Original Sin and...

[_madeleine]

You lost me, which granted, isn't hard to do.

well, i suppose my question begs clarification in response with regards to
1. The gross and net result from the atonement of Jesus Christ.
2. How this result would apply to the original sin.

If Christ earned the forgiveness for the original sin then its punishment would be no longer, correct?
If the punishment continues then was the sin forgiven?

Indeed, it is forgiven. We are reconciled to the Father. Called to a life that is free from sin. To live what is believed.

We are fallen, and rise in Christ.

That's the short answer. St. Paul lays it out the best I have ever seen in the letter to.the Romans, particularly ch.5-8.

[_ludwigm]

There really is no such thing as sin except as a construct for control by one group over another. Religious leaders who use it to make a living off other people.

There is doing things that hurt others and ourselves, which experience teach us is wrong because it is harmful.

But "sin"? No such thing.

People like you are destructive to the moral fabric of society.

How?

Here is the answer:

Let me preface this by saying that I am a TBM and I don't intend on ever leaving the Church.

[_bcspace]

Traducianism, the doctrine behind the Original Sin heresy, tells us that Adam's taint is passed down through procreation; while the physical bodies are procreating, the tainted spirits procreate as well to produce the new spirit (no pre mortal spirits in non LDS christian doctrine). So it's a valid question. In non LDS Christian theology, the taint remains even though Christ has Atoned for all sins.

[_nc47]

People like you are destructive to the moral fabric of society.

How?

If you think there's no such thing as sin? As long as you don't harm anyone else it's OK? If you're wife doesn't find out, it's OK?

Don't feel so bad, you're only conditioned to feel that way?

[_SteelHead]

Just because some one does not believe in sin, does not mean they do not believe in right or wrong. Nor does it mean then do not respect and honor commitments. It just means they do not believe there is some onus bound to their soul when they do wrong that imperils them to eternal condemnation. Nor do they believe that someone can metaphysically "pay" for their sin.

I do not believe in sin. I am just as "moral" as when I did. I have never cheated on my wife.

Try again.

[_subgenius]

There really is no such thing as sin except as a construct for control by one group over another. Religious leaders who use it to make a living off other people.

sophomoric speculation

There is doing things that hurt others and ourselves, which experience teach us is wrong because it is harmful.

wrong because it is harmful? by what measure do you determine what is harmful?...and by what measure do you equate right/wrong with harmful/not harmful?

But "sin"? No such thing.

cfr

[_subgenius]

People like you are destructive to the moral fabric of society.

How?

by default - one being amoral necessitates there being no actual moral fabric to be a part of....this lack of cohesion ultimately conflicts with and could eventually destroy the moral fabric...fabric being the key word, as it implies an intentional framework or system...something an amoral position does not provide.
simple really

[_subgenius]

Indeed, it is forgiven. We are reconciled to the Father. Called to a life that is free from sin. To live what is believed.

We are fallen, and rise in Christ.

That's the short answer. St. Paul lays it out the best I have ever seen in the letter to.the Romans, particularly ch.5-8.

Interesting reference...particularly for ZELPHTHEGREAT - (see Romans 5:13)

However, it begs the question with Romans 5:15 - the punishment of many is through one man and the gift of grace is by one man....interesting alignment by Paul....as if to say, the action of Adam was for all and the action of Christ was for all...this is an equation worth revisiting.

So, here is the question i have resulting from this equation and circumstance:
Adam's disobedience brought us to the punishment of death, yet was he without hope? what law was there for Cain and Abel?
How could this punishment be wrought upon all men without their option? yet Christ's offering is optional...the former being imposed upon all and the latter only for those who would choose it.....is our design by Adam or by Christ?
This is what my OP question is trying to convey....Christ's gift is not without conditions....whereas Adam's "gift" is being presented unconditional...yet we are clearly not born sinful nor born sinless....the only reconciliation must be our ability to be accountable through agency.

[_subgenius]

Just because some one does not believe in sin, does not mean they do not believe in right or wrong....(snip)...

not to distract, but this position is an egocentric/narcissistic one. The idea here of "sin" is that there is a right and wrong that exists outside of man...that is eternal and objective...that is supernatural in origin. Your position relies on judge and jury being the "self"...it is tantamount to selfishness...determining right and wrong from some arbitrary life experiences is not a system that one could label as "morality". There is no reasonable argument that i have read which would support such a strategy....unless you were a hermit, perhaps.

[_SteelHead]

Not so. There are individual ideas of right and wrong and then their are societal. The attribution of your societal norms onto god as their author, does not make it so. It is as you put it: "sophmoric speculation". Unprovable in every sense of the word.

The idea that there is some great sky being keeping a running tally of your rights and wrongs so that he can determine your eternal outcome is equally unprovable.

There are also faith traditions without the concept of sin or atonement, but that have the concepts or right and wrong, good and bad. Candomble is one such faith.

But back to the original topic. Whatever action Adam took in the Mormon framework in the garden, under Mormon doctrine can not be placed upon him as sin as he was incapable of discerning right from wrong and hence was truly an innocent. No sin, no onus, no forgiveness needed.