Original Sin

[MormonGirl02]

Hi everyone. It has been a long time since I had the missionary discussions. I am just wondering, do we inherit original sin from Adam and Eve or not?

[Brenton]

Nope. We're responsible for our own transgression as far as'm aware.

[Nappaljarri]

Yes, I concur with Brenton. Our article of faith says:

We believe that man will be punished for their own sins and not for Adam's transgression.

Simple as that.

[tubaloth]

No we don't. Because of the Atonement of Jesus Christ, it Atones for any Orignal Sin. Thus the only thing that keeps us from God is our own sins, diesires.

[MormonGirl02]

Oh ok. Thanks everyone!

[Guest ceeboo]

Yes :)

[Justice]

Many confuse "original sin" with "Adam's transgression." Adam did not know good from evil when he partook of the fruit, so his choice to eat of the fruit was technically not a sin. He was not in rebellion of God or His plan. Adam's transgression brought mortality and the ability to choose between good or evil. His transgression did not force any one man to sin. This is a false notion that many believe to make themselves feel better; to make themselves feel like it's not their fault when they sin.

Any sin Adam may have had after his "transgression" certainly does not apply to us. So, Adam brought the ability for you to choose, and only by personal choice, or agency, is it possible for you to be rewarded. This makes eternal life possible for God's children. If this were not the case then there would have been no need of a Savior.

[Islander]

"Original sin" is a theological concept more than a biblical one since it does not appear in the OT or NT. There is no mention of such until the second century. It was used to more or less describe the fall of Adam and it was picked up from there. Notice I say describe not define but such is the nature of Christianity. Once a phrase is coined it makes its way into the schools of theology and nobody questions the concept any more.

[applepansy]

No we do not. The 2nd Article of Faith: We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam's transgression.

[ErikJohnson]

do we inherit original sin from Adam and Eve or not?

According to the Apostle Paul (in his Epistle to the Romans), it appears we do. Regarding Adam, Paul writes, "The result of one trespass was condemnation for all men" (5:18) and he adds in the next verse, "By the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners."

I think this is generally what Bible-believing Christians mean when they speak of original sin and its effects. Through Adam, sin and death entered the world. And we see the undeniable result of original sin in our own desires (the sin nature we've inherited) and in everything around us.

The Good News, of course, is that the story doesn't end with sin and death. Through the righteousness of Christ comes justification and eternal life--for those who believe.

--Erik

[applepansy]

According to the Apostle Paul (in his Epistle to the Romans), it appears we do. Regarding Adam, Paul writes, "The result of one trespass was condemnation for all men" (5:18) and he adds in the next verse, "By the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners."

I think this is generally what Bible-believing Christians mean when they speak of original sin and its effects. Through Adam, sin and death entered the world. And we see the undeniable result of original sin in our own desires (the sin nature we've inherited) and in everything around us.

The Good News, of course, is that the story doesn't end with sin and death. Through the righteousness of Christ comes justification and eternal life--for those who believe.

--Erik

Erik, I'll refer back to Article of Faith #2 again. We did not inherit "orginial sin" we gained the opportunity to receive a body and work out our own salvation. Adam's Fall was not a "sin" but a transgression. The difference being that he was an innocent being and couldn't sin. To commit sin you must have knowledge, and Adam and Eve did not have the knowledge needed to make their transgression a sin.

This transgression had to happen for the chidren of God to have the opportunity to come to earth and receive a body. We are all accountable for our own sins. We do not inherit or have responsibility for anyone else's sins including Adam's transgression.

What we inherit is the priceless abililty to choose between right and wrong. By exercising their agency our first parents gave us the same opportunity they had to gain a body, and the knowledge of right and wrong.

Your spirit sister,

Applepansy

[applepansy]

From The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

Original Sin

Because of the Fall of Adam and Eve, all people live in a fallen condition, separated from God and subject to physical death. However, we are not condemned by what many call the "original sin." In other words, we are not accountable for Adam's transgression in the Garden of Eden. The Prophet Joseph Smith said, "We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam's transgression" (Articles of Faith 1:2).

[ErikJohnson]

Adam's Fall was not a "sin" but a transgression. The difference being that he was an innocent being and couldn't sin.

Hi applepansy--

I don't see where the Bible makes any such distinction. Perhaps you can show me. And in Romans 5:16, Paul explicitly refers to Adam's transgression as "sin." Not sure how you would escape this fact.

Also, you seem to put a lot of stock in the 2nd Article of Faith. Do you think it supersedes what Paul wrote (the words I cited in my post) in Romans 5? If you do—you might find yourself in the minority of LDS. As I understood the Articles of Faith, they are simply a summary of doctrines found in the LDS canon (Joseph Smith wrote them in response to a letter of inquiry). Basically the Articles of Faith are a creed—important (to LDS), but not, strictly speaking, canonical. You could reasonably compare (and contrast) it with the Christian creeds.

Please correct me if I am wrong about the LDS view of the Articles of Faith and whether LDS consider the Articles of Faith to supersede the Bible.

Thanks applepansy,

--Erik

[WANDERER]

Origin of sin...or introduction of sin...didn't start with Adam or Eve...

[richlittell]

Hi applepansy--

I don't see where the Bible makes any such distinction. Perhaps you can show me. And in Romans 5:16, Paul explicitly refers to Adam's transgression as "sin." Not sure how you would escape this fact.

Also, you seem to put a lot of stock in the 2nd Article of Faith. Do you think it supersedes what Paul wrote (the words I cited in my post) in Romans 5? If you do—you might find yourself in the minority of LDS. As I understood the Articles of Faith, they are simply a summary of doctrines found in the LDS canon (Joseph Smith wrote them in response to a letter of inquiry). Basically the Articles of Faith are a creed—important (to LDS), but not, strictly speaking, canonical. You could reasonably compare (and contrast) it with the Christian creeds.

Please correct me if I am wrong about the LDS view of the Articles of Faith and whether LDS consider the Articles of Faith to supersede the Bible.

Thanks applepansy,

--Erik

The Articles of Faith are part of our Standard Works which are (from the official LDS newsroom):

"This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith."

Neither one or the other of our Standard Works supersede the other but have equal weight in bringing clarification to our understanding of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Where one work is found wanting, another supplements, where some minor point of one could introduce confusion, all of the works taken together as a whole can put such a point into perspective.

We put a lot of stock in the Articles of faith. We put a lot of stock in the Bible. We put a lot of stock in the Book of Mormon. We put a lot of stock in the Pearl of Great Price. We put a lot of stock in the Doctrine and Covenants.

Do you think it supersedes what Paul wrote...? If you do—you might find yourself in the minority of LDS.

Please do not be so presumptuous as to speak for me or any other LDS or group of which you are not affiliated and have no knowledge. I apologize ahead of time, but I am offended by this. The view expressed is clearly NOT of the minority, but of the greatest majority.

Also:

We use the king James Version of the Bible.

18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.

19 For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.

By the fall of Adam, all men became subject to sin, and as the natural man, which we are, is an enemy to God, we are all sinners who have passed the age of accountability. But we are punished for our OWN sins, not for Adam's.

If we were punished for Adam's sin, then we would all be born in sin, which supposes that if children die, they must therefore go to hell. This is contrary to the doctrine of Christ which, in the Book of Mormon, Moroni 8 says:

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;

All children who die before the age of accountability need not repent, nor do they need baptism, for they are spotless before God through the atonement of Jesus Christ. Therefore, as we are not born with Adam's sins upon us, we are only held accountable for our own sins, and not Adam's transgression. According to the words of Christ, we are born into this world innocent.

The fall of Adam resulted in the corruption of all things of both man and the earth, and introduced sin into the world that all men might gain knowledge and experience and be tried to see if they will do whatsoever thing God has commanded them, so that we might be held accountable for our own sins, and not Adam's transgression.

Edited September 28, 2008 by richlittell

[Nappaljarri]

Hi applepansy--

I don't see where the Bible makes any such distinction. Perhaps you can show me. And in Romans 5:16, Paul explicitly refers to Adam's transgression as "sin." Not sure how you would escape this fact.

Also, you seem to put a lot of stock in the 2nd Article of Faith. Do you think it supersedes what Paul wrote (the words I cited in my post) in Romans 5? If you do—you might find yourself in the minority of LDS. As I understood the Articles of Faith, they are simply a summary of doctrines found in the LDS canon (Joseph Smith wrote them in response to a letter of inquiry). Basically the Articles of Faith are a creed—important (to LDS), but not, strictly speaking, canonical. You could reasonably compare (and contrast) it with the Christian creeds.

Please correct me if I am wrong about the LDS view of the Articles of Faith and whether LDS consider the Articles of Faith to supersede the Bible.

Thanks applepansy,

--Erik

Erik, We believe the articles of faith do supercede the bible (in that the words of the articles of faith are placed in our scriptures and they were brought forth by revelation by the Prophet, therefore have no incorrect interpretation to them). "We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly, we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God." So in that article of faith, which has been placed in our books of scripture, which was revealed by the Prophet of the Day (Joseph Smith), he declares the bible to be true, so long as it was translated correctly (which we as LDS believe it was not totally correct). Also, if you read numerous talks by our Latter-day prophets, they will refer to Adam's transgression as just that.

Edited September 28, 2008 by Nappaljarri

[Justice]

Through Adam, sin and death entered the world. And we see the undeniable result of original sin in our own desires (the sin nature we've inherited) and in everything around us.

Yes, we agree.

2 Nephi 2:

25 Adam fell that men might be; and men are, that they might have joy.

Moses 6:

48 And he said unto them: Because that Adam fell, we are; and by his fall came death; and we are made partakers of misery and woe.

But, how is it Adam's fault that any other individual chooses to sin?

This is the point we disagree with. Original Sin implies, as I understand it, that Adam is to blame because we desire sin. On the contrary, what Adam did allowed us to "understand good and evil" so that we can be accountable for our choices, or that we would have agency.

Adding Original Sin into the equation as a result of the fall is a contradiction to the fact that we inherited the ability to choose.

Gen. 3:

22 And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil:

Think about it.

Original Sin implies we inherited a "sin nature" that we have to overcome. In fact, infants are born innocent because they do not desire to sin. The desire to sin comes to us as a result of wanting the things of the world instead of wanting the things of God. That is a personal desire that we alone are responsible for.

Just as we can develop bad habits by doing evil things, we can develop good habits by doing righteous things. Adam's transgression, and the introduction of agency, is responsible for the ability to do either, or the power to make our own choices with knowledge of what we choose. Why don't we give credit to Adam for the good things we do? There's no difference, except that men want to blame another for their mistakes.

We believe if we choose to sin then we are responsible... because we knowingly go against God's will when we do.

Edited September 28, 2008 by Justice

[applepansy]

I don't see where the Bible makes any such distinction. Perhaps you can show me. And in Romans 5:16, Paul explicitly refers to Adam's transgression as "sin." Not sure how you would escape this fact.

Also, you seem to put a lot of stock in the 2nd Article of Faith. Do you think it supersedes what Paul wrote (the words I cited in my post) in Romans 5? If you do—you might find yourself in the minority of LDS. As I understood the Articles of Faith, they are simply a summary of doctrines found in the LDS canon (Joseph Smith wrote them in response to a letter of inquiry). Basically the Articles of Faith are a creed—important (to LDS), but not, strictly speaking, canonical. You could reasonably compare (and contrast) it with the Christian creeds.

Please correct me if I am wrong about the LDS view of the Articles of Faith and whether LDS consider the Articles of Faith to supersede the Bible.

Thanks applepansy,

--Erik

Erik,

I believe that ALL scripture is the word of GOD and that belief is held by the majority of LDS members. I gratefully refer to the posts by changed, richlittel, justice and nappaljarri. They did a wonderful job of gathering the references which point to the appropriate scriptures. I'm a little slower at remembering the scriptural references which I need to make a point.

I am extremely grateful that our Heavenly Father didn't stop communicating with His Children here on earth today.

Applepansy

Edited September 28, 2008 by applepansy

[brother01]

Many confuse "original sin" with "Adam's transgression." Adam did not know good from evil when he partook of the fruit, so his choice to eat of the fruit was technically not a sin. He was not in rebellion of God or His plan. Adam's transgression brought mortality and the ability to choose between good or evil. His transgression did not force any one man to sin. This is a false notion that many believe to make themselves feel better; to make themselves feel like it's not their fault when they sin.

Any sin Adam may have had after his "transgression" certainly does not apply to us. So, Adam brought the ability for you to choose, and only by personal choice, or agency, is it possible for you to be rewarded. This makes eternal life possible for God's children. If this were not the case then there would have been no need of a Savior.

We inherited the mortal penalty for Adam's sin, in that we all die. The gospel is the fulfillment of the promise that we will live again if we repent of our sin and turn to do the will of God instead of our own.

I disagree that Adam eating of the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil not being a sin. The Genesis account is power packed with information when you know the rest of the Scriptures. Don't we all agree that sin is disobedience of the word of God? When God tells us to do something we are to do it. When He says something we are to believe it, not doubt that He is telling us the truth. God has always and will always be true to His word. As is told us, He upholds His word higher than His name!

In Genesis 2 we are told that God put Adam and Eve in the garden to tend and keep it. So God told Adam and Eve to be fruitful and multiply. They were told that a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. God told them not to eat of the one tree because if they did they would surely die.

God walked with Adam in the cool of the evening. This may have been a daily occurrence that God would talk to Adam about the questions he had about tending the garden or whatever. God and man were in direct communication.

So if God told Adam not to do something and told him what would happen if he did, then this is sufficient knowledge. It was pride that got them, the desire to be something we aren't or to have something that God has not given us. Adam had complete authority from God to conquer and subdue the earth, but they were led to believe they too could become like God, knowing good and evil. Before that day they only knew good.

Do we also desire to know evil or to know good?

Satan told Eve 'thou shalt not surely die', which was not true. To this day, over 5000 years later, we all still die. God is forever true. We only have the promise of eternal life if we have Christ in us, the hope of glory.

[Brenton]

Many confuse "original sin" with "Adam's transgression." Adam did not know good from evil when he partook of the fruit, so his choice to eat of the fruit was technically not a sin. He was not in rebellion of God or His plan. Adam's transgression brought mortality and the ability to choose between good or evil. His transgression did not force any one man to sin. This is a false notion that many believe to make themselves feel better; to make themselves feel like it's not their fault when they sin.

Any sin Adam may have had after his "transgression" certainly does not apply to us. So, Adam brought the ability for you to choose, and only by personal choice, or agency, is it possible for you to be rewarded. This makes eternal life possible for God's children. If this were not the case then there would have been no need of a Savior.

I forgot all about this!!

So, "original" sin actually doesn't exist?

[WANDERER]

If God was cleaning up a mess He didn't make (sin)...who made it? And is the battle against sin a feature of eternity?

[ErikJohnson]

Think about it.

Original Sin implies we inherited a "sin nature" that we have to overcome. In fact, infants are born innocent because they do not desire to sin. The desire to sin comes to us as a result of wanting the things of the world instead of wanting the things of God. That is a personal desire that we alone are responsible for.

I have thought about it, Justice. And more importantly, I've looked to Scripture. Infants are not "innocent"--according to the Bible. The Psalmist writes, "Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me" (51:5). And, "Even from birth the wicked go astray; from the womb they are wayward and speak lies" (58:3). There's no escaping this fact, Justice. Paul writes--"All have sinned" (Romans 3:23). There's no exception for newborn infants and/or children under age eight. Indeed, if what you propose were the case--the infant would have no need of the atonement of Jesus Christ!

--Erik

PS. I gladly take correction on the question of the Articles of Faith being canonical for LDS. According BYU Studies, the letter was canonized in 1880. Apparently I could have held my ground in 1879, but times change...

;0)

[Prodigal_Son]

If God was cleaning up a mess He didn't make (sin)...who made it? And is the battle against sin a feature of eternity?

Very interesting question. Christ was aware of the "plan" that Father had gone through to achieve His Celestial inheritance - and presented it in the premortal council. Was this plan shared by Father to Christ as a "new" idea for His spirit children, or were we perfectly aware of how our Heavenly Father got to be where He was?

If we had knowledge of Father's earthly trial, then we saw that sin existed previously. We, by having voted in Christ's proposal, had some understanding of the need for "opposition in all things". Thus, and here's where it gets crazy, is it possible that Satan, while surely messed up in the head - understood that he was filling a role? The role of evil? Is it possible, that on some level he embraced this responsibility?

Of course, if we did NOT know how Father got to where He was, then this whole "what if" is immaterial. And it's possible that we didn't know - else why did we have the council in heaven?

Crazy stuff...

[ErikJohnson]

Erik,

I gratefully refer to the posts by changed, richlittel, justice and nappaljarri. They did a wonderful job of gathering the references which point to the appropriate scriptures.

Hi again, applepansy--

I don't wish to be argumentative, but it seems you punted on the question I asked you (how do you insist Adam's transgression was not a sin--when Paul called it exactly that in Romans 5:16?). Also, regarding the "wonderful job" by Nappaljarri, richlittel, et al.--did you not notice they made contradictory statements?

According to Nappaljarri, "We believe the articles of faith do supersede the bible." But richlittel tells us, "Neither one or the other of our Standard Works supersede the other but have equal weight..."

I'd appreciate your opinion on both points, applepansy. Do you think the Articles of Faith supersede the Bible? And do you think the Apostle Paul was wrong when he labeled Adam's transgression, "sin?"

--Erik

[applepansy]

Hi again, applepansy--

I don't wish to be argumentative, but it seems you punted on the question I asked you (how do you insist Adam's transgression was not a sin--when Paul called it exactly that in Romans 5:16?). Also, regarding the "wonderful job" by Nappaljarri, richlittel, et al.--did you not notice they made contradictory statements?

According to Nappaljarri, "We believe the articles of faith do supersede the bible." But richlittel tells us, "Neither one or the other of our Standard Works supersede the other but have equal weight..."

I'd appreciate your opinion on both points, applepansy. Do you think the Articles of Faith supersede the Bible? And do you think the Apostle Paul was wrong when he labeled Adam's transgression, "sin?"

--Erik

Erik, since you insist. . . what "I" believe is that the Articles of Faith are companion scripture to the Bible, The Book of Mormon, The Doctrine of Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price. All of them are scripture because I believe in continuing revelation. God hasn't stopped talking to us. So what I read from others on this thread was not contradictory to me.

I do not think the Apostle Paul was wrong, but I do Know that there are more scriptures to make his words clearer and better understood. And I know that there are errors in the Bible translations. We use the King James version because Bible scholars have stated its the most accurate. I certainly do not fault the monks who copied the bible by hand over and over and over by candlelight. Article of Faith #8 states another LDS belief "We believe the Bible to be the word of God, as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God." That is the LDS belief.

I didn't punt. . . I bowed to those who have a more complete knowledge of all scripture references.

Elder Oaks stated what I believe very well. . .

"For us, the scriptures are not the ultimate source of knowlege, but what precedes the ultimate source. The ultimate knowledge comes by revelation. We encourage everyone to make a careful study of the scriptures and of the prophetic teachings concerning them and to prayerfully seek personal revelation to know their meaning for themselves. We do not overstate the point when we say that the scriptures can be an Urim and Thummin to assist each of us to receive personal revelation." Elder Dallin H. Oaks, ENSIGN, January 1995

The ultimate source of knowledge is God. And I know that He speaks to our Prophet today and I know that I can receive revelation through the Holy Ghost for myself and my family. We are given direction from God for our times. You too can ask with a sincere heart and get an answer Erik.

Our loving Heavenly Father spoke to the early Apostles and He speaks to the Prophet and Apostles we have today, and He can and does speak to each of us through the Holy Ghost. I choose to have ears that I can hear.

applepansy