This is topic What happened to Susan? *Narnia series spoilers* in forum Books, Films, Food and Culture at Hatrack River Forum.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
http://www.hatrack.com/ubb/main/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=036981

---

Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
 
OK, don't read on if you have not read "The Last Battle."

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

I just skimmed through "The Last Battle" at Borders and I was just reminded that Susan did not make it to the "real Narnia" with her siblings.

Was it because Susan no longer believed in Narnia? Do you think Susan has a good chance of rejoining her siblings later on?

I'm just a casual fan of the series. I apologize if this has been discussed here before. (I did a search and couldn't find a topic on it.)
 

---

Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
I think it's because she stopped believing.

She got caught up in the material world and stopped wanting anything beyond that, so she ended up with nothing beyond that.
 

---

Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
 
Thanks Porter.

Do you think there is something about Susan that sets her apart from the other characters? Some hint in the other books showing us that Susan would be the most likely unbeliever?

I vaguely recall an instance in "Prince Caspian" where Susan denied seeing Aslan even though, deep inside, Susan knew Lucy was telling the truth about having seen the great lion. But then again, Edmund did the samething in the first book.

I like Anna Popplewell's take on Susan's personality:

quote:

---

Anna: I think at the beginning of the story, Susan is definitely very practical, very logical. I think she's forced into a kind of maternal role by being away from home as a result of the evacuation [due to the WWII bombing of London].

And I think she almost feels that she has to grow up before she's actually ready to, and maybe that's what fuels that sense of logic and her pragmatism. But I think that as the story progresses and she experiences Narnia and goes on that journey, she warms up and she's able to allow herself to be a child again. I think she really learns something from Narnia.

Christianity Today

---

quote:

---

It is? Where? Susan doesn't even appear in Dawn Treader. . . Remember, Peter went to study with the Professor, and Susan went with her parents to America (here again, we see Susan's 'maturity' mentioned).

---

quote:

---

She hasn't even read all of C.S. Lewis' Narnia novels, which her books get compared to a lot. There's something about Lewis' sentimentality about children that gets on her nerves. "There comes a point where Susan, who was the older girl, is lost to Narnia because she becomes interested in lipstick. She's become irreligious basically because she found sex," Rowling says. "I have a big problem with that."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scott R:


It is? Where? Susan doesn't even appear in Dawn Treader. . . Remember, Peter went to study with the Professor, and Susan went with her parents to America (here again, we see Susan's 'maturity' mentioned). Edmund and Lucy have to go spend the summer with the Scrubbs. It does say that Edmund and Lucy both were jealous of Susan's opportunity to travel, but that's hardly given as a character trait.

I think you're thinking of Prince Caspian, where Lucy sees Aslan, tries to convince the others that she has seen him, but acquiesces when they don't believe her. Aslan later chides her for not following him, even if it's on her own. Even so, I don't remember Lucy ever being jealous of Susan. . .

---

quote:

---

Long story short, I think it was much more about social vanity than sexual awareness...

---

quote:

---

And that's what's key - Susan rejected it. She wasn't barred.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by katharina:

But the kids don't grow up. Even as adults, they rule together as siblings. There are some married people, but it isn't messy and it isn't hard. Prince Caspian marries the daughter of a star with apparently no courting whatsoever. I love those books, but they are unreal in that aspect.

---

quote:

---

Nothing of what you just said invalidates what I said.

I didn't say any of what you countered in the last paragraph.

---

quote:

---

I'm just glad they both exist.

---

quote:

---

Even as a religious analogy the situation seems very unfair to me. Susan was a loyal "Narnian" so to speak for many, many years. Just because she "lost her faith" as a teenager when surrounded by so many outside influences, she's totally lost? Hopeless? Doesn't get any more chances, even with all that she did and sacrificed for Narnia in the past?

---

quote:

---

The fact that Susan is given no chance of redemption, just because she's convinced herself that something never happened, because that's much easier to believe, all those years of believing in Narnia and doing so much for Narnia are totally wiped away? Plus, how old IS Susan at the end of book seven? Not very old, really, as far as I can remember - and by now, she's probably been convincing herself for so many years that none of it really happened that she really believes that. Why shouldn't she get the courtesy of meeting Aslan again, to see if she sees him, or if her reaction is like the dwarves? I definitely think she deserves that, and I also think that she WOULD see him.

---

quote:

---

I liked it, but I remember someone on Hatrack saying they didn't.

---

quote:

---

Sex: Aravis and horseboy got married. I forget if he was Cor or Corin or Col or Colin. But the point is, it's not like everyone ruled as a chaste sibling regent.

---

Getting married and having sex with your spouse is chaste.
 

---

Posted by mothertree (Member # 4999) on :
 
Eek, are we implying that Susan was unchaste in that sense? Not to offend anyone.. uh never mind. Glad I washed my foot well before putting it in my mouth.

And... hearing Rowling's complaints about Narnia really makes me glad I never bought any of her books.

P.S. Susan was in the Horse and His Boy. I can't quote chapter and verse off hand, but it seems like she was a player even then.

I guess the thing about the kids is they were still kids when they went back to earth. How weird would it be for them to have lived a full life while they were gone? That always kind of made them movie "Big" icky to me.
 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
I think casting aspersions on a character outside of the context of the story is fairly silly.

Why did Susan reject Aslan? Well. . . because Lewis told her to. Or had her do it. In any case, I feel like it IS in line with her character as presented throughout the books.

Just because YOU were a beautiful, practical, social, intelligent teenager doesn't mean that Lewis thought you were going to hell.


 

---

Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
 
Has anyone considered that Susan might have been spared in the train wreck *because* Aslan wanted to give her more chances?

[ August 09, 2005, 08:47 AM: Message edited by: Jim-Me ]
 

---

Posted by Theaca (Member # 8325) on :
 
Now I want to read the books again. I think I always felt that Susan's problem was denying that Aslan was real, denying that Narnia was real, and focusing exclusively on the most frivolous aspects of adulthood, and disrespecting her younger siblings to boot. But that could be a phase, something that hopefully she'll grow out of and then she can become the woman she was meant to be.

She always reminded me of Meg, from Little Women. I know she was into appearance and manners and so on much more than Jo was, and that was just fine, but didn't she go through a short phase where she tried to pretend to be haughty and grownuppish and then repented of it? I imagined Susan was in that phase.

I so loved the Narnia books when I was in grade school that I used to name our family bicycles for Narnia characters. My brother had boys' names for his bikes. I had girls' names. The bike I had for all my teenage years was Susan. I guess I've always felt she'd come around in the end.
 

---

Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
I'm kind of surprised at the conclusions people are drawing about Susan and Narnia...I've read them all more than once, and I cannot recall ever seeing that Susan was denied uber-Narnia (basically Heaven) forever.

I don't think necessarily that social vanity has everything to do with sexual awareness, but I do agree that once one is an adolescent, sexual awareness and social vanity are connected. (Not active sexual behavior, of course, but awareness of sexuality, sexual attraction, etc.)

I disagree, Kat, that it was the lipstick that barred Susan from uber-Narnia at that time (certainly not forever). I think rather it was a prioritization of other things ahead of Narnia, ahead of things that she knew were true.

I mean, if we're going to dwell on the religious symbolism, Susan rejected God, after seeing and talking with God face to face, on more than one occassion, right?
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
That's still what bothers me. It IS important to keep the Lord in mind, but oh my stars, figuring how who you are and your social place and how to wear lipstick is hard and it's time- and attention-consuming, and I refuse to believe that the Lord is only happy with the girls who are not bothering with that kind of thing.

It's okay - the Susan thing was oddly done, but the books were written by a 50-year-old bachelor with no sisters. I'm not surprised.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 

quote:

---

...I refuse to believe that the Lord is only happy with the girls who are not bothering with that kind of thing.

---

But I don't see where Lewis suggested any such thing.
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
I do. Rowling definitely does.

It seems to be a matter of interpretation both ways.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
But where does he suggest it? She chooses not to remember Narnia any more. Where does it say she can't go to heaven if she wears lipstick?
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
That's an oversimplification of what I said. Come on, Dag.

You know, it's okay that I dissaprove of the way Susan was written. I still like the books, and it doesn't take away anything from you.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
OK, where does it say "that the Lord is only happy with the girls who are not bothering with that kind of thing," (lipstick being one of that kind of thing?
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
Of all the things to spend my passion on today, this does not win. Sorry.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
Whatever, Kat. If you don't want to discuss, don't discuss it. If for some reason doing so would require your passion, it's probably for the best.
 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
>>Of all the things to spend my passion on today, this does not win. Sorry.

Or any day.

I'm not going to make you defend your literary oversights.

(Just remember that an undefended opinion is always WRONG WRONG WRONG! By default.)


 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
I did not intend to upset you.

Added: That was to Dag. For ScottR, it was totally intended.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
Don't worry, you didn't.
 

---

Posted by Rohan (Member # 5141) on :
 
I went out and read that Neil Gaiman story last night. Weird and disturbing. He is more critical of Lewis than Rowling or kat.

It was one of those stories where the author is trying to be clever and symbolic and "teach us some great truth" but it was just weird and nonsensical.
 

---

Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
Well, since you've left the discussion I won't bother about it anymore except to say this: I don't think Susan is supposed to be (what's the word) archetype? Representative? of all other girls.

She's kind of unique. She has, after all, seen, touched, smelled, heard, and spoken with Aslan / God, and at the time of the rest of her family's death, she was choosing to care more for 'the things of the world' than for Aslan / God.

How could Aslan do anything but be unhappy with that decision? And frankly, I agree-that decision Susan made was wrong, in the context of those stories.

People make mistakes all the time.
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 

quote:

---

Well, since you've left the discussion I won't bother about it anymore

---

quote:

---

except to say this:

---

quote:

---

I did not intend to upset you.

Added: That was to Dag. For ScottR, it was totally intended.

---

quote:

---

except:
With the exclusion of; other than; but

---

 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
Exactly. So, "this discussion is over, except for the part where it's not over so I get to have the last word."

Nothing new has been said since perhaps the previous page. It's been reduced to
"No he didn't."
"Yes, he did."
"Didn't!"
"Whatever."
"Okay, I'm done, except...Didn't!"

If you're going to insist on the last word, at least be honest about it.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 

quote:

---

Exactly. So, "this discussion is over, except for the part where it's not over so I get to have the last word."

---

quote:

---

Nothing new has been said since perhaps the previous page. It's been reduced to
"No he didn't."
"Yes, he did."
"Didn't!"
"Whatever."
"Okay, I'm done, except...Didn't!"

---

It's only been reduced to that because you won't answer a fairly simple question.
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
It's because I don't like the way you are talking to me.

Also, there's not slightest chance in heaven or earth that you'll change your mind, so why bother? To give you fodder? I don't think so.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
A lot of people have spent a lot of time dicussing this, pointing out plot points in multiple volumes and underlying beliefs held by Lewis to backup their explanation of what happens with Susan. When asked what point in the story gives you that impression, you've simply acted dismissively.

If you're only participating in this to change people's minds, that's rather sad.
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
Because you have dismissed what I said, that does not mean I did not say it.

Please refrain from the personal comments.
 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
Did CS Lewis consider feminimity to be antithetical to a relationship with God, and is that shown in his Narnia series?

Well. . . no. I can think of two places where Lewis overtly critisizes fashion and fashionable attitudes (one, the Susan episode; two, the portion where he critisizes Helen's Sunday hat in 'The Magician's Nephew, saying that she looked rather nicer without it). Neither have anything to do with them being beautiful, or women. They do have to do with artifice.

Susan is critisized, not because she wears nylons and lipstick-- but because she thinks ONLY of 'nylons, lipstick and invitations.' Susan has become, in other words, a bimbo.

And before you throw 'misogynist!' out there-- remember that CS Lewis has a male character act very similarly (Uncle Andrew in 'Magician's Nephew').
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
It's not about changing minds, it's about understanding where the other person is coming from. Or, at least, it should be.
 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
>>Please refrain from the personal comments.

But. . . you wanted to upset me. . .
 

---

Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by plaid:
It's in the anthology Flights: Extreme Visions of Fantasy...

---

I loved the Redshift anthology. I'll have to look into this. Thanks!
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 

quote:

---

It's not about changing minds, it's about understanding where the other person is coming from. Or, at least, it should be.

---

quote:

---

Please refrain from the personal comments.

---

quote:

---

Susan is critisized, not because she wears nylons and lipstick-- but because she thinks ONLY of 'nylons, lipstick and invitations.' Susan, has become, in other words, a bimbo.

And before you throw 'misogynist!' out there-- remember that CS Lewis has a male character act very similarly (Uncle Andrew in 'Magician's Nephew').

---

quote:

---

On another note, I think teenagers are being very shallow when they're so strongly focused on 'social vanity' and that 'exploratory phase'. I feel that way about most teenagers I meet and have known, and include myself in that category.

---

quote:

---

On another note, I think teenagers are being very shallow when they're so strongly focused on 'social vanity' and that 'exploratory phase'. I feel that way about most teenagers I meet and have known, and include myself in that category.

---

quote:

---

You know, I think there just isn't enough information provided to know whether Lewis believed that social vanity is something that bars a person from heaven.

---

quote:

---

I think two-year-olds are stupid. When compared to a healthy well-adjusted and well-educated adult, that is.

I use the same basis for calling most teenagers shallow. I agree it's necessary, and I agree it's not something bad.

---

quote:

---

That's like saying two-year-olds are dumb because they can't read. They just are not finished human beings yet.

---

quote:

---

If I am in a state of being vain and shallow, I am not ready to go to heaven yet.

---

quote:

---

Or, let's take Lewis's professed beliefs on the subject into account when interpreting his religious allegory

---

quote:

---

I think someone can be vain and shallow but still worthy of all that good stuff Lewis promised - it depends on where they are and what they are doing about it.

---

quote:

---

See, and I think a work of art should stand on its own.

---

quote:

---

Calling someone shallow and barring them from heaven for it is pretty bad.

The follower of Tash made it. All sorts of people of middling morality made it. But Susan, because she was working on the social thing, didn't. That sucks.

---

Who is of middling morality? Puzzle the donkey's the only one that comes to mind. And he repented.

Emeth (the Calormene) made uber-Narnia because he was willing to die for the truth, and because he accepted it when confronted.

Again, Susan wasn't just 'working on the social thing;' it was all she thought about. That is what took Aslan's place in her heart, and why she is not a friend to Narnia any longer.

I like to stay with the text given, too. Funny how we have drawn such different conclusions. . .

[ August 09, 2005, 01:12 PM: Message edited by: Scott R ]
 

---

Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
 
I think I agree with Katie. I don't think I could enjoy them the same now knowing that the whole series is essentially an allegorical biblical tale.
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
It is funny. Let's hear for the Reader Response theory of literary criticism.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 

quote:

---

There are so, so many things to learn about and be perfected in - there's no way in this life to ever be completely finished.

---

And that is why I think it will be a long time after death for most of us when we will receive our final judgement. The length of time is tailored to the individual, and there seems to be *some* scriptural evidence (though not a lot) to suggest that the more "finishing" a person needs, the more time they get.

I don't know if it is exactly how it works, but I like the idea.

We are told that the more "intelligence" we attain to in this life (intelligence I suppose meaning anything that makes us more like God) the more advantage we have in the next life. I assume that simply means the further along we will be on our own timeline for personal progression.
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
Maybe that's why The Last Battle is irritating me - I disagree with Lewis' theology.
 

---

Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
 

quote:

---

See, and I think a work of art should stand on its own.

---

quote:

---

One doesn't interpret Pilgrim's Progress without taking into account Bunyan's reformed beliefs.

---

quote:

---

I read the Time article and thought it was astonishingly badly written and worse researched. The bit that puzzled me the most was that I remembered interviews with Ms. Rowling where she loved the Narnia books (it was a few seconds of Googling to find a 1998 Telegraph interview where she says, "Even now, if I was in a room with one of the Narnia books I would pick it up like a shot and re-read it.") as opposed to the Time version of 'Rowling has never finished The Lord of the Rings. She hasn't even read all of C.S. Lewis' Narnia novels, which her books get compared to a lot. There's something about Lewis' sentimentality about children that gets on her nerves.'

---

quote:

---

For example, when Aslan 'skins' Eustace-as-Dragon in 'Dawn Treader'. . . totally struck me between the eyes, and is still one of my favorite scenes from all literature.

Didn't really pick up on it when I was a kid.

---

That scene was really well done. Eustace had to decide to follow Aslan on his own, then try on his own several times to remove the skin, then Aslan had to do it.

And it hurt, but it was still good. There's so much in that passage.

It's also important to realize that Lewis's beliefs - both those specific to his denomination and those he called "Mere Christianity", essentially the areas where mainline Protestants and Catholics are in greatest agreement - and LDS beliefs differ greatly.

Even though Lewis wrote much that many theologians from many denominations disagree with, those differences are orders of magnitude less than what exists between his beliefs and LDS beliefs.
 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
Fantasy writers have it tougher than Mormons.

Alas, I'm both!

I'm so screwed.
 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
>>It's also important to realize that Lewis's beliefs . . . and LDS beliefs differ greatly.

:shrug:

You may be right. I haven't done extensive research into Lewis' beliefs beyond the Narnia series. I take what truth I find and go with it, and leave what I don't believe behind me.

I imagine most people are the same.

But ANYWAY; what's your point?


 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
That a large part of the reason Kat thinks it doesn't work as allegory could very well be that she doesn't believe all (and likely doesn't know at least some) of the beliefs being allegorized.
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
Why is it that so many people in this thread must attribute ignorance to the people who have an opinion differing from their own? This is the second time.

It is possible for someone to be intelligent, a good person, fully informed, and still disagree with you.
 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
I think the allegory works.

I am the same religion as Kat.

It ain't the religion, Dag. It's the disciple.


 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
I'm not attributing anything to ignorance, Kat. Did you see the word "likely" in the parenthetical part? I'd be willing to bet a lot of money it's true just on the basis of your differing religious background. But it doesn't matter to my larger point, one you yourself alluded to earlier.

But you have admitted that you've interpreted the story without taking into account many of his beliefs that are more clearly expressed elsewhere. You also flat out don't believe a significantly large portion of what he's allegorizing.

And you said, "Maybe that's why The Last Battle is irritating me - I disagree with Lewis' theology. "
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
Dag, you are wrong when you say adding "likely" means you are not attributing my differing opinion to ignorance.

You're gonna have to face it - I have read lots of Lewis, I love the books, and I think he wrote Susan badly. Please stop implying that I must be either sad or ignorant.

Added: *twinkle* I don't Lewis would appreciate that kind of defense.
 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
>>You also flat out don't believe a significantly large portion of what he's allegorizing.

What does Kat not believe about the Narnia allegory? Has she said something that I've missed in this discussion that leads you to this conclusion, Dagonee?

Kat, can you specify which parts of Lewis' theology that you disagree with?
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
I haven't done either. Please stop taking me out of context.
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
Please stop being insulting as you speculate on my knowledge or character.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 

quote:

---

What does Kat not believe about the Narnia allegory? Has she said something that I've missed in this discussion that leads you to this conclusion, Dagonee?

---

quote:

---

Please stop being insulting as you speculate on my knowledge or character.

---

quote:

---

Would you prefer I quote you directly?

---

quote:

---

I prefer my posts and opinions to be taken on their own, without speculation about the author.

---

Without any footnotes or anything? I'm not sure I'm ready for that.
 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
Mormons believe in original sin in the sense that we are "all rebels who need to lay down our arms." Sound familiar?



As far as Purgatory is concerned. . . what is meant by the phrase?
 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
BTW:

quote:

---

C.S. Lewis is commonly held to have believed in Purgatory, but Douglas Gresham took strong exception to this. Gresham said it is invalid for Walter Hooper to build this case based on Lewis's letters to Sister Penelope, a friend in the Anglican Community of St. Mary. In these letters, stated Gresham, Lewis was satirizing purgatory, not affirming it. My own read of Lewis, particularly in The Great Divorce and Letters to Malcolm: Chiefly on Prayer, is that he did indeed believe in a form of Purgatory.

Three presenters, all converts to Roman Catholicism, raised a few evangelical eyebrows by refashioning Lewis into the image of Roman Catholicism. Thomas Howard, Peter Kreeft and Walter Hooper portrayed Lewis as "a spy for Rome". Hooper's commemorative address at the Oxford Royal Mail launch of the Lewis stamp was devoted largely to a defence of purgatory. At his seminar, Douglas Gresham took great exception to this, disagreeing strongly with all interpretations which put Lewis into a Roman Catholic camp--or any other. Lewis, he said, was the champion of mere Christianity, i.e., core Christian beliefs, not any particular denomination, although he was a loyal member of the Church of England.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
Dag did not call kat sad.

He said "If X about her, then that's sad."

---

quote:

---

You are welcome to tear my opinion apart. Do not speculate as to why I made it in the first place, and then attack that

---

quote:

---

Anyone else think there is an element of "and then a miracle occurs" in both the marriages of Shasta and Aravis and Prince Caspian and the star daughter? Was that intended? If so, why didn't Lewis include the messier part?

---

quote:

---

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maybe that's why The Last Battle is irritating me - I disagree with Lewis' theology.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---

quote:

---

That a large part of the reason Kat thinks it doesn't work as allegory could very well be that she doesn't believe all (and likely doesn't know at least some) of the beliefs being allegorized.

---

I don't think what he said was unreasonable.
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
I don't agree with you, Belle. I don't want to discuss it.

Let's talk about Lewis.

-------------

Bev, you're right about the political things also being solved very easily. Not everything is non-messy - the relationship between Eustace and Reepicheep is kind of a mess, so some relationships are elaborated on.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Perhaps he only expounds on things he thinks his intended audience can grasp. Perhaps he believes most kids would find politics boring and marriage "yucky".
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
The messy things would be a source of conflict. Politics and the love thing are used by Card and Rowling to bring a little color and life into their books. Lewis must use other things...it can't all come from the religious tension.

He's pretty good at sibling relationships, I thought.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Oh, Dag, I found what you had to say about LDS beliefs differing more from Lewis than most Christianity interesting. I have never thought of it that way--especially since most LDS are so very fond of Lewis' speculation and teaching about Christianity. I and many others have felt that his thoughts were inspired above and beyond a lot of what is "out there" about Christianity, and far closer to the LDS view than most.

Though it may be that there is still a wider gap, I don't know.

Even the highest leaders of the LDS church are extremely fond of quoting Lewis. Quotes of Lewis are abundant amongst their talks. I can't think of anyone in the Christian world (outside the scriptures, of course) more quoted by them.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Actually, as I've listened to Porter reading the Narnia books to my son, I keep thinking, "Man, this guy sounds patronizing and condescending!" But I love the books anyway.
 

---

Posted by Mrs.M (Member # 2943) on :
 
Anyway, here's my take.

In The Last Battle, Polly say about Susan, "Her idea is to rush to the silliest time of one's life and stay there for as long as possible." That gave me a very vivid picture as to why Susan wasn't a "friend to Narnia" anymore. I always pictured middle-aged women in miniskirts and tank tops and teenage girls who only date older guys - the type of people who wouldn't dare ever admit that they'd been to Narnia for fear of looking stupid or uncool.

Also, Aslan tells her and Peter (or is it Lucy and Edmund? - my books are still in Georgia) that they must look for him in their own world. I assumed that Susan didn't do that or deliberately stopped at some point.

And she does have an entire lifetime alone to find her way back to Aslan and Narnia.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 

quote:

---

Even the highest leaders of the LDS church are extremely fond of quoting Lewis. Quotes of Lewis are abundant amongst their talks.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dagonee:
Sadly, you are not on the list of people I obey without question.

---

quote:

---

Weird Dag. We're on the same wavelength today or something - right before I read your post I was about to ask whether or not his writings about the Trinity were ever quoted.

---

quote:

---

Are you reading my mind?

*looks for tinfoil hat*

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dagonee:
Question for any LDS who have read Perelandra: How do you view its take on the Fall?

In many ways, it's Lewis's deepest exploration through fiction of a specific Christian doctrine.

---

I am no scholar of other flavours of Christianity, but what Lewis assumes about the fall in that book seems to be what "everybody else" in Christianity believes about the fall -- that it's too bad it happened, and wouldn't it be great if it hadn't?

Because that book was so much about the fall, and the assumptions about it were so much in opposition to my beliefs, it was the book by him that I personally got the least out of.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
*hands CT a Pentium*
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Gotcha. There are some pretty major theological differences.

I have read Perelandra, and it truly is very different than the LDS view. In fact, as I read the book, I often found myself saying, "Listen to Satan! He's right!"

We must be the only sect in the world (or at least the only one I've heard of in my somewhat-limited experience) who believe the fall was supposed to happen and that we are better off for it.

From LDS scripture, Moses 5:11

quote:

---

11 And Eve, his wife, heard all these things and was glad, saying: Were it not for our transgression we never should have had seed, and never should have known good and evil, and the joy of our redemption, and the eternal life which God giveth unto all the obedient.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Belle:
*takes chips to CT, hoping she'll be accepted as a minion*

---

Geez louise, I'm a total Bellehead. Didn't you know?

(And thanks, Dag. I think.)
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 

quote:

---

(And thanks, Dag. I think.)

---

Bet you wish I'd asked what kind of chip you wanted.
 

---

Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
 
You forgot to bow, Dag...

CT
 

---

Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
 
Orange you glad I didn't say banana again?
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
Oh, yeah.

*lays a lovely red ribbon tied in lovely loops before CT*
 

---

Posted by Mrs.M (Member # 2943) on :
 
Thanks, CT.
 

---

Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
 
Ahhh ... my haughty yet priggish need for attention is soothed. Thank you, Jim-Me, my fine man.

*munches on a hard drive

*pauses

*waits

... hey, that's a pun, Dag ...

*gives him the ratfink eye

[Edit to add: and loses all spelling abilities]
 

---

Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
 
anytime, CT. Nice to be obsequious to someone who deserves it for a change...

Spelling corrected by LG
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
*looks at the eyeball CT gave him*

*wonders what to do with it*
 

---

Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
 
who's ratfink and why do you have his eye?
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
*hands the eye to Jim-Me*

You want it?
 

---

Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
 
*laughing out loud


 

---

Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
 
*takes eye*

ewww... gooey...

*throws it against the wall where it splats, ceremoniously*

anyone have a hanky?
 

---

Posted by Narnia (Member # 1071) on :
 
Wow, I need to reread Peralandra, but I remember it being incredibly powerful for me. I didn't buy all the "just bypass the Fall and we'll all be better off" stuff, but some of the reasonings voiced in the conversations between Satan and Ransom were so amazing and actually helped me to better understand the doctrine that I believe.

I'm at work now, so I can't find the spots, but I'll post some passages later so you don't think I'm crazy.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Narnia, I would be totally interested in that.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
I was actually far more taken with the "accepting the wave God sends you" theme - mainly because it's something I struggle with daily and requires immense faith.

But I'd love to hear your thoughts on it, Narnia.
 

---

Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
 
I thought the whole "Great Dance" thing was about as wonderful as it gets...

*wipes hands on Narnia*
 

---

Posted by Narnia (Member # 1071) on :
 
Ew. Jim snot. *pat pat* I love that part too.

I'll definitely dig out my book (that Annie got me for Christmas 2 years ago) and post some stuff. We'll have a discussion and totally hijack Beren's thread. I love that.
 

---

Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
 
Hooray for hijacking!

and it's not my snot... it came from CT by way of Dag...
 

---

Posted by Narnia (Member # 1071) on :
 
Oh. That's ok then. (just kidding. I'd like your snot as much as I like CT's.)
 

---

Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Narnia:
(just kidding. I'd like your snot as much as I like CT's.)

---

Now THAT is a compliment!


 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
Meanwhile, everyone ignores my comments regarding Momonism & original sin & Lewis...

Fiddlestix.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
*innocently*

What comments?
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
The underlying beliefs are still very different, Scott, at least as people here have presented Mormon doctrines.
 

---

Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
 
A couple of things...

First off, I would like to thank both Dag and Kat for continuing this conversation, although with a few fits and starts to be sure. Religion, and if we are discussing Narnia we are touching upon religion for sure, is a VERY touchy subject at times, and I think I can understand why people have a tough time discussing it frequently.

On to the Narnia part of it:

First I would like to say that I love the Narnia books, despite their flaws. I know that some of the flaws were deliberate, most often because he was using the story to make a point, but overall it is one of my favorite stories.

I think that a story should be able to stand on it's own, for sure, but that when reviewing it's overall goals and judging if the author achieved those goals other sources can be very enlightening.

Since Narnia is an obvious allegorical story representing a basic Christian myth ( I use that phrase because it is a multi-denominatial story, rather than a story based on a specific "flavor" of Christianity) it is important, at least to me, to consider what the religion believes as well.


Most importantly the fact that it is NEVER too late to be redeemed. As long as there is life there is hope of redemption.


As far as I remember, Susan was alive and was fairly well when the story ended. Just because the story ended at a particular point doesn't mean that her life ended, or that she had lost all hope of achieving entry into the "true" Narnia. There are many examples of people who had redeemed themselves from far worse circumstances in these books.


She had chosen to take a pass at that point, though. It isn't a matter of lipstick, or budding sexuality, at least not to me...although it is an interesting concept, Kat, one I had not thought of before. It is a matter of turning her face from Narnia and Aslan, by deliberate choice.


Also I do believe that teens ARE shallow, a lot of the time...if they weren't then they would be adults. However, I know a lot of "adults" who are still shallow although they are long past the teen years. I don't believe that mentioning the fact that they are fairly shallow is a huge slam, nor do I think that being shallow is a irredeemable flaw, not in Narnia or here in the 'real world".


As a matter of fact, the largest point of the entire series is that EVERY flaw can be redeemed, no matter how large, by Aslan's grace, love, and sacrifice.


Kwea
 

---

Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
 
talk about killing an active thread...
 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
Dagonee-- I don't see much difference in what I've read of Lewis' views on original sin and what I think of my religion. What differences do you see?

What I believe Mormons believe about original sin:

quote:

---

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

---

This, to my reasoning, meshes with Lewis' statement (paraphrased) that it is not a matter of self-improvement: it is a matter of us being in a rebel camp and needing to lay down our arms and surrender to God.

Now-- unlike most Christianity (I think) Mormons believe the Fall of Adam and Eve was necessary to bring about God's greater purposes. CS Lewis seemed to sense the dualism about the whole matter, at least in the Narnia series; Aslan tells Diggory that he is a son of Adam, and that is glorious enough that the lowliest beggar should take pride in it, and degrading enough to make the mightiest, greatest king bow his head with shame. (Incidentally, 'Magician's Nephew' is my favorite of all the books. . . right now. )

How do you see Lewis' view on original sin, and how does it conflict with Mormonism as you understand it?
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
It's interesting to me to hear about people reading Perelandra or Xenocide and suddenly being jolted out of their enjoyment of the book due to an excessive amount of doctrine they don't necessarily believe. Because that happens to me all the time.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 

quote:

---

How do you see Lewis' view on original sin, and how does it conflict with Mormonism as you understand it?

---

Unfortunately, I do not have time to do this justice.

If I don't remember to get back to it, remind me over the weekend.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
OK, I got a chance to look at this briefly. Wikipedia's summary is decent. It leaves out some important concepts on the Catholic side, but it covers the basics well. The Protestant description seems consistent with what I've learned over the years, although it is also incomplete. I have no idea how good the LDS side is, of course.

I don't have a lot of links, because most of the info I found was one group refuting the other's beliefs. Here, we are merely trying to compare and contrast, so I didn't think that was quite fair. But here's my best summary:

The key difference, I think, is that Original Sin is seen as a hereditary stain, not merely the fact of being in rebellion. In Catholicism this is summed up as the "loss of sanctifying grace" which God gave humans in the beginning. I don't know if this terminology is used by Protestants.

Original Sin is a state, clearly separated from sins we have committed (actual sins, with emphasis on "act"). My understanding is that the Book of Common Prayer (which Lewis specifically claimed as the foundation of his beliefs) holds to similar ideas.

Part of the state of Original Sin is the desire to rebel and commit sins. While Baptism erases Original Sin, it does not erase this desire.

It is safe to say, though, that the quote you posted about being in rebellion is not an adequate summation of Original Sin. Note that the "loss of sanctifying grace" way of looking at Original Sin is at the heart of why, to Catholics at least, it would be improper to think that the Fall was necessary or desirable.
 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
Dagonee-- it was my impression that we were talking about conflicts between Mormon theology and Lewis' views. This was initiated by your assertion that Original Sin and Purgatory were two views held by Lewis that conflicted with Mormon theology.

Did you have a different understanding? Because the response above only touches briefly on Lewis' views, and expounds instead upon your own understanding of what Original Sin is.

Not that I'm not interested in what YOU think about the matter-- but you made an assertion (or at least I think you made an assertion) and your post does not support it.

My post (#199 in this thread) I thought drew a fine parallel between what Lewis believed and what Mormon scripture teaches.
 

---

Posted by Narnia (Member # 1071) on :
 
(this was in resonse to Dag) Hm. That definition of Original Sin sounds a bit like what the Mormons refer to as 'the natural man.' However, it's not a sin, but a state that we are in because of the fall. We believe that it is this state of being subject to the desires of the flesh that is the true test. In order to become like God, we have to be tried and tested so that we may learn and progress. This wouldn't be possible without being in bodies of flesh and blood...which bodies wouldn't be possible without the Fall of Adam and Eve.

I do see Lewis' point though, and I've always been curious to see what would have happened if Adam and Eve had really obeyed? They wouldn't have had offspring, but God must have known that and been prepared for that....but he knew them well enough to know what would happen, so he prepared a Savior etc.

(sorry. I actually just popped in here to say that I'm still going to post my Peralandra excerpts. Tonight, I promise. )
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 

quote:

---

Did you have a different understanding? Because the response above only touches briefly on Lewis' views, and expounds instead upon your own understanding of what Original Sin is.

---

quote:

---

such a statement could be made under the LDS view, but that doesn't mean Lewis rejects the greater part of the doctrine of Original Sin.

---

It certainly doesn't mean he supports it, either. . .



Can you quote anything from Lewis that specifically defends your assertion that his views and LDS views conflict over this point?
 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
Ahem. I doubt he made any. Mere Christianity, and all that. . .

But I'm always ready to be taught.
 

---

Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
 
As Dagonee has said twice now, Lewis repeatedly and categorically stated that his views were summarized in the Anglican Book of Common Prayer... much the same way a Catholic might refer to the Catechism or I am always saying "see Lewis and Chesterton for details."

As for this:

quote:

---

Finding out what Lewis believed from his own writings is difficult

---

quote:

---

Finding out what Lewis believed from his own writings is difficult. It is even more difficult to claim that he believed something because there's no proof that he didn't.

---

quote:

---

Can you quote anything from Lewis that specifically defends your assertion that his views and LDS views conflict over this point?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Narnia:
This wouldn't be possible without being in bodies of flesh and blood...which bodies wouldn't be possible without the Fall of Adam and Eve.

I do see Lewis' point though, and I've always been curious to see what would have happened if Adam and Eve had really obeyed? They wouldn't have had offspring...

---

quote:

---

The key difference, I think, is that Original Sin is seen as a hereditary stain, not merely the fact of being in rebellion.

---

quote:

---

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

---

quote:

---

IX. Of Original or Birth-Sin.
Original sin standeth not in the following of Adam, (as the Pelagians do vainly talk;) but it is the fault and corruption of the Nature of every man, that naturally is engendered of the offspring of Adam; whereby man is very far gone from original righteousness, and is of his own nature inclined to evil, so that the flesh lusteth always contrary to the Spirit; and therefore in every person born into this world, it deserveth God's wrath and damnation. And this infection of nature doth remain, yea in them that are regenerated; whereby the lust of the flesh, called in Greek, p¢vnæa sapk¢s, (which some do expound the wisdom, some sensuality, some the affection, some the desire, of the flesh), is not subject to the Law of God. And although there is no condemnation for them that believe and are baptized; yet the Apostle doth confess, that concupiscence and lust hath of itself the nature of sin.

---

 

---

Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
 
Porter, I'd like to hear more detail on that when you have time... edit: or Cecily thank you... that makes sense now.

Kat, you are really losing me here. Either you aren't saying what you mean or I am missing something.... because it sounds like you are trying to say that Lewis was ignorant or lazily misleading when he said that his doctrinal beliefs were in the Anglican Book of Common Prayer.

Scott, how's this for a compromise statement:
Lewis wrote much about the fallen state of man that reflects the LDS position on Fallen Man, but the Doctrine of Original Sin held by the church he claimed as the Authority for his personal beliefs has some significant differences with it. At this point, no one has come up with any quotes where Lewis does not support the LDS views because Dag doesn't have his Lewis catalog handy and I, who have Lewis nearly memorized, don't know squat about the LDS belief regarding Original Sin and the Fall.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Scott, I would say that we believe in a *sort* of original sin, but that, as stated in the verse you quoted there, it is covered by Christ's atonement in children *only*. When we reach the age of accountability, that "grace period" is over. That's when we need baptism.

I think that is the big place where we doctrinally differ on Original Sin. We don't believe that children are blamed for it--but only because of Christ's atonement.

Here is a scripture from the BoM that may describe a sort of original sin:

quote:

---

Alma 34: 9

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

---

quote:

---

10 And in that day Adam blessed God and was filled, and began to prophesy concerning all the families of the earth, saying: Blessed be the name of God, for because of my transgression my eyes are opened, and in this life I shall have joy, and again in the flesh I shall see God.

11 And Eve, his wife, heard all these things and was glad, saying: Were it not for our transgression we never should have had seed, and never should have known good and evil, and the joy of our redemption, and the eternal life which God giveth unto all the obedient.

---

quote:

---

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.

---

We are not told *anywhere* why this is. But it is also LDS doctrine that Adam and Eve's bodies before the fall were fundamentally different than our mortal bodies. Their bodies were incapable of sickness, death, and pain. We are taught that they did not have blood at all, but perhaps another substance in place of it. They were more perfect. Perhaps they were also incapable of bearing offspring.

So anyway, the idea is that Adam and Eve could not obey both the commandment to multiply and replenish the earth and the commandment to abstain from the fruit, both at the same time. Why God would give two conflicting commandments is not clear, but it appears that God was giving them a choice: Stay here in the garden and enjoy bliss and lack of change forever, or choose a life of death, sin, and difficulty but that in the end leads to greater glory as well as greater damnation depending on the choice of the individual children of God. The latter choice also included the whole family of God's children, while the first did not.

It is also clear from LDS scripture that the commandment to not eat the fruit was not so much a strict commandment, but a statement of "you may eat it, but understand these are the consequences if you do, so I'm telling you not to." That is why we always refer to it as a transgression rather than a sin. Because we believe that even when the command was given, the choice to eat it was also given as well.

Imagine a situation where a parent's child is old enough to be given the freedom to choose between two things. One choice will be easy and safe, the other dangerous and will almost certainly bring pain, but also wisdom and growth. Perhaps something similar to the Prodigal Son, where the father knows that if he chooses to take his inheritance now, he may fail gloriously and suffer much pain and loss. But the father also knows that his child will learn wisdom from having his choice if it is what he is determined to do. He advises his son not to do it, but he lets him do it because his son must choose for himself in this matter. Free will is key at this crucial point. Indeed, the child does act foolishly, and returns home destitute, but repentant--and hopefully wiser. To me this is a small microchasm for the whole garden-mortality-fall thing.

[ August 10, 2005, 01:06 PM: Message edited by: beverly ]
 

---

Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
 
Bev,

thank you... you have given me one way in which I can show that Lewis differed on the concept of original sin: in Out of the Silent Planet (which comes before Perelandra), he depicts three races that are not fallen, but most definitely bear children. That idea alone seems to imply a very different understanding of Original Sin.

While we will talk of the "happy fault that gained so great a savior," Catholics, and, I'm pretty sure, most Protestants would object to the idea that an unfallen world would be worse.
 

---

Posted by Narnia (Member # 1071) on :
 
This post is now irrelevant after bev's above post.

quote:

---

11 And Eve, his wife, heard all these things and was glad, saying: Were it not for our transgression we never should have had seed, and never should have known good and evil, and the joy of our redemption, and the eternal life which God giveth unto all the obedient.

---

quote:

---

he depicts three races that are not fallen, but most definitely bear children. That idea alone seems to imply a very different understanding of Original Sin.

---

Yup, and this is a totally valid interpretation with only the Bible as scripture. It is understandable that there would be a difference of thought here.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Narnia, eh, it happens.
 

---

Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Narnia:
(to Jim) We believe that the Fall was from immortality to mortality. They couldn't have children in the Garden, not because sex was forbidden, but because they were not mortal beings of flesh and blood until the Fall.

---

I disagree with this.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
*raises eyebrow*

Oh really? Please explain.
 

---

Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
I believe that Adam and Eve had a body of flesh and blood.
 

---

Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by beverly:

quote:

---

he depicts three races that are not fallen, but most definitely bear children. That idea alone seems to imply a very different understanding of Original Sin.

---

Yup, and this is a totally valid interpretation with only the Bible as scripture. It is understandable that there would be a difference of thought here.

---

quote:

---

Since flesh often means mortality, Adam is spoken of as the “first flesh” upon the earth, meaning he was the first mortal on the earth, all things being created in a nonmortal condition, and becoming mortal through the fall of Adam.

---

quote:

---

That brings us to the Fall. Scripture teaches that “Adam fell that men might be; and men are, that they might have joy.” The Fall of Adam (and Eve) constituted the mortal creation and brought about the required changes in their bodies, including the circulation of blood and other modifications as well. They were now able to have children. They and their posterity also became subject to injury, disease, and death.

---

That's just the first one I found.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
I've just got to say, it's hard to find a site about LDS that isn't actually attacking it - sometimes deliberately hiding this fact. So I gave up my search for any kind of "official" or at least friendly explanations of LDS doctrine on the subject.

Just remember, though, when Catholics and mainline Protestants refer to Original Sin, they are not referring to the acts which led to the Fall, although those acts are a part of the doctrine. They are referring to a state all humanity is in (until baptism under some (including Catholicism), until accepting Christ as Savior under some others, with a few other doctrines about when one leaves the shadow of original sin). What's clear in almost all such teachings is that coming out from under the shadow of original sin does not mean the person will no longer sin. The concepts are very distinct, although still related.
 

---

Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
Huh. I was wrong again.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Dag, www.lds.org is great because you can do word searches on the addresses given by church leaders.
 

---

Posted by Narnia (Member # 1071) on :
 

quote:

---

Just remember, though, when Catholics and mainline Protestants refer to Original Sin, they are not referring to the acts which led to the Fall, although those acts are a part of the doctrine. They are referring to a state all humanity is in (until baptism under some (including Catholicism), until accepting Christ as Savior under some others, with a few other doctrines about when one leaves the shadow of original sin).

---

quote:

---

Because of the Fall, we are carnal and have to deal with the temptations that a physical body brings.

---

quote:

---

The Book of Mormon teaches over and over that mankind is a fallen race.

---

Mankind being a "fallen race" is different from the concept of Original Sin.

I have had it said to me several times on this board that LDS do not believe in Original Sin.
 

---

Posted by Narnia (Member # 1071) on :
 
That sounds about right to me Dag. I know that when I say 'state of mortality' and when you say 'Original Sin' that we're not talking about the same thing. There are similarities (that I wasn't aware of) which is what I was pointing out above. I think part of the difference lies in what baptism means in each respective doctrine. (But that's a whole different discussion!)
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 

quote:

---

Certainly, we do not believe the Fall resulted in the ability to reproduce, although I don't know if that's truly a difference about Original Sin or something else.

---

Well, yeah. I think us LDS are the only wacky ones that believe that. There is no precedent for it in the Bible that I have *ever* found.

quote:

---

Apparantly (and I'm very unclear here, so be kind when correcting me if I'm wrong), LDS (or some LDS) see these temptations as inherent in the physical bodies that were obtained as a result of the fall, whereas we see the pre-Fall state of humanity as residing in God's grace to protect us from those passions which would otherwise be there prior to the fall. There is no physical form change after the Fall for us. Catholicism, at least (and here we're into the very murky realms of what I understand about other denominations) do not believe that susceptibility to death ("state or mortality") and original sin are the same, even though both are results of the Fall. In fact, identifying the difference between them is crucial to avoiding some esoteric doctrinal mistakes in Catholicism.

---

Fascinating. That is indeed a subtle difference, though still an important one. As you stated, it makes an important distinction for certain Catholic beliefs. And BTW, I would really like to know more about that.

So, if I understand correctly, Catholics believe that pre-fall Adam and Eve had all the passions, lusts, and hungers that we do, but they had a protection from God against them? This is a new concept to me. How does that work exactly?

And you say that there is no change in Adam and Eve's bodies with the fall, but they do become susceptible to death? How exactly does that work without some sort of change in their bodies? Was it also part of the protection idea? That God would stop anything that would harm them or cause death? This reminds me a little bit of what I've heard about JW beliefs.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
Here's one example.

I am absolutely not saying that Geoff speaks for all LDS. I'm merely pointing to this to show how I got the impression I have about this difference. Of course, most of this predates me, but I did read it when it got bumped.

I know I've seen it elsewhere, and from different people, but the search engine is not being very cooperative.

Edit: Found another (I think ludosti is LDS).

[ August 10, 2005, 02:23 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Ooo, one more tidbit. LDS believe that Adam and Eve were not *capable* of sinning before they partook of the fruit, because in order to sin, you have to know right from wrong--a post-fruit-partaking state.

That is another reason we refer to it as a transgression instead of a sin. Sin=rebelling with understanding, transgression=rebelling with or without understanding. In transgression, a law is broken. No comment about the understanding of the one who broke it. Since we believe that little children can't sin, we might say that little children "transgress" but don't "sin" because they don't really understand yet.
 

---

Posted by Narnia (Member # 1071) on :
 
Dag, you're right, we don't believe in Original Sin. But I have to say that before this thread, I had the wrong definition of Original Sin in my head, or at least a slightly skewed one. After hearing what you have to say on it, I'm seeing similarities in the doctrines.

We don't believe in Original Sin because we don't think that we're born unclean. We do believe that we're born into a state of mortality that is naturally at odds with the way God is. Therefore, we need the Savior. (Like I said before, the real difference for me now lies in the reasons we do baptism.)
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 

quote:

---

Geoff said:

In truth, the Atonement isn't necessary because we are all stained with some all-encompassing original sin. The Atonement is necessary because this world is a proving ground for sinners. We wouldn't be here unless we were immature, imperfect, and had a tendency to act innappropriately, out of self-interest. God gave us Jesus Christ because He knew us before we were born, and He knew none of us could do this alone.

---

Huh. I actually don't agree with this.

LDS scripture makes it clear that the effects of the fall (like a stain upon mankind) make the atonement essential. At least, that is my understanding.

True, we don't use the words "original sin", because we believe it is misleading (see my above post about transgression vs. sin). And it is true that our doctrines differ in certain respects. But the similarities should not be overlooked either.
 

---

Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
 

quote:

---

There is no physical form change after the Fall for us. Catholicism, at least (and here we're into the very murky realms of what I understand about other denominations) do not believe that susceptibility to death ("state or mortality") and original sin are the same, even though both are results of the Fall.

---

quote:

---

We don't believe in Original Sin because we don't think that we're born unclean.

---

This is true. We believe that infants are pure and clean.

But LDS scripture is clear (I believe) that this is the case because of the atonement. That while children do not need baptism, they do need the atonement.

This is needed to save us from death--even infants.

We believe that infants are pure in that they cannot sin. They can transgress, but they cannot sin. Much like Adam and Eve pre-fruit.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 

quote:

---

Right now, I have to say I personally agree with you, but I'm not really certain what my denomination teaches as far as Adam and Eve's physical natures before and after the fall. I will endeavor to find out, my ignorance on the matter embrasses me.

---

No need to be embarrassed. I have remarked to myself on numerous occasions that LDS doctrine is very fall-heavy. We have *a lot* of scripture about it. Because there is so much, I have always taken that to mean it is very important to understand. Therefore LDS may be more familiar with their own fall-doctrine than most.

I think Catholics may be somewhat the same way, but I am not sure.
 

---

Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
 
I am speaking for me here, so Dag, and probably the church, may have issues with what I say...

But as *I* understand it, the natural desires we have are good in themselves. It is the fall which turned them into "passions, lusts, and hungers." The idea is that we had them in an innocent state, we had them twisted by the loss of that innocent state,and most of our business on earth (and all of our business in Purgatory) is to set them right again.

Or perhaps I should say that through the fall, our wills became weak enough that our desires became our masters rather than vice versa.... that the Catholic definition of "passions and lusts" would be a natural desire that is placed in headship over the will. It's times like this that I like to point out that "Passion" and "Passive" share a common root.

The difference being that with desire, we want something, with passion and lust, we can't stop wanting it. Which brings us neatly back to Dagonee's favorite part of Perelandra-- taking the wavbes as they come to you.
 

---

Posted by Narnia (Member # 1071) on :
 
We may be 'fall-heavy' but I'm sure still learning a lot about it all the time. The subject of the Fall has been a source of study questions and fascination for me for the last few years. It's complex. I really like this thread, it's giving me a chance to look up some stuff, remind myself and learn new things.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Ooo, a few further comments:

We believe children cannot sin until the know good from evil. LDS doctrine tacks on an average age of 8 for this time. Though we believe that is somewhat arbitrary, (there may be children younger who understand sufficeintly, and children older who don't) we believe that God honors it, since He is the one who told us.

We also believe that there are some who live through this life never truly understanding good and evil (due to mental retardation or other condition) and therefore are never held accountable for the mistakes they may make. They are "mistakes" not "sins".

quote:

---

2 Ne. 9: 25

25 Wherefore, he has given a law; and where there is no law given there is no punishment; and where there is no punishment there is no condemnation; and where there is no condemnation the mercies of the Holy One of Israel have claim upon them, because of the atonement; for they are delivered by the power of him.

---

quote:

---

Or perhaps I should say that through the fall, our wills became weak enough that our desires became our masters rather than vice versa

---

Maybe not that our wills become weak...Hm. The way I look it at it is that our physical bodies were new to us. This mortal life is a time for us to learn how to 'use' them, or to gain control over the desires etc. The Atonement also helps us with this through repentance and our ability to be forgiven for our sins.

(I might just be saying the same thing over and over again, forgive me. Like I said, I'm learning new things here! )
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 

quote:

---

So, if I understand correctly, Catholics believe that pre-fall Adam and Eve had all the passions, lusts, and hungers that we do, but they had a protection from God against them? This is a new concept to me. How does that work exactly?

---

quote:

---

And you say that there is no change in Adam and Eve's bodies with the fall, but they do become susceptible to death? How exactly does that work without some sort of change in their bodies? Was it also part of the protection idea? That God would stop anything that would harm them or cause death?

---

quote:

---

But as *I* understand it, the natural desires we have are good in themselves. It is the fall which turned them into "passions, lusts, and hungers." The idea is that we had them in an innocent state, we had them twisted by the loss of that innocent state,and most of our business on earth (and all of our business in Purgatory) is to set them right again.

---

You know, I'd say to some extent, we believe this as well. We don't believe that we should rid ourselves of our passions and desires, we simply believe we should be in mastery of them and that we should follow God's law in respect to them.

You see, we believe that having a mortal body is part of our fallen natures, yet we believe that having a body is extremely good. In fact, we believe that those who have died look upon being without a body as bondage. We believe that we will receive a corporeal body at the ressurrection, and this will be extremely liberating, that we will only then be capable of a fulness of joy.

Kinda complicates matters.

We are not gnostics. We do not believe having a body=bad. In fact, we believe quite the opposite. (That is, if I understand what gnostics believe :/)
 

---

Posted by Narnia (Member # 1071) on :
 
We believe that having a body is a necessary part of our progression toward exaltation, because of the temptations and growth we experience while in mortality. (basically what bev said)
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 

quote:

---

But as *I* understand it, the natural desires we have are good in themselves. It is the fall which turned them into "passions, lusts, and hungers." The idea is that we had them in an innocent state, we had them twisted by the loss of that innocent state,and most of our business on earth (and all of our business in Purgatory) is to set them right again.

Or perhaps I should say that through the fall, our wills became weak enough that our desires became our masters rather than vice versa.... that the Catholic definition of "passions and lusts" would be a natural desire that is placed in headship over the will. It's times like this that I like to point out that "Passion" and "Passive" share a common root.

The difference being that with desire, we want something, with passion and lust, we can't stop wanting it. Which brings us neatly back to Dagonee's favorite part of Perelandra-- taking the wavbes as they come to you.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Narnia:

quote:

---

Or perhaps I should say that through the fall, our wills became weak enough that our desires became our masters rather than vice versa

---

Maybe not that our wills become weak...Hm. The way I look it at it is that our physical bodies were new to us.

---

quote:

---

We believe children cannot sin until the know good from evil. LDS doctrine tacks on an average age of 8 for this time. Though we believe that is somewhat arbitrary, (there may be children younger who understand sufficeintly, and children older who don't) we believe that God honors it, since He is the one who told us.

---

quote:

---

Ah, that's a major conflict. Reformed doctrine teaches that all children are born in sin, there is no age that they become aware of good and evil, they are born in iniquity and incapable of doing righteousness without the regenerating power of the Holy Spirit.

---

I agree that this is where the major difference is. That's what I meant before when I pointed out that it's the different beliefs about baptism that finally clarified it for me.

Jim-me, I understand now. A subtle, but important difference.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Belle, what I meant by "fall heavy" is that when you look at LDS scripture, a surprising amount of it is about the fall. Of course, a lot of it is about Christ's atonement too. The focus tends to be that in order to truly understand the atonement, one must understand the fall.
 

---

Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
 
BTW, Dag, I have to confess that beyond the idea that we continue to be fallen after we are cleansed of original sin, I'm having trouble myself picking out the differences of state.

Perhaps the way to state it is that "fallen" or "natural man" is what a human being is after baptism? I.E. with concupiscence and mortality, but not Original Sin.
 

---

Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
 
We might be using the same terminology differently. Maybe it would help to clarify what we all mean by the term "original sin"

For instance, I differentiate between imputed sin and original sin

Here's an excerpt from the writings of Matt Perman that explains the difference:

quote:

---

The Bible teaches that Adam's sin had two main effects on the human race. The first is that it is imputed to everyone. This means that we are all counted guilty for what he did. When Adam was tested in the Garden of Eden, He was acting as the representative of the entire human race. Therefore we share in the blame for his sin. What we are going to examine in this article is the second effect that Adam's sin had, called original sin. Original sin means that, because of Adam's first sin, we are all born with an evil nature that is against God. We all come into this world with a sinful nature. It is important to see that whereas imputed sin means that we share in the blame for Adam's sin, original sin means that we become polluted because of Adam's sin. Imputed sin most directly involves our legal standing, original sin most directly involves our moral character.

---

quote:

---

BTW, Dag, I have to confess that beyond the idea that we continue to be fallen after we are cleansed of original sin, I'm having trouble myself picking out the differences of state.

Perhaps the way to state it is that "fallen" or "natural man" is what a human being is after baptism? I.E. with concupiscence and mortality, but not Original Sin.

---

I think the states, described on their own might be similar (I'm not convinced I understand LDS thought enough to say this), but when you include the differences in pre-Fall states as part of the definition of the post-Fall states, the difference is stark. And I think to take an encompassing view of Original Sin, one must include what was lost.
 

---

Posted by Narnia (Member # 1071) on :
 
(to Belle) Ah. Then it's imputed sin that the Mormons disagree with.

Like bev pointed out earlier, we think that the Fall does leave us in a natural state that is 'an enemy to God'(as the Book of Mormon puts it), but that because of the Atonement, children and those who have not learned the difference between right and wrong are not held accountable for their sins. Hence the reason we don't practice infant baptism.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
That is interesting. I'd say that according to that exerpt, we believe in something very similar to original sin (with the exception of those not understanding the law being exempt from it), but vehemently do *not* believe in imputed sin.

Edit: Narnia beat me this time!

Back to an earlier comment, I thought that Protestants in general did not believe that children are sinful or need baptism--that that was one of the things they "protested" against in the Catholic church. Are there some Protestants who believe it and some who don't? Anyone know?
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
The imputation of guilt (as opposed to the imputation of sin) is an area of disagreement between some Protestants and Catholics. But it's still considerably closer, I think, than LDS teachings to either.
 

---

Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
 
Lutherans, Methodists, Presbyterians, Episcopalians, the United Church of Christ, etc. practise infant baptism. Baptists, Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), Church of Christ, etc. do not.

The baptism of children was not an issue in the Protestant reformation -- it was the anabaptists who rejected it. (They were considered heretics by both Catholics and Protestants.)
 

---

Posted by Narnia (Member # 1071) on :
 
Ah see. I learned something new again!
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Cool! I so did not know that.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
Thanks, dkw. I actually knew that, but wasn't sure enough to post it. It's hard to keep track of all that.

BTW, I found your old thread on Original Sin and wanted to say liked it a lot.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Linky? In the time I've been on Hatrack, I've heard Dana say very little about her actual beliefs. She usually just corrects inaccuracies and answers specific questions.

For a minister, she gives surprisingly few sermons.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
Oh, geez, don't make me use the search engine again.

I found it by looking up original sin, I think. If you limit it to dkw's user number, it should be pretty easy.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
I think I found the right one. I actually remember reading this back in the day. I was a brand-new-shiny member then.

I like the phrase "sin is not a sexually-transmitted disease." I believe that.
 

---

Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
 
Thanks, Dag.

quote:

---

For a minister, she gives surprisingly few sermons.

---

*looks at sermon files*

*laughs hysterically*

For five years, between 2 and 8 sermons every week. Not so many, now that I'm in a multi-staff church, though. Maybe I'll get bored and start preaching on Hatrack.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
That is a lot! You know, if you ever did want to preach here, you'd have a willing, entranced audience.
 

---

Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
 
Preaching is an oral art form. Some of the worst preachers (IMO) are the ones who don’t understand the difference in writing to be read and writing to be spoken/heard.

Forum writing, with its conversational style, is somewhere between the two.
 

---

Posted by Theaca (Member # 8325) on :
 
I'd love to see a thread with some example dkw sermons typed out.
 

---

Posted by Narnia (Member # 1071) on :
 
We could do podcasts.
 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 

quote:

---

We believe children cannot sin until the know good from evil. LDS doctrine tacks on an average age of 8 for this time. Though we believe that is somewhat arbitrary, (there may be children younger who understand sufficeintly, and children older who don't) we believe that God honors it, since He is the one who told us.

---

quote:

---

One thing that must be understood when discussion [sic] baptism in the New Testament is that the New Covenant extends to children of believers. This is prophesied in Jer. 32:38-40 and indicated by Acts 2:39—“The promise is for your and for your children, and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God shall call to Himself.”

---

quote:

---

Presbyterians do not believe in baptismal regeneration or that baptism in any sense saves. Presbyterians and Reformed Christians believe that baptism is a sign to be given to those who are part of the covenant of grace. A person is not part of the covenant because of baptism; baptism is a sign given to those who are part of the covenant. Those who are part of the covenant are not necessarily saved; rather, children are brought up in the covenant so that they might be raised in the context of the family of believers, so that the church may provide the child with a “climate of plausibility” that would make the Christian faith seem real and vibrant and true. Baptism is administered in anticipation of that time when they will come to faith and receive the forgiveness of their sins and be normal, communing members of Christ’s church.

---

 

---

Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
 
I read the Gaiman story at B&N today, and wasn't impressed.
 

---

Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
 
Belle, do I understand correctly-- you see Baptism as a sign but not as imparting any inherent grace by having it done, right?
 

---

Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
 
Jim-Me, yes. Baptism in itself imparts no saving grace to the individual. An individual can be baptised yet not be saved. And an individual can be saved and not baptised. I have no doubt that many people are regenerated when they are baptised, and that the regeneration accompanies the baptism, but it's not because of the baptism.

Baptism is a sacrament, and is to be taken very seriously, it's not meaningless. Everyone who is converted as an adult should be baptised by all means. We don't treat it as "optional" or unimportant, it's definitely important to us and I consider my own baptism when I was 12 to be one of the most important days of my life. Likewise, the days my children were baptised were very sacred, and special days to me.
 

---

Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
 
Cool... thanks
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 

quote:

---

Baptism in itself imparts no saving grace to the individual...

Baptism is a sacrament

---