The universal depravity of the human family

[Dario_M]

I myself don't really believe in Adam And Eve. And that the world have been made in 7 days. Sounds like something a human can made up. Sounds lika a storie that somebody just made up. The Bible starts with this. 

I'm happy that the Book of Mormon don't handle this subject all to much luckely. 😌

Edited February 19, 2023 by Dario_M

[MiserereNobis]

Sometimes theological arguments can get quite removed from practical day-to-day living (with angels on the head of a pin being the cliche example).

For me, original sin helps explain why we do the things we do. I don't want to, but I am "prone to leave the God I love" (dear Lord, did I just quote a protestant hymn??  ). Or, as Gillian Welch sings, "I wanna do right, but not right now." Or, St. Augustine (call off the Inquisition, I'm back to quoting Catholics): "Lord, make me chaste, but not yet!"

It is helpful for me to view the entire redemption arc as my own story. I am Adam and Eve. Right now, right this moment, the world is arising, being created. Right now, right this moment, I am falling. But also, right now, right this moment, Christ is redeeming me. Christ is the New Adam and Mary is the New Eve, and through Him and Them I am being redeemed from seemingly inherent decisions that choose the lies of Satan: that I can understand, act, and even exist independently of God ("your eyes will be opened").

ETA: I sure have been parenthetical lately. Apologies!

Edited February 19, 2023 by MiserereNobis

[Saint Bonaventure]

I believe that the Fall had consequences, as described in Genesis. I do not believe in the 'total depravity' teaching that would have people unable to do any good at all, that would have people unable to cooperate in their salvation. Humankind was not abandoned by God after the Fall. This 'total depravity' idea comes from John Calvin and Martin Luther; it underpins the extremity of their objections to works.

I imagine Latter-day Saints are opposed in some quarters for 'works.' 

[Dario_M]

15 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

 I am Adam and Eve. Right now, right this moment, the world is arising, being created. Right now, right this moment,  !

You are Adam and Eve? How do you see that for you? 

[MiserereNobis]

1 minute ago, Dario_M said:

You are Adam and Eve? How do you see that for you? 

Symbolically. What they represent and their role in the story, is also what I am.

[MiserereNobis]

10 minutes ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

I believe that the Fall had consequences, as described in Genesis. I do not believe in the 'total depravity' teaching that would have people unable to do any good at all, that would have people unable to cooperate in their salvation. Humankind was not abandoned by God after the Fall. This 'total depravity' idea comes from John Calvin and Martin Luther; it underpins the extremity of their objections to works.

I imagine Latter-day Saints are opposed in some quarters for 'works.' 

Well said. It's not either/or, black/white.

[Dario_M]

42 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Symbolically. What they represent and their role in the story, is also what I am.

Are you not just you. And Adam and Ava where just Adam and Ava? 

[MiserereNobis]

7 minutes ago, Dario_M said:

Are you not just you. And Adam and Ava where just Adam and Ava? 

Hey Dario. There might be an issue of language and translation going on here, since English isn't your native language. Symbols point beyond themselves to something greater. So yes, I'm me. But Adam and Eve are symbols that help me understand myself and my place in the redemption drama better.

Edited February 19, 2023 by MiserereNobis

[Dario_M]

9 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Hey Dario. There might be an issue of language and translation going on here, since English isn't your native language. Symbols point beyond themselves to something greater. So yes, I'm me. But Adam and Eve are symbols that help me understand myself and my place in the redemption drama better.

Yeah that must be it. Because you literally said "i am Adam and Eve" So i thought that you really thought that you where Adam and Eve you know. And that interested me a bit. That's all. 

Edited February 19, 2023 by Dario_M

[telnetd]

On 2/18/2023 at 4:28 PM, Benjamin McGuire said:

Whatever the negative impacts of the fall are, the atonement reverses them (for everyone).

What are these negative impacts?

[The Nehor]

39 minutes ago, telnetd said:

What are these negative impacts?

Every bit of physical suffering and death. Probably a lot of kinds of mental and emotional suffering too.

[teddyaware]

On 2/19/2023 at 5:08 PM, Saint Bonaventure said:

I believe that the Fall had consequences, as described in Genesis. I do not believe in the 'total depravity' teaching that would have people unable to do any good at all, that would have people unable to cooperate in their salvation. Humankind was not abandoned by God after the Fall. This 'total depravity' idea comes from John Calvin and Martin Luther; it underpins the extremity of their objections to works.

I imagine Latter-day Saints are opposed in some quarters for 'works.' 

The concept of the total depravity of man is found in the Book of Mormon, but it’s presented only as a theoretical construct to teach the reader what the state of mankind would be after the fall without the benefit of the mitigating effects of the atonement of Christ.

7 Wherefore, it must needs be an infinite atonement — for save it should be an infinite atonement this corruption could not put on incorruption. Wherefore, the first judgment which came upon man must needs have remained to an endless duration. And if so, this flesh must have laid down to rot and to crumble to its mother earth, to rise no more.

8 O the wisdom of God, his mercy and grace! For behold, if the flesh should rise no more (I.e. if we were to remain in our fallen state without the benefits of the atonement of Christ) our spirits must become subject to that angel who fell from before the presence of the Eternal God, and became the devil, to rise no more.

9 And our spirits must have become like unto him, and we become devils, angels to a devil, to be shut out from the presence of our God, and to remain with the father of lies, in misery, like unto himself; yea, to that being who beguiled our first parents, who transformeth himself nigh unto an angel of light, and stirreth up the children of men unto secret combinations of murder and all manner of secret works of darkness. (2 Nephi 9)

Thus would be the totally depraved state of fallen man without the infinite and eternal atonement of Christ.

 

Edited February 22, 2023 by teddyaware

[Benjamin McGuire]

On 2/21/2023 at 8:53 PM, teddyaware said:

The concept of the total depravity of man is found in the Book of Mormon, but it’s presented only as a theoretical construct to teach the reader what the state of mankind would be after the fall without the benefit of the mitigating effects of the atonement of Christ.

You should be aware that this is completely contradictory.

The challenge that this thread has is that the concept of total depravity isn't merely a flowery description of the state of mankind but represents a number of theological premises:

Quote

Total depravity (also called radical corruption or pervasive depravity) is a Protestant theological doctrine derived from the concept of original sin. It teaches that, as a consequence of man's fall, every person born into the world is enslaved to the service of sin as a result of their fallen nature and, apart from the efficacious (irresistible) or prevenient (enabling) grace of God, is completely unable to choose by themselves to follow God, refrain from evil, or accept the gift of salvation as it is offered.

A bit later from the wiki page (emphasis mine):

Quote

 

The term "total depravity", as understood in colloquial English, obscures the theological issues involved. One cannot simply look at the two words and conjecture upon the extent of the depravity of humanity. For example, Reformed and Lutheran theologians have never considered humans to be absent of goodness or unable to do good outwardly as a result of the fall. People retain the imago Dei, though it has been distorted.

Total depravity is the fallen state of human beings as a result of original sin. The doctrine of total depravity asserts that people are, as a result of the fall, not inclined or even able to love God wholly with heart, mind, and strength, but rather are inclined by nature to serve their own will and desires and reject his rule. Even religion and philanthropy are wicked to God because they originate from a selfish human desire and are not done to the glory of God. Therefore, in Reformed theology, if God is to save anyone, he must predestine, elect, regenerate and call individuals to salvation since fallen man does not want to, and is indeed incapable of, choosing him. However, in Arminian theology prevenient grace (or "enabling grace") does reach through total depravity to enable people to respond to the salvation offered by God in Jesus Christ.

 

The challenge we have with the Book of Mormon and the notion of 'total depravity' is that the Book of Mormon doesn't address the idea of 'total depravity'. The Book of Mormon argues 1) that the Fall was necessary, 2) that without law, there is no sin, 3) that small children and all others who have neither agency nor law are not considered sinful, and 4) that based on the principle of opposition in all things, mankind is enticed both by the spirit and by the adversary - and this creates space for them to choose between the two. There is no irresistible of prevenient grace here. These four things (and there are probably others that I could list) form the basis of a theory of sin and salvation which is entirely distinct from the idea of total depravity and the premises that lead to it. Even the idea behind the value of doing good is completely different from what we see in historical protestant theology. Instead of the discussion of good things being bad if not done for the right reason, the Book of Mormon gets into the whole thing about the immediacy of rewards (Mosiah 2:24). At any rate, I think that we get hung up on some of this terminology because Mormonism tends to have a very limited sort of formal theology (which is not unsurprising given that it is still less than two centuries old) - and so we don't engage these ideas as the technical notions that they are.

[teddyaware]

10 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

You should be aware that this is completely contradictory.

The challenge that this thread has is that the concept of total depravity isn't merely a flowery description of the state of mankind but represents a number of theological premises:

A bit later from the wiki page (emphasis mine):

The challenge we have with the Book of Mormon and the notion of 'total depravity' is that the Book of Mormon doesn't address the idea of 'total depravity'. The Book of Mormon argues 1) that the Fall was necessary, 2) that without law, there is no sin, 3) that small children and all others who have neither agency nor law are not considered sinful, and 4) that based on the principle of opposition in all things, mankind is enticed both by the spirit and by the adversary - and this creates space for them to choose between the two. There is no irresistible of prevenient grace here. These four things (and there are probably others that I could list) form the basis of a theory of sin and salvation which is entirely distinct from the idea of total depravity and the premises that lead to it. Even the idea behind the value of doing good is completely different from what we see in historical protestant theology. Instead of the discussion of good things being bad if not done for the right reason, the Book of Mormon gets into the whole thing about the immediacy of rewards (Mosiah 2:24). At any rate, I think that we get hung up on some of this terminology because Mormonism tends to have a very limited sort of formal theology (which is not unsurprising given that it is still less than two centuries old) - and so we don't engage these ideas as the technical notions that they are.

I guess you missed my point. The Book of Mormon prophet Jacob powerfully testifies that if the fall of man had taken place without the mitigating effects of the atonement of Christ, all mankind would become so totally depraved that every man, woman, and child would irresistibly be drawn into hell and unavoidably become devils. This is Jacob’s teaching, not mine. If you have a problem with Jacob’s description of what existence would be like after the fall without the atonement, take it up with him if you happen to see him in eternity. I’m simply the messenger here, merely reporting what Jacob taught. If you think Jacob’s insights on the blessings that accrue to us through the atonement of Christ aren’t worthwhile and are doctrinally erroneous, go have it out with him in a scripture bash.

 O the wisdom of God, his mercy and grace! For behold, if the flesh should rise no more (I.e. if we were to remain in our fallen state without the benefits of the atonement of Christ) our spirits must become subject to that angel who fell from before the presence of the Eternal God, and became the devil, to rise no more.

9 And our spirits must have become like unto him, and we become devils, angels to a devil, to be shut out from the presence of our God, and to remain with the father of lies, in misery, like unto himself; yea, to that being who beguiled our first parents, who transformeth himself nigh unto an angel of light, and stirreth up the children of men unto secret combinations of murder and all manner of secret works of darkness. (2 Nephi 9)

Edited February 24, 2023 by teddyaware

[telnetd]

On 2/21/2023 at 8:53 PM, teddyaware said:

9 And our spirits must have become like unto him, and we become devils, angels to a devil, to be shut out from the presence of our God, and to remain with the father of lies, in misery, like unto himself; yea, to that being who beguiled our first parents, who transformeth himself nigh unto an angel of light, and stirreth up the children of men unto secret combinations of murder and all manner of secret works of darkness. (2 Nephi 9)

How did Satan beguile Adam?

[Benjamin McGuire]

12 hours ago, teddyaware said:

The Book of Mormon prophet Jacob powerfully testifies that if the fall of man had taken place without the mitigating effects of the atonement of Christ, all mankind would become so totally depraved that every man, woman, and child would irresistibly be drawn into hell and unavoidably become devils.

No, you have it wrong. Jacob is dealing with the problem of death and the resurrection (not one of depravity). Jacob is saying here that if death were permanent, then everyone would become miserable like the devil. This is independent of whether or not they are righteous or wicked. What is fascinating in this particular sermon is that Jacob then says in verse 11 that God prepared a way to overcome death:

Quote

And because of the way of deliverance of our God, the Holy One of Israel, this death, of which I have spoken, which is the temporal, shall deliver up its dead; which death is the grave.

And then in verses 15 and 16 we get the part that really explains the issue here:

Quote

And it shall come to pass that when all men shall have passed from this first death unto life, insomuch as they have become immortal, they must appear before the judgment-seat of the Holy One of Israel; and then cometh the judgment, and then must they be judged according to the holy judgment of God. And assuredly, as the Lord liveth, for the Lord God hath spoken it, and it is his eternal word, which cannot pass away, that they who are righteous shall be righteous still, and they who are filthy shall be filthy still; wherefore, they who are filthy are the devil and his angels; and they shall go away into everlasting fire, prepared for them; and their torment is as a lake of fire and brimstone, whose flame ascendeth up forever and ever and has no end.

The resurrection itself doesn't change our nature. Some of those who are resurrected are righteous and some are not. And they get sorted. But the kicker here (and this is also suggested in verse 11) - many of the dead are righteous - not totally depraved. The only reason they would have ended up like the devil is if they were never resurrected. And then finally in verse 18:

Quote

But, behold, the righteous, the saints of the Holy One of Israel, they who have believed in the Holy One of Israel, they who have endured the crosses of the world, and despised the shame of it, they shall inherit the kingdom of God, which was prepared for them from the foundation of the world, and their joy shall be full forever.

Again, we have the righteous (those who were righteous during their mortal lives) - this is not the doctrine of total depravity. It is a very different animal.

[Benjamin McGuire]

9 hours ago, telnetd said:

How did Satan beguile Adam?

This goes back to the Genesis narrative - 3:3-5

Quote

But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die. And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

Beguile means to delude (or seduce). The idea is that Satan lies to Adam and Eve to get them to eat - telling them that they wouldn't die. After they eat the fruit, God approaches them (Gen. 3:11-13):

Quote

Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat? And the man said, The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat. And the Lord God said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat.

The Book of Mormon doesn't ever discuss Adam being beguiled individually but always uses the term in the context of 'beguiled our first parents'. The language in the Book of Mormon (the use of the word beguile) helps us understand that they are directly referring us to Genesis 3:13. Another way of describing this would be that the devil directly seduced Eve into eating the fruit, and through Eve, the devil seduced Adam. The theology of the Book of Mormon is that while what the devil said may have been a lie, the fall was a necessary step - that without the fall, without the knowledge of good and evil, and without the agency that comes with this knowledge, the purposes of God in the end of man could not be achieved.

That being said, this is one section of the Old Testament that has been framed and interpreted in many different ways. My personal favorite comes from the journal of Mordecai Kaplan, a 20th century Jewish theologian, who wrote about it with regard to a Midrashic commentary he was reading:
 

Quote

Quote

 

"Tell me," Reb Yerachmiel asked his students, "who was expelled from the Garden of Eden?"

"Adam and Eve," the class replied.

"Are you sure," he asked. "Look again. Does the Torah say that God drove them out, or only that God drove the man out? It is only Adam that is exiled. The woman leaves of her own volition. Why? For she knew that only in the world is truth to be discovered; that the Garden is for children and she wants to grow up."

 

I think that Torah is telling us something important about the woman, and perhaps women in general. Why not simply say the tree was good for eating? Because it was not her appetite that drove her to eat. Why not simply say the tree was pretty? Because it was not her sense of he beautiful which drove her to eat. What caused her to knowingly violate the one law of the garden? She saw the tree was a source of wisdom, she decided to risk everything in pursuit of wisdom. Was this an act of weakness, or supreme courage? Was this an act of seduction or was it the quintessential affirmation of the human quest for truth?

Where is Adam in all of this? Torah implies that he is standing around, and yet does not include him in the exploration of the tree's qualities. Torah says only the woman saw the tree was a source of wisdom. And Adam? He is offered food and he eats. No question. No angst. No forethought. Just appetite. Is Torah telling us that woman is driven by wisdom and man by appetite?

 

This is similar to the Book of Mormon (and the traditional LDS perspective) that the Garden of Eden was a temporary condition where mankind could not progress. Just as interesting is the comparison with Adam and Eve and children. The Book of Mormon argues that children cannot sin because they cannot know the difference between good and evil. Adam and Eve are in the same boat - they were neither good nor bad there (they couldn't even sin yet). Adam and Eve could not become like the devil in the garden, but they also could not become like God either. Getting back to your topic here, this is why we don't see total depravity in the Book of Mormon (except as represented by the devil). The fall wasn't a fall from perfection to depravity, it was a step forward from a neutral place that would allow mankind to choose - either to choose righteousness or to choose wickedness.

[telnetd]

On 2/24/2023 at 8:47 AM, Benjamin McGuire said:

The theology of the Book of Mormon is that while what the devil said may have been a lie, the fall was a necessary step - that without the fall, without the knowledge of good and evil, and without the agency that comes with this knowledge, the purposes of God in the end of man could not be achieved.

When did Adam and Eve obtain their agency in the Garden of Eden?

[jkwilliams]

I thought it was just me who was depraved.

[Teancum]

On 2/18/2023 at 2:40 PM, 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. 

The Book of Mormon seems fairly Protestant in its view of the fall, that state of the natural man and even original sin.

[Benjamin McGuire]

10 minutes ago, telnetd said:

When did Adam and Eve obtain their agency in the Garden of Eden?

Agency comes with the fall - or perhaps a better description is that agency comes with our entry into mortality.

I don't believe that any of the accounts of what occurs in the Garden should be understood as literal or as having any sense of historicity. It is a myth that we use to teach a number of important ideas, and it plays a role in our mythical telling of creation. The most descriptive account that deals with your question that we have comes in 2 Nephi 2 -

Here are verses 14 and 15 (the emphasis is mine):

Quote

And now, my sons, I speak unto you these things for your profit and learning; for there is a God, and he hath created all things, both the heavens and the earth, and all things that in them are, both things to act and things to be acted upon. And to bring about his eternal purposes in the end of man, after he had created our first parents, and the beasts of the field and the fowls of the air, and in fine, all things which are created, it must needs be that there was an opposition; even the forbidden fruit in opposition to the tree of life; the one being sweet and the other bitter.

Things to act and things to be acted upon refer to what we call agency. In verse 16, God speaks of giving mankind agency -

Quote

Wherefore, the Lord God gave unto man that he should act for himself. Wherefore, man could not act for himself save it should be that he was enticed by the one or the other.

But what we see here is that this agency can only function within certain conditions. The 'one or the other' refers to principles of good and evil represented by the Spirit and the devil. This is an explanation of how Lehi's principle of opposition in all things works. In order to be able to have real agency, mankind has to know good and evil. (This is where the later idea comes in that those who cannot tell the difference between good and evil simply cannot sin - they are not acting with agency - and this includes small children and adults whose agency is compromised in one way or another). So God gives Adam and Eve agency - but their agency isn't meaningful until the fall occurs. The other part that I put in bold above deals with the idea of the end of man and God's purposes in that end. We get more of this in verse 22 - where there is a description of what would have happened if their had been no fall: "And now, behold, if Adam had not transgressed ... all things which were created must have remained in the same state in which they were after they were created; and they must have remained forever, and had no end." The end of man (and God's purpose in that end) could not happen without the fall and the subsequent resurrection (and judgment). And then finally in verses 26 and 27, Lehi comes back to explain a third time the concept of agency - and this is a more complex understanding than the first couple of attempts.

Quote

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. Wherefore, men are free according to the flesh; and all things are given them which are expedient unto man. And they are free to choose liberty and eternal life, through the great Mediator of all men, or to choose captivity and death, according to the captivity and power of the devil; for he seeketh that all men might be miserable like unto himself.

There are a couple of ways to understand this passage. I understand it in this way - the fall gives men agency. But, in mortality, it is a limited agency. Lehi describes this as being "free according to the flesh." And I understand that this means that there are lots of ways in which mankind does not have absolute agency - linked with our mortal condition. With the resurrection, we are brought back into the presence of God (we are redeemed from the fall) and that agency that we gained in mortality becomes a more absolute agency. We are free to act and not be acted upon (except, as Lehi notes, through the judgment of God).

So Lehi starts with Adam and Eve - and the garden narrative - as containing the basic premises of agency and mortality, and then expands on these ideas by showing how they apply to all humanity. This leads to the conclusion that the purposes of God are to give all of his children this absolute agency (freedom), and allow them to exercise that freedom to the extent allowed by God's justice.

Modern Mormonism extends agency into the pre-existence, in what is sometimes called the 'war in heaven' when Satan is cast out. Although we rarely connect the two directly, our notion of the war in heaven is more or less another retelling of the Garden of Eden narrative - except that in the place of two parents we have all of humanity. Most of that premortal humanity accepts the plan of God - including agency and the necessary knowledge of Good and Evil (along with the subsequent fall and plan of redemption), while the rest adopt the plan of the devil and reject agency along with its subsequent fall and redemption (D&C 29, and Abraham 3). Both of these descriptions may be representative of some reality that is hidden from us. But they remain more metaphorical. Because they are metaphorical, they are very helpful to us as we explore these sometimes difficult ideas about our nature and purpose.

Finally, I just wanted to take this back to the original question. You can see in the LDS understanding here that the idea of universal depravity (the inability of mankind to choose salvation) is really only given to that third part of the heavenly host who followed Satan and refused to accept mortality (and all that comes with it). In the Mormon view, all of those who experience mortality (and the fallen state) have already rejected this principle. And they are all (for the most part) able to choose between good and evil without the intervention of God. Modern Mormonism goes on to suggest that nearly all will be saved except for what is termed the 'sons of perdition' - a concept that fits much of what is referred to in the term 'universal depravity'. There are two different groups here - the first are those who refused mortality (in that war in heaven). The second is described in several places, including Mosiah 16:5, which notes that for these, they are "as though there was no redemption made, being an enemy to God." Universal depravity itself, within Mormonism, isn't a result of the fall, but is always a result of irreversible choice (of the exercise of agency).

[Benjamin McGuire]

39 minutes ago, Teancum said:

The Book of Mormon seems fairly Protestant in its view of the fall, that state of the natural man and even original sin.

I don't think so. Where does Protestantism ever believe that the fall was essential? This is one of the core elements of the Book of Mormon's view of the fall.

[Teancum]

54 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

I don't think so. Where does Protestantism ever believe that the fall was essential? This is one of the core elements of the Book of Mormon's view of the fall.

True.  Better said the book seems to have mixed messages on this topic.

[The Nehor]

14 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

I thought it was just me who was depraved.

No, I am pretty depraved.

I also like it so that might not be a good sign.

[The Nehor]

15 hours ago, telnetd said:

When did Adam and Eve obtain their agency in the Garden of Eden?

They already had it. The Fall expanded the scope of that agency in what was a dreadful mistake or a fortunate choice or a hack of God’s plan depending on who you ask.