The Journey we call Faith











While rambling on with my friend Barbie today – we stumbled onto the Protestant doctrine of Original Sin vs the Consequences of the Fall (the LDS and Catholic stance on the two). Don’t ask me to repeat the Catholic stance as I understood what she was saying, but really don’t believe I could do it justice. Suffice it to say – it was a very interesting conversation. We discussed a few things – purgatory, the Spirit World, rewards of heaven, etc.

It made me really think of “far fetched” LDS doctrines and how similar they really are to Protestant doctrines. For example, the issue of Original Sin and the Fall are constantly on my mind. I have two children – so on one hand when they are fussying, biting, scratching, screaming, tantrum throwing little monsters lying about who kicked who and who did what, I totally am inclined to believe they are sinners just like me. Except, when I step back and think about it more logically – I really don’t agree with the Protestant stance on Original Sin (or at least how I understand it).

From the amazing Wikipedia:

Western Christian tradition regards original sin as the general condition of sinfulness (lack of holiness) into which human beings are born, distinct from any actual sins that a person may or may not commit later. Different views exist as to whether a person bears real guilt or personal responsibility only for actual sins that they personally commit, while being tempted by original sin, or whether they bear actual guilt for the sins of ancestors.

Eastern Christian tradition too identifies original sin as physical and spiritual death, the spiritual death being the loss of “the grace of God, which quickened (the soul) with the higher and spiritual life”[3] Others see original sin also as the cause of actual sins: “a bad tree bears bad fruit” (Matthew 7:17, NIV), although, in this view, original and actual sin may be difficult to distinguish.[4]

Now perhaps I am getting into semantics or just being my usual, annoying and painfully specific self – but for something that really is essential in Christianity (why on Earth would one accept a Savior if they didn’t believe in a Fall, Original Sin, or that they are a sinner in the first place?) one would think this doctrine would be nailed out. Here’s my take on this (which is of course, the LDS one too).

There was a Fall – was it God’s plan for us? I’m more inclined to say yes – absolutely it was. (*Insert gasp here*). If there’s anything I’ve taken from my time at Grace Point it’s this – God is sovereign. Sure we have free will, but ultimately – God is God and we are not. God is sovereign (which does not make me a Calvinist :P ). Therefore, for me, it’s not like God was chilling out in heaven, sipping a Virgin Daqueri with a pink little umbrella when suddenly Adam and Eve ate the fruit and He was shocked. Oh so shocked. “Well, what the hey do I do now? Shoot, they messed everything up…” Of course, perhaps the omniscent viewing time outside of time, just might be another assumption of the Bible. Grrr – now I’ve gotta keep a better list of all the assumptions I’ve heard the Bible makes – just alone about God’s nature it’s adding up. Warning – don’t read that blog, it’ll be horribly long. :)

However, I do believe God knew (whether I believe this from assumptions I’ve just accepted or scriptural backing is currently irrelevant – but something I’ll look further into) that the Fall was going to occur. Hence, why else create Jesus? (C’mon folks – at some point God the Father HAD to create Jesus – however you want to explain it, believe, etc etc, using a bit of common sense – the Father seems to have created or became the Son.) I believe God already had a “plan” ready – ie Jesus and that He knew what was going to occur. As such, I am not sure where I stand on the whole, “sin” vs “transgression” issue (something for sure to ask the missionaries on Monday night) but I do certainly believe, from a certain point of view – the Fall was God’s plan.

As such, it then leads me to the consequences of the Fall. Which brings us back, through all my ramblings, to original sin vs the consequences of the Fall. Original sin – a sin we are held accountable for that we did not personally commit. However, my take is this – Adam and Eve fell. They introduced sin into the world and therefor, their children and future generations until the end of time. However, I don’t believe that people are held accountable for Adam’s transgressions (which brings us to AoF #2 when I still haven’t fully addressed AoF #1). But rather – completly and totally their own sins. I do believe, that because of the Fall, that mankind WILL eventually sin and that sin is their default nature, however I don’t believe that they are born as sinners like I am a sinner today. When my children entered the world – they entered clean, pure, and blameless as they had not personally committed any sins at this time. However, as they grew – they did committ sins. “Paul, did you kick Mommy’s seat?”

“No Mommy, Anya did it.” Uh-huh sure. She’s all the way across the car, but she did it.

Certainly he knows what he is doing wrong. But in the LDS church, until he reaches an age of accountability where he can not only understand what he is doing is wrong but also a sin and sins are an offense to God, then his sins rest on my shoulders as his parent. I return to Jesus’ words:

Matt 18:3
3 And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.

Matt 19:14
14 But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.

My son, four years old and fully capable of driving me out of my mind with his horrible behavior – while still a sinner, cannot even acknowledge that he is a sinner much less in need of a Savior. And isn’t that the essential for salvation?



{May 22, 2008}   Mormonism and Catholicism
There’s something to be appreciated about accurate reporting. I’ll be the first to admit, that I’m only human and am prone to error. I’ll also fully admit that perhaps this blog will be pretty abrasive and rude to some. But it’s my blog, these are my thoughts, and I firmly believe in being as accurate as possible. That said, if my facts are wrong, I welcome correction with of course, the proper references. :) A passion of mine has been the formation of the canon. As a Mormon defending my faith, it was something I originally needed to know then something I grew more passionate about. History of the Christian movement has been something that has fascinated me. I’m a little rusty, but when I heard someone mention that the Catholic church took out the deuterocanon (which by the way is what the Catholics really call it – not the Apocrypha which is a Protestant term – insulting at best) in 1545, my ears perked up. I knew that wasn’t right, but figured I’d look into it some more. The statement is halfway accurate. The Council of Trent did in fact meet to address the Protestant problem, but they did not add in the deuterocanon. They confirmed that it was equally as important as the rest of the Bible, it was the PROTESTANTS who took out the deutercanon and named it the apocrypha. This was a favorite fact of mine when I was LDS because it was always the Born Again Evangelicals who would rush me with the passage from Rev 22:18:
I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book.I’d smile and remind them of the following verse:
And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.And then remind them that in the Reformation, it was Protestants who removed books from the Bible. If we want to get picky, then really it’s the Protestant Bible which is inaccurate. A quick look on even such a simple site like Wikipedia, we read:
Jerome in his prologues[5] describes a canon which excludes the deuterocanonical books, possibly excepting Baruch.[6] However, Jerome’s Vulgate did include the deuterocanonical books as well as apocrypha. He referred to them as scriptural and quoted from them despite describing them as “not in the canon”. In his prologue to Judith, without using the word canon, he mentioned that Judith was held to be scriptural by the First Council of Nicaea.[7] In his reply to Rufinus, he stoutly defended the deuterocanonical portions of Daniel even though the Jews of his day did not:The Vulgate (all three versions) is another interesting road on how the Canon came about and what it looks like today. This Vulgate was later confirmed at the Council of Trent to be the only authorized Latin version of the Bible. Granted, again, I am fairly rusty at history since again, I haven’t had the need, desire, or even anyone to debate it with in almost a year, but it seems to me, that it was the Protestants who went through and cherry picked the Bible according to what best suited their needs. Kind of makes that whole “apostacy” thing that the LDS church teaches seem credible. ;) Second half of this blog is about, Mormonism. We can call it Mormonism 101. It’s not that I haven’t written enough apologetics, informative blogs about the LDS church. But you know, when inspiration strikes. ;) I want to tackle this in two parts – explaining what is and is not doctrine, and top anti-Mormon claims. The Church is very clear and plain about what is and is not official doctrine. From the Gospel Principals teaching manual:
In addition to these four books of scripture, the inspired words of our living prophets become scripture to us. Their words come to us through conferences, Church publications, and instructions to local priesthood leaders. “We believe all that God has revealed, all that he does now reveal, and we believe that he will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God” (Articles of Faith 1:9).*Bolding mine So President Monson can certainly sit down to lunch with the First Presidency, some close friends and family, and say, “Did you know that the sky is purple? On Thursdays, I declare it will be Purple Thursday and everyone will wear purple!” But it does not mean that President Monson has just added new doctrine (perhaps he has now started a new purple fashion trend) or anything of eternal value. Just because a leader says it, does not make it doctrine OR teaching. It is teaching when it falls in the above outlined categories (conference, official instructions to leaders, church publications, or when moved upon by the Holy Spirit). So purple can be Monson’s favorite color, it doesn’t mean that God’s favorite color is purple, it doesn’t mean that the LDS church now teaches that God is purple or that the sky is purple, it means – that Monson has an opinion which just as any other human being, he has the right and privilege to share with those around him. Now, the top anti-Mormon claims. 1. Elhohim and Mary had sex. Well, I wasn’t there peeking so I cannot say for sure if they did or not. ;) But the LDS church – has never OFFICALLY stated that they did. Again, going back to what I’ve already established above – we have vague accounts of what could be skewed to state that leaders in the church did believe in such a thing, but it is not nor has it ever been a teaching of the LDS church. This is FALSE.
“While brother Joseph was referring to the providences of God, I was led to reflect that there is no act, no principle, no power belonging to the Deity that is not purely philosophical. The birth of the Savior was as natural as are the births of our children; it was the result of natural action. He partook of flesh and blood-was begotten of his Father, as we were of our fathers.” (Remarks by President Brigham Young, made in the Bowery, Great Salt Lake City, July 8, 1860)2. Jesus and Satan were both birthed by women. IE – the Elohim has several spirit wives in heaven with whom He has sex and then has multiple spirit babies. Again, see the first point I made about doctrine. Totally unsupportable. No such teaching within the LDS church. Please do not further such a laughable lie. 3. Jesus and Satan are brothers. This is halfway accurate. The LDS church does not teach the Trinity. They teach the Godhead which is vastly different from the Christian Trinity. Which of course, they hold as “abomination” (JSH 1:19) – which if you look at things from their POV, really isn’t that out there. I mean really, why on Earth does it take almost 400 years to decide on who Jesus was and if He was God in the flesh or not? Just saying is all, just saying…. Anyways, they believe that each member of the Godhead is a seperate being, seperate personage united in common purpose. IE – three gods in one united purpose. Jesus is the Creator of all things (Col 1:16) and that Elohim is the Father of our spirits (Hebrews 12:9). Since Elohim (God the Father) is our Heavenly Father, Father of all spirits – then of course Satan and Jesus are brothers. We’re all brothers and sisters spiritually when we think of who created us. However, the LDS church teaches this as a pre-existence teaching (see also Job 1:6), today the church does NOT consider Jesus and Satan brothers. They take their foundation for this from Jude 1:6:
And the angels who did not keep their positions of authority but abandoned their own home—these he has kept in darkness, bound with everlasting chains for judgment on the great Day.In short and with more bluntness than the LDS church might state this – Satan is considered a bastard now and no longer a child of God. You can read a FAIR Wiki article about this further here. 4. Mormons believe Jesus was married and had children. Again, not an official teaching of the LDS church. Members are free to believe what they want – leaders or not, but it doesn’t make it an official teaching of the LDS church. I believe in Theistic Evolution, but it doesn’t mean that that is Grace Point’s stance on Creation and Evolution. It means, it’s my opinion. There is an in depth article at FAIR Wiki here which includes quotes. 5. The Bible says not to add or take away. I’ve touched on this above with the canon, but I wrote a more in depth blog about it here. These are the most popular claims that those opposed to the LDS church. I have no problems with criticisms of the LDS church as I no longer give it my loyalty. But I do take issue with these particular claims since they hold no truth and show a lack of understanding of the church when made. When I was LDS and people – from book store keepers, to posters on the R&P, and even friends made these comments all I ever thought was, “Here’s another one who just listens to whatever their pastor ramble off without checking it,” I’ve come to the conclusion in life, that perhaps as Christians we should focus on the simplicity of the gospel and allow that to speak for itself. I won’t be standing up and screaming, “The LDS church is a Christian church” – although I do strongly believe it’s the best example of what the Christian church should look like, but I will be the loudest voice to support Latter Day Saints and the fact that there are Christians within the LDS church itself. If you want to know what the LDS church officially teaches, there are a wealth of websites that can explain it to you:
LDS.org
Mormon.org
FAIR Wiki
FAIR


et cetera