Original Sin and...

[_madeleine]

So, is this how the apostate churches view this situation as well?

No subgenius, Mormons have corrupted the meaning of scripture.

[_madeleine]

"apostate churches"

I love how sub continuously uses loaded phrases.

"Apostate churches" expresses what s/he believes, and is the social norm for how LDS members speak among themselves. Sometimes I can be more sensitive to it than others, and feel offended. But mainly I view it as: Mormonism cannot exist without this belief, and so it needs to be expressed often, in order to maintain existence.

[_subgenius]

So, is this how the apostate churches view this situation as well?

No subgenius, Mormons have corrupted the meaning of scripture.

Not at all...Mormons have left the scriptures alone..simply provided a much need additional testament....you must be thinking about the Nicean Council.

[_subgenius]

"apostate churches"

I love how sub continuously uses loaded phrases.

not loaded...just baited...and rightfully so

[_madeleine]

No subgenius, Mormons have corrupted the meaning of scripture.

Not at all...Mormons have left the scriptures alone..simply provided a much need additional testament....you must be thinking about the Nicean Council.

What did the councils at Nicaea have to say about Original Sin?

[_ludwigm]

"apostate churches"

I love how sub continuously uses loaded phrases.

not loaded...just baited...and rightfully so

[image I can not even quote]http://static.neatorama.com/images/2011-01/thomas-fuchs-bow-heart.gif[/img]

Disgusting, vulgar, and doesn't fit to celestial.

Please, moderators
- ban subgenius for a week
- disable his privilege to use pictures forever

It would be the same consideration as the one used against me.

[_Bazooka]

Agreed.
Which makes it all the more puzzling as to why the killing of Laban by Nephi is held up as a good thing to have happened.
Perhaps God doesn't recognise that morality is universally intrinsic....

Did vikings consider killing humans from other groups when they were pillaging and plundering bad or good? I like your example. The Bible itself provides even more examples.

I noticed subgenius hasn't commented on the killing of Laban, why I wonder...?

[_subgenius]

I noticed subgenius hasn't commented on the killing of Laban, why I wonder...?

no comment necessary really...i assumed you caught the Retzach reference i gave you and the whole murder vs manslaughter example...not to mention how the consequences of an action do not necessarily determine the value.....but clearly the Laban example is being misunderstood by you, for obviously you have not yet understood the Hebrew term Retzach.

how about a little conundrum of a quote for ya...

pragmatic men of power have had no time or inclination to deal with … social morality — K. B. Clark

[_subgenius]

What did the councils at Nicaea have to say about Original Sin?

From what i understand these councils consider the following to be accurate:
By his sin Adam, as the first man, lost the original holiness and justice he had received from God, not only for himself but for all human beings.
Adam and Eve transmitted to their descendants human nature wounded by their own first sin and hence deprived of original holiness and justice; this deprivation is called "original sin."
As a result of original sin, human nature is weakened in its powers; subject to ignorance, suffering, and the domination of death; and inclined to sin (This inclination is called "concupiscence.")
"We therefore hold, with the Council of Trent, that original sin is transmitted with human nature, 'by propagation, not by imitation' and that it is...'proper to each'"
followed up with..
Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ's grace, erases original sin and turns a man back toward God

but

the punishment, the "damage", the "transmission" of Adam's sin remains to this day in the wake of the atonement....why?
was not the atonement unconditional? or is it actually conditional?...does it actually require one to "do something" in order to receive what was taken away from Adam?

the same scripture references the councils used to support the above "doctrine" are not without the context of what Christ has done, yet they conclude that Adam's "work" was unconditional, being imposed upon every man woman and child...but for that same man woman and child, Christ's "work" requires something? (see also 1 Cor 15:21-22, Romans 5:12-21
according to the councils we
have no choice but to inherit the disease from Adam, we can do nothing to avoid it nor to acquire it, except be born.
but Christ's cure is not inherited?....after the atonement, people are still born with Adam's sin?
I don't agree with that conclusion.....
so....is the Mormon doctrine that we "chose" to enter into this world...to become sinners...so that we could be tried, challenged, and rewarded in order to "choose" the atonement more accurate? more reasonable?...i think it is.
LDS have it correct...we choose the disease and then choose the cure, because it develops us according to Divine design.
But be clear, this idea of original sin is not LDS...even the Apostles never mention original sin...original sin is not mentioned until 200 years later...Augsutine having knowledge of Manicheism likely encouraged this "new" doctrine....or would you propose that he was a prophet and this was merely a continuing revelation?

[_madeleine]

What did the councils at Nicaea have to say about Original Sin?

From what i understand these councils consider the following to be accurate:
By his sin Adam, as the first man, lost the original holiness and justice he had received from God, not only for himself but for all human beings.
Adam and Eve transmitted to their descendants human nature wounded by their own first sin and hence deprived of original holiness and justice; this deprivation is called "original sin."
As a result of original sin, human nature is weakened in its powers; subject to ignorance, suffering, and the domination of death; and inclined to sin (This inclination is called "concupiscence.")
"We therefore hold, with the Council of Trent, that original sin is transmitted with human nature, 'by propagation, not by imitation' and that it is...'proper to each'"
followed up with..
Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ's grace, erases original sin and turns a man back toward God

but

the punishment, the "damage", the "transmission" of Adam's sin remains to this day in the wake of the atonement....why?
was not the atonement unconditional? or is it actually conditional?...does it actually require one to "do something" in order to receive what was taken away from Adam?

the same scripture references the councils used to support the above "doctrine" are not without the context of what Christ has done, yet they conclude that Adam's "work" was unconditional, being imposed upon every man woman and child...but for that same man woman and child, Christ's "work" requires something? (see also 1 Cor 15:21-22, Romans 5:12-21
according to the councils we
have no choice but to inherit the disease from Adam, we can do nothing to avoid it nor to acquire it, except be born.
but Christ's cure is not inherited?....after the atonement, people are still born with Adam's sin?
I don't agree with that conclusion.....
so....is the Mormon doctrine that we "chose" to enter into this world...to become sinners...so that we could be tried, challenged, and rewarded in order to "choose" the atonement more accurate? more reasonable?...i think it is.
LDS have it correct...we choose the disease and then choose the cure, because it develops us according to Divine design.
But be clear, this idea of original sin is not LDS...even the Apostles never mention original sin...original sin is not mentioned until 200 years later...Augsutine having knowledge of Manicheism likely encouraged this "new" doctrine....or would you propose that he was a prophet and this was merely a continuing revelation?

Death is an effect of the first sin as well. It has been noted from the beginning that we still all die. Original Sin is not something you have, it is something you don't have. Adam and Eve lived in the immediate presence of God. If they had not sinned, their posterity would have continued to live in the immediate presence of God. But they did sin, and were removed from the grace of God.

God did not leave us to this condition of separation from Himself. Immediately, constrictions were placed on Satan, what we call the proto-gospel. From that point, God continuously worked to bring us back to Himself, Perfectly achieved in Jesus Christ. We view the work of God among men, as described in the Old Testament, as Salvation History.

Beyond that, I think the difference in our views can be best expressed as how we view the status (or role) of Satan since the Cross. We understand that Satan is defeated, now. Christ is triumphant. We are called as Christians to behave as we believe. God allows Satan to act, but as Christians we believe the only power he has is the power we give him. The central reality to us is Jesus Christ. So our hope is in Christ, not in ourselves, or our own abilities.

The rest of your "LDS understanding" is difficult for me to comprehend. God does not desire that you to choose sin (the disease), in order to know a cure (Christ). It is where I note, LDS have corrupted scripture. We are called to live a life free from sin.