A Sin Question

[Misshalfway]

me too.

[lattelady]

I've been thinking about that verse in Romans that says "For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (Rom. 3:23). If that verse is true, and I believe it is, it would seem that we would have to sin because we are sinners. Otherwise, there would be people out there who that verse would not apply to: children who are under 8 (in the LDS perspective), for example, who die before they reach the age of accountability. In the LDS teaching, they would never have sinned, right?

[pam]

I feel like we're starting entire conversation over again.

[Misshalfway]

In the LDS teaching, they would never have sinned, right?

Yes. Or perhaps not sinned yet. I would also think that individuals with diminished capacity or mental handicaps would fall into that catagory as well.

I think if you ask any LDS person they would agree that we are all sinners. I think we just disagree that man is inherently evil or completely inherently evil. We each kinda know what's right but we sin anyway. A completely evil wouldn't have a sense of conscience.

[Misshalfway]

I feel like we're starting entire conversation over again.

We are. Just to torment you, Pam. It's groundhog day.

[pam]

Oh now I know you are trying to torment me. You had me thinking I don't really know when groundhog's day is.

[lattelady]

I was just asking a question about a scripture I was pondering. Please Pam, if you feel that I'm beating a dead horse, I've seen some threads that have definitely beat me out in that area. I just had a question about children and their sinlessness/sinfulness. The thread has been enlightening for me.

[Traveler]

I've been thinking about that verse in Romans that says "For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (Rom. 3:23). If that verse is true, and I believe it is, it would seem that we would have to sin because we are sinners. Otherwise, there would be people out there who that verse would not apply to: children who are under 8 (in the LDS perspective), for example, who die before they reach the age of accountability. In the LDS teaching, they would never have sinned, right?

It is obvious that this scripture does not mean what some are trying to make of it. We know there are exceptions - for example I believe that Jesus Christ never sinned and I also believe that he did not fall short of the glory of G-d - I can give other examples as well. I believe little children are also an exception - in that they do not and cannot sin. In fact I really wonder about a religion that teaches a child takes one breath, dies and goes to hell because it parents are pagan and did not somehow do something to save the child.

I do know that some use the scrupture in Romans to mean what they want it to mean - I do not care to argue the point but when someone uses that scirpture in the context to argue that they are saved and someone else (that could not have sinned) is not saved - then to be honest - I personally do not want any part of that kind of being saved.

The Traveler

[lattelady]

I believe scripture means what it says. I believe that Jesus Christ IS God, so He didn't fall short of His own glory. I believe that all of us were born sinners. I also believe that children who are too young to understand the gospel and pass away go immediately to the presence of God.

Unless we take scripture as it is, then we could all make it mean what we want it to mean, despite the fact that there are verses and truths that are difficult to accept.

[Misshalfway]

I believe scripture means what it says. I believe that Jesus Christ IS God, so He didn't fall short of His own glory. I believe that all of us were born sinners. I also believe that children who are too young to understand the gospel and pass away go immediately to the presence of God.

Unless we take scripture as it is, then we could all make it mean what we want it to mean, despite the fact that there are verses and truths that are difficult to accept.

Could you explain how you believe all are born sinful, but children who can't yet understand go to God from your point of view? I am not sure I see how a child can be inherently sinful and clean enough to enter the presence of God at the same time. It sounds like you are acknowledging that perhaps there is an innocence with regards to children. I can actually see why a person might feel that way. I certainly do. I guess I am just wondering how you explain the discrepancy from a doctrinal point of view if you believe that being fallen means complete corruption. (You will have to forgive me. I honestly, Latte, can't remember your religious affiliation.)

[Dravin]

I believe scripture means what it says.

Which is great as long as one knows what it actually says. Obviously you disagree with Traveler's view on what the scriptures says (and thus means), which is your perogative. That said, to say it means everyone no exceptions, except Christ, is nonsensical. If you really want to take it as literal as possible we must conclude Christ is included, else literally all is incorrect. Seeing as you disagree that it includeds Christ then you obviously see at least one exception to a strict and universal inclusivness, once you are there its just a matter of degrees from your view to Traveler's. Not even you (by your own comments) read it to mean what it says in the most literal sense.

[john doe]

So, bringing this thread full circle, would you say we're sinners because we sin, or we sin because we're sinners?

What? You haven't been reading the thread? Or do you just not accept the LDS position?

[Snow]

I believe scripture means what it says. I believe that Jesus Christ IS God, so He didn't fall short of His own glory. I believe that all of us were born sinners. I also believe that children who are too young to understand the gospel and pass away go immediately to the presence of God.

Does it bother you that you believe in a God that is so unjust that he blames you and your (theoretical) newborn infant for something that someone else did 6000 years ago?

Unless we take scripture as it is, then we could all make it mean what we want it to mean, despite the fact that there are verses and truths that are difficult to accept.

You mean unless we interpret scripture the same way you do... why is it important to interpret scripture according to YOUR preference.

[lattelady]

Dravin, I didn't say that I believed that there were exceptions (Jesus Christ)--I said that since I believe that Jesus is God, it would be hard for that to be counted as an exception.

Misshalfway, to answer your question about children, since I believe that we were all born sinners/with a sin nature, I believe children are lumped into that catagory. I do believe that ANYONE who is incapable of understanding the gospel and they die (children, mentally handicapped, infants), though they still have a sin nature are given grace and that Jesus' death covers them. I believe that they go to Heaven. One place in scripture I can think of that leads me to believe that is when King David's infant son died--because of David's sin with Bathsheba and causing Bathsheba's husband to be killed in battle--David says, "He cannot come to me, but I will go to him," which I interpret to mean that one day David will see his baby boy in Heaven. I have that hope that infants and children who cannot understand the gospel are given grace by God and if they are to die they are in His presence.

[lattelady]

Snow, there have been lots of times in my life that I've been "bothered" by the way God does things. But I have also accepted that He is sovereign and He is also GOOD and that He gave up His only Son so that I could live with Him forever. God is God, I'm not God. He holds me accountable for MY sin. Through Adam, sin entered the world, but I have my OWN sin nature. I commit my own sins against a holy God, and that is what He holds me accountable for. I don't believe that God is unjust. Everything He does is just. And you don't have to interpret scripture the way I do. No one does. We are each accountable before the Lord for ourselves.

[pam]

I do believe that ANYONE who is incapable of understanding the gospel and they die (children, mentally handicapped, infants), though they still have a sin nature are given grace and that Jesus' death covers them. I believe that they go to Heaven

I think this is where my thoughts differ slightly from yours. I too, believe that infants who die as infants return to their Heavenly Father. Not necessarily because of Christ dying for our sins..but because they are born sinless and have not sinned and are therefore not accountable for any sins having been committed.

[Maureen]

...That said, to say it means everyone no exceptions, except Christ, is nonsensical....

It might seem nonsensical from an LDS perspective but not if you're Catholic or Protestant. Christ is God therefore cannot fall short of his own glory. That scripture does not apply to God, it applies to his creation. LDS see Christ as one of God's creations, non-LDS Christians do not.

M.

Edited October 15, 2009 by Maureen

[Dravin]

Dravin, I didn't say that I believed that there were exceptions (Jesus Christ)--I said that since I believe that Jesus is God, it would be hard for that to be counted as an exception.

If he isn't an exception then he is included. Since you stated he cannot meet the conditions of the scripture he must be an exception and not included. It is like saying all who wear green are evil, except for this one guy who wears green, he by definition isn't evil, but he's not an exception, all who wear green are evil. It's nonsensical.

Neither of us believe Christ has sinned and fallen short, therefore neither of us believe that scripture means what it actually says in a literal sense (all, as in everyone, all inclusive).

It might seem nonsensical from a LDS perspective but not if your Catholic or Protestant.

It has nothing to do with theology and everything to do with the English language and reason. Either all really does mean everyone, all, as has been suggested and includes Christ (aka really means what it says, "all") or there are in fact limits to the inclusiveness of all as used in that scripture.

Edited October 15, 2009 by Dravin

[Snow]

Snow, there have been lots of times in my life that I've been "bothered" by the way God does things.

Factual correction: You have been bothered a lot in your life by the things that you choose to believe that God does.

Here's a simpler approach: Don't believe weird thing about God.

But I have also accepted that He is sovereign and He is also GOOD and that He gave up His only Son so that I could live with Him forever. God is God, I'm not God. He holds me accountable for MY sin. Through Adam, sin entered the world, but I have my OWN sin nature. I commit my own sins against a holy God, and that is what He holds me accountable for. I don't believe that God is unjust. Everything He does is just. And you don't have to interpret scripture the way I do. No one does. We are each accountable before the Lord for ourselves.

Ah - original sin lite. You don't believe that you actual are guilty of anything related to original sin - just that you have a sinful nature, however you have not sinned and are therefore not guilty of anything until you actual do sin of your own volition.

That is so much more palatable than the full on original sin doctrine.

Tell me - if you believe that all men have a sinful nature - how did Job avoid sinning?

"There was a man in the land of Uz, whose name was Job; and that man was perfect and upright, and one that feared God, and eschewed evil."

[pam]

Snow, there have been lots of times in my life that I've been "bothered" by the way God does things. But I have also accepted that He is sovereign and He is also GOOD and that He gave up His only Son so that I could live with Him forever. God is God, I'm not God. He holds me accountable for MY sin. Through Adam, sin entered the world, but I have my OWN sin nature. I commit my own sins against a holy God, and that is what He holds me accountable for. I don't believe that God is unjust. Everything He does is just. And you don't have to interpret scripture the way I do. No one does. We are each accountable before the Lord for ourselves.

Which is probably where we could have ended this conversation. You are right. We don't have to interpret scripture the same way you do. I think both sides have given their interpretation and insight into how they interpret sin/sinners.

I just feel like the original question is just being reworded and we are debating the entire issue over again.

[Hemidakota]

I don't read the verse as having had children before. I read the verse as never having had sorrow before. They were immortal and perfect, in the presence of God. They had not experienced sorrow, lonliness, pain or grief. I believe Father was telling them that the sorrow they felt at that moment would be worse later living outside His presence in a mortal condition.

There is proof Adam and Eve did not have children while in the Garden (they were not mentioned as being kicked out of the Garden with them). However, the why is up for debate.

I believe, as I said, that God made their bodies perfect. Together with the fact that they recognized their nakedness after they ate the fruit, I believe they just didn't understand yet. They were like little children who take baths together and don't even recognize the differences. It would be impossible to have children if you didn't even recognize gender.

By using the trees as the examples of good and evil and eternal life, there is more to be learned about how God taught them about gender (seeds are "he" and earth is "she"), and that they were His offspring. But, you would need to read the Book of Mormon to get that part. :)

There is no other interruptation for this meaning but that sorrow and mulitply refers only to child bearing.

[Hemidakota]

________________________________________

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hemidakota

IMMORTAL [GOD] + IMMORTAL [GODDESS] = Celestial resurrected being

IMMORTAL [GOD] + MORTAL [FEMALE] = Jesus

SPIRIT [MALE] + SPIRIT [FEMALE] = primordial Spirit children (although I am uncertain of the difference between "intelligences" and "spirits"... was there a birth involved? or merely a choice? Heavenly Father/Mother are not Spirits, they are flesh and bone beings, so if we were born as Spirits it was not to HF/HM... Our relashonship to HF/HM is an adoptive one.

MORTAL [MALE] + MORTAL [FEMALE] = Mortals, us.

I believe that Adam and Eve came to this world as transfigured celestial beings, spirit flowing in their veins.

Transfigured - they did not die on their previous world.

27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die,

(New Testament | Hebrews 9:27)

Impressive…if most can remember this simple math structure, it is not hard to understand how both Adams came to be. The only thing I would add as a change, there is no birthing of spirits by spirits. SPIRT MALE + SPIRIT FEMALE = NONE

To understand what constitute intelligence in its simplest form, another math structure term is added: SOUL = Intelligence + spirit body + mortal body. I do believe we are adopted. It never stated in any of the three books, GOD gave birth to spirits but merely stated by those who observed, they were created after the image of GOD.

In order bring forth human life, whether creating or birthing, you must have ‘honor’ of GOD, in the case of the Savior as a Spirit vice mortal being. He simple had the power to create life but not birth. He did not have a physical or resurrected body at the time. Physical birth is already answered and those who are sealed and possess the honor ogf GOD are the only one allowed to create or give birth.

Polygamy - Mary was a handmaid... immortal + mortal needed for Jesus... handmaids are found in polygamy. I think there is a reason behind polygamy that involves more than silly speculations of "more righteous women than men" etc. etc. I don't think there are more righteous women than men.

This is where I disagree…what is seen today in church is a given pattern where woman are steadfast in the gospel versus men.

[Maureen]

Dravin said:

It has nothing to do with theology and everything to do with the English language and reason.

I disagree with part of this but agree with "reason". It has to do with how you see Christ. Is he one of us, a sinner just like us, or is he God? God cannot sin, therefore the sentence is not referring to God, it is referring to sinful man. Reason tells me you are interpreting the verse incorrectly.

[Dravin]

Dravin said:I disagree with part of this but agree with "reason". It has to do with how you see Christ. Is he one of us, a sinner just like us, or is he God? God cannot sin, therefore the sentence is not referring to God, it is referring to sinful man. Reason tells me you are interpreting the verse incorrectly.

There is no exclusion (such as God) written into the verse. Any readings of the verse such that all is limited is interperting, or rather, the verse doesn't mean what it says.

The verse says all, comments such as:

God cannot sin, therefore the sentence is not referring to God

That scripture does not apply to God, it applies to his creation.

Means you do not believe the scripture means what it says, as once again the verse says all, it gives no limits (that it is only talking about God's creation, or beings capable of sin/or who did sin). Which is fine, I don't think it means what it literally says either else it would mean Christ has sinned and fallen short, Heavenly Father as well. I'm not arguing with your interpertation of the verse, you are free to feel it doesn't include diety, a very reasonable interpertation. However such is interpertation, it is not what the scripture 'says'.

Just so we are explicetly clear: I do not believe that scripture refers to Christ, but by beliving such I do not believe the scripture means what it says. To do so would require the scripture to be incorrect or our understanding of God and Christ to be so. As you have expressed the same belief (that it doesn't refer to Christ), you also do not believe the scripture means what it says. This is fine.

Edited October 15, 2009 by Dravin
Cleaning up extraneous points.

[Maureen]

Dravin, if you read the verse in context of the previous verses reason tells you that Paul's use of the word "all" does not mean every atom or molecule that has ever existed. In verse 21 Paul writes "all who believe". That gives us an idea about who Paul is referring to. If you actually think that because Paul writes "all" he literally means "everything including God" then show me evidence where your interpretation of the word "all" is correct.

Edited October 15, 2009 by Maureen