Comments on: If original sin is out, then why do we all sin?

By: Mark Butler

Mark Butler — Mon, 21 Aug 2006 14:17:11 +0000

Beepbeep,

You have not made the proper distinction between the types and symbols of salvation, and the actual temporal and spiritual mechanics of salvation. Of course what you describe doesn’t make sense, but it is not the full story, by a long shot. The keys to theology are in the scriptures, but they aren’t always obvious, nor rarely the focus of discussion.

By: beepbeepitsme

beepbeepitsme — Mon, 21 Aug 2006 05:03:49 +0000

RE: original sin

Original Sin And God’s Plan
http://beepbeepitsme.blogspot.com/

By: Jeff Day

Jeff Day — Sat, 27 May 2006 08:02:34 +0000

Adam and Eve had Celestial Bodies. Could it be, that even Celestial Bodies are going to inevitably “sin”? I don’t know… But they can certainly choose to partake of earthly food and become earthy, what I’ve heard termed “de-celestializing” and thus become Mortal. Mortal beings are sinners inherently, and mortal beings produce mortal offspring. We are judged for our own sins, not for Adam’s transgression. That is true, but we have to work our way up to being Celestial and Immortal as well, just as we don’t inherit Adam’s sin, we also don’t inherit all of his blessings innately. We have to earn whatever we want to have for ourselves, be it sin or virtue. :) Once we attain Exaltation and gain Celestial Bodies, we will have a better idea of what it is like.

By: Mark Butler

Mark Butler — Wed, 24 May 2006 16:31:43 +0000

Annegb, the answer is No, but you need to be more specific. The point of the third article of faith is that people are not held responsible for the sin of Adam, nor for the sins of anyone else, including their parents. Also, following scripture we do not hold people responsible for following the false traditions of their fathers in ignorance.

Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin (James 4:17)

By: annegb

annegb — Wed, 24 May 2006 16:04:37 +0000

See the thing about original sin, ie the second article of faith (is that right) is that do we make an exception for say, the Lamanites? Or the sons of Ham?

By: Geoff J

Geoff J — Tue, 23 May 2006 18:49:28 +0000

Hehe. That is pretty amusing Eric. I guess that whole self deception theme didn’t resonate with me as it does with you. I certainly have no qualms with it because I think there is a lot of truth to it. Like I said, it was more a matter of taste and preference.

BTW – Thanks for hte interesting link

By: Eric Russell

Eric Russell — Tue, 23 May 2006 16:04:25 +0000

Geoff, I thought it was hilarious that you thought that “Blake beats this particular drum a bit more than I would have.” I was thinking just the opposite.

The ideas that Ostler references in this chapter are informally called “agentive theory” and he has just skimmed the surface here. I really liked it though: in addition to providing a quick summery of agentive theory I think he grounds the ideas theologically in a way I haven’t seen before. I’m going to have to read the chapter again more carefully to make any real comments on it, but I like it.

I should mention that I’m pretty big on agentive theory. I have collected what I believe are all resources relating to it here. I’m thinking this chapter deserves inclusion on my list.

By: Geoff J

Geoff J — Sun, 21 May 2006 01:04:12 +0000

Interesting take, Mark. I agree that there really may be something to this documentary hypothesis take on the overall narratives about the Fall.

By: Mark Butler

Mark Butler — Sat, 20 May 2006 08:48:32 +0000

That should be “bears any relation to the Fall as a transgressive event” – the Atonement certainly bears relation to the resurrection and restoration to immortality.

By: Mark Butler

Mark Butler — Sat, 20 May 2006 08:43:52 +0000

Geoff, I commented over on that thread. My basic position is that the Garden of Eden account as we know it isn’t even a good allegory.

I do not believe, by the way that the Atonement bears any relation to the Fall as an actual event. Jesus never even mentioned the Fall. The Fall as a metaphor for the general human condition both in mortality and in pre-mortality, or as some sort of *planned* entry into mortality, is okay, but as a transgressive event pre-disposing manking to evil or resulting in death it is positively ridiculous – more likely some sort of myth that has been gradually harmonized into something vaguely resembling a coherent doctrine.