The universal depravity of the human family

[telnetd]

I found a statement in a church manual which says the human family is not depraved.

"If we correctly understand the role of Adam and Eve, we will realize that those who have labeled them
sinners responsible for the universal depravity of the human family are misguided". 

When I read Mosiah 16:3 however, it describes a universal depravity.

"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".

Which is it?

As a side question - I understand how Satan beguiled Eve but how did he beguile Adam?

[OGHoosier]

The manual, as it comes from later and more advanced revelation.

Benjamin's anthropology was good in terms of practical effects, but he lacked awareness of the necessity of the Fall for the greater purposes of universal exaltation. 

[Grug the Neanderthal]

Edited.

I misread the post initially. Adam and Eve were definitely not "sinners responsible for the universal depravity of the human family."

The human family is very much depraved in many ways as Mosiah 16:3 says, but it’s not Adam and Eve's fault. It’s the fault of people misusing their agency and choosing evil over good. 

Edited February 18, 2023 by Grug the Neanderthal

[Benjamin McGuire]

1 hour ago, telnetd said:

When I read Mosiah 16:3 however, it describes a universal depravity.

Not really. Universal depravity is a term that is meant to describe the fallen condition of man - they are fallen to the point that without the grace of God, they cannot even turn to God and love Him.

The Book of Mormon generally denies the idea that mankind is in an irredeemable state because of the fall. In particular, it makes exception for children. Consider Mosiah 15:25 -

Quote

And little children also have eternal life.

It is a blanket statement. And this idea is repeated in several places like Mosiah 3:21 -

Quote

And behold, when that time cometh, none shall be found blameless before God, except it be little children, only through repentance and faith on the name of the Lord God Omnipotent.

Everyone else is told, in the Book of Mormon, to become like children if they wish to be saved (a problematic idea at best if children are under the umbrella of universal depravity). The longest discussion of this issue comes in Moroni 8:22 -

Quote

For behold that all little children are alive in Christ, and also all they that are without the law. For the power of redemption cometh on all them that have no law; wherefore, he that is not condemned, or he that is under no condemnation, cannot repent; and unto such baptism availeth nothing.

Here it is expanded. It isn't just children, but everyone who isn't under the law. And there is no question that they aren't considered sinful - even baptism cannot make a child any more acceptable to God than he already is.

The Book of Mormon doesn't directly deal with the question of total depravity - at least in part because it views the fall as a necessary step for humanity, and thus a part of God's plan for mankind. Whatever the negative impacts of the fall are, the atonement reverses them (for everyone).

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, telnetd said:

I found a statement in a church manual which says the human family is not depraved.

"If we correctly understand the role of Adam and Eve, we will realize that those who have labeled them
sinners responsible for the universal depravity of the human family are misguided". 

Maybe they are “non-sinners responsible for the universal depravity of the human family”?

As has been said though “universal depravity” is a technical term. There is also the problem if we were universally depraved how it would probably be impossible for us to notice it at all.

[CV75]

3 hours ago, telnetd said:

I found a statement in a church manual which says the human family is not depraved.

"If we correctly understand the role of Adam and Eve, we will realize that those who have labeled them
sinners responsible for the universal depravity of the human family are misguided". 

When I read Mosiah 16:3 however, it describes a universal depravity.

"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".

Which is it?

As a side question - I understand how Satan beguiled Eve but how did he beguile Adam?

There is a difference between cause and responsibility.

If by "universal depravity" you mean "total depravity  [Total depravity - Wikipedia]," the Church does not teach it. 

Note that Abinadi says, "all mankind becoming carnal, sensual, devilish, knowing evil from good, subjecting themselves to the devil..." Little children and others do not achieve these attributes until they become accountable adults. "Mankind" in this instance refers to adults (See Mosiah 3: 16-19; 15:16).

Mosiah 26: 1-4 shows how this accountability begins after childhood.

 

Edited February 18, 2023 by CV75

[Benjamin McGuire]

13 minutes ago, CV75 said:

"Mankind" in this instance refers to adults

It doesn't.

I am pretty certain that Mosiah 15:16 is not the reference you meant. But if you meant Mosiah 15:19, I am also pretty sure that Abinadi is referring to everyone including children when he uses the word 'mankind' there. The same can be said for Mosiah 16:4. I think that these are broad statements - and reflect a general condition rather than specifics of the sort that would necessitate your reading. In particular, we recognize that being a child is a rather temporary status - children inevitably grow to become adults.

Abinadi's soteriology is (at least for the Book of Mormon) a work in progress. Alma 42 combines parts of Abinadi's theology with that of Lehi (2 Nephi 2). And eventually, Moroni - in Moroni 8 - will attempt to explain why it is that children do not need to repent or to be baptized. He utilizes the idea from 2 Nephi 2:13 that without law there can be no sin and applies this to children and to certain adults in 8:22: "For behold that all little children are alive in Christ, and also all they that are without the law. For the power of redemption cometh on all them that have no law; wherefore, he that is not condemned, or he that is under no condemnation, cannot repent; and unto such baptism availeth nothing."

In any case, I am quite comfortable leaving Mosiah discussing all mankind (including children) in his comments. He makes it clear in 15:25 exactly what his view on children is. And while he doesn't explain it as Moroni does later, he is pretty clear about who will not be redeemed (Mosiah 15:26): "even all those ... that have wilfully rebelled against God, that have known the commandments of God, and would not keep them;" - that is, those that received the law, and then didn't keep it. This is, of course, part of the pointed message that Abinadi is bringing to the priests of Noah, who have the law, and who have not been keeping it - they have no excuses.

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

It doesn't.

I am pretty certain that Mosiah 15:16 is not the reference you meant. But if you meant Mosiah 15:19, I am also pretty sure that Abinadi is referring to everyone including children when he uses the word 'mankind' there. The same can be said for Mosiah 16:4. I think that these are broad statements - and reflect a general condition rather than specifics of the sort that would necessitate your reading. In particular, we recognize that being a child is a rather temporary status - children inevitably grow to become adults.

Abinadi's soteriology is (at least for the Book of Mormon) a work in progress. Alma 42 combines parts of Abinadi's theology with that of Lehi (2 Nephi 2). And eventually, Moroni - in Moroni 8 - will attempt to explain why it is that children do not need to repent or to be baptized. He utilizes the idea from 2 Nephi 2:13 that without law there can be no sin and applies this to children and to certain adults in 8:22: "For behold that all little children are alive in Christ, and also all they that are without the law. For the power of redemption cometh on all them that have no law; wherefore, he that is not condemned, or he that is under no condemnation, cannot repent; and unto such baptism availeth nothing."

In any case, I am quite comfortable leaving Mosiah discussing all mankind (including children) in his comments. He makes it clear in 15:25 exactly what his view on children is. And while he doesn't explain it as Moroni does later, he is pretty clear about who will not be redeemed (Mosiah 15:26): "even all those ... that have wilfully rebelled against God, that have known the commandments of God, and would not keep them;" - that is, those that received the law, and then didn't keep it. This is, of course, part of the pointed message that Abinadi is bringing to the priests of Noah, who have the law, and who have not been keeping it - they have no excuses.

Yes, Abinadi (the text) uses "mankind" in both general and specific senses, depending on the section of the chapters we read.

While “mankind” may be broadly used in Mosiah 15:19, Abinadi did subsequently categorize mankind into three parts (verses 22-25): 1) “all the prophets, and all those that have believed in their words, or all those that have kept the commandments of God”; 2) “they that have died before Christ came, in their ignorance, not having salvation declared unto them”; and 3) “little children.”

And then, concerning the OP, “mankind” is used to focus on a fourth part (chapter 16, verses 2, 3, 12), those who “would not hearken unto the voice of the Lord,” who are “carnal and devilish,” persist in their “own carnal nature,” and go “according to their own carnal wills and desires; having never called upon the Lord while the arms of mercy were extended towards them; for the arms of mercy were extended towards them, and they would not; they being warned of their iniquities and yet they would not depart from them; and they were commanded to repent and yet they would not repent.” The reference in the OP uses “mankind” for these, who are “carnal, sensual, devilish, knowing evil from good, subjecting themselves to the devil,” or accountable adults, capable of repenting, fitting this description.

So, I guess the meaning or scope of “mankind” depends on timing.

Edited February 19, 2023 by CV75

[standard4truth]

I would suggest that there isn't just one single interpretation on this. It seems that the workings of soteriology among the ancient BoM peoples was a work in progress and wasn't fully fleshed out until later in the book. I am fine accepting both teachings as being true but with the latter being more primitive than the former. 

Not super relevant but what is strange about Mosiah is that he taught the idea that humanity had a fallen state inherited from Adam and Eve's transgression, but we don't find this teaching in among pre-exilic Israelite writings. It must have come by revelation after Lehi and his family left the Old World. 

[The Nehor]

If the human family is depraved why do we keep defending it? Are we pro-depravity?

[JLHPROF]

8 hours ago, OGHoosier said:

The manual, as it comes from later and more advanced revelation.

That's a very risky statement.

 

[Jaydes]

It's a very strange thing to ask; "this manual says one thing, holy Scripture says another thing, which is it?"

 

Obviously the scripture is the one that is correct, every time. 

 

That said, they do not seem to be at contradiction. The manual simply says that it is not their fault that depravity happened. 

[Navidad]

19 hours ago, OGHoosier said:

The manual, as it comes from later and more advanced revelation.

Benjamin's anthropology was good in terms of practical effects, but he lacked awareness of the necessity of the Fall for the greater purposes of universal exaltation. 

Serious question for you. With this predicate, does it mean that someday a "later and more advanced revelation" might replace D&C 1:30 or portions of D&C 132, or. . . or. . . or. . . ? I understand what you are saying, but my goodness, where would it end? And would a gathering of the 15 apostles be the final arbiter? If so, how often historically have they done that?

[Calm]

1 minute ago, Navidad said:

understand what you are saying, but my goodness, where would it end?

When we possess and comprehend the knowledge of God.  That is the purpose of revelation.

Edited February 19, 2023 by Calm

[Navidad]

17 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

Not really. Universal depravity is a term that is meant to describe the fallen condition of man - they are fallen to the point that without the grace of God, they cannot even turn to God and love Him.

The Book of Mormon generally denies the idea that mankind is in an irredeemable state because of the fall. In particular, it makes exception for children. Consider Mosiah 15:25 -

It is a blanket statement. And this idea is repeated in several places like Mosiah 3:21 -

Everyone else is told, in the Book of Mormon, to become like children if they wish to be saved (a problematic idea at best if children are under the umbrella of universal depravity). The longest discussion of this issue comes in Moroni 8:22 -

Here it is expanded. It isn't just children, but everyone who isn't under the law. And there is no question that they aren't considered sinful - even baptism cannot make a child any more acceptable to God than he already is.

The Book of Mormon doesn't directly deal with the question of total depravity - at least in part because it views the fall as a necessary step for humanity, and thus a part of God's plan for mankind. Whatever the negative impacts of the fall are, the atonement reverses them (for everyone).

What you have described is not unique to the LDS church. In the debate within Evangelicalism about who can, will, or needs to be saved - many have held a similar perspective.

[Navidad]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

When we possess and comprehend the knowledge of God.  That is the purpose of revelation.

I don't understand this . . . Can we possess and comprehend the knowledge of God prior to a billion years in eternity? When in this mortal life can we come to the conclusion that we "possess and comprehend the knowledge of God?" Serious question? Thanks.

[Benjamin McGuire]

11 hours ago, CV75 said:

Yes, Abinadi (the text) uses "mankind" in both general and specific senses

No. The word mankind doesn't have this specific sense. Here is a Webster's 1828 dictionary definition:

Quote

 

1. The race or species of human beings.

2. A male, or the males of the human race.

 

The second doesn't make sense in any context for this, leaving us with the first definition. You are creating a definition to support your desired interpretation of the text instead of simply reading what is there. The general sense and the specific sense is simply the same.

[Benjamin McGuire]

32 minutes ago, Navidad said:

What you have described is not unique to the LDS church. In the debate within Evangelicalism about who can, will, or needs to be saved - many have held a similar perspective.

This is certainly true. We want a God who is just - because we like the idea of fairness, and we want to know both what is expected of us and what the consequences of our actions will be. And, at the same time, we want a God who is merciful (because we all have our individual failings). I am reminded of something written by Orson Scott Card, in his novel Speaker for the Dead:

Quote

Most communities lurch between decay and rigor mortis and when they veer too far they die. Only one Rabbi dared to expect of us such a perfect balance that we could preserve the law and still forgive the deviation. So of course, we killed him.

[Benjamin McGuire]

37 minutes ago, Navidad said:

I don't understand this . . . Can we possess and comprehend the knowledge of God prior to a billion years in eternity? When in this mortal life can we come to the conclusion that we "possess and comprehend the knowledge of God?" Serious question? Thanks.

I personally don't believe that we can possess this - but I think it is quite easy for many to believe that they do. I think that for many, the desire to have answers that are absolutely true proves to be strong.

On the other hand, I believe that if you were to draw a line from where I am (in my knowledge and understanding) to where God is (in God's knowledge and understanding) it would be a line that extends to the horizon and beyond. This is one of the funny things about religion more generally. If I draw those lines for everyone who believes in God, the distance between us as individuals is minuscule compared to the distance between us collectively and God. Our only knowledge that we can be certain of, in this context, is that we do not know. And not only do we not know, we cannot tell even how far we are (in this context) from God. one of the greatest risks we face is that we may decide that we have learned all there is to learn, that we know all we need to know, and so stop learning and stop progressing down that infinite pathway. One of the truly great lessons of revelation is that we must deal with this kind of ambiguity. 16 years ago now, I listened to an interview with Richard Rohr. It continues to have profound meaning in my life.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Navidad said:

Can we possess and comprehend the knowledge of God prior to a billion years in eternity? When in this mortal life can we come to the conclusion that we "possess and comprehend the knowledge of God?" Serious question? Thanks.

It won’t be till long after we are dead that we will comprehend, but whether a billion years or much sooner because God helps us, I don’t know.

But we know children won’t understand calculus when they are 5 (except in rare cases perhaps) and yet we choose to teach them math facts and functions…in part because this prepares their brains to learn more complicated ideas.  Why wouldn’t God share with us line upon line of his knowledge even though we could never comprehend the whole of it as we are if his ultimate goal is for us to be like him?  

The process of learning and then building on that limited knowledge is likely important to the result as I suspect God’s knowledge has a huge experiential aspect to it, knowledge may need to be conveyed by more than just pictures and words…perhaps something similar to how even a video with written instructions with measurements attached cannot always convey how to make a recipe and may take personal instruction of many times over to impart the correct skill because little changes make a difference and it may need to be almost instinctual how to balance environmental variables like humidity with ingredients and the cooking process.  Therefore when speaking of baking bread for instance, experienced bakers probably convey much more with the same words and pictures to other experienced bakers where minimal information is exchanged with the less experienced.  Experienced bakers may “hear” the feel of the dough as it’s kneaded when the instruction “knead until smooth and elastic” is heard.

I think there is also another reason why God gives us revelation in the here and now even though just a minuscule amount of his knowledge.  Part of curiosity being strong enough to push us to explore includes believing knowing the unknown is important, that the unknown has value for one’s life.  In mortality, a great example is when we see that college graduates often get better paying jobs, we aim and work towards learning what we need to know to get into college.  But perhaps our family members or friends have high paying trade jobs.  In that case, we are more likely to forego college in favour of a trade unless there is another important value we see available only through college attendance and therefore why work that hard in or even take college prep classes.  Knowledge in and of itself rarely has value to people (though some of us like collecting facts on somethings that fascinate us even if they don’t have much impact…like dinosaurs appeal to kids.   My guess is we are here in mortality to learn what is important to us and not just what our parents (heavenly and mortal) want for us and that includes what we want to invest effort into learning or perhaps what is important to learn is whether we like learning.

Something else to be considered is putting off teaching a child anything about a topic until they are ready to comprehend it all might result in a child/adult who isn’t interested in learning that knowledge (speaking from experience of certain cleaning skills/habits I thought I would spare my children from when younger when it would be a struggle and hardship for them when practically mindless work I could finish in a few minutes, thinking they would clearly see the value in learning them when older….but instead they saw it as they had managed fine without them up to then, why learn now?).  How many children are interested in learning how to sew nowadays?  Almost every girl was when I was younger; even if they didn’t want to take home ec, it was still something they wanted to do in their spare time.  Apparently not as universal of a desired skill these days given the reactions of younger women and girls to my question “do you sew?”  Bet the lack of seeing older women sewing much in their childhood, maybe even involving them like mine did by giving my my own cool sewing basket filled with the tools of the trade, makes a difference.  I think one of my grandmas would be shocked to see not every girl has her own sewing basket, it was a necessity of life; the other grandmother, not so much as she was more likely to use tape than a needle and thread, not a homebody even in her generation.

God, as the perfect parent that he is, gives us chances to engage with his knowledge through revelation so we develop both the ability and desire to engage with it in my view.  But it is limited both to our capacity and to fulfill other necessary purposes of mortality.

Edited February 19, 2023 by Calm

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

This is certainly true. We want a God who is just - because we like the idea of fairness, and we want to know both what is expected of us and what the consequences of our actions will be. And, at the same time, we want a God who is merciful (because we all have our individual failings). I am reminded of something written by Orson Scott Card, in his novel Speaker for the Dead:

Reminds me of the Queen in C.S. Lewis’s “Till We Have Faces” about to get her case against the gods heard and talking to her tutor.

Quote

“Are the gods not just?"

"Oh no, child. What would become of us if they were?” 

 

[Navidad]

3 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

I personally don't believe that we can possess this - but I think it is quite easy for many to believe that they do. I think that for many, the desire to have answers that are absolutely true proves to be strong.

On the other hand, I believe that if you were to draw a line from where I am (in my knowledge and understanding) to where God is (in God's knowledge and understanding) it would be a line that extends to the horizon and beyond. This is one of the funny things about religion more generally. If I draw those lines for everyone who believes in God, the distance between us as individuals is minuscule compared to the distance between us collectively and God. Our only knowledge that we can be certain of, in this context, is that we do not know. And not only do we not know, we cannot tell even how far we are (in this context) from God. one of the greatest risks we face is that we may decide that we have learned all there is to learn, that we know all we need to know, and so stop learning and stop progressing down that infinite pathway. One of the truly great lessons of revelation is that we must deal with this kind of ambiguity. 16 years ago now, I listened to an interview with Richard Rohr. It continues to have profound meaning in my life.

I have always enjoyed his teachings. I believe he is a New Mexican Franciscan.

[CV75]

4 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

No. The word mankind doesn't have this specific sense. Here is a Webster's 1828 dictionary definition:

The second doesn't make sense in any context for this, leaving us with the first definition. You are creating a definition to support your desired interpretation of the text instead of simply reading what is there. The general sense and the specific sense is simply the same.

Yes, thank you for reiterating that. At one point “all mankind” consisted only of the “first parents” Adam and Eve who became two accountable (albeit arguably childlike) and endlessly lost adults. The other categories Abinadi mentioned arose only after Adam and Eve were kept from eating from the tree of life. This is one way timing matters. The particular verse the OP brings up pertains to a category of “mankind,” or a subset of “all mankind”: the accountable progeny of our first parents, these parents being the first to became accountable. Accordingly, I answered the OP’s specific question and perspective.

The point in a presentation on the subject where salivation is brought up indicates which category of all mankind is saved, from what, and on what covenant terms, showing another way timing matters on the meaning of "mankind" for the sake of the principle taught. The unaccountable and the children mentioned in chapter 15 must be saved by Christ other than by involving repentance while in the flesh. This allows for later teachings on salvation that count the dead and those not yet born as part of “all mankind,” but these are not within the scope found in Mosiah 15 and 16.

[Benjamin McGuire]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

Yes, thank you for reiterating that.

You are welcome. The rest of it is just nonsense. You seem to be confusing language with your interpretation of history. The language simply doesn't provide for the sorts of nuance that you are trying to introduce. And the nuance you want to see isn't necessary in reading the text. But, whatever. I think we end up in approximately the same place.

Edited February 19, 2023 by Benjamin McGuire

[CV75]

32 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

You are welcome. The rest of it is just nonsense. You seem to be confusing language with your interpretation of history. The language simply doesn't provide for the sorts of nuance that you are trying to introduce. And the nuance you want to see isn't necessary in reading the text. But, whatever. I think we end up in approximately the same place.

I find it interesting that my nonsense and your case get us to whatever it is you consider to be approximately the same place.