My Friendly Friday Questions

[InCognitus]

2 hours ago, 3DOP said:

I have heard people here say that we are the same "species" as God the Father. If this is granted, since we are human, how could God not also be human? Elevated humanity? Sure. Deified humanity? Sure. If I were LDS, I think I would admit to being currently undeified and unelevated. But I would not grant that my essential humanity is different from the Father. (Here we are using those words you guys hate when we start talking Trinity!). I thought the Father Himself is not finished being elevated in his humanity, in LDS thought, and neither are we.

I regret to resist correction from one who believes, But I just can't see how we can be the same species and the Father is no longer human. Catholics hold that Christ became human and always will be from now on. His humanity is also glorified to a state where it is so wonderful that it seems to be beyond human. But the marvel is that we are not the model of "true" humanity. He is! That is our blessed hope. That is why we rejoice that His Sacred Humanity resides at the right hand of God the Father. God's humanity (the Son) is destined to be the norm in the Catholic faith. It seems like the Father and the Son would provide the model of "true" humanity for LDS?

Humbly submitted...

3   

I just tend to link the word "human" to our mortal life, and our human experience represents only one small stage of our existence and progression.  We were created in God's image, but our physical bodies came from the dust of this earth.  And we are not merely defined by our bodies, we are spirit beings that have bodies. 

And I consider the fact that we are all the very génos of God to be built upon a relationship that existed with God long before this earth was ever created, and it isn't limited to our human existence.  

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, InCognitus said:

I just tend to link the word "human" to our mortal life, and our human experience represents only one small stage of our existence and progression.  We were created in God's image, but our physical bodies came from the dust of this earth.  And we are not merely defined by our bodies, we are spirit beings that have bodies. 

And I consider the fact that we are all the very génos of God to be built upon a relationship that existed with God long before this earth was ever created, and it isn't limited to our human existence.  

Those who do not like the ideas associated with God being material and human,  base that feeling on pagan Platonic ideas and Original Sin.  We therefore come into the world created evil because of Eve's "sin" and are cursed for something we did not do.

That makes God unjust.

It makes no sense that we should be punished for someone else's sin.

Edited November 21, 2022 by mfbukowski

[Saint Bonaventure]

18 hours ago, 3DOP said:

Saint B...

May we then as David suggests above, assume that you "ground all subordination of the Son of God—to God the Father—to His human nature"? (LDS do not acknowledge that distinction. For them, God the Father is human too.)

I will let the LDS answer more authoritatively as to why the Son is subordinate. I conjecture that it is mainly because of the relationship of sons to fathers, not any kind of ontological differences. They cannot, like us, refer it to the human nature of Christ, since that is also the Father's "nature". (They don't approve of our ideas about nature, substance, or essence. But they DO use the word "species", as in "after their kind" in Genesis. Of course I will be corrected by them if I misunderstand.) I am thinking that as with the LDS, the Catholic view that Christ is subordinate in the New Testament, should suggest nothing to do with inferiority of nature, and is based on a truly recent event (the Incarnation) when compared to eternity. Rather, we should agree with the LDS (and the Catholic theologians David cited) that subordination is based on relationship, an hierarchy that begins in the eternal Godhead, and flows into creation, without implying any inequality of nature. 

"For this cause I bow my knees to the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, Of whom all paternity in heaven and earth is named..."

---Eph. 2:14, 15

Thanks, Rory

Rory--

I would say that there are three keys for me in these discussions, although maybe there is only one key, since we're considering the Trinity (and Latter-day Saints are conversing from their understanding of what I believe they call the "Godhead.") For me, the three keys are:

• The Divine Nature (the "what" of God)
• The relationship among the Three Persons of the Divine Nature (the "who" of God)
• The union of Christ's Divine Nature and human nature (the hypostatic union, although I'm trying not to use the technical terms)

One place I would gently disagree is when you indicate mention a "hierarchy that begins in the eternal Godhead, and flows into creation, without implying any inequality of nature." I would more completely agree with a statement such as a "hierarchy that, because it is eternally, alpha to omega, expressed in the relationship among the Three Persons of the Divine nature and through the union of Christ's Divine Nature and human nature, and flows (or processes?) into creation, without implying any inequality of nature."  

I'm not a licensed theologian or anything, but I was taught to start thinking theologically by first considering Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition, and then moving forward through the unfolding of understanding in the Church. The Council of Nicaea is important to me in this discussion. In my own study since we've been on this topic I've been going back and forth between St. Athanasias, St. Augustine, and St. Thomas Aquinas. I dare say that while I greatly appreciate St. Thomas' elaboration and systematic treatment of St. Augustine's work on the Trinity, there are some aspects of St. Augustine's thought on this topic that St. Thomas does not attend to. That's neither here nor there, other than I can't recommend highly enough St. Augustine's master work The Trinity.  

I am immensely grateful for your statement that for Latter-day Saints, God the Father is also human in some sense. Maybe for LDS there is a continuum-like relationship between the human and the Divine that is held together by this "species" idea or the "intelligences" idea?  

As usual, I have arrived at the point of needing clarity. Nonetheless, I appreciate you pulling some threads together.

 

[David Waltz]

Hello again SB,

Over the weekend, you wrote:

>>One thought I'm having is regarding your description as an "ecclesiastical agnostic," as someone who uses "sources that are held in high regard with each specific tradition that I dialogue with." Fair enough. Still, although you say you hold St. Thomas in high regard, you haven't convinced me that you hold St. Thomas in sufficiently high regard to believe and emulate him. In my perspective, depending on where you're coming from regarding St Thomas your comments about historic Catholic theology, Jesuits, Franciscans, etc. are cast in very different lights.

I hold St. Thomas Aquinas in high regard and several years ago did nine days of prayer regarding him (a novena). He certainly deserves his acclaim as a systematic theologian, although I personally feel a little more resonance with his contemporary, Saint Bonaventure.>>

I am not a devout, practicing Catholic, as such, I am not in a position to “emulate him”. If the Holy Spirit leads me to become a devout, faithful, full-blown Catholic, then it would be the theology/thought of the Angelic Doctor that would foremost mentor me.

 >>When you write that, "The Three Divine Persons of the Godhead are homoousios (same essence/nature)," I agree. When you write that "the Father is the font/source of Divinity," we might agree if 1) you're not slipping in a notion that there was a time when the Son was not, 2) if you accept that the Father is eternally giving and the Son is eternally receiving, and that 3) the Father cannot withhold from the Son in the same way that the Son must receive all of the Father. That's the "ground," so to speak, where I'm coming from and informs my discussion of the Son's human nature, the relation of the persons in the Trinity, etc.>>

 1.) I believe in the eternal generation of the Son of God from the Father.

2.) I also “accept that the Father is eternally giving and the Son is eternally receiving”. Once again, I believe that all that the Son has and is, comes from the Father.

3.) Could you elaborate a bit more on your #3; I am not understanding what you are attempting to convey.

>>Something that is surprising me, though, is that you said that "The Three Divine Persons of the Godhead are homoousious.">>

I embrace the teachings of the Nicene Creed (325), including the anathemas.

>>Are you a believer in the Trinity?>>

A qualified yes; qualified in that there are differing forms of Trinitarianism. For some important aspects concerning the Trinity that I embrace, see THIS THREAD

 

Grace and peace,

David

Edited November 22, 2022 by David Waltz
To correct link

[Saint Bonaventure]

On 11/21/2022 at 10:04 PM, David Waltz said:

 

3.) Could you elaborate a bit more on your #3; I am not understanding what you are attempting to convey.

 

Glad to do so:

The Father gives all he has to the Son, and holds nothing back. The Father is not able to withhold anything from the Son. 

At the same time, the Son receives all the Father has. The Son is not able to refuse anything from the Father. 

Both the Father's giving and the Son's receiving are intrinsic to the Divine Nature (Eternal generation). 

I don't imagine that this point would matter much to most Latter-day Saints, but it often arises in discussions of the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and from the Son (the filioque issue that arises with our Orthodox friends).

[Saint Bonaventure]

On 11/21/2022 at 10:04 PM, David Waltz said:

 

I am not a devout, practicing Catholic, as such, I am not in a position to “emulate him”. If the Holy Spirit leads me to become a devout, faithful, full-blown Catholic, then it would be the theology/thought of the Angelic Doctor that would foremost mentor me.

 

I can relate to what you've written here. Life is short and precious; the Holy Spirit, like the wind, blows where it wills.

[Saint Bonaventure]

On 11/19/2022 at 1:41 PM, InCognitus said:

Related to your question, I just came across the following article on the Interpreter Foundation website when I was looking for audio files to listen to while on my trip this week:

"A Comet, Christ’s Birth, and Josephus’s Lunar Eclipse", Charles Dike, Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 52 (2022): 279-320

I've only skimmed the article at this point.  It's rather technical, but sounds interesting.

Comets and possible connections to Zoroastrians are interesting, to say the least.

My thinking here is more concrete, specifically 1) Did the magi see the star and take it as a sign to go to Jerusalem, 2) Did the magi follow the star, not knowing the destination, and then found themselves in Jerusalem? 3) Something else.

[gav]

3 hours ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

Comets and possible connections to Zoroastrians are interesting, to say the least.

My thinking here is more concrete, specifically 1) Did the magi see the star and take it as a sign to go to Jerusalem, 2) Did the magi follow the star, not knowing the destination, and then found themselves in Jerusalem? 3) Something else.

If Magi were Babylonian or Persian linked to Zoroastrians or even just Jews of the Diaspora in the east that is where Daniel made a name for himself as master of the wisemen class in Babylon and early Persia. It is quite feasible for his writings to have remained in reference in the east and he had his 70 weeks prophecy that we still find in the Old Testament today. That 70 weeks prophecy would have given those in the east a timeline for when the messiah would be cut off. With that they would have a general idea of when and where they could expect his birth. We know from clay tablets that the motions of the plants, moon and stars was meticulously documented in Babylon.

There is an exceptional dance of the planets Venus(female) and Jupiter(King of the gods) that occurs around the time of the Saviour's birth and it occurs in the constellation of Leo representing the Lion of Judah and Virgo representing the virgin. This dance would easily show the immaculate conception, gestation and birth as it covers a period of 3 years, with a forerunner event to give the heads up, to the immaculate conception, to the visit of the Magi when Christ was a toddler. Hence, Herod had the babies of Bethlehem slaughtered that were under two years old based on the timing of the first appearance of the star(Venus Jupiter conjunction.)

[InCognitus]

9 hours ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

Comets and possible connections to Zoroastrians are interesting, to say the least.

My thinking here is more concrete, specifically 1) Did the magi see the star and take it as a sign to go to Jerusalem, 2) Did the magi follow the star, not knowing the destination, and then found themselves in Jerusalem? 3) Something else.

3) Something else.

Apparently they saw the star first and (based on an unknown prophecy) took it as a sign that the ruler of Israel was born, and then headed to where it was prophesied that he would be born, in Bethlehem (Matthew 2:5-6 and Micah 5:2).  But since the wise men were foreigners (and perhaps they assumed the newborn king would be brought to Jerusalem) they checked in at Jerusalem first, which of course tipped off Herod and the news of the birth of "King of the Jews" made him uneasy.  

[mfbukowski]

6 hours ago, gav said:

If Magi were Babylonian or Persian linked to Zoroastrians or even just Jews of the Diaspora in the east that is where Daniel made a name for himself as master of the wisemen class in Babylon and early Persia. It is quite feasible for his writings to have remained in reference in the east and he had his 70 weeks prophecy that we still find in the Old Testament today. That 70 weeks prophecy would have given those in the east a timeline for when the messiah would be cut off. With that they would have a general idea of when and where they could expect his birth. We know from clay tablets that the motions of the plants, moon and stars was meticulously documented in Babylon.

There is an exceptional dance of the planets Venus(female) and Jupiter(King of the gods) that occurs around the time of the Saviour's birth and it occurs in the constellation of Leo representing the Lion of Judah and Virgo representing the virgin. This dance would easily show the immaculate conception, gestation and birth as it covers a period of 3 years, with a forerunner event to give the heads up, to the immaculate conception, to the visit of the Magi when Christ was a toddler. Hence, Herod had the babies of Bethlehem slaughtered that were under two years old based on the timing of the first appearance of the star(Venus Jupiter conjunction.)

Immaculate conception refers to MARY'S conception without original sin, so must have been years earlier- 15 years? How much older was Mary than Jesus?

The Magi were pretty certainly Zoroastrians; they had their own prophecies as well.

Edited December 3, 2022 by mfbukowski

[gav]

4 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Immaculate conception refers to MARY'S conception without original sin, so must have been years earlier- 15 years? How much older was Mary than Jesus?

The Magi were pretty certainly Zoroastrians; they had their own prophecies as well.

See what I get for using Catholic terms I only guess the meaning of. What would be the appropriate term for the overshadowing of Mary by the power of the Highest when Christ is conceived within her?  

[Saint Bonaventure]

9 hours ago, gav said:

See what I get for using Catholic terms I only guess the meaning of. What would be the appropriate term for the overshadowing of Mary by the power of the Highest when Christ is conceived within her?  

Mistaking the Immaculate Conception for when the Holy Spirit "came upon" and "overshadowed" Mary is incredibly common. This sort of mistake is probably about as common as people thinking Latter-day Saints can't have caffeine. It's just one of those things.

These passages are incredibly important to Catholics, though. Catholics will see the overshadowing of Mount Sinai (Ex. 24) and the Tabernacle (Ex. 40) as prefiguring the overshadowing of Mary (Luke 1), Jesus (Matt. 17), and those gathered at the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2). 

For Catholics, Mary's overshadowing by the Holy Spirit made her a kind of living shrine, or more specifically, the Ark of the New and Eternal Covenant. Catholics see the Ark carrying the Mosaic law and the presence of God as prefiguring Mary carrying the Word.

I might misunderstand, and hope someone will jump in and explain, but I believe that Latter-day Saints teach that people were overshadowed by the Holy Spirit after their baptism in the Book of Mormon and that Joseph Smith was overshadowed by the Holy Spirit during his vision in the woods. I find these teachings very interesting.

 

 

Edited December 3, 2022 by Saint Bonaventure

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

Mistaking the Immaculate Conception for when the Holy Spirit "came upon" and "overshadowed" Mary is incredibly common. This sort of mistake is probably about as common as people thinking Latter-day Saints can't have caffeine. It's just one of those things.

These passages are incredibly important to Catholics, though. Catholics will see the overshadowing of Mount Sinai (Ex. 24) and the Tabernacle (Ex. 40) as prefiguring the overshadowing of Mary (Luke 1), Jesus (Matt. 17), and those gathered at the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2). 

For Catholics, Mary's overshadowing by the Holy Spirit made her a kind of living shrine, or more specifically, the Ark of the New and Eternal Covenant. Catholics see the Ark carrying the Mosaic law and the presence of God as prefiguring Mary carrying the Word.

I might misunderstand, and hope someone will jump in and explain, but I believe that Latter-day Saints teach that people were overshadowed by the Holy Spirit after their baptism in the Book of Mormon and that Joseph Smith was overshadowed by the Holy Spirit during his vision in the woods. I find these teachings very interesting.

 

 

We clearly understand the concept, I think, but we do not use that term.

I suppose we could say that Joseph was "overshadowed"?

Maybe if you would define it better?

Overshadow = theophany?

For us God is physical; "overshadow" has a cloud-like implication, and the references you used imply that too?

But I can, I think, understand it as the aura of God's presence- the cloud leading the Israelites, yet not revealing himself fully?

[Saint Bonaventure]

32 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

We clearly understand the concept, I think, but we do not use that term.

I suppose we could say that Joseph was "overshadowed"?

Maybe if you would define it better?

Overshadow = theophany?

For us God is physical; "overshadow" has a cloud-like implication, and the references you used imply that too?

But I can, I think, understand it as the aura of God's presence- the cloud leading the Israelites, yet not revealing himself fully?

My Greek Lexicon indicates that the word translated as "overshadowed" in Luke 1 is episkiazo. As I track down the references, the account in Ezekiel 1 about the great cloud with brightness and fire is yet another reference.

The CCC has this to say:

Quote

 

CCC 697 Cloud and light. These two images occur together in the manifestations of the Holy Spirit. In the theophanies of the Old Testament, the cloud, now obscure, now luminous, reveals the living and saving God, while veiling the transcendence of his glory – with Moses on Mount Sinai,1 at the tent of meeting,2 and during the wandering in the desert,3 and with Solomon at the dedication of the Temple.4 In the Holy Spirit, Christ fulfills these figures. The Spirit comes upon the Virgin Mary and “overshadows” her, so that she might conceive and give birth to Jesus.5 On the mountain of Transfiguration, the Spirit in the “cloud came and overshadowed” Jesus, Moses and Elijah, Peter, James and John, and “a voice came out of the cloud, saying, ‘This is my Son, my Chosen; listen to him!’”6 Finally, the cloud took Jesus out of the sight of the disciples on the day of his ascension and will reveal him as Son of man in glory on the day of his final coming.7

1 Cf. Ex 24:15-18.
2 Cf. Ex 33:9-10.
3 Cf. Ex 40:36-38; 1 Cor 10:1-2.
4 Cf. 1 Kings 8:10-12.
5 Lk 1:35.
6 Lk 9:34-35.
7 Cf. Acts 1:9; cf. Lk 21:27.

 

 

[3DOP]

12 hours ago, gav said:

See what I get for using Catholic terms I only guess the meaning of. What would be the appropriate term for the overshadowing of Mary by the power of the Highest when Christ is conceived within her?  

It might help to think of it this way. Catholics believe that only one person is recipient of an Immaculate Conception. LDS believe that Immaculate Conceptions are universal.

[InCognitus]

23 minutes ago, 3DOP said:

It might help to think of it this way. Catholics believe that only one person is recipient of an Immaculate Conception. LDS believe that Immaculate Conceptions are universal.

I think the Latter-day Saints would say it differently, like this:  Since there is no such thing as an inherited "original sin" then there is no need for anything like an "Immaculate Conception".

[3DOP]

7 minutes ago, InCognitus said:

I think the Latter-day Saints would say it differently, like this:  Since there is no such thing as an inherited "original sin" then there is no need for anything like an "Immaculate Conception".

I was exercising an unusual, but hopefully refreshing brevity. Heh. It seems an interesting twist that Catholics sometimes get grief for believing one person was born without original sin when you guys are 100% Immaculate Conceptions!   

 

[InCognitus]

1 minute ago, 3DOP said:

I was exercising an unusual, but hopefully refreshing brevity. Heh. It seems an interesting twist that Catholics sometimes get grief for believing one person was born without original sin when you guys are 100% Immaculate Conceptions!   

You beat me to it, but I just looked up the Encyclopedia of Mormonism articles on Immaculate Conception and Original Sin, and I was going to edit my post and include the links, but I'll just respond to your new post instead .

I'll quote the entry on Immaculate Conception in its entirety (with my emphasis added):

Quote

Immaculate Conception

Author: Lamb, Connie

Immaculate conception is the belief of some Christians that from her conception in her mother's womb, Jesus' mother was free from original sin. Original sin holds that Adam's sinful choice in the Garden of Eden, made for all his descendants, led to a hereditary sin incurred at conception by every human being and removed only by the sacraments of the church. From this view arose the concept of Mary's immaculate conception. By a unique grace, Mary was preserved from the stain of original sin, inheriting human nature without taint in order that she be a suitable mother for Jesus. This teaching was defined as obligatory dogma by Pope Pius IX in 1854.

Latter-day Saints accept neither the above doctrine of original sin nor the need for Mary's immaculate conception (MD, p. 375). Instead, they "believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam's transgression" (A of F 2), because Jesus' Atonement redeems all, including Mary, from the responsibility for Adam's trespass (Moro. 8:8). "God having redeemed man from the fall, men became again, in their infant state, innocent before God" (D&C 93:38). For Latter-day Saints, Mary was a choice servant selected by God to be the mother of Jesus.

Bibliography
"Immaculate Conception." New Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 7, pp. 378-82. New York, 1967.
Watlington, Amanda G. Official Catholic Teachings: Christ Our Lord. Wilmington, 1978.
CONNIE LAMB

And here's the "LDS DOCTRINE" portion of the article on Original Sin:

Quote

IN LDS DOCTRINE. Latter-day Saints believe that infants inherit certain effects of the Fall, but not the responsibility for any sin as a result of Adam's or Eve's transgression. From the foundation of the world, the Atonement of Jesus Christ makes amends "for the sins of those who have fallen by the transgression of Adam" (Mosiah 3:11). Therefore, baptism is not needed until children reach a state of accountability, generally at the age of eight years, for little children cannot sin and are innocent (see Children: Salvation of Children). They are redeemed from the beginning by the grace of Jesus Christ (D&C 29:46-47), whose Atonement cleanses them of the effects of the Fall (D&C 137:10). The Prophet Mormon wrote the following words of Christ: "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" (Moro. 8:8).

In one account in the Pearl of Great Price, Adam learned that he had been forgiven for his transgression in the Garden of Eden, and that "the Son of God hath atoned for original guilt, wherein the sins of the parents cannot be answered upon the heads of the children" (Moses 6:54). However, as a consequence of the Fall, evil is present in the world and all "children are conceived in sin, [and] so when they begin to grow up, sin conceiveth in their hearts, and they taste the bitter, that they may know to prize the good" (Moses 6:55). Begetting children in marriage is not a sin (cf. Heb. 13:4), but the propensity for sin is inherited.

No mortal person bears the burden of repenting for Adam's transgression. Nevertheless, all inherit the effects of the Fall: All leave the presence of God at birth, all are subject to physical death, and all will sin in some measure. From the moment of conception, the body inherits the seed of mortality that will eventually result in death, but only as a person becomes accountable and chooses evil over good do personal sins result in further separation from God. Thus Adam was counseled: "Wherefore teach it unto your children, that all men, everywhere, must repent, or they can in nowise inherit the kingdom of God, for no unclean thing can dwell there" (Moses 5:57).

I think both of those sum it up quite well.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, 3DOP said:

I was exercising an unusual, but hopefully refreshing brevity. Heh. It seems an interesting twist that Catholics sometimes get grief for believing one person was born without original sin when you guys are 100% Immaculate Conceptions!   

 

I get it and it's a good tool I think for explaining it- yet the other side is that Catholics- I betcha- will see it as trivializing the Immaculate Conception.

All I know is that if I said that I would be in BIG trouble!

[gav]

11 hours ago, 3DOP said:

It might help to think of it this way. Catholics believe that only one person is recipient of an Immaculate Conception. LDS believe that Immaculate Conceptions are universal.

Thanks... now I be all knowing... in this thing😉

[David Waltz]

On 12/3/2022 at 11:28 AM, InCognitus said:

I think the Latter-day Saints would say it differently, like this:  Since there is no such thing as an inherited "original sin" then there is no need for anything like an "Immaculate Conception".

It seems to me many Latter-day Saints misunderstand the doctrine of “original sin”, in that they fail to realize the doctrine is nothing other than the effects that Adam’s fall (also called “the curse of Adam") had on all subsequent mankind save Jesus. I think the LDS scriptures are pretty clear on this issue. Note the following:

1 Nephi 10:6 Wherefore, all mankind were in a lost and in a fallen state, and ever would be save they should rely on this Redeemer.

2 Nephi 2:26 And the Messiah cometh in the fulness of time, that he may redeem the children of men from the fall. And because that they are redeemed from the fall they have become free forever, knowing good from evil; to act for themselves and not to be acted upon, save it be by the punishment of the law at the great and last day, according to the commandments which God hath given.

Mosiah 3:16 And even if it were possible that little children could sin they could not be saved; but I say unto you they are blessed; for behold, as in Adam, or by nature, they fall, even so the blood of Christ atoneth for their sins. (See also Ether 3:2.)

Mosiah 3:19 For the natural man is an enemy to God, and has been from the fall of Adam, and will be, forever and ever, unless he yields to the enticings of the Holy Spirit, and putteth off the natural man and becometh a saint through the atonement of Christ the Lord, and becometh as a child, submissive, meek, humble, patient, full of love, willing to submit to all things which the Lord seeth fit to inflict upon him, even as a child doth submit to his father.

[It’s pretty clear that mankind “by nature” is in a fallen state. This “nature” is what Catholics term “original sin”.]

Mosiah 16:3,4 For they are carnal and devilish, and the devil has power over them; yea, even that old serpent that did beguile our first parents, which was the cause of their fall; which was the cause of all mankind becoming carnal, sensual, devilish, knowing evil from good, subjecting themselves to the devil. Thus all mankind were lost; and behold, they would have been endlessly lost were it not that God redeemed his people from their lost and fallen state.

Mosiah 27:25 And the Lord said unto me : Marvel not that all mankind, yea, men and women, all nations, kindreds, tongues and people, must be born again ; yea, born of God, changed from their carnal and fallen state, to a state of righteousness, being redeemed of God, becoming his 'sons and daughters ; 26 And thus they become new creatures ; and unless they do this, they can in anowise inherit the kingdom of God.

Alma 12:22 Now Alma said unto him: This is the thing which I was about to explain. Now we see that Adam did fall by the partaking of the forbidden fruit, according to the word of God; and thus we see, that by his fall, all mankind became a lost and fallen people.

Helaman 14:16 Yea, behold, this death bringeth to pass the "resurrection, and redeemeth all mankind from the first death-that spiritual death ; for all mankind, by the fall of Adam being cut off from the presence of the Lord, are considered as dead, both as to things temporal and to things spiritual.

Alma 34:9 For it is expedient that an atonement should be made; for according to the great plan of the Eternal God there must be an atonement made, or else all mankind must unavoidably perish; yea, all are hardened; yea, all are fallen and are lost, and must perish except it be through the atonement which it is expedient should be made.

Alma 42:14 And thus we see that all mankind were fallen, and they were in the grasp of justice; yea, the justice of God, which consigned them forever to be cut off from his presence.

[Note that “all mankind were lost”. This “lost” state is part of the effects of “original sin”.]

Moroni 8:8 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; and the law of circumcision is done away in me.

[The “curse of Adam” is essentially synonymous with “original sin”.]

Moses 6:48 And he said unto them : Because that Adam fell, we are ; and by his fall came  death ; and we are made partakers of misery and woe. 49 Behold Satan hath come among the children of men, and tempteth them to  worship him ; and men have become carnal, sensual, and devilish, and are shut out from the presence of God.

Moses 6:54 Hence came the saying abroad among the people, that the Son of God hath atoned for original guilt, wherein the sins of the parents cannot be answered upon the heads of the children, for they are whole from the foundation of the world.

[The phrase “original guilt” is, once again, synonymous with “original sin”.]

Moses 6:55 And the Lord spake unto Adam, saying: Inasmuch as thy children are conceived in sin, even so when they begin to grow up, sin conceiveth in their hearts, and they taste the bitter, that they may know to prize the good. (See also Psalm 51:5.)

D&C 93:38 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 see little difference in the above scriptural teachings concerning the effect of Adam’s Fall, and that taught by the Catholic Church. The difference lies in how the atonement of Christ is applied to infants/children. LDS see Christ’s atonement applied universally to infants/children without the need of any ordinances, while Catholics believe that the ordinance of baptism is required for said atonement to become efficacious.

 

Grace and peace,

David

[mfbukowski]

39 minutes ago, David Waltz said:

It seems to me many Latter-day Saints misunderstand the doctrine of “original sin”, in that they fail to realize the doctrine is nothing other than the effects that Adam’s fall (also called “the curse of Adam") had on all subsequent mankind save Jesus. I think the LDS scriptures are pretty clear on this issue. Note the following:

1 Nephi 10:6 Wherefore, all mankind were in a lost and in a fallen state, and ever would be save they should rely on this Redeemer.

2 Nephi 2:26 And the Messiah cometh in the fulness of time, that he may redeem the children of men from the fall. And because that they are redeemed from the fall they have become free forever, knowing good from evil; to act for themselves and not to be acted upon, save it be by the punishment of the law at the great and last day, according to the commandments which God hath given.

Mosiah 3:16 And even if it were possible that little children could sin they could not be saved; but I say unto you they are blessed; for behold, as in Adam, or by nature, they fall, even so the blood of Christ atoneth for their sins. (See also Ether 3:2.)

Mosiah 3:19 For the natural man is an enemy to God, and has been from the fall of Adam, and will be, forever and ever, unless he yields to the enticings of the Holy Spirit, and putteth off the natural man and becometh a saint through the atonement of Christ the Lord, and becometh as a child, submissive, meek, humble, patient, full of love, willing to submit to all things which the Lord seeth fit to inflict upon him, even as a child doth submit to his father.

[It’s pretty clear that mankind “by nature” is in a fallen state. This “nature” is what Catholics term “original sin”.]

Mosiah 16:3,4 For they are carnal and devilish, and the devil has power over them; yea, even that old serpent that did beguile our first parents, which was the cause of their fall; which was the cause of all mankind becoming carnal, sensual, devilish, knowing evil from good, subjecting themselves to the devil. Thus all mankind were lost; and behold, they would have been endlessly lost were it not that God redeemed his people from their lost and fallen state.

Mosiah 27:25 And the Lord said unto me : Marvel not that all mankind, yea, men and women, all nations, kindreds, tongues and people, must be born again ; yea, born of God, changed from their carnal and fallen state, to a state of righteousness, being redeemed of God, becoming his 'sons and daughters ; 26 And thus they become new creatures ; and unless they do this, they can in anowise inherit the kingdom of God.

Alma 12:22 Now Alma said unto him: This is the thing which I was about to explain. Now we see that Adam did fall by the partaking of the forbidden fruit, according to the word of God; and thus we see, that by his fall, all mankind became a lost and fallen people.

Helaman 14:16 Yea, behold, this death bringeth to pass the "resurrection, and redeemeth all mankind from the first death-that spiritual death ; for all mankind, by the fall of Adam being cut off from the presence of the Lord, are considered as dead, both as to things temporal and to things spiritual.

Alma 34:9 For it is expedient that an atonement should be made; for according to the great plan of the Eternal God there must be an atonement made, or else all mankind must unavoidably perish; yea, all are hardened; yea, all are fallen and are lost, and must perish except it be through the atonement which it is expedient should be made.

Alma 42:14 And thus we see that all mankind were fallen, and they were in the grasp of justice; yea, the justice of God, which consigned them forever to be cut off from his presence.

[Note that “all mankind were lost”. This “lost” state is part of the effects of “original sin”.]

Moroni 8:8 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; and the law of circumcision is done away in me.

[The “curse of Adam” is essentially synonymous with “original sin”.]

Moses 6:48 And he said unto them : Because that Adam fell, we are ; and by his fall came  death ; and we are made partakers of misery and woe. 49 Behold Satan hath come among the children of men, and tempteth them to  worship him ; and men have become carnal, sensual, and devilish, and are shut out from the presence of God.

Moses 6:54 Hence came the saying abroad among the people, that the Son of God hath atoned for original guilt, wherein the sins of the parents cannot be answered upon the heads of the children, for they are whole from the foundation of the world.

[The phrase “original guilt” is, once again, synonymous with “original sin”.]

Moses 6:55 And the Lord spake unto Adam, saying: Inasmuch as thy children are conceived in sin, even so when they begin to grow up, sin conceiveth in their hearts, and they taste the bitter, that they may know to prize the good. (See also Psalm 51:5.)

D&C 93:38 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 see little difference in the above scriptural teachings concerning the effect of Adam’s Fall, and that taught by the Catholic Church. The difference lies in how the atonement of Christ is applied to infants/children. LDS see Christ’s atonement applied universally to infants/children without the need of any ordinances, while Catholics believe that the ordinance of baptism is required for said atonement to become efficacious.

 

Grace and peace,

David

Great.

Then we should be baptizing babies?  How do you handle that one?

And now we have divine nature vs fallen human nature, so Jesus had two natures, and God cannot have a body because he wasn't baptized.... and there was no premortal state 'cause God couldn't hang out with fallen beings, so he us not our father......and where does it end?

Seriously!

The fortunate fall to give us agency disappears.

Edited December 6, 2022 by mfbukowski

[InCognitus]

42 minutes ago, David Waltz said:

It seems to me many Latter-day Saints misunderstand the doctrine of “original sin”, in that they fail to realize the doctrine is nothing other than the effects that Adam’s fall (also called “the curse of Adam") had on all subsequent mankind save Jesus.

And:

42 minutes ago, David Waltz said:

[It’s pretty clear that mankind “by nature” is in a fallen state. This “nature” is what Catholics term “original sin”.]

I don't think this is a correct explanation for the Catholic doctrine of "original sin" as I understand it, because they don't define it as merely a fallen nature.  Below is an excerpt from the entry for Original Sin in the Catholic Encyclopedia:

Quote

Nature of original sin

This is a difficult point and many systems have been invented to explain it: it will suffice to give the theological explanation now commonly received. Original sin is the privation of sanctifying grace in consequence of the sin of Adam. This solution, which is that of St. Thomas, goes back to St. Anselm and even to the traditions of the early Church, as we see by the declaration of the Second Council of Orange (A.D. 529): one man has transmitted to the whole human race not only the death of the body, which is the punishment of sin, but even sin itself, which is the death of the soul [Denz., n. 175 (145)]. As death is the privation of the principle of life, the death of the soul is the privation of sanctifying grace which according to all theologians is the principle of supernatural life. Therefore, if original sin is "the death of the soul", it is the privation of sanctifying grace.

So according to this definition, "sin itself" is inherited from Adam.

Certainly, Latter-day Saints understand the state of the fallen or "natural man" (as your excellent scripture references point out), but as your quote from Moses 6:54-55 shows, "the Son of God hath atoned for original guilt, wherein the sins of the parents cannot be answered upon the heads of the children, for they are whole from the foundation of the world". 

That is why, in the Latter-day Saint view, there is no such thing as "original sin" in the sense that it is defined in the Catholic Encyclopedia article, above.  It has been atoned for, it isn't an issue for anyone, and therefore there is no need for Mary to have an "immaculate conception". 

42 minutes ago, David Waltz said:

I see little difference in the above scriptural teachings concerning the effect of Adam’s Fall, and that taught by the Catholic Church. The difference lies in how the atonement of Christ is applied to infants/children. LDS see Christ’s atonement applied universally to infants/children without the need of any ordinances, while Catholics believe that the ordinance of baptism is required for said atonement to become efficacious.

I understand the point you are making, but the bolded part of your quote above is not really "little difference", but it is a HUGE difference in my opinion. 

Edited December 6, 2022 by InCognitus

[David Waltz]

Hi Incognitus,

It seems that my musings at the end of my last post were not as clear as I thought they were. You quoted the following from my post:

“I see little difference in the above scriptural teachings concerning the effect of Adam’s Fall, and that taught by the Catholic Church. The difference lies in how the atonement of Christ is applied to infants/children. LDS see Christ’s atonement applied universally to infants/children without the need of any ordinances, while Catholics believe that the ordinance of baptism is required for said atonement to become efficacious.” [Bold emphasis yours.]

To which you said:

>> I understand the point you are making, but the bolded part of your quote above is not really "little difference", but it is a HUGE difference in my opinion.>>

The “little difference” pertained ONLY to the effects of the fall/sin of Adam, and most certainly not to HOW the atonement of Christ is applied in the respective positions of the CoJCoLDS and the RCC. The difference between the two in that respect is considerable, so I actually agree with you that “it is a HUGE difference”.

Sincerely hope I have offered a bit more clarity to to my musings.

Now, moving on, apart from the, “original guilt, wherein the sins of the parents cannot be answered upon the heads of the children, for they are whole from the foundation of the world”, are there any other benefits that Christ’s atonement has provided to children?

Further, does the removal of “original guilt” have any application concerning certain aspects found in the following verse:

Moses 6:55 And the Lord spake unto Adam, saying: Inasmuch as thy children are conceived in sin, even so when they begin to grow up, sin conceiveth in their hearts, and they taste the bitter, that they may know to prize the good.

Thanks much for the dialogue, hope to hear from you soon.

 

Grace and peace,

David

Edited December 7, 2022 by David Waltz
typo

[3DOP]

1 hour ago, David Waltz said:

Hi Incognitus,

It seems that my musings at the end of my last post were not as clear as I thought they were. You quoted the following from my post:

“I see little difference in the above scriptural teachings concerning the effect of Adam’s Fall, and that taught by the Catholic Church. The difference lies in how the atonement of Christ is applied to infants/children. LDS see Christ’s atonement applied universally to infants/children without the need of any ordinances, while Catholics believe that the ordinance of baptism is required for said atonement to become efficacious.” [Bold emphasis yours.]

To which you said:

>> I understand the point you are making, but the bolded part of your quote above is not really "little difference", but it is a HUGE difference in my opinion.>>

The “little difference” pertained ONLY to the effects of the fall/sin of Adam, and most certainly not to HOW the atonement of Christ is applied in the respective positions of the CoJCoLDS and the RCC. The difference between the two in that respect is considerable, so I actually agree with you that “it is a HUGE difference”.

Sincerely hope I have offered a bit more clarity to to my musings.

Now, moving on, apart from the, “original guilt, wherein the sins of the parents cannot be answered upon the heads of the children, for they are whole from the foundation of the world”, are there any other benefits that Christ’s atonement has provided to children?

Further, does the removal of “original guilt” have any application concerning certain aspects found in the following verse:

Moses 6:55 And the Lord spake unto Adam, saying: Inasmuch as thy children are conceived in sin, even so when they begin to grow up, sin conceiveth in their hearts, and they taste the bitter, that they may know to prize the good.

Thanks much for the dialogue, hope to hear from you soon.

 

Grace and peace,

David

Hey Dave.

I was thinking the same thing. The way Christ's redemption becomes efficacious to children is a big difference. But that was not your point. The point is that ALL children need Christ's redemption.

The application of a remedy for Adam's sin requires a second Adam to make atonement (Christ) for all Mormons and Catholics. Why? Because just as we are saved in Christ so are we lost in Adam. It is the same "communitarian" justice. It is not individual. Either way you look at it, we are made better off or worse off by the behavior of another. Because we are "punished" for Adam's disobedience a similar justice allows us to be "rewarded" for Christ's obedience. The only problem I can see is that LDS think they hate the expression "original sin", even as they believe in the idea. It merely means the first sin that made a Redeemer necessary if the race could be saved. And LDS believe in it. Without Christ, would infants who die before the age of reason still go to the Celestial Kingdom according to LDS thought? It appears to me that the babies need Christ too, even though they are unable to have committed actual sin.

Hi Incognitus.

It seems to me like our argument is actually strengthened by the passage you quoted from Dave: "The Son of God hath atoned for original guilt, wherein the sins of the parents cannot be answered upon the heads of the children, for they are whole from the foundation of the world". (Moses 6:54) In other words, without the Son of God, the sins of the parents WOULD be "answered upon the heads of the children". That is what Catholics believe, except we deny that an unbaptized baby could ever suffer any sense pain being only subject to original sin. The only result of original sin is a loss of something most non-Catholics don't even care about or aspire to gain, the Beatific Vision of God. It seems like LDS are understandably confused on this point, apparently because some sect in the Book of Mormon, in the New World, was baptizing their babies because they believed that otherwise, if the baby died, it would go to hell for original sin and burn there forever. This is unfortunate and absolutely contrary to the doctrine of the Catholic Church which had no contact with this sect. Only those who commit actual sins could be punished any more harshly than the "deprivation" that is the lot of those who die in original sin only.

Thanks for your consideration.

Rory 

Edited December 7, 2022 by 3DOP