Original Sin

[Justice]

I suggest you read all of Alma 42:

Alma 42

But, here are a few selected verses:

7 And now, ye see by this [partaking the fruit] that our first parents were cut off both temporally and spiritually from the presence of the Lord; and thus we see they became subjects to follow after their own will.

8 Now behold, it was not expedient that man should be reclaimed from this temporal death, for that would destroy the great plan of happiness.

9 Therefore, as the soul could never die, and the fall had brought upon all mankind a spiritual death as well as a temporal, that is, they were cut off from the presence of the Lord, it was expedient that mankind should be reclaimed from this spiritual death.

10 Therefore, as they had become carnal, sensual, and devilish, by nature, this probationary state became a state for them to prepare; it became a preparatory state.

11 And now remember, my son, if it were not for the plan of redemption, (laying it aside) as soon as they were dead their souls were miserable, being cut off from the presence of the Lord.

12 And now, there was no means to reclaim men from this fallen state, which man had brought upon himself because of his own disobedience;

Don't confuse "they had become carnal, sensual, and devilish, by nature" to original sin. Adam or Eve are not responsible for any single choice you make.

What their choice to transgress did was allow you to choose between good and evil.

Do you think an infant can sin? Do you think an infant, who does not understand good or evil, can rebel against God? Can the innocent, or one who does not understand consequenses of their action, can be held accountable for the choice they make?

No, but their transgressions are "swallowed up in Christ" until they reach the age of accountability.

Adam and Eve were innocent and did not understand good and evil, before they partook of the fruit, and therefore were not accountable for their choice, and all the effects of the fall upon man are "swallowed up in Christ," because we are not responsible for Adam's transgression.

We do not have to do anything to have the consequenses of the fall overcame for us.

1) Christ overcame physical death for all, both the good and the evil, and all who were ever born into this world will be resurrected.

2) Christ overcame spiritual death for all, in that all will be brought back into God's presence to be judged according to their works.

Nothing we can do can overcome physical death in ourselves. Nothing we can do can overcome spiritual death in ourselves.

Adam and Eve needed to repent, and therefore needed a time in order to do this. We are only allowed to repent when we are cut off from God's presence. By virtue of both deaths, that resulted from the fall, we have been given a probationary time where we can choose the things of the world, or we can use this time to choose the things of God.

Adam is not responsible for any of your choices.

Every man that has ever lived, except One, has chosen evil at one time or another, in varying degrees. All are responsible for thier own sin nature, or the carnal side they have. As infants, we are neither good or evil, but we learn to follow the spirit that we choose. Nephi said it best:

2 Nephi 2:

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

Please prayerfully read Alma 42.

Edited September 29, 2008 by Justice

[Moksha]

The 2nd Article of Faith: We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam's transgression.

That is why that inherited skin curse idea was hokey.

[bmy-]

Wasn't it the woman who was found in transgression anyways?

[ErikJohnson]

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

Hello again, applepansy--

It might appear to the casual reader that you're following BYU professor Robert Millet's admonition to LDS when confronted with a difficult question: "Don't answer the question they ask, answer the question they should have asked."

But maybe that's not your intent, so let's give it one more go. But before I begin, let me try to dispense with your repeated insistence on ongoing revelation. You and I actually AGREE on this point--God speaks, God reveals, here and now! Where you and I disagree is whether God's ongoing revelation implies an open canon--but let's please save that for another thread.

The question was whether you think the Articles of Faith supersede the Bible. Recall that Nappaljarri said they did. Recall that richlittel said they did not. You sidestepped the question and said they were "companions." Now I'd like you to provide a direct answer for the benefit of this excellent board and its many fine readers. Do you agree with Nappaljarri (it does)? Or do you agree with richlittel (it does not). Choose you this day, applepansy...

;0)

I then asked you if you believed the Apostle Paul was wrong when he labeled Adam's transgression in the Garden a "sin." You said Paul was not wrong, but then you suggested his words might have been the result of some mistranslation made by "monks" working in "candlelight." So while Paul might not have been wrong (in the original autograph), my translation (ESV) could be wrong. Perhaps Paul wrote Adam's transgression was “not sin” and the ancient scribes accidently deleted the preceding "not."

In light of the ambiguity you introduced in your response, please permit me a follow-up. Do you think the language attributed to Paul in Romans 5:16--wherein he unambiguously identifies Adam's transgression as "sin"--do you think this word is erroneous? Do you think our Bibles are simply wrong (or at least unreliable) in this passage?

Thanks again, applepansy

--Erik

[Justice]

Wasn't it the woman who was found in transgression anyways?

Na, Adam ate the fruit too. :)

The scriptures say Adam was not deceived, not that he was not guilty of transgression. Afterall, he was punished.

It was a choice, regardless of the reason.

[WANDERER]

God told Adam not to eat from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, with the words, "For on the day that you eat of it, you will surely die". But there was no such prohibition concerning the Tree of Life. If Adam had eaten from that tree, he would have lived forever and never died. Instead he and his wife ended up eating from the forbidden tree, because they listened to a voice which tempted them to doubt the goodness of God. And so we: neglect the LIFE God gives and end up trying to attain it by going on a path forbidden by God. That's the transgression.

[Moksha]

It might appear to the casual reader that you're following BYU professor Robert Millet's admonition to LDS when confronted with a difficult question: "Don't answer the question they ask, answer the question they should have asked."

--Erik

That would never work for me. Who wants to continually hear about cheeseburgers?

[applepansy]

Hello again, applepansy--

It might appear to the casual reader that you're following BYU professor Robert Millet's admonition to LDS when confronted with a difficult question: "Don't answer the question they ask, answer the question they should have asked."

But maybe that's not your intent, so let's give it one more go. But before I begin, let me try to dispense with your repeated insistence on ongoing revelation. You and I actually AGREE on this point--God speaks, God reveals, here and now! Where you and I disagree is whether God's ongoing revelation implies an open canon--but let's please save that for another thread.

The question was whether you think the Articles of Faith supersede the Bible. Recall that Nappaljarri said they did. Recall that richlittel said they did not. You sidestepped the question and said they were "companions." Now I'd like you to provide a direct answer for the benefit of this excellent board and its many fine readers. Do you agree with Nappaljarri (it does)? Or do you agree with richlittel (it does not). Choose you this day, applepansy...;0)

I then asked you if you believed the Apostle Paul was wrong when he labeled Adam's transgression in the Garden a "sin." You said Paul was not wrong, but then you suggested his words might have been the result of some mistranslation made by "monks" working in "candlelight." So while Paul might not have been wrong (in the original autograph), my translation (ESV) could be wrong. Perhaps Paul wrote Adam's transgression was

In light of the ambiguity you introduced in your response, please permit me a follow-up. Do you think the language attributed to Paul in Romans 5:16--wherein he unambiguously identifies Adam's transgression as "sin"--do you think this word is erroneous? Do you think our Bibles are simply wrong (or at least unreliable) in this passage?

Thanks again, applepansy

--Erik

Erik,

It would be difficult for me to follow an admonition attributed to Bro. Millet since I've never read that admonition in any of his books.

I didn't sidestep anything. You asked what I believe and I stated what I believe. . . I believe the Articles of Faith are companion scripture to the Bible, the Book of Mormon, The Pearl of Great Price and The Doctrine of Covenants.

Again, 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.

Maybe the monks translated the Hebrew word "transgression" into the word "sin". I don't know. Do you?

I did choose. . . I chose God's words and I choose to follow His prophets and I choose to listen to the "still small voice" that tells me you don't accept my beliefs as what I truly believe.

Since you feel I'm being ambiguous about what I believe, let me repeat. I believe the Articles of Faith are companion scripture to the Bible, the Book of Mormon, The Pearl of Great Price and The Doctrine of Covenants. I believe that there have been translational errors in the Bible and thus I look to other Scripture for clarification. Was Paul correct? Yes. Did somebody later make an error in translation? That is most definitely a possibility since even non-LDS biblical scholars have stated there have been errors. So I'll look to other scripture for clarification when there seems to be contradiction.

And back to the original question "Do we inherit original sin from Adam and Eve or not?? Based on my beliefs and all the scriptures quoted here and others I've been reading.... No!

Thank you for the dicussion about my beliefs Erik. It was fun to examine my beliefs. It was nice to feel a confirmation of my beliefs while trying so hard to explain them to you. I'm sorry my command of the English language isn't sufficient to help you understand what I believe.

applepansy

P.S. Any further discussion of "my beliefs" would be a pointless argument. At this point I suggest we "agree to disagree" about what I believe.

[Hemidakota]

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?

Read Article of Faith 2 "We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression."

[Hemidakota]

From Elder Mark A. Peterson, he wrote the following article concerning the 'Original Sin';

A misunderstanding of the original sin of Adam has caused no end of anguish on the part of parents who have lost little children who were not sprinkled in so-called baptism. It has caused mental distress likewise on the part of many others who have seen the inconsistency of the creeds usually taught in sectarian churches on this subject.

The doctrine of original sin goes back to the Council of Carthage of the Catholic Church, held in 418 A.D. It was stressed again at the Council of Orange in 529 and at the Council of Trent in 1546.

Although the doctrine is primarily a Catholic one, it has found its way into the creeds of some of the Protestant churches as well. A number of the Protestant churches baptize infants by sprinkling, but others reject baptism altogether, infant or adult, not regarding it as necessary for salvation.

Methodists are in the middle of the situation, as are the Presbyterians. Both are willing to allow baptism, by either sprinkling, pouring, or immersion, and they do baptize infants when the parents desire it. But both say that baptism is not really necessary.

The clearest definition of "original sin" in the context of sectarian churches of course comes from the Roman Catholics. The book Catholic Belief, as revised by Canon Joseph Cartmell, D.D., written under the imprimatur of the Roman church, and published in Great Britain in 1957, says of original sin: "The Church teaches . . . that all men, naturally descended from Adam (Our Lady alone excepted) [it is the belief of that church that Mary the mother of Christ was exempt from original sin], have contracted the guilt of original sin; in other words, that they come into this world deprived of the sanctity and justice which God intended them to have. . . . Original sin is a state of sin which we inherit." (London: Burns Oates and Washbourne, Ltd., 1957, p. 7.)

The Question Box, published by the Roman church to answer questions raised by Protestants, says of original sin: "It was a grievous sin, because Adam could easily have avoided it, as there was in him neither ignorance nor concupiscence [a strong or ardent desire], and he certainly knew, as head of the race, what terrible consequences would follow for all mankind." (P. 219.)

Baptism is mistakenly declared to be the means of escape from the blemish of original sin.

It is appalling how greatly the sectarian people misunderstand the fall of Adam. As previously quoted, the Book of Mormon makes it abundantly clear that the fall was part of the divine plan, a necessity, and that without it there would have been no human race, for Adam and Eve were physically unable to have children in their paradisiacal condition.

Not only is the sectarian view of original sin based on a complete misunderstanding of the true doctrine concerning the fall, but it is equally a mistake to suppose that baptism was provided to remove the effects of the original sin.

The scripture is very clear in stating that if Adam and Eve were to partake of the forbidden fruit, death would result. Therefore, death was the penalty for the original sin, and baptism does not overcome death. The Savior's resurrection did that.

". . . in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die," says the King James Bible (Gen. 2:17), in explaining the sin of Adam and Eve.

Or as the Torah of the Jews expresses it: "Of every tree of the garden you are free to eat, but as for the tree of knowledge of good and bad, you must not eat of it, for as soon as you eat of it, you shall die."

The Jerusalem Bible, a recent Catholic version, has this rendering of the passage in question: "You may eat indeed of all the trees in the garden. Nevertheless of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you are not to eat, for on the day you eat it you shall most surely die."

The Complete Bible, An American Translation, by Smith and Goodspeed, reads: "From every tree in the garden you are free to eat; but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you must not eat; for the day that you eat of it, you shall certainly die."

Another Roman Catholic Bible, translated by Mons. Knox, using the Vulgate as a base after comparisons with Hebrew and Greek texts, and published in England in 1955, reads: "Thou mayest eat thy fill of all the trees in the garden except the tree which brings knowledge of good and evil; if ever thou eatest of this, thy doom is death."

The Living Bible, Billy Graham Crusade Edition, reads: "You may eat any fruit in the garden except from the Tree of Conscience—for its fruit will open your eyes to make you aware of right and wrong, good and bad. If you eat its fruit, you will be doomed to die."

Other new translations might be quoted on this text, but all agree: death was the penalty for eating from that tree.

The book of Moses, which was given by revelation to the Prophet Joseph Smith and therefore was not subject to any mistakes in translation, reads:

"And I, the Lord God, commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat,

"But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it, nevertheless, thou mayest choose for thyself, for it is given unto thee; but, remember that I forbid it, for in the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." (Moses 3:16-17.)

This is all confirmed by what Eve said as the devil tempted her to violate the command of God. Says the King James Version:

"Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?

"And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:

"But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.

"And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:

"For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as the gods, knowing good and evil." (Gen. 3:1-5.)

The Jerusalem Bible reads:

"The serpent was the most subtle of all the wild beast that Yahweh God had made. It asked the woman, `Did God really say you were not to eat from any trees in the garden?'

"The woman answered the serpent, `We may eat the fruit of the trees in the garden.

"`But of the fruit of the tree in the middle of the garden God said, "You must not eat it, nor touch it, under pain of death."'

"Then the serpent said to the woman, `No! You will not die! God knows in fact that on the day you eat it, your eyes will be opened and you will be like the gods, knowing good and evil."

An American Translation by Smith and Goodspeed reads:

"Now the serpent was the most clever of all the wild beasts that the Lord God had made.

"`And so God has said that you are not to eat from any tree of the garden?' he said to the woman.

"`From the fruit of the trees of the garden we may eat,' the woman said to the serpent; `it is only concerning the fruit of the tree which is in the middle of the garden that God has said, "You may not eat of it, nor touch it, lest you die."'

"But the serpent said to the woman,

"`You would not die at all; for God knows that the very day you eat of it, your eyes will be opened, and you will be like gods who know good from evil.'"

The Knox Catholic Bible reads:

"Of all the beasts which the Lord God had made, there was none that could match the serpent in cunning. It was he who said to the woman, What is this command God has given you, not to eat the fruit of any tree in the garden?

"To which the woman answered, We can eat the fruit of any tree in the garden except the tree in the middle of it; it is this God has forbidden us to eat or even touch, on pain of death.

"And the serpent said to her, What is this talk of death? God knows well that as soon as you eat this fruit your eyes will be opened, and you yourselves will be like gods, knowing good and evil."

And Billy Graham's Bible says:

"The serpent was the craftiest of all the creatures the Lord God had made. So the serpent came to the woman. `Really?' he asked. `None of the fruit in the garden? God says you mustn't eat any of it?'

"`Of course we may eat it,' the woman told him. `It's only the fruit from the tree at the center of the garden that we are not to eat. God says we mustn't eat it or even touch it, or we will die.'

"`That's a lie!' the serpent hissed. `You'll not die! God knows very well that the instant you eat it you will become like him, for your eyes will be opened — you will be able to distinguish good from evil.'"

Other modern translations follow the identical line. All say that death was the result of the fall.

Our book of Moses, again by revelation, says:

"And now the serpent was more subtle than any beast of the field which I, the Lord God, had made.

"And Satan put it into the heart of the serpent, (for he had drawn away many after him,) and he sought also to beguile Eve, for he knew not the mind of God, wherefore he sought to destroy the world.

"And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said — Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden? (And he spake by the mouth of the serpent.)

"And the woman said unto the serpent: We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden;

"But of the fruit of the tree which thou beholdest in the midst of the garden, God hath said — Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.

"And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die;

"For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil." (Moses 4:5-11.)

With the facts before us, as contained in the various versions of the scriptures, and particularly in the revelation known as the book of Moses in our Pearl of Great Price, can anyone fail to see that it is death which resulted from the fall?

And what removes death? Baptism? Hardly.

It was Christ's atonement and resurrection that overcame death. Baptism had nothing to do with it. All people, baptized or not, Christian or not, Jewish or not, gentile or not, will be resurrected by the power of Christ.

Paul expressed it: "As in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive." (1 Cor. 15:22.)

Paul also discoursed on the relationship of Adam to Christ, and of the fall to the redemption, and said:

"Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead?

"But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen;

"And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain.

"Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not.

"For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised:

"And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.

"Then they also which are falleth asleep in Christ are perished.

"If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable.

"But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept.

"For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.

"For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive." (1 Cor. 15:12-22.)

It is obvious, then, how widely the churches of the world have strayed from the truth with regard to Adam, the fall, Christ and the resurrection, and the true doctrine of baptism for the remission of sins. Baptism was given to remit our personal sins as well as to grant us admission into the Church. It has nothing to do with either Adam's sin or death or the resurrection.

Our second Article of Faith is directed to this point: "We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam's transgression."

No stain is left upon any of us because of Adam's sin. We are born pure and innocent before God. In fact, he regards us as being unaccountable for sins until we reach the age of eight years. This is a far cry from infant baptism and its alleged purpose.

Note what the Lord says in modern revelation:

"But behold, I say unto you, that little children are redeemed from the foundation of the world through Mine Only Begotten;

"Wherefore, they cannot sin, for power is not given unto Satan to tempt little children, until they begin to become accountable before me." (D&C 29:46-47.)

"But little children are holy, being sanctified through the atonement of Jesus Christ; and this is what the scriptures mean." (D&C 74:7.)

The Lord also said: "Every spirit of man was innocent in the beginning; and God having redeemed man from the fall, men became again, in their infant state, innocent before God." (D&C 93:38.)

And then he said:

"And again, inasmuch as parents have children in Zion, or in any of her stakes which are organized, that teach them not to understand the doctrine of repentance, faith in Christ the Son of the living God, and of baptism and the gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of the hands, when eight years old, the sin be upon the heads of the parents.

"For this shall be a law unto the inhabitants of Zion, or in any of her stakes which are organized.

"And their children shall be baptized for the remission of their sins when eight years old, and receive the laying on of the hands.

"And they shall also teach their children to pray, and to walk uprightly before the Lord." (D&C 68:25-28.)

Adam served the purpose of God in his capacity, even as did Christ in his vital role. It was all in the plan of the Lord.

Regarding the fall, President Joseph Fielding Smith said:

"Before partaking of the fruit Adam could have lived forever; therefore, his status was one of immortality. When he ate, he became subject to death, and therefore he became mortal. This was a transgression of the law, but not a sin in the strict sense, for it was something that Adam and Eve had to do!

"I am sure that neither Adam nor Eve looked upon it as a sin, when they learned the consequences, and this is discovered in their words after they learned the consequences.

"Adam said: `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.'

"Eve said: `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.' [Moses 5:10-11.

"We can hardly look upon anything resulting in such benefits as being a sin, in the sense in which we consider sin." (Doctrines of Salvation, 1:115.)

President Smith also said:

"The gospel teaches us that if Adam and Eve had not partaken of that fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, they would have remained in the Garden of Eden in that same condition prevailing before the fall. Under those conditions they would have had no seed. `Adam fell that men might be' as it was decreed in the heavens before the world was. Lehi has given us a very clear and comprehensive view of the mission of Adam and of the atonement of Jesus Christ, and the Book of Mormon is very explicit in teaching these fundamental doctrines. In regard to the pre-mortal condition of Adam and the entire earth, Lehi has stated the following:

"`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.' [2 Ne. 2:19-26.

"Is not this statement plain enough? Whom are you going to believe, the Lord, or men?

"The Lord did not intend the earth to stay in that condition. Lehi further says: `But behold, all things have been done in the wisdom of him who knoweth all things.' This earth was prepared for the advancement of the children of God. We came from the pre-existence to receive tabernacles of flesh and bones and to pass through mortality. It was decreed in the heavens that men should die after coming into this probation and learning the pains and tribulations of mortality as well as its joys and happiness. Jesus Christ is spoken of in the scriptures as the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. [Rev. 13:8. Peter says we were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish, `Who verily was forordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you.' [1 Pet. 1:20. So the plan of salvation was all understood in the world of spirits, and we were taught the purpose of mortal life which Adam should bring into the earth.

"By revelation we are well informed that Adam was not subject to death when he was placed in the Garden of Eden, nor was there any death upon the earth. The Lord has not seen fit to tell us definitely just how Adam came for we are not ready to receive that truth. He did not come here a resurrected being to die again for we are taught most clearly that those who pass through the resurrection receive immortality, and can die no more.

"It is sufficient for us to know, until the Lord reveals more about it, that Adam was not subject to death but had the power, through transgressing the law, to become subject to death and to cause the same curse to come upon the earth and all life upon it. For this earth, once pronounced good, was cursed after the fall. It is passing through its mortal probation as well as the life which is upon it, and will eventually receive the resurrection and a place of exaltation which is decreed in the heavens for it." (Doctrines of Salvation, 1:109-10.)

Edited October 1, 2008 by Hemidakota

[ErikJohnson]

From Elder Mark A. Peterson, he wrote the following article concerning the 'Original Sin';

He didn't make much effort toward even-handedness, did he Hemidakota? (BTW, I love the name, makes me think of a Dodge Dakota pickup w/ a Hemi V8 engine, consuming prodigious quantities of gasoline and filling the environment with noxious emissions as it speeds down the street--but I digress). "No end of anguish," "mental distress," and we haven't even made it out of the first paragraph!

And by the third paragraph, he makes the astonishing claim that some Christian denominations "reject baptism altogether." Obviously Mr. Peterson isn't here to defend his work--so perhaps you'll rise to the occasion, Hemidakota. Call for References. What Christian denominations "reject baptism?"

Mind you, believing that water baptism is not necessary for salvation is NOT the same thing as "rejecting baptism." Baptism is clearly commanded of believers. But the Bible makes plain that salvation is by grace through faith--alone. It does not say salvation is by grace + water baptism. I'm not aware of any Protestant denominations that believe baptism is a "saving ordinance"--as Mormons do.

Next he says of Presbyterians and Methodists that both "allow baptism"--as though they didn't really approve and found the practice distasteful. Misleading in the extreme! Presbyterians and Methodists strongly encourage baptism for believers. But again, they don’t teach salvation is by grace + baptism--it's by grace alone.

Anyway, I couldn't keep going after that. A little too rich for my taste. But I did scroll to the bottom and I noticed this little citation attributed to President Smith: "Whom are you going to believe, the Lord, or men?" Amen!

--Erik

[Justice]

So, Erik, how about a response to my last post? It took me quite a while to write. I'd hate to think you missed it or skim read mine too, not interested in knowing how people respond to you.

[ErikJohnson]

So, Erik, how about a response to my last post? It took me quite a while to write. I'd hate to think you missed it or skim read mine too, not interested in knowing how people respond to you.

Hey Justice--

I did see your post and your appeal to authority--the authority of the Book of Mormon (Alma 42 to be specific). For me, nothing in that book is authoritative. Yes, I understand it's premise--that if I have a "sincere heart," "real intent," and "faith in Christ"--its truthfulness will be made manifest. And yes, I understand the logic of LDS--that if anyone has read the book, prayed, and didn't get such affirmation--then by definition they lacked the sincerity, real intent, etc., and they need to try again and keep trying until they get the "right answer." Been there, done that, and yes--I even got a T-shirt out of the deal (printed up for a service project). But by God's grace I got out of that loop a few years back. So your admonition that I pray some more about the BoM and specifically Alma 42--it falls a bit flat with me.

I trust you'll understand why I didn't initially respond to your post. Hopefully you didn't invest too much time on it.

--Erik

[Justice]

Ahhh. Sorry about that. I don't keep track of who is LDS and who isn't. That's all you needed to say.

But, you can see where I get my view. :)

[Hemidakota]

He didn't make much effort toward even-handedness, did he Hemidakota? (BTW, I love the name, makes me think of a Dodge Dakota pickup w/ a Hemi V8 engine, consuming prodigious quantities of gasoline and filling the environment with noxious emissions as it speeds down the street--but I digress). "No end of anguish," "mental distress," and we haven't even made it out of the first paragraph!

And by the third paragraph, he makes the astonishing claim that some Christian denominations "reject baptism altogether." Obviously Mr. Peterson isn't here to defend his work--so perhaps you'll rise to the occasion, Hemidakota. Call for References. What Christian denominations "reject baptism?"

Mind you, believing that water baptism is not necessary for salvation is NOT the same thing as "rejecting baptism." Baptism is clearly commanded of believers. But the Bible makes plain that salvation is by grace through faith--alone. It does not say salvation is by grace + water baptism. I'm not aware of any Protestant denominations that believe baptism is a "saving ordinance"--as Mormons do.

Next he says of Presbyterians and Methodists that both "allow baptism"--as though they didn't really approve and found the practice distasteful. Misleading in the extreme! Presbyterians and Methodists strongly encourage baptism for believers. But again, they don’t teach salvation is by grace + baptism--it's by grace alone.

Anyway, I couldn't keep going after that. A little too rich for my taste. But I did scroll to the bottom and I noticed this little citation attributed to President Smith: "Whom are you going to believe, the Lord, or men?" Amen!

--Erik

I have found there are errors within many articles but that doesn't stop on what is being presented - Original Sin concept. This is the theme here in finding the historical value to add to our edification.

Now, there are a few Christian denominations I had encountered in my lifetime that do not believe it is necessary to baptize. Main stream churchs do however, will baptized members.

Eric, is it a requirement for baptism to enter the Telestial or Terrestrial kingdom?

[brother01]

Hey Justice--

I did see your post and your appeal to authority--the authority of the Book of Mormon (Alma 42 to be specific). For me, nothing in that book is authoritative. Yes, I understand it's premise--that if I have a "sincere heart," "real intent," and "faith in Christ"--its truthfulness will be made manifest. And yes, I understand the logic of LDS--that if anyone has read the book, prayed, and didn't get such affirmation--then by definition they lacked the sincerity, real intent, etc., and they need to try again and keep trying until they get the "right answer." Been there, done that, and yes--I even got a T-shirt out of the deal (printed up for a service project). But by God's grace I got out of that loop a few years back. So your admonition that I pray some more about the BoM and specifically Alma 42--it falls a bit flat with me.

I trust you'll understand why I didn't initially respond to your post. Hopefully you didn't invest too much time on it.

--Erik

John 7:16,17; "My doctrine is not Mine, but His who sent Me. If anyone wills to do His will, he shall know concerning the doctrine, whether it is from God or whether I speak on My own authority."

John 14:23,24; "If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our home with him. He who does not love Me does not keep My words; and the word which you hear is not Mine but the Father's who sent Me."

Mt 23:8-12; "But you, do not be called 'Rabbi'; for One is your Teacher, the Christ, and you are all brethren."

John 15:9,10; "As the Father loved Me, I also have loved you, abide in My love. If you keep My commandments, you will abide in My love, just as I have kept My Father's commandments and abide in His love."

Jesus taught that if we will to do His will, that by doing what He said, that it is then that we receive testimony that God is true, and that Jesus is who He said He is, and that if we believe, obey and abide in Him and His word because He is Lord and Messiah and the Son of God. Jesus never said this is gained by saying a prayer; it is not to 'say this prayer after me and be saved' any more than it is to pray for a testimony of a particular book. It is about the witness of God that gives glory to the Son. It's about believing the Faithful Witness and doing the will of God. It is the faith of Jesus and the testimony of Jesus and the commandments of God.

[applepansy]

Hey Justice--

I did see your post and your appeal to authority--the authority of the Book of Mormon (Alma 42 to be specific). For me, nothing in that book is authoritative. Yes, I understand it's premise--that if I have a "sincere heart," "real intent," and "faith in Christ"--its truthfulness will be made manifest. And yes, I understand the logic of LDS--that if anyone has read the book, prayed, and didn't get such affirmation--then by definition they lacked the sincerity, real intent, etc., and they need to try again and keep trying until they get the "right answer." Been there, done that, and yes--I even got a T-shirt out of the deal (printed up for a service project). But by God's grace I got out of that loop a few years back. So your admonition that I pray some more about the BoM and specifically Alma 42--it falls a bit flat with me.

I trust you'll understand why I didn't initially respond to your post. Hopefully you didn't invest too much time on it.

--Erik

Erik, first. . . as my grandfather used to say “A person convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.” I am not trying to convince you with this post but to clarify. So on that note:

The definitioin of "premise" is: a proposition supporting or helping to support a conclusion.

The "premise" of the Book of Mormon is not "that if I have a "sincere heart," "real intent," and "faith in Christ"--its truthfulness will be made manifest." The premise of the Book of Mormon is to support the conclusion that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and our Lord and Savior. That only through Him can we receive salvation and exaltation. What you stated is the Promise we are given by Moroni and the directions on how to know the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon.

I hope this explanation clears up a misconception for those who are reading this thread.

I appreciate your post to Justice. I now have a better understanding of why you had difficulty understanding what I truly believed.

With better understanding,

applepansy

[bytor2112]

The Holy Spirit teaches the humble and contrite sacred truths........apart from scripture and through scripture. Without the Spirit we are left to our own logic and understanding of the things of God. When people leave the Lord's church and take on "new" understanding....I think that this scripture applies:

71 And again, we saw the terrestrial world, and behold and lo, these are they who are of the terrestrial, whose glory differs from that of the church of the Firstborn who have received the fulness of the Father, even as that of the moon differs from the sun in the firmament.

72 Behold, these are they who died awithout law;

73 And also they who are the aspirits of men kept in prison, whom the Son visited, and preached the gospel unto them, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh;

74 Who received not the testimony of Jesus in the flesh, but afterwards received it.

75 These are they who are honorable men of the earth, who were blinded by the craftiness of men.

Edited October 5, 2008 by bytor2112

[bytor2112]

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

No...I think most LDS would disagree with you.....and the Articles of Faith are canonized.

[ErikJohnson]

The Holy Spirit teaches the humble and contrite sacred truths........apart from scripture and through scripture. Without the Spirit we are left to our own logic and understanding of the things of God. When people leave the Lord's church and take on "new" understanding....I think that this scripture applies:

75 These are they who are honorable men of the earth, who were blinded by the craftiness of men.

First off, bytor2112, what Christian can accept a "holy spirit" who teaches "truths... apart from Scripture?" Seems to me the Bible warns of such spirits, and there's nothing "holy"about them.

I think John Calvin says it well--

The office of the Spirit promised to us, is not to form new and unheard-of revelations, or to coin a new form of doctrine, by which we may be led away from the received doctrine of the gospel, but to seal on our minds the very doctrine which the gospel recommends.

--Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book 1, Chapter 9

And don't you feel the slightest bit uncomfortable suggesting that anyone who leaves the LDS Church as been, "Blinded by the crafiness of men?" Could it not be that some of them found the Word of God (the Bible) compelling? And could this not be attributed, at least in some cases, to God the Holy Spirit sealing on their minds the doctrines found therein?

--Erik

[bytor2112]

First off, bytor2112, what Christian can accept a "holy spirit" who teaches "truths... apart from Scripture?" Seems to me the Bible warns of such spirits, and there's nothing "holy"about them.

I think John Calvin says it well--

The office of the Spirit promised to us, is not to form new and unheard-of revelations, or to coin a new form of doctrine, by which we may be led away from the received doctrine of the gospel, but to seal on our minds the very doctrine which the gospel recommends.

--Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book 1, Chapter 9

And don't you feel the slightest bit uncomfortable suggesting that anyone who leaves the LDS Church as been, "Blinded by the crafiness of men?" Could it not be that some of them found the Word of God (the Bible) compelling? And could this not be attributed, at least in some cases, to God the Holy Spirit sealing on their minds the doctrines found therein?

--Erik

Erik......I am sorry that you don't understand...I truly wish you did. When I say "apart from scripture", I simply mean confirmation....a way of understanding sacred things....Spirit teaching spirit...witnessing truth....sealing truth. The Bible isn't warning against the Holy Spirit and I and 13 million other members of the LDS church are Christian....just as I believe you and others who profess Christ are Christians..:)

I don't feel uncomfortable at all....wrong perhaps ...but not uncomfortable.......I know people leave for a hodge podge of reasons.......I hope they return. Could not it be said the the Holy Spirit seals on the mind ....teaches the mind.... the doctrines of the LDS church? Do you feel that 13,000,000 Saints were decieved by some "unholy" spirit? If you believe that....then you never experienced it. If you had.....you would never have left.

If my comment from D & C offended....please accept my apology :) I can be a bit too direct at times and meant no disrespect. You seem like a passionate advocate for your beliefs.....I once believed as you do....former Southern Baptist.

[ztodd]

...Do you feel that 13,000,000 Saints were decieved by some "unholy" spirit? If you believe that....then you never experienced it. If you had.....you would never have left...

There are people who have truly felt the spirit and joined the church, and then afterward fell away.

Perhaps you meant that if a person would continue nourishing their testimony by the spirit of the Holy Ghost, then that person would be a lot less likely to fall away.

We all need to be careful to continue to nourish our testimonies and relationship with God. It's possible for any of us to fall away if we're not careful.

[Justice]

I think John Calvin says it well--

... is not to form new and unheard-of revelations, or to coin a new form of doctrine,

This is according to anyone's opinion or interpretation. John Calvin has interpreted scripture differently than mainstream Christianity in a number of ways. Many would accuse him of doing what he warns people not to do.

The Book of Mormon does not reveal anything "new," but clarifies many things that the world interprets incorrectly, and expounds on principle already contained in the Bible.

Of course, that according to our interpretation... which we get from a prophet who claimed to see God the Father and Jesus Christ. What a powerful witness to the nature of the Godhead (Trinity as you call it). It's being taught to us by someone who actually saw Them and spoke to Them.