=yes

Quote

By contrast, the Talmud teaches: "All Israel have a portion in the World to Come," i.e. a person is destined for the place of True Reward -- unless he or she does something to lose it.

The Torah is centered on the idea that the human being is endowed with a deposit of divinity1 and made in "God's image." This doesn't contradict Genesis 6:5, for instance, which says, "And God saw the great evil of man in the world, and that the entire impulse of the thoughts of his heart were evil all day." First, the verse doesn't say that the "heart" itself was evil, but only the "impulse of the thoughts" of the human heart. In other words, side-by-side with this natural spirituality (i.e. the "heart" fashioned in the "Divine Image") is an impulse for evil.

This impulse may be very strong and capable of overcoming the good to a great extent, but not enough to supplant and entirely eclipse the original state in which the human being was created, namely "in the Divine Image." Ultimately, an impulse can be repulsed; an inherently evil nature cannot2....

The Torah does indeed display a certain degree of mistrust toward nature. Generally, nature -- including human nature -- cannot be trusted if it is unchecked. Like the ground that was cursed after Adam's sin, it will grow "thorns and thistles" if it remains uncultivated.However, this doesn't mean to imply that nature is inherently evil and therefore we must seek to "castrate" it. To the contrary, just as thorn and thistles can be cleared to allow the earth to give forth fruit, the very idea of circumcision implies that nature is inherently good; it's just that it has a "foreskin" around it. It has something superficial and external to it that does not allow the true creative pulse within to manifest itself in a fully positive way. 

The spiritual may have certain advantages over the physical, but the physical, too, after all is said and done, is a creation of God just the same. ("In the beginning the Creator created heaven and earth.") As a creation of God it is not an obstacle but a potential vehicle for the divine. It can even be formed into a Temple, a "Dwelling for the Divine Presence." And therefore even the earthly must have a natural goodness to it that can be harnessed in a productive way.

Castration implies the earthly potential is inherently evil and must be destroyed. Circumcision -- the Torah's true stance -- implies the natural state is essentially good. Castrate -- and the good as well as the bad is eliminated. Circumcise -- and the inherent good will shine.

This looks like an excellent article and useful site. 

Edited January 8, 2020 by Calm

[The Nehor]

People are like water. Water is good but is easily contaminated and almost always goes downhill and takes the path of least resistance.

[pogi]

Original sin aside, many people of faith (even within Mormonism) still consider people to be "not basically good".  Many misinterpret "flesh" (body) in the scripture to be something that is inherently evil, causing us to withstand the spirit and will of God. Of course, our own doctrine speaks of "that natural man" being an "enemy to God".  Because of these doctrines, some believe that all people are not "basically good" naturally, but may become so through spiritual rebirth and putting off the natural man.  There is some truth to that.  But I think the answer is more nuanced.   I personally don't believe that we are basically good (even Christ was hesitant to take on that judgment), but neither do I believe that we are basically evil.  I don't judge people to be good or evil.  I judge behavior to be good or evil.  There is a critical difference there that I don't think enough people give much consideration to.  We are currently in a state of probation being tested. Even God reserves judgment of being until all of our doing has reached the end of our probation. 

Edited January 8, 2020 by pogi

[rpn]

Thank you all.

Given that we are all here for the specific purpose of training our bodies to live in submission to God because we need our mortal bodies in order to fulfill our eternal purpose, it is misunderstanding that makes that process evil (as opposed to just not quite there yet).   The evil comes from Satan, not our bodies parts and passions and appetites.

[3DOP]

Trying to answer the question: "Anyone have any idea about how the notion of being born makes one inherently evil got started?"

Inherently evil? Original sin, which is often woefully misunderstood, as I will try to explain briefly below, does not make anyone "inherently evil". There is much that is good in every person who is born as a child of Adam, with what Catholics call, original sin, which needs to be contrasted with "actual sin".  

We are judged individually, but we are members of one of two families. We have the First Adam, obviously named Adam. He fell, and his progeny fell with him as a family. Individuals can still be redeemed, by being reborn, in to the family of the Second or "Last Adam", as St. Paul calls Christ.

I can understand the logic of opposing the idea that anyone will be condemned for the sins of another, even their parents. BUT...if you condemn that idea, that we can receive any harm from the sins of a member of the family, on what judicial principle can one consistently claim that they receive benefit, eternal life and forgiveness of sins, from the merits of a different member of the family? Any idea of an atonement and redemption from sin because of the merits of the Last Adam (Christ), is presupposed by the idea of harm accrued by association with the First Adam who fell.

The Catholic Church teaches that no one suffers from the sense pains of hell, whose "guilt" is original sin only. It would be great if those who oppose us knew the way we use terms. According to us, there are two kinds of sin, original and actual." Unless one is guilty of actual sin they can never, ever experience the sense pains of hell. The "punishment" for original sin alone is actually a pretty nice deal according to how the Catholic Church teaches it.

I can get anybody references over the weekend...after the 49ers beat the Vikings..Heh.

Rory

 

 

Edited January 8, 2020 by 3DOP

[mfbukowski]

9 hours ago, Calm said:

I like this article better as it doesn’t lump all Christians into one belief system (more Calvinism imo as he uses “total depravity” as equivalent to “original sin” imo).  Though it falls into the trap by claiming easy grace is what a Christian believes, ‘all she needs to do is believe’.  As with most comparisons, the writers do better describing their own faith as opposed to the other’s.

https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/judaism-s-rejection-of-original-sin

https://www.aish.com/sp/pg/48892107.html?mobile=yes

This looks like an excellent article and useful site. 

And it appears, unsurprisingly, that we are closer to the "Jewish" position than the typical "Christian" position.  Having agency, we can go either way, yet always inside us is a Divine "spark".

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, 3DOP said:

Any idea of an atonement and redemption from sin because of the merits of the Last Adam (Christ), is presupposed by the idea of harm accrued by association with the First Adam who fell.

Not so.  You are not accounting for what you would call "Actual sin"- ie sins we ourselves commit 

THOSE are precisely the sins from which we need redemption and healing, thanks to the "fortunate fall" which gave us agency, through Eve's understanding of the Plan of Happiness.

There WAS no harm accrued to us by association with Adam and Eve- in fact they made choice possible by completely comprehending the true results of their actions.

Quote

 The "punishment" for original sin alone is actually a pretty nice deal according to how the Catholic Church teaches it.

I was taught from the Baltimore Catechism of 1941 which taught that the punishment was not exactly a "nice deal" for those who ended up in Limbo because they had not been properly baptized- and were therefore punished for Original Sin only- not their own sins, and I wonder how that has been clarified, and have lost track of this Catholic teaching.  It appears that perhaps since you are a relatively new convert to Catholicism, you have not been taught the previous doctrine about original sin, but I would be interested in your comments!

See this- sounds pretty official to me!  http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070419_un-baptised-infants_en.html

Quote

The conclusion of this study is that there are theological and liturgical reasons to hope that infants who die without baptism may be saved and brought into eternal happiness, even if there is not an explicit teaching on this question found in Revelation. However, none of the considerations proposed in this text to motivate a new approach to the question may be used to negate the necessity of baptism, nor to delay the conferral of the sacrament. Rather, there are reasons to hope that God will save these infants precisely because it was not possible to do for them that what would have been most desirable— to baptize them in the faith of the Church and incorporate them visibly into the Body of Christ.

It seems to me to be a rather vague statement which certainly does not affirm your position, that there is OR is not "harm" accrued from "original sin".

Certainly it does not imply that there is no need for the atonement except because of Adam's Fall

 

Edited January 9, 2020 by mfbukowski

[Calm]

11 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

And it appears, unsurprisingly, that we are closer to the "Jewish" position than the typical "Christian" position.  Having agency, we can go either way, yet always inside us is a Divine "spark".

However, there is a massive difference on how we understand the nature of God and his relationship to us. 
 

Which I would not be surprised to find that Jews see this as the most important aspect of our faiths.

Edited January 9, 2020 by Calm

[CA Steve]

I don't frequent non-Mormon forums but were I  in a Jewish forum and a post appeared asking what Mormons believe I would probably suggest that they go to a Mormon forum to ask their question.

Edited January 9, 2020 by CA Steve

[Calm]

2 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

I don't frequent non-Mormon forums but I were in a Jewish forum and a post appeared asking what Mormons believe I would probably suggest that they go to a Mormon forum to ask their question.

Do I get points for using Jewish websites for the info?  😛 

[mfbukowski]

8 hours ago, pogi said:

Original sin aside, many people of faith (even within Mormonism) still consider people to be "not basically good".  Many misinterpret "flesh" (body) in the scripture to be something that is inherently evil, causing us to withstand the spirit and will of God. Of course, our own doctrine speaks of "that natural man" being an "enemy to God".  Because of these doctrines, some believe that all people are not "basically good" naturally, but may become so through spiritual rebirth and putting off the natural man.  There is some truth to that.  But I think the answer is more nuanced.   I personally don't believe that we are basically good (even Christ was hesitant to take on that judgment), but neither do I believe that we are basically evil.  I don't judge people to be good or evil.  I judge behavior to be good or evil.  There is a critical difference there that I don't think enough people give much consideration to.  We are currently in a state of probation being tested. Even God reserves judgment of being until all of our doing has reached the end of our probation. 

The notion that matter is evil is strictly a Pagan Greek notion derived from Plato, through Plotinus

https://www.jstor.org/stable/4181695?seq=1

Quote

 

There is another way in which Soul is related to Intellect as Intellect is related to the One. Plotinus distinguishes between something’s internal and external activity (see V 4. 2, 27–33). The (indescribable) internal activity of the One is its own hyper-intellectual existence. Its external activity is just Intellect. Similarly, Intellect’s internal activity is its contemplation of the Forms, and its external activity is found in every possible representation of the activity of being eternally identical with all that is intelligible (i.e., the Forms). It is also found in the activity of soul, which as a principle of ‘external’ desire images the paradigmatic desire of Intellect. Anything that is understandable is an external activity of Intellect; and any form of cognition of that is also an external activity of it. The internal activity of Soul includes the plethora of psychical activities of all embodied living things. The external activity of Soul is nature, which is just the intelligible structure of all that is other than soul in the sensible world, including both the bodies of things with soul and things without soul (see III 8. 2). The end of this process of diminishing activities is matter which is entirely bereft of form and so of intelligibility, but whose existence is ultimately owing to the One, via the instrumentality of Intellect and Soul.

According to Plotinus, matter is to be identified with evil and privation of all form or intelligibility (see II 4). Plotinus holds this in conscious opposition to Aristotle, who distinguished matter from privation (see II 4. 16, 3–8). Matter is what accounts for the diminished reality of the sensible world, for all natural things are composed of forms in matter. The fact that matter is in principle deprived of all intelligibility and is still ultimately dependent on the One is an important clue as to how the causality of the latter operates.

If matter or evil is ultimately caused by the One, then is not the One, as the Good, the cause of evil? In one sense, the answer is definitely yes. As Plotinus reasons, if anything besides the One is going to exist, then there must be a conclusion of the process of production from the One. The beginning of evil is the act of separation from the One by Intellect, an act which the One itself ultimately causes. The end of the process of production from the One defines a limit, like the end of a river going out from its sources. Beyond the limit is matter or evil.

We may still ask why the limitless is held to be evil. According to Plotinus, matter is the condition for the possibility of there being images of Forms in the sensible world. From this perspective, matter is identified with the receptacle or space in Plato’s Timaeus and the phenomenal properties in the receptacle prior to the imposition of order by the Demiurge. The very possibility of a sensible world, which is impressively confirmed by the fact that there is one, guarantees that the production from the One, which must include all that is possible (else the One would be self-limiting), also include the sensible world (see I 8. 7). But the sensible world consists of images of the intelligible world and these images could not exist without matter.

Matter is only evil in other than a purely metaphysical sense when it becomes an impediment to return to the One. It is evil when considered as a goal or end that is a polar opposite to the Good. To deny the necessity of evil is to deny the necessity of the Good (I 8. 15). Matter is only evil for entities that can consider it as a goal of desire. These are, finally, only entities that can be self-conscious of their goals. Specifically, human beings, by opting for attachments to the bodily, orient themselves in the direction of evil. This is not because body itself is evil. The evil in bodies is the element in them that is not dominated by form. One may be desirous of that form, but in that case what one truly desires is that form’s ultimate intelligible source in Intellect. More typically, attachment to the body represents a desire not for form but a corrupt desire for the non-intelligible or limitless

 

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/plotinus/

 

Edited January 9, 2020 by mfbukowski

[Meadowchik]

12 hours ago, rpn said:

Thank you all.

Given that we are all here for the specific purpose of training our bodies to live in submission to God because we need our mortal bodies in order to fulfill our eternal purpose, it is misunderstanding that makes that process evil (as opposed to just not quite there yet).   The evil comes from Satan, not our bodies parts and passions and appetites.

I think evil can also arise when needs are not met, to put it simply. I dislike the Satan-tempting paradigm much of the time, as it seems like an inadequate explanation, although it may have served its purpose at some point.

It occurs to me that the Fall, however, expands the paradigm and makes evils of the world about more than Satan's temptation. The "fallen world" is blamed on Satan, yes, but it creates a perspective of cause and effect that is much more useful than devilish temptations.

I've been learning more about the Salem Witch Trials, which are a stark reminder of the pitfalls of blaming all evils on devils. The flashpoint was that children were sick and experienced convulsions; the explanation for them--devils!--played a major role in the ensuing witchhunts and executions.

[pogi]

18 hours ago, 3DOP said:

I can understand the logic of opposing the idea that anyone will be condemned for the sins of another, even their parents. BUT...if you condemn that idea, that we can receive any harm from the sins of a member of the family, on what judicial principle can one consistently claim that they receive benefit, eternal life and forgiveness of sins, from the merits of a different member of the family? Any idea of an atonement and redemption from sin because of the merits of the Last Adam (Christ), is presupposed by the idea of harm accrued by association with the First Adam who fell.

I don't think our doctrine disagrees with the judicial principle of original sin being passed on to others.  And you are right, by the same judicial principle an atonement could be made.  I think our scriptures our pretty clear that if it wasn't for the atonement of Christ, original sin would have caused all mankind to be lost forever.

Quote

...and the fall had brought upon all mankind a spiritual death as well as a temporal, that is, they were cut off from the presence of the Lord, it was expedient that mankind should be reclaimed from this spiritual death. (Alma 42)

Quote

For behold, and also his blood atoneth for the sins of those who have fallen by the transgression of Adam, who have died not knowing the will of God concerning them, or who have ignorantly sinned. (Mosiah 3:11)

Quote

Listen to the words of Christ, your Redeemer, your Lord and your God. Behold, I came into the world not to call the righteous but sinners to repentance; the whole need no physician, but they that are sick; wherefore, little children are whole, for they are not capable of committing sin; wherefore the curse of Adam is taken from them in me, that it hath no power over them; (Moroni 8:8)

I think the only difference between our doctrine is in the power of the atonement.  We believe that the atonement of Christ was commensurate in scope and effect to the fall of Adam.  In other words, the atonement balanced the scale - it erased all culpability for the fall of Adam.  Hence, "we believe that man will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam's transgression."  That is perfectly balanced justice and mercy!  We do not believe that the effects of the transgression of Adam were more grand in scope and effect then the effects of the atonement of Christ.  

Edited January 9, 2020 by pogi

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, pogi said:

I don't think our doctrine disagrees with the judicial principle of original sin being passed on to others.  And you are right, by the same judicial principle an atonement could be made.  I think our scriptures our pretty clear that if it wasn't for the atonement of Christ, original sin would have caused all mankind to be lost forever.

I think the only difference between our doctrine is in the power of the atonement.  We believe that the atonement of Christ was commensurate in scope and effect to the fall of Adam.  In other words, the atonement balanced the scale - it erased all culpability for the fall of Adam.  Hence, "we believe that man will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam's transgression."  That is perfectly balanced justice and mercy!  We do not believe that the effects of the transgression of Adam were more grand in scope and effect then the effects of the atonement of Christ.  

I don't know on what basis one could find these principles to be true.

We know that testimony can give us true beliefs that improve our lives. Perhaps that's the only way.

[3DOP]

On 1/8/2020 at 7:07 PM, mfbukowski said:

Not so.  You are not accounting for what you would call "Actual sin"- ie sins we ourselves commit 

THOSE are precisely the sins from which we need redemption and healing, thanks to the "fortunate fall" which gave us agency, through Eve's understanding of the Plan of Happiness.

There WAS no harm accrued to us by association with Adam and Eve- in fact they made choice possible by completely comprehending the true results of their actions.

I was taught from the Baltimore Catechism of 1941 which taught that the punishment was not exactly a "nice deal" for those who ended up in Limbo because they had not been properly baptized- and were therefore punished for Original Sin only- not their own sins, and I wonder how that has been clarified, and have lost track of this Catholic teaching.  It appears that perhaps since you are a relatively new convert to Catholicism, you have not been taught the previous doctrine about original sin, but I would be interested in your comments!

See this- sounds pretty official to me!  http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070419_un-baptised-infants_en.html

It seems to me to be a rather vague statement which certainly does not affirm your position, that there is OR is not "harm" accrued from "original sin".

Certainly it does not imply that there is no need for the atonement except because of Adam's Fall

 

These are the comments that prompted the response above:

Quote

 

Trying to answer the question: "Anyone have any idea about how the notion of being born makes one inherently evil got started?"

Inherently evil? Original sin, which is often woefully misunderstood, as I will try to explain briefly below, does not make anyone "inherently evil". There is much that is good in every person who is born as a child of Adam, with what Catholics call, original sin, which needs to be contrasted with "actual sin".  

We are judged individually, but we are members of one of two families. We have the First Adam, obviously named Adam. He fell, and his progeny fell with him as a family. Individuals can still be redeemed, by being reborn, in to the family of the Second or "Last Adam", as St. Paul calls Christ.

I can understand the logic of opposing the idea that anyone will be condemned for the sins of another, even their parents. BUT...if you condemn that idea, that we can receive any harm from the sins of a member of the family, on what judicial principle can one consistently claim that they receive benefit, eternal life and forgiveness of sins, from the merits of a different member of the family? Any idea of an atonement and redemption from sin because of the merits of the Last Adam (Christ), is presupposed by the idea of harm accrued by association with the First Adam who fell.

The Catholic Church teaches that no one suffers from the sense pains of hell, whose "guilt" is original sin only. It would be great if those who oppose us knew the way we use terms. According to us, there are two kinds of sin, original and actual." Unless one is guilty of actual sin they can never, ever experience the sense pains of hell. The "punishment" for original sin alone is actually a pretty nice deal according to how the Catholic Church teaches it.

I can get anybody references over the weekend...after the 49ers beat the Vikings..Heh.

 

Hi Mark,

I was attempting first to speak to the concept "inherently evil". I don't think that "inherently evil" applied to babies for being born is a good description of the teaching, false of course according to LDS, of original sin. John Calvin and those who follow him misunderstand the fall. Adam fell from his exalted supernatural status. They hold that his fall eradicated natural goodness. They call this teaching total depravity. It is a dogma with Catholics that there is natural goodness in everyone. The author added a question that I might have answered about Scriptural support for this belief about inheriting original sin from our parents. Of course, this would be a false interpretation of the text, according to LDS, but Catholics for instance, would point to Ps. 50, where King David is lamenting his own actual sin as well as the way in which he was conceived in verse 7:

"For behold I was conceived in iniquities; and in sins did my mother conceive me." 

I have no desire to discuss the interpretation, but I believe it serves toward an answer to the question of the opening post. The original sin teaching stems from a belief that because Adam fell away from God's grace, he cannot transmit to his offspring that which he lost. It has been explained to me that LDS do not believe in anything above nature. I only learned in this in the last year, and it is the main reason that I have greatly curbed my participation. We believe Adam went from supernatural to natural and for that reason his children will be merely natural. For those LDS who are interested in understanding us, original sin means that the child isn't conceived, or born, in a state of supernatural grace. 

Mark, you objected when I went on to propose a parallel between representative justice that harms vs. representative justice that helps. I admitted that I can appreciate the logic of opposing the idea that anybody should suffer because of the failures of someone else. but the logic prompted me to ask why we should gain from the merits of Jesus. For us, the answer is that it is the same pattern as occurred in losing from the faults of our original parents. I am sure LDS have a different explanation that is satisfying to LDS, because you explained that LDS believe that there are positive repercussions to us from Adam's fall. So obviously, there is no parallel for LDS. But if someone LDS wants to understand the teaching of original sin without believing it, it seems like it would be helpful to know why we also think that Jesus Christ was called "the last Adam" (I Cor. 15:45). Obviously, the Latter-day Saint will understand our interpretations of Scripture to be false. But just for the sake of understanding how we arrive at such different places, it might be well to know that we think Jesus Christ delivers us from the consequences which fall upon us because of the "first Adam":

"And as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all shall be made alive."  (I Cor. 15:22)        

You also take issue with my explanation to Latter-day Saints of the Limbo of the Children as I understand it, describing it as a "pretty nice deal". I wouldn't expect the Baltimore Catechism to explain it that way. The Catechism is speaking to Catholics who believe in the supernatural beatific vision of God. This is heaven. Eternally recollected in God. The Church assures us that regardless of our current dispositions in this life, the Beatific Vision is so desirable that anything less than this might accurately be described as damnation. To be sure this would strike the LDS ear rather harshly. I think it could easily create a false image in the LDS mind. So how can I say to LDS that this Limbo, which might elsewhere be signified as damnation, might be a "pretty nice deal"? Having never committed any actual sin, the unbaptised who never commit actual sin will enjoy immortality, leisure and comfort, free of illness or death, with what St. Thomas Aquinas calls, a state of "natural bliss", and a love and knowledge of God compatible with nature. It is much more than the mere absence of suffering and sorrow. It seems to me that from an LDS point of view, this might be at least a "pretty nice deal". I also thought that "natural bliss" would be compatible with an ever more exalted LDS eternity. In any case, this was why I think I was justified in using the description I did. 

Finally Mark, you pointed out an official document the Church released in this century which offers a different view of the final home of unbaptised infants. It actually offers the possibility of a better scenario than I have presented! I just don't think it was as well-reasoned as the view of St. Thomas. You said the document was vague. Agreed. To be infallible, a proposition has to have clarity. Catholics are allowed to speculate within certain parameters when there is no infallible teaching on a specific question.

For those interested in how this teaching of the Catholic Church has developed over the centuries see the Catholic Encyclopedia, which will also explain the school of thought I have expressed above.  http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09256a.htm     

Rory

Edited January 12, 2020 by 3DOP
linguistics, saying finally more than once

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, 3DOP said:

These are the comments that prompted the response above:

Hi Mark,

I was attempting first to speak to the concept "inherently evil". I don't think that "inherently evil" applied to babies for being born is a good description of the teaching, false of course according to LDS, of original sin. John Calvin and those who follow him misunderstand the fall. Adam fell from his exalted supernatural status. They hold that his fall eradicated natural goodness. They call this teaching total depravity. It is a dogma with Catholics that there is natural goodness in everyone. The author added a question that I might have answered about Scriptural support for this belief about inheriting original sin from our parents. Of course, this would be a false interpretation of the text, according to LDS, but Catholics for instance, would point to Ps. 50, where King David is lamenting his own actual sin as well as the way in which he was conceived in verse 7:

"For behold I was conceived in iniquities; and in sins did my mother conceive me." 

I have no desire to discuss the interpretation, but I believe it serves toward an answer to the question of the opening post. The original sin teaching stems from a belief that because Adam fell away from God's grace, he cannot transmit to his offspring that which he lost. It has been explained to me that LDS do not believe in anything above nature. I only learned in this in the last year, and it is the main reason that I have greatly curbed my participation. We believe Adam went from supernatural to natural and for that reason his children will be merely natural. For those LDS who are interested in understanding us, original sin means that the child isn't conceived, or born, in a state of supernatural grace. 

Mark, you objected when I went on to propose a parallel between representative justice that harms vs. representative justice that helps. I admitted that I can appreciate the logic of opposing the idea that anybody should suffer because of the failures of someone else. but the logic prompted me to ask why we should gain from the merits of Jesus. For us, the answer is that it is the same pattern as occurred in losing from the faults of our original parents. I am sure LDS have a different explanation that is satisfying to LDS, because you explained that LDS believe that there are positive repercussions to us from Adam's fall. So obviously, there is no parallel for LDS. But if someone LDS wants to understand the teaching of original sin without believing it, it seems like it would be helpful to know that we also think that Jesus Christ was called "the last Adam". Obviously, the Latter-day Saint will understand our interpretations of Scripture to be false. But just for the sake of understanding how we arrive at such different places, it might be well to know that we think Jesus Christ delivers us from the consequences which fall upon us because of the "first Adam":

"And as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all shall be made alive."  (I Cor. 15:22)        

Finally, you take issue with my explanation to Latter-day Saints of the Limbo of the Children as I understand it, describing it as a "pretty nice deal". I wouldn't expect the Baltimore Catechism to explain it that way. The Catechism is speaking to Catholics who believe in the supernatural beatific vision of God. This is heaven. Eternally recollected in God. The Church assures us that regardless of our current dispositions in this life, the Beatific Vision is so desirable that anything less than this might accurately be described as damnation. To be sure this would strike the LDS ear rather harshly. I think it could easily create a false image in the LDS mind. So how can I say to LDS that this Limbo, which might elsewhere be signified as damnation, might be a "pretty nice deal"? Having never committed any actual sin, the unbaptised who never commit actual sin will enjoy immortality, leisure and comfort, free of illness or death, with what St. Thomas Aquinas calls, a state of "natural bliss", and a love and knowledge of God compatible with nature. It is much more than the mere absence of suffering and sorrow. It seems to me that from an LDS point of view, this might be at least a "pretty nice deal". I also thought that "natural bliss" would be compatible with an ever more exalted LDS eternity. In any case, this was why I think I was justified in using the description I did. 

Finally Mark, you pointed out an official document the Church released in this century which offers a different view of the final home of unbaptised infants. It actually offers the possibility of a better scenario than I have presented! I just don't think it was as well-reasoned as the view of St. Thomas. You said the document was vague. Agreed. To be infallible, a proposition has to have clarity. Catholics are allowed to speculate within certain parameters when there is no infallible teaching on a specific question.

For those interested in how this teaching of the Catholic Church has developed over the centuries see the Catholic Encyclopedia, which will also explain the school of thought I have expressed above.  http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09256a.htm     

Rory

Thanks for your thoughts.

It will take some time to think about them.

 

[The Nehor]

On 1/8/2020 at 2:59 PM, rpn said:

Thank you all.

Given that we are all here for the specific purpose of training our bodies to live in submission to God because we need our mortal bodies in order to fulfill our eternal purpose, it is misunderstanding that makes that process evil (as opposed to just not quite there yet).   The evil comes from Satan, not our bodies parts and passions and appetites.

I disagree. While the gift of a body is critical it is fallen. Matter is not evil but the matter of our fallen bodies is fallen and greatly prone to evil. I accept fully that the point of this probation is to choose between good and evil but evil has a massive leg up in this fallen world due to the nature of it.

I also find it hard to blame it all on Satan as opposed to the nature of our forms. If it were due to Satan and we know Satan cannot tempt children who are not accountable than why are children as bad as they sometimes are if Satan is the cause of evil? Is it all poor parenting and environment? Add that everyone sins and this gets dark pretty quick in terms of what we are.

I take a much more pessimistic view of the world though and with the exception of our first parents (who sacrificed their kingdom for us) and Christ (who sacrificed much more in enduring the suffering of a fallen world to pay the price for it and us existing in it) I suspect the spirits of most, if not all, of the rest were Telestial and fallen already and original sin does not matter because we, in a sense, deserve this state so there is no concern with the action of Adam and Eve being unfairly passed onto us. Then again this is probably heretical so I will stop.

[3DOP]

In the post I made most recently above there is a sentence that wants clarification. I fear that the word "supernatural" could confuse. It is not about ghosts and poltergeists. The devil is real, but he does not rise above his natural abilities. We use other words to describe demonic activity. To us, "supernatural" means to be elevated, exalted, to be like God, partakers of the divine nature. I said this:

"For those LDS who are interested in understanding us, original sin means that the child isn't conceived, or born, in a state of supernatural grace."

Catholics hold that if Adam had retained his deified original innocence, his offspring, like himself, would have been born in a state of deified innocence, partaking in the divine nature as he did. But because Adam lost his union with God (deification) at the Fall, his children, (following the principle "after his kind") are not born deified. Only by being deified, becoming like God, can anyone "go" to heaven. I put "go" in quotes because while there is surely a place where the blessed physical saints reside together, it would not be a place of joy for one not deified. To be like God, or as St. Peter put it, to be "partakers of the divine nature" (2 Pet. 1:4) is the only way anyone can "have" heaven. Undeified physical spirits could theoretically "go" to heaven, to a physical location, but without deification it could not be blissful.

This in part, explains why I said above that the Limbo of the Children (those who die without baptism) would be "a pretty nice deal". From what has been said above, we see that they can fully enjoy all delights proper to human beings without fear of death or want in perfect peace and harmony with God and nature. Besides being "a pretty nice deal", I would also add that no one would complain of a miscarriage of justice. I would append a citation from a Greek Father of the Church who addresses the question of whether an infant who ends up in Limbo could rightly feel it to be unjust.

"It will happen, I believe . . . that those last mentioned [infants dying without baptism] will neither be admitted by the just judge to the glory of Heaven nor condemned to suffer punishment, since, though unsealed [by baptism], they are not wicked. . . . For from the fact that one does not merit punishment it does not follow that one is worthy of being honored, any more than it follows that one who is not worthy of a certain honor deserves on that account to be punished." ---St. Gregory Nazianzen, Oration 40, n. 23 (found at the web address quoted above)

In closing, I am not trying to convince the Latter-day Saint to accept my doctrine. Of course you think it is wrong. What I am attempting, is to mitigate the apparent awfulness that seems to LDS to be attached to our doctrine. I am well able to foresee objections from LDS to whether the teaching is true and I have no wish to go down that road unless it was with someone who would consider becoming Catholic. What I am hoping is to show the faithful Latter-day Saint is that while Catholic doctrine cannot fit in to the LDS way of looking at eternity, it does not make the God in which Catholics believe, unjust. You cannot rightly say that according to our teaching, God "punishes" anyone for acts that they did not commit.

Edited January 19, 2020 by 3DOP

[mfbukowski]

On 1/19/2020 at 11:35 AM, 3DOP said:

The devil is real, but he does not rise above his natural abilities.

Natural abilities?  Like what?  Walking around and whispering in our ears?

On 1/19/2020 at 11:35 AM, 3DOP said:

Catholics hold that if Adam had retained his deified original innocence, his offspring, like himself, would have been born in a state of deified innocence, partaking in the divine nature as he did. But because Adam lost his union with God (deification) at the Fall, his children, (following the principle "after his kind") are not born deified. Only by being deified, becoming like God, can anyone "go" to heaven. I put "go" in quotes because while there is surely a place where the blessed physical saints reside together, it would not be a place of joy for one not deified.

That seems like an entirely different concept of "deification" than we use.   I can see that fitting with the various Eastern Orthodox views of a gradual deification as we grow more like Christ.  For us to be "deified"  I think, one would have to be FULLY like Christ, but perhaps that is why we use the word "exalted" instead of "deified".  I think for most in the world being "deified" would mean becoming fully like God.

Again as usual,  I think it becomes a question of semantics though.

It looks like Carl Mosser is more on your side though unsurprisingly !  

 

Edited January 26, 2020 by mfbukowski

[3DOP]

Mark,

Thank you for the reply.

You seem to take issue with my remarks about the devil. I wrote:

"The devil is real, but he does not rise above his natural abilities."

You counter with:

"Natural abilities?  Like what?  Walking around and whispering in our ears?"

I answer:

I don't know all there is to know about the devil. It does seem to me that it is allowed for him to try to deceive men (whispering in our ears). We have to discern the spirits, as we are admonished. We have to "watch and be sober". Why? The devil certainly "walks around" according to St. Peter, "as a roaring lion seeking whom he may devour". But I am simply holding that even if to us, his abilities appear to be amazing, they are merely natural. It seems like LDS should not disagree...

You also write about my use of the word "deification":

"That seems like an entirely different concept of "deification" than we use.   I can see that fitting with the various Eastern Orthodox views of a gradual deification as we grow more like Christ.  For us to be "deified"  I think, one would have to be FULLY like Christ, but perhaps that is why we use the word "exalted" instead of "deified".  I think for most in the world being "deified" would mean becoming fully like God."

I answer:

I am willing to substitute the word "exalted". They are good synonyms. I am trying to speak to LDS at this site. Whether "most in the world" think being deified would mean becoming fully like God? I could not say. It might depend on how they think of God?

Anyway, I hardly expected to see a reply at all. Thank you again.

Rory

[Islander]

Original sin aside (Adam and Eve's specific disobedience in Eden), with the fall sin entered the world, physical and spiritual death death became a real predicament and hell a real place. Thus since then we are ALL conceived in sin (it is now part of our nature to rebel against God at least once a day) and we will battle with this until the day we die. Without attempting to sanitize the definition of sin, it is clear that we have ALL sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. There are many scriptures to attest to that. Christ's redemptive Atonement being the ONLY way and means by which we can be saved. The "natural man is an enemy to God". That is an unavoidable reality. We can guard our sins (from others), hide behind outward displays of piety and pretension (and many do). But we can not escape the all searching eye of the All-knowing, Almighty God. He knows our most intimate secrets, the very thoughts (and sins) in our minds and they will condemn us in the last day if we do not repent and come onto Christ.