The universal depravity of the human family

[telnetd]

On 5/19/2023 at 2:52 PM, Benjamin McGuire said:

Correct me if I am wrong ... you believe that The Fall describes the moment in which Adam and Eve becoming mortal, and that this moment occurs when Adam and Eve eat the forbidden fruit?

That is correct.  I see this is the same thing that the church teaches in its manual.
 

On 5/19/2023 at 2:52 PM, Benjamin McGuire said:

in the LDS view, every person who is born experiences The Fall independently - they all are booted from a paradisaical state in the presence of God (in the pre-existence) into mortality

In the manual mentioned above, it says After the Fall, God made coats of animal skins to clothe Adam and
Eve’s nakedness.

If each person experiences the Fall independently, what does the animals skins represent for each person? 
Why is it that Alma 12:22 and Mosiah 16:3 says the Fall of Adam is the reason for all mankind becoming
sensual and devilish?
 

On 5/19/2023 at 2:52 PM, Benjamin McGuire said:

This view is part of the reason why LDS teach so explicitly that the fall not only does not count to Adam and Eve as sin, but that it does not place humanity in a state defined by original sin

President Joseph Fielding Smith taught about this original sin.

But Adam, in breaking the law, himself became subject to the curse, and being under the curse 
could not atone, or undo what he had done. Neither could his children, for they also were under 
the curse, and it required one who was not subject to the curse to atone for that original sin. 
Moreover, since we were all under the curse, we were also powerless to atone for our individual 
sins.

The sin of Adam is also taught in this LDS Institute Manual.

Jesus Christ is the Only Begotten Son of God the Eternal Father. He is our Creator. He is our
Teacher. He is our Savior. His atonement paid for the sin of Adam and won victory over death,
assuring resurrection and immortality for all men.

Original sin is also mentioned several times in The Seer, by Orson Pratt.  

[Benjamin McGuire]

1 hour ago, telnetd said:

If each person experiences the Fall independently, what does the animals skins represent for each person? 

This is something that the LDS Church teaches as part of its temple rites.

Quote

As we attend the temple, we are endowed with power and personally enter into covenants with God. The garment is an emblem of the protection that Adam and Eve received and that we receive and is a reminder of these sacred covenants.

This is, of course, an explicitly figurative understanding of the scriptural narratives.

1 hour ago, telnetd said:

Why is it that Alma 12:22 and Mosiah 16:3 says the Fall of Adam is the reason for all mankind becoming sensual and devilish?

Because this is what they believed. Current LDS teachings are a bit more nuanced.

1 hour ago, telnetd said:

President Joseph Fielding Smith taught about this original sin.

And so did Joseph Smith, who put into the Articles of Faith: "We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression." Or Neal A Maxwell:

Quote

We are not haunted with an overhanging sense of ‘original sin’ about which we can do nothing. (Moses 6:54; Moroni 8:15–16.) By revelation, we know that the Lord told Adam: ‘Behold I have forgiven thee thy transgression in the Garden of Eden.’ (Moses 6:53.) Thus, we are accountable for our ‘own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression’ (Article of Faith 2.)

The LDS Church denies any culpability that might be transmitted from Adam and Eve to their children. This is in part the reason why the LDS Church believes that young children are not sinful, and are not capable of being sinful.

So, you can keep quoting Joseph Fielding Smith until you are blue in the face, and it won't change much.

And of course, Orson Pratt's The Seer. About this text, the First Presidency of the LDS Church issues a proclamation dated October 21, 1865:

Quote

But the Seer, The Great First Cause, the article in the Millennial Star of October 15th, and November 1, 1850, on the Holy Spirit, and the first half of the tract, also on the Holy Spirit, contain doctrines which we cannot sanction, and which we have felt impressed to disown, so that the Saints who now live, and who may live hereafter, may not be misled by our silence, or be left to misinterpret it. Where these objectionable works, or parts of works, are bound in volumes, or otherwise, they should be cut out and destroyed; with proper care this can be done without much, if any, injury to the volumes.

You certainly don't see this on the LDS Church's website. So I am starting to think that you aren't actually searching on the LDS Church's website at all - which is why your citations are all so one sided ...

Do you have any intention of ever answering my questions?

[teddyaware]

5 hours ago, telnetd said:

That is correct.  I see this is the same thing that the church teaches in its manual.
 

In the manual mentioned above, it says After the Fall, God made coats of animal skins to clothe Adam and
Eve’s nakedness.

If each person experiences the Fall independently, what does the animals skins represent for each person? 
Why is it that Alma 12:22 and Mosiah 16:3 says the Fall of Adam is the reason for all mankind becoming
sensual and devilish?
 

President Joseph Fielding Smith taught about this original sin.

But Adam, in breaking the law, himself became subject to the curse, and being under the curse 
could not atone, or undo what he had done. Neither could his children, for they also were under 
the curse, and it required one who was not subject to the curse to atone for that original sin. 
Moreover, since we were all under the curse, we were also powerless to atone for our individual 
sins.

The sin of Adam is also taught in this LDS Institute Manual.

Jesus Christ is the Only Begotten Son of God the Eternal Father. He is our Creator. He is our
Teacher. He is our Savior. His atonement paid for the sin of Adam and won victory over death,
assuring resurrection and immortality for all men.

Original sin is also mentioned several times in The Seer, by Orson Pratt.  

There indeed was an original sin that would have plunged all who are born on this earth into a permanent state of abject spiritual darkness, depravity and devilishness. For all humanity, the consequences of this original sin are so severe and everlasting that were it not for the mercy of God in being willing to suffer an infinite and eternal weight of spiritual agony in order to counteract the totally destructive consequences of the fall, the entire human family would have unavoidably become devils themselves without a scintilla divine light to enlighten their souls. It’s foolhardy and ignorant to minimize the destructive effects of the fall because the scriptures make it perfectly clear that it’s effects are totally destructive of all that is good and holy.

But thanks to the incomprehensible agony endured by Jesus Christ, that awful monster of permanent physical death and total spiritual death are placed into a state of merciful abeyance until the the final judgement. At the final judgement, those who want to forever remain in the fallen state will be permitted to do so; and those who desire to escape from the fall into a state of deliverance, salvation and redemption will be also enabled to do so.

I believe it’s wrong to casually assert that the fall was a positive thing because its destructive effects could not be counteracted by mere divine edict. No, the only thing that could counteract the utterly destructive effects of the fall was to drink to the dregs a cup of bitter poison that plunged God himself into the lowest regions of hell. Rather than casually claim that the fall is a positive thing, we should fall down at the feet of the Savior and bathe his feet with with our tears of deepest gratitude. The infinite and eternal cost required to transform the fall into a positive part of God’s plan of salvation is too great to ever speak of the fall as being something positive on its own.

6 For as ^adeath hath passed upon all men, to fulfil the merciful ^bplan of the great Creator, there must needs be a power of ^cresurrection, and the resurrection must needs come unto man by reason of the ^dfall; and the fall came by reason of ^etransgression; and because man became fallen they were ^fcut off from the ^gpresence of the Lord.

7 Wherefore, it must needs be an ^ainfinite ^batonement—save it should be an infinite atonement this corruption could not put on incorruption. Wherefore, the ^cfirst judgment which came upon man must needs have ^dremained 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 ^awisdom of God, his ^bmercy and ^cgrace! For behold, if the ^dflesh should rise no more our spirits must become subject to that angel who ^efell from before the presence of the Eternal God, and became the ^fdevil, to rise no more.

9 And our spirits must have become ^alike unto him, and we become devils, ^bangels to a ^cdevil, to be ^dshut out from the presence of our God, and to remain with the father of ^elies, in misery, like unto himself; yea, to that being who ^fbeguiledour first parents, who ^gtransformeth himself nigh unto an ^hangel of light, and ⁱstirreth up the children of men unto ^jsecret combinations of murder and all manner of secret works of darkness. (2 Nephi 9)

 

Edited May 22, 2023 by teddyaware

[MiserereNobis]

On 5/22/2023 at 1:00 PM, Benjamin McGuire said:

The LDS Church denies any culpability that might be transmitted from Adam and Eve to their children. This is in part the reason why the LDS Church believes that young children are not sinful, and are not capable of being sinful.

If this was already answered (I haven't read much in the thread) forgive me.

Why do humans sin at all? What happens at age 8, give-or-take, that causes/allows humans to sin? Why was Jesus the only perfect person?

Part of my answer to that question is original sin. Because of the fall, we have been separated from God's grace, and only through His grace can we avoid sin and answer His call to come to Him.

I often don't agree with Teddy, but what he said matches my beliefs (though I wouldn't use the hyperbole in my explanation):

On 5/22/2023 at 2:02 PM, teddyaware said:

There indeed was an original sin that would have plunged all who are born on this earth into a permanent state of abject spiritual darkness, depravity and devilishness. For all humanity, the consequences of this original sin are so severe and everlasting that were it not for the mercy of God in being willing to suffer an infinite and eternal weight of spiritual agony in order to counteract the totally destructive consequences of the fall, the entire human family would have unavoidably become devils themselves without a scintilla divine light to enlighten their souls. It’s foolhardy and ignorant to minimize the destructive effects of the fall because the scriptures make it perfectly clear that it’s effects are totally destructive of all that is good and holy.

But thanks to the incomprehensible agony endured by Jesus Christ, that awful monster of permanent physical death and total spiritual death are placed into a state of merciful abeyance until the the final judgement. At the final judgement, those who want to forever remain in the fallen state will be permitted to do so; and those who desire to escape from the fall into a state of deliverance, salvation and redemption will be also enabled to do so.

 

[Benjamin McGuire]

3 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Why do humans sin at all? What happens at age 8, give-or-take, that causes/allows humans to sin? Why was Jesus the only perfect person?

We sin because we can ...

Mormonism suggests that mortality is a part of progression - towards a celestial existence. But for it to work in this way, we had to have agency. And even agency on its own was not enough - "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." So we sin because we are enticed one way as opposed to the other. The separation from God caused by the fall allows for this agency to occur in a way that is meaningful for our progression.

Whatever it is that we mean when we say that "Jesus was the only perfect person," we simply infer that Jesus had a different experience in his mortality than we did in ours. I am not sure that it means much to create a comparison with us to Jesus - and this is a difficulty that has confronted Christianity since the beginning.

14 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Part of my answer to that question is original sin. Because of the fall, we have been separated from God's grace, and only through His grace can we avoid sin and answer His call to come to Him.

Original sin means different things in an LDS context than it does in, say, a Catholic context or an Evangelical context. The fall as separation from God is a part of Mormonism. Original sin as "the Christian doctrine that holds that humans, through the fact of birth, inherit a tainted nature in need of regeneration and a proclivity to sinful conduct" is not a part of LDS belief. Mormonism believes that young children and those who lack mental competence cannot sin - and this means that we are not born into a sinful state. And Teddy is simply wrong about the idea that "all who are born on this earth are [plunged] into a permanent state of abject spiritual darkness, depravity and devilishness." This is not an LDS belief. Age 8 is simply a convenient demarcation rather than some absolute indicator of the moment of personal culpability. Mormonism's view is really more robust than a simple demarcation. Part of what separates sin is defined by our ability to understand sin. It requires some degree of agency. Mormonism does not teach that everyone has the same degree of understanding or agency and so sin is to some extent relative to each individual's circumstances and capacity. Further, Mormonism has a relatively universalist streak in terms of the concept of salvation. The affects of the fall are reversed (in the atonement) for everyone who is born (including those who are destined for outer darkness). And God saves everyone that can be saved.

Teddy's view (at least in the way that Evangelicals understand it) is that only God's grace redeems us from that depravity - and yet, the problem is that such a belief (at least from my perspective) requires us to redefine what both sin and righteousness is in a way that probably doesn't sit well with us after some reflection. After all, most of humanity isn't so utterly depraved or devilish at least in my experience.

And let's not forget that God created temptations so great that even the most saintly individuals regularly fall prey to them. We call some of these temptations 'speed limits.'

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

We call some of these temptations 'speed limits.'

Every time I come to Utah, I am reminded of these temptations and have often had to pay the price of my own sin, especially in small towns.

Hey, they need the revenue anyway.

[mfbukowski]

As we were brilliantly taught by President Benson, sin is pride.  We knowingly put our own will ahead of God's will for us, due to pride.

In the 1828 Webster's Dictionary, one of the usages of the word "translate" at that time was simply the word "change".

With that in mind, the Bukowski Translation of the "Lord's Prayer" 'changes' the wording of the phrase "deliver us from evil" to "deliver us from Ego".

It has served me well.  Except in Utah.  (See above)

Edited May 24, 2023 by mfbukowski

[telnetd]

On 5/22/2023 at 3:00 PM, Benjamin McGuire said:

This is something that the LDS Church teaches as part of its temple rites.

I checked the link but I didn't see anything about what the current wearing of the fig leaf
aprons in the temple represents.

You said that LDS church teachings are a bit more nuanced in regards to Alma 12:22 and
Mosiah 16:3.  How so?
 

On 5/22/2023 at 3:00 PM, Benjamin McGuire said:

You certainly don't see this on the LDS Church's website. So I am starting to think that you aren't actually searching on the LDS Church's website at all

I search on the LDS web site plus other non-LDS sites where some older material is archived for historical
purposes. For example, it is not possible to search on the LDS web site for older General Conference talks
before a certain date.  Archive.org is not anti-Mormon.
 

On 5/22/2023 at 3:00 PM, Benjamin McGuire said:

Do you have any intention of ever answering my questions?

Such as?

[Benjamin McGuire]

1 hour ago, telnetd said:

I checked the link but I didn't see anything about what the current wearing of the fig leaf aprons in the temple represents.

You didn't ask about that. What you asked was:

On 5/22/2023 at 1:07 PM, telnetd said:

If each person experiences the Fall independently, what does the animals skins represent for each person? 

Actual discussion about the temple liturgy isn't really on the table here. And the link I provided dealt specifically with the animal skins and what it means for each person:

Quote

 

In a similar way, the temple garment serves as a tangible reminder of our covenant relationship with God the Father, made possible through His Son, Jesus Christ. The garment is a covering for the most sacred of God’s creations: His children.

The First Presidency has stated, “It is a sacred privilege to wear the garment and doing so is an outward expression of an inner commitment to follow the Savior Jesus Christ.”

 

As I noted, in making this symbolic, it creates a way for LDS members to recontextualize the Genesis narratives in a symbolic (or figurative) way.

1 hour ago, telnetd said:

You said that LDS church teachings are a bit more nuanced in regards to Alma 12:22 and Mosiah 16:3.  How so?

Alma and Mosiah are supposed to have been written more than 2000 years ago. They don't include material that current LDS believe from modern revelation. That modern revelation informs the way that we understand the texts of Alma 12:22 and Mosiah 16:3. In particular, as I have noted here many times, modern LDS have the entire pre-existence - an idea, which is only minimally present in the Book of Mormon (if at all). Additionally, even within the Book of Mormon, there is changes over time. By the time we get to Moroni, we learn that young children and those that are mentally incompetent (and anyone else who is not subject to the law) cannot sin - Moroni 8:8 reads: "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." This seems to be quite different from the way that you seem to be reading Alma 12:22 and Mosiah 16:3. All mankind isn't "sensual and devilish" by nature. Instead, Mormonism teaches that sin is something that can only occur when we actively use our agency - and when we can understand what is good and what is evil. Without those criterion being met, we cannot sin - and there certainly isn't a default human nature of sin. If this were so, then we wouldn't need the enticements that are discussed in the Book of Mormon. In any case, this seems to be a nuanced view of the verses that you reference - these verses do not define current LDS beliefs on the topics.

1 hour ago, telnetd said:

Archive.org is not anti-Mormon.

I didn't say you were searching anti-Mormon sites. I am just pointing out that you referenced a book by Orson Pratt that had been formally repudiated by the LDS Church - and you would never find this on the official LDS website. This just reinforces for me that you are just prooftexting - not looking for understanding - and certainly not trying to understand the range of views on these topics that are held by the LDS Church as a whole.

1 hour ago, telnetd said:

Such as?

This one, that I have asked a couple of times now in different ways:

On 5/15/2023 at 11:56 AM, Benjamin McGuire said:

My earlier question to you really remains unanswered. What are the rules of interpretation that you use when reading the text of the Bible that determine when the text should be understood literally, and when it should be understood figuratively?

Your broad response has been only that it depends on the text. But this isn't an answer to the question. Perhaps, if it is text dependent as you suggest, you might find a couple of examples that you can use as illustrations ...

Edited May 25, 2023 by Benjamin McGuire

[telnetd]

On 5/25/2023 at 11:22 AM, Benjamin McGuire said:

Actual discussion about the temple liturgy isn't really on the table here. And the link I provided dealt specifically with the animal skins and what it means for each person:

Quote

 

In a similar way, the temple garment serves as a tangible reminder of our covenant relationship with God the Father, made possible through His Son, Jesus Christ. The garment is a covering for the most sacred of God’s creations: His children.

The First Presidency has stated, “It is a sacred privilege to wear the garment and doing so is an outward expression of an inner commitment to follow the Savior Jesus Christ.”

 

On the church website, it talks about the undergarments that are worn outside the temple - the one
with some masonic markings.  From wikipedia - According to the LDS Church, the temple garments
serve a number of purposes. First, the garment provides the member "a constant reminder" of the
covenants they made in the temple. Second, the garment "when properly worn ... provides protection
against temptation and evil". Wearing the garment is also "an outward expression of an inward
commitment" to follow Jesus Christ.

But I found something about the fig leaf aprons - https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/media/video/2020-01-0100-sacred-temple-clothing?lang=eng

The video, starting at 1:45.  I'll paraphrase what it says - the fig leaf aprons represent the robes of the
holy priesthood. They are worn only in the temple. They symbolize purity and equality. They invoke
religious symbolism reminiscent of the temple practices described in the Old Testament.

My thoughts: the fig leaf aprons were rejected by God; who replaced them with coats of skin. They
symbolize human effort to hide nakedness and shame. Women do not hold the priesthood so they
cannot represent the priesthood. Women had no priestly role in Old Testament temples. The male
priests did not wear the fig leaf aprons.

 

On 5/25/2023 at 11:22 AM, Benjamin McGuire said:

Your broad response has been only that it depends on the text. But this isn't an answer to the question. Perhaps, if it is text dependent as you suggest, you might find a couple of examples that you can use as illustrations ...

One example of a literal interpretation for me is the Garden of Eden.  One example that is figurative is
the women of Proverbs.  Starts in chapter 4.  Another example is Jesus symbolizing himself as a hen
who gathers her chicks.

[telnetd]

On 5/25/2023 at 11:22 AM, Benjamin McGuire said:

Moroni 8:8 reads: "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."

What is the curse of Adam?

 

On 5/25/2023 at 11:22 AM, Benjamin McGuire said:

This seems to be quite different from the way that you seem to be reading Alma 12:22 and Mosiah 16:3. All mankind isn't "sensual and devilish" by nature. Instead, Mormonism teaches that sin is something that can only occur when we actively use our agency - and when we can understand what is good and what is evil.

I see a reference to all in Mosiah 16:3 and Alma 12:22.

"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".

"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".

I don't see me or you bringing about our own fall.

I don't recall you mentioning exactly when you believe the fall of Adam occurred and how.

[teddyaware]

32 minutes ago, telnetd said:

On the church website, it talks about the undergarments that are worn outside the temple - the one
with some masonic markings.  From wikipedia - According to the LDS Church, the temple garments
serve a number of purposes. First, the garment provides the member "a constant reminder" of the
covenants they made in the temple. Second, the garment "when properly worn ... provides protection
against temptation and evil". Wearing the garment is also "an outward expression of an inward
commitment" to follow Jesus Christ.

But I found something about the fig leaf aprons - https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/media/video/2020-01-0100-sacred-temple-clothing?lang=eng

The video, starting at 1:45.  I'll paraphrase what it says - the fig leaf aprons represent the robes of the
holy priesthood. They are worn only in the temple. They symbolize purity and equality. They invoke
religious symbolism reminiscent of the temple practices described in the Old Testament.

My thoughts: the fig leaf aprons were rejected by God; who replaced them with coats of skin. They
symbolize human effort to hide nakedness and shame. Women do not hold the priesthood so they
cannot represent the priesthood. Women had no priestly role in Old Testament temples. The male
priests did not wear the fig leaf aprons.

 

One example of a literal interpretation for me is the Garden of Eden.  One example that is figurative is
the women of Proverbs.  Starts in chapter 4.  Another example is Jesus symbolizing himself as a hen
who gathers her chicks.

The reason why the fig leaf apron (a symbol of fruitfulness) continues to be worn atop the symbolic coat of skins undergarment is because it indicates that with descent into mortality Adam and Eve gained the power to procreate. There is nothing inappropriate about wearing a symbolic garment that points to God’s holy commandment to multiply and replenish the earth.

22 And now, behold, if Adam had not transgressed he would not have fallen, but he would have remained in the garden of Eden. And 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.

23 And they would have had no children; wherefore they would have remained in a state of innocence, having no joy, for they knew no misery; doing no good, for they knew no sin. (2 Nephi 2)

Edited May 27, 2023 by teddyaware

[Benjamin McGuire]

54 minutes ago, telnetd said:

One example of a literal interpretation for me is the Garden of Eden.  One example that is figurative is the women of Proverbs.  Starts in chapter 4.  Another example is Jesus symbolizing himself as a hen who gathers her chicks.

Yes, but why? What are the rules that you use to determine when one should be read figuratively and the other literally?

[Benjamin McGuire]

42 minutes ago, telnetd said:

What is the curse of Adam?

Death. Being removed from the presence of God.

45 minutes ago, telnetd said:

I see a reference to all in Mosiah 16:3 and Alma 12:22.

Yes, but, as I pointed out, this was written two thousand years ago, and has been given a different understanding in light of modern revelation. You aren't actually dealing with current LDS doctrine and theology if you limit yourself to Mosiah 16:3 and Alma 12:22. This is my point.

47 minutes ago, telnetd said:

I don't see me or you bringing about our own fall.

But this is LDS doctrine - based on the modern revelation about the pre-existence. So whether you recognize it or not (and I wouldn't expect you to), this is what LDS believe.

47 minutes ago, telnetd said:

I don't recall you mentioning exactly when you believe the fall of Adam occurred and how.

If the fall of Adam refers to Adam's becoming mortal, obtaining agency, and being subject to death, then Adam decided to do this in the prexistance, and the "fall" of Adam occurs when he is born into mortality. Which is what I said previously.

[telnetd]

On 5/27/2023 at 1:50 PM, Benjamin McGuire said:

On 5/27/2023 at 1:01 PM, telnetd said:

What is the curse of Adam?

Death. Being removed from the presence of God.

In that case, I see that a newborn infant (mortal) is already under the curse of Adam by the separation
from the presence of God even before reaching the age of accountability.

 

On 5/27/2023 at 1:50 PM, Benjamin McGuire said:

On 5/27/2023 at 1:01 PM, telnetd said:

I don't see me or you bringing about our own fall.

But this is LDS doctrine - based on the modern revelation about the pre-existence. So whether you recognize it or not (and I wouldn't expect you to), this is what LDS believe.

Would you provide an official LDS teaching which says someone like Abel brought about his own fall (or
separation from the presence of God)?
 

On 5/27/2023 at 1:50 PM, Benjamin McGuire said:

If the fall of Adam refers to Adam's becoming mortal, obtaining agency, and being subject to death, then Adam decided to do this in the prexistance, and the "fall" of Adam occurs when he is born into mortality.

Why did you use the conditional "if"?

[telnetd]

On 5/27/2023 at 1:43 PM, Benjamin McGuire said:

Yes, but why? What are the rules that you use to determine when one should be read figuratively and the other literally?

One rule is that if it can be applied a literal interpretation, then I view it as a literal event. For example, Eve
being formed from the rib of Adam.

Moses 3:21-22 - "And I, the Lord God, caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam; and he slept, and I took one
of his ribs and closed up the flesh in the stead thereof; And the rib which I, the Lord God, had taken from
man, made I a woman, and brought her unto the man".

If you believe this is figurative (as taught by former President Kimball), please explain your reasoning.

[telnetd]

On 5/27/2023 at 1:04 PM, teddyaware said:

The reason why the fig leaf apron (a symbol of fruitfulness) continues to be worn atop the symbolic coat of skins undergarment is because it indicates that with descent into mortality Adam and Eve gained the power to procreate.

Thank you for that. I never heard of it explained in this way. Do you have a link for that LDS teaching?  I
didn't see anything about the undergarment (with the marks) being reflective of the coats of skin on the
church's website.

... forgot to ask ...

Why did God remove the symbol of fruitfulness (the fig leaf aprons as you mentioned) from Adam and Eve?

Edited May 30, 2023 by telnetd

[Benjamin McGuire]

38 minutes ago, telnetd said:

In that case, I see that a newborn infant (mortal) is already under the curse of Adam by the separation from the presence of God even before reaching the age of accountability.

Right, which is why I noted: Moroni 8:8 reads: "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."

40 minutes ago, telnetd said:

Would you provide an official LDS teaching which says someone like Abel brought about his own fall (or separation from the presence of God)?

I would say that there is a fairly complete summary here. But for something that gives language closer to my words, you can look here:

Quote

Act 1 included a council, or “war in heaven” (see Rev. 12:7–9), when Lucifer promised the impossible, to “redeem all mankind,” and demanded the Father’s “honor” (see Moses 4:1). Jesus Christ was the Father’s “Beloved and Chosen from the beginning” and promised to enact the Father’s plan (see Moses 4:2). We exercised our agency and chose to follow the Savior. Then Lucifer was “cast down, with all who put up their heads for him.”

 

50 minutes ago, telnetd said:

Why did you use the conditional "if"?

Word choice? I could have used the word "assuming." I think my intention was to suggest that as long as you agree with this definition, then, this is how I answer the question. If the term means something else to you, then my answer might not really answer your question ....

47 minutes ago, telnetd said:

One rule is that if it can be applied a literal interpretation, then I view it as a literal event. For example, Eve being formed from the rib of Adam.

The problem that I have is that you don't follow this rule. Earlier you noted this:

On 5/27/2023 at 12:48 PM, telnetd said:

One example that is figurative is the women of Proverbs.

What is it about the women of Proverbs that suggests that you cannot read it literally? Take Matthew 5:29 - "And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee" - it is easy to understand this literally. Are we supposed to understand it figuratively or literally? And if, as you point out, God can make Eve from Adam's rib, then we should start from the assumption that everything in the text, no matter how strange or irrelevant, as long as God can manage it, should be considered literal, right? My point here isn't to say that your argument about Adam's rib is wrong - but to point out that you create a double standard here in your claim that "if it can be applied a literal interpretation, then I view it as a literal event."

59 minutes ago, telnetd said:

If you believe this is figurative (as taught by former President Kimball), please explain your reasoning.

1: I don't believe in an inerrant text.

2: I don't feel the need to read the text literally whenever possible.

3: When the text conflicts with what I understand reality to be, I recognize that I can A) decide that my understanding is wrong, B), decide that the text is wrong, or C) look to see if the text can be understood figuratively or as a specific type of genre which is indifferent to these sorts of questions.

4: I believe that we have in our Genesis a composite work made up of at least two original sources.

5: I do not believe that God created an earth that lies to us about it's age, it's design, it's creation. So, I don't believe that the earth is young - rather that it is very old. With this in mind, I approach the entire Genesis narrative with the three options of my premise (3).

6: That it can be read figuratively or as a mythic account of the creation of humanity written thousands of years ago leads me to conclude that it should be read in this fashion. This sort of reading provides a great deal of different information about the purpose of mankind's presence on earth (including the bit about Eve being created out of adam) - more so than does the literal reading.

That's probably enough ... unless you want more.

[teddyaware]

23 hours ago, telnetd said:

Thank you for that. I never heard of it explained in this way. Do you have a link for that LDS teaching?  I
didn't see anything about the undergarment (with the marks) being reflective of the coats of skin on the
church's website.

... forgot to ask ...

Why did God remove the symbol of fruitfulness (the fig leaf aprons as you mentioned) from Adam and Eve?

You’re welcome. We Latter-Day Saints are like unto Adam and Eve: throughout our adult lives we wear garments that are in the likeness of the coats of skins Adam and Eve continued to wear after being expelled from the garden, sacred coverings that are emblematic of Christ and his atoning sacrificial death. This means that we symbolically “put on Christ” every day of our adult lives as an outward manifestation that, ideally, bears witness to the reality that the Savior has also found a permanent dwelling place within our humble and willing hearts. And like our first parents, we only wear the fig leaves when we are in the garden of Eden (i.e. the temple) to symbolically testify that with the fall (a most terrible curse that was marvelously tempered by the atonement of Christ) comes the blessing of procreation on earth, and the promise of continued procreation and family life in eternity.

I could say more, but I’ve already said too much. Why? Because it was very hard for me to watch you searching for answers to sincere questions that appeared to remain unanswered. But simply said, God has a marvelous way of turning curses into great blessings in disguise. Through Christ, the awful curse of the fall was transformed into a glorious covenant path that leads to exaltation, eternal life, and the blessing of having children throughout eternity.

Edited May 31, 2023 by teddyaware

[telnetd]

On 5/30/2023 at 5:39 PM, teddyaware said:

We Latter-Day Saints are like unto Adam and Eve: throughout our adult lives we wear garments that are in the likeness of the coats of skins Adam and Eve continued to wear

I'll see if I can find something in the church manual that speaks of these coats of skins being in the likeness
of the undergarments.

[telnetd]

On 5/30/2023 at 4:59 PM, Benjamin McGuire said:

What is it about the women of Proverbs that suggests that you cannot read it literally?

Here are some samples where wisdom and understanding are personified as women.

Jehovah's Witnesses re-interpret Proverbs 7:30 and substitute a male (Jesus Christ) instead
of maintaining the context with a woman.

Chapter 4

Get wisdom; get insight; do not forget, and do not turn away from the words of my mouth.
Do not forsake her, and she will keep you; love her, and she will guard you. The beginning of
wisdom is this: Get wisdom, and whatever you get, get insight. Prize her highly, and she will
exalt you; she will honor you if you embrace her.

Chapter 8

Does not wisdom call? Does not understanding raise her voice?

Chapter 9

Wisdom has built her house; she has hewn her seven pillars. She has slaughtered her beasts; she
has mixed her wine; she has also set her table. She has sent out her young women to call from
the highest places in the town.
 

[telnetd]

On 5/30/2023 at 4:59 PM, Benjamin McGuire said:

I would say that there is a fairly complete summary here. But for something that gives language closer to my words, you can look here:

Chapter 8 from a doctrinal manual:
 

B. Adam and Eve brought about the Fall by their own choice.   [eating from the forbidden tree in
the Garden of Eden on earth].

5. Adam and his family were shut out of God’s presence, thereby suffering a spiritual death (see Alma 42:6–7,9; D&C 29:40–41; Moses 5:4; 6:49).

7. Fallen man became carnal, sensual, and devilish (see Alma 41:11; Ether 3:2; D&C 20:20).
 

Based on what I see in that doctrinal manual and the scriptures, I don't see anything about Cain or
Abel (or anyone else) bringing about the Fall or individual Falls and spiritual death by their own
choice. Babies inherit mortality (a fallen nature) from the choice made by Adam and Eve, not by their
own choice.

Edited June 2, 2023 by telnetd

[Benjamin McGuire]

13 minutes ago, telnetd said:

I'll see if I can find something in the church manual that speaks of these coats of skins being in the likeness of the undergarments.

You might look here. Or here. You aren't going to find a lot because the direct discussion of this occurs during the instruction provided as part of the temple rites - and the LDS Church doesn't publicly discuss the specifics of that instruction. I also want to suggest that it isn't about "likeness." There is no suggestion that the garment that is accepted during the LDS temple rites looks like the coat of skins - rather, it is a symbolic connection.

[Benjamin McGuire]

58 minutes ago, telnetd said:

Here are some samples where wisdom and understanding are personified as women.

You aren't answering my question. What is it about a personification that prevents it from being read literally? I guess what I am trying to get you to explain is how you recognize something as a personification. By suggesting that the text is a personification, or recognizing that a text is using a metaphor, or is using symbolism - or any of a number of similar uses of text, you have already decided that the text shouldn't be read literally. You are skipping over the part that I am asking about. What is it about a text that tells you that you need to read it in a non-literal fashion. I don't want samples that show where you have done this - I want to understand what are your set of rules - and why you would argue that such a non-literal is necessary?

As an aside, I want to point out that unlike English, Hebrew tends to gender most nouns. Wisdom is a female gendered noun. So when the text refers to Wisdom as "her" instead of "it," this is a feature of the original language and not necessarily a personification. If I were to replace the pronouns from your example of Proverbs Chapter 4, it wouldn't require this non-literal reading that you suggest. And it also wouldn't lose anything from the text -

Quote

Get wisdom; get insight; do not forget, and do not turn away from the words of my mouth. Do not forsake wisdom, and wisdom will keep you; love Wisdom, and wisdom will guard you. The beginning of wisdom is this: Get wisdom, and whatever you get, get insight. Prize wisdom highly, and wisdom will exalt you; wisdom will honor you if you embrace wisdom.

See what I mean? At the same time, do you believe that God is gendered? Do you believe that God is male? If you don't (and I suspect that you don't), then what do you make of the language of a gendered God throughout the bible? Do you see this as an indicator that the text should be read non-literally?

47 minutes ago, telnetd said:

I don't see anything about Cain or Abel (or anyone else) bringing about the Fall or their individual Fall and spiritual death by their own choice.

I'll try and spell it out for you.

1: Everyone who is born in mortality pre-existed as spirits. You may not agree with the idea, but I don't think that you will contest that this is what LDS members believe.

2: Everyone who has been (and will be) born was presented with God's plan to provide them with a mortal experience. This plan encompassed mortality (birth and death), agency, separation from God, and a variety of conditions within mortality. Do you dispute that this is what LDS believe?

3: Everyone who has been (and will be) born chose to follow God's plan. Those that chose not to do so (and LDS scriptures identify some that did not), never enter into mortality. Do you dispute that LDS believe this?

Taken together, these ideas mean that Cain, Abel, and everyone else made a choice in the pre-existence to leave God's presence and to experience mortality. They did so with a purpose, and saw the 'fall' as a necessity. This is LDS doctrine. I think that you will find complete consensus on this issue from the LDS members of this forum here.

The problem that you have is that LDS believe that everyone pre-exists. You don't believe this. You see the fall as a one time event that impacts the rest of humanity in a decision that only two people participated in. For LDS, the decision to adopt the plan of salvation occurs in the pre-existence and everyone who participates in the plan was party to that decision. Just as importantly, LDS view the fall as a necessity - that is, living in an imperfect world, and learning the difference between good and evil (and the consequences of following one or the other) was necessary. God could not, according to LDS scripture, help men achieve the end God wanted without these conditions. Had the fall not occurred, as far as LDS are concern, Adam and Eve could not have had children, and the whole of God's children could not have been been born into mortality (and participated in the plan of salvation).

Look, you started this thread by asking about the question of human depravity. I think you have gotten your answer. Mormon's don't believe in the idea of total depravity. We don't believe that humans are by nature depraved. We believe that to be capable of sin we have to meet certain requirements - including a degree of maturity, a mental competence, having a law given to us, and so on. Yes, there is inconsistency in the way that LDS sources will describe this issue. Yes, LDS members use some language differently than other Christian groups. I think that you are still trying to apply the assumptions you bring to a topic of LDS doctrine where we reject many, if not most of those assumptions.

I think that I am getting tired of rehashing this every few days ...

Edited June 2, 2023 by Benjamin McGuire

[telnetd]

On 6/2/2023 at 10:20 AM, Benjamin McGuire said:

You might look here. Or here. You aren't going to find a lot because the direct discussion of this occurs during the instruction provided as part of the temple rites - and the LDS Church doesn't publicly discuss the specifics of that instruction. I also want to suggest that it isn't about "likeness." There is no suggestion that the garment that is accepted during the LDS temple rites looks like the coat of skins - rather, it is a symbolic connection.

Thank you for that.

If the undergarments have a symbolic connection to the coats of skin instead of their likeness 
or color, then why would the garments worn inside the temple be in the likeness of the green 
fig leaf aprons?

One of the subsequent links you provided said:

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/tools/what-is-the-temple-garment?lang=eng

"When Adam and Eve were expelled from the Garden of Eden, our Heavenly Father did not abandon 
them. Instead, He instructed them on His plan of happiness and salvation. He entered into 
covenants with them, and then gave them “coats of skins” to remind them of those covenants 
(Genesis 3:21; Moses 4:27).

If the coats of skins remind them of these covenants, what covenants are the fig leaf aprons a
reminder of?

I saw this church video.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/media/video/2020-01-0100-sacred-temple-clothing?lang=eng

I'll paraphrase the video, starting at 1:45.  The fig leaf aprons represent the robes of the 
holy priesthood. They are worn only in the temple. They symbolize purity and equality. They 
invoke religious symbolism reminiscent of the temple practices described in the Old Testament.

From my point of view, the fig leaf apron symbolizes their efforts to hide nakedness and shame. 
LDS women do not hold the priesthood. They had no priestly role in the Old Testament temple. 
New Testament Christians (including women) did not participate in temple ordinances and they 
did not wear sacrament garments with marks on them when they worshipped in the home churches. 
In the Old Testament, the male priests did not wear the fig leaf aprons. It seems the garments 
became more of a thing with the establishment of the Roman Catholic church.  

For the LDS church, maybe the sacred garments worn in the temple and the undergarments with the
compass and cross came with the introduction of masonry.