posted
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
(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. )
Posts: 6415 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
As I mentioned above, Lewis claims to believe everything in the book of common prayer, and my understanding is that there is very little difference between that and the Catholic view at its core.
Also, when Lewis states 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," he's saying something I think most Christians would agree with, but he's not really touching on Original Sin.
Nor does the Adam/beggar/king quote say anything about how closely Lewis's views align with LDS views. Yes, 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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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
I presume, Kat, that you are referring to his fiction? His Christian apologetics and commentary are both precise and clearly written, and I *know* you aren't saying that he was insincere in those publications...
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Yes. Good thing I didn't do that.
quote:Can you quote anything from Lewis that specifically defends your assertion that his views and LDS views conflict over this point?
Do LDS believe in Original Sin?
By this, I don't mean "men are in rebellion." I mean the doctrine of Original Sin which, I've been told several times on this board, was specifically rejected by LDS teachings.
As I stated, I don't have his books here. But, again, Lewis stated his beliefs were in the Book of Common Prayer, which does state a belief in Orignal Sin.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
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...
Narnia... I'm lost here... is it LDS doctrine that sexuality was forbidden in Eden? I know that I, personally, would have a very difficult time with this interpretation... and I throw the question out to other Christians, too... is this a common Crhistian interpretation?
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that's a tenuous claim - people say their beliefs are in the Bible without really believing that donkeys talk.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay, I can accept that as an answer for now, Jim, Dag.
Can anyone google-fu me what the Anglican Book of Common Prayer says about Original Sin and Purgatory? I google it and get pdf's that seem to be minutes for meetings in 2004. . . don't think that's what I'm looking for.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've never even heard of the idea that sexuality was forbidden in Eden.
But we do believe that Adam and Eve could never of had children if they hadn't partaken of the fruit.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: The key difference, I think, is that Original Sin is seen as a hereditary stain, not merely the fact of being in rebellion.
Mormons believe this, sort of; but we also believe that Christ's atonement covers 'original sin,' and redeems us from its effects.
Edit to include the scripture that leads me to the above conclusion:
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.
posted
(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.
Posts: 6415 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Scott, I can give it to you from the hard copy:
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
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.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Dag, what do you think? It is hard to tell if this seems like Orignial Sin or not because I am simply not that familiar with the doctrine of other churches.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jim, us Mormons sometimes forget that the only places that state that Adam and Eve couldn't have children without the fall are found in LDS scripture.
I quoted one place in this thread, but here it is again:
Moses 5:10-11:
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.
And another place:
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.
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.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
I take that to mean that they could not have had children in their immortal state.
Posts: 6415 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
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. Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Scott... this do it for ya? Or were you looking for something more explicit?
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Porter, here it explains that they became mortal after the fall. What would that mean if not a changing of the body to a body of flesh and blood?
edit: Here is one more Bible Dictionary entry that says this:
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.
I've always understood that this nonmortal condition that Adam and Eve were in before the Fall is not the same as the post resurrection immortal condition (which includes a body of flesh and blood).
Posts: 6415 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I just read Porter a passage out of "Mormon Doctrine" that was pretty explicit. Of course, many do not accept "Mormon Doctrine" as scripture anyway. But I'm sure I can find plenty of other references if given a moment....
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bev, I'd be interested to hear that passage. (I don't own Mormon Doctrine, but I should.) Didn't Bruce R. write that and most of the Bible Dictionary too? We're allowed to take the BD as scripture, which is maybe why it's not as explicit as MD. :shrug:
Posts: 6415 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Russel M. Nelson, Ensign Nov. 1996 "The Atonement":
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. Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dag, www.lds.org is great because you can do word searches on the addresses given by church leaders.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
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).
See Dag, I didn't know that about this particular doctrine. Like I said above, this sounds very similar to what we refer as 'Natural Man' or the state of mortality. Because of the Fall, we are carnal and have to deal with the temptations that a physical body brings. The reason that our 'Natural Man' is not the same as your 'Original Sin' is that we don't leave the state of being a natural man after we're baptized. Baptism is just one of the steps and covenants along the way to becoming free of that through the atonement of Christ. We're never really free until the resurrection.
Cool. I learn something new every day!
Posts: 6415 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dag, based on that quote, I'd say there is little difference. We have already pointed out some differences (whether or not non-fallen humans could have offspring, whether or not infants need to be redeemed of Original Sin) there don't seem to be a lot of other differences.
The Book of Mormon teaches over and over that mankind is a fallen race. It says in Alma 22:15 that man cannot merit anything of himself because of it. It is made clear that we need Christ's atonement to fully overcome that part of our nature.
I guess I don't see any glaring differences (other than the above.)
Well, except for the very important LDS belief that along with our fallen nature, we are all born with the Light of Christ in us, a spark of divine goodness, that tends to lead us to want to be good.
This leads to a dual nature, part of us fallen, part of us divine, longing for goodness. That might be different, I don't know.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Because of the Fall, we are carnal and have to deal with the temptations that a physical body brings.
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.
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.
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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!) Posts: 6415 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.)
Posts: 6415 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Speaking for one protestant, I have to say I agree with you Dag.
I don't believe there was a change from one state to another at the fall, in the physical bodies.
Honestly, I'm not sure I've ever studied anything on this particular aspect of the fall before, so I'm going to go try and look up some info and see what I can find. 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.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
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. Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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. Posts: 6415 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
This, we believe, applies to all who are not capable of understanding the law.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
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.
