See also Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, Part 6, Part 7
(Disclaimer: These views are all based on my knowledge and interpretation as an active Latter Day Saint, or “Mormon”, only the actual article of faith I list should be considered “official”. Still, I try to be accurate and do my homework ;-)
We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression.
2nd Article of faith
Herein lies doctrine that I find sweet and compelling, and very personal, but so often taken for granted, or overlooked by many Latter Day Saints (Mormons).
This simple sentence explores the profound depth of difference between consequences and accountability.
Adam fell when he transgressed the law of God by partaking of the forbidden fruit, and by so doing, was cast out of the Garden of Eden, becoming mortal. Because of that transgression, we too, are mortal, and as such, we live under the consequence of Adam’s decision. But we are not accountable for it.
This is a profound principle, and one that has a much broader application.
Each of us grows up under the consequence of our parent’s (or ancestor’s) decisions. Those consequences make up the environment of our past. Some grew up in another religion, or with no religion. Some grew up in abusive families. Some grew up in poverty, and some in wealth. Some grew up under the staining effect of racism, or with countless other derogatory views.
Those are the blocks with which we build (see my post on building blocks here).
But that’s not what we’re held accountable for. Rather we’re held accountable for our own actions. It’s what we DO with those blocks that matter. Some are faced with the challenge of overcoming great adversity. Others, in perhaps an equally difficult manner, are required to hold higher an already high standard.
How often do we find ourselves blaming our parents or our past for our actions today?
In short, we each have challenges inherent in the heritage we receive from the consequences of our parents actions, for good or for ill, but what matters in the eyes of God, is what we do on our own.
Hence my post “My story, why I think we’re not limited by our past“.
May we all be a little less focused on what we’ve been given, and a little more focused on what constructive things we can do with them.
Rusty
For related posts, see also “It is what you make of it“, “A psalm of life“, “The Builders“, “Life Sculptor“, “The danger of reflection“.
Subscribe to Ongofu | Get Ongofu by Email
If you’ve enjoyed this post, please bookmark it by clicking on the button below, and selecting a service so others can find it too. Many thanks.
Filed under: Docterine, Principles | Tagged: mormon, religion, lds, Christianity, Latter Day Saint, Articles of Faith, Adversity, Adam and Eve, Christian
Good morning Rusty.
The 2nd Article of Faith you post is important. “We believe that men [people] will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression.” I have a few comments from the Christian perspective. First, if this is meant to suggest that Christians believe that we are punished for “Adam’s transgression” (which I take to mean “original sin”), that could not be further from the truth. We are accountable (sort of … but more about that later) for our own sin. However, and this is important, Scripture indicates several examples of the reality that people are punished for the sins of their families. Witness 1 Samuel 3:13 and Exodus 20:5 as examples. So if one trusts the witness of scripture, the 2nd Article of Faith is already found to be false. Additionally, if faith in Christ makes us righteous, then we are not punished for our sins, but rather Christ’s death and resurrection provided the “satisfaction” for our sins … he took on the punishment for us. For LDS to use 2nd Article of Faith separate from the atonement of Jesus is quite puzzling to me. The Apostles’ Creed and Nicene Creed of Christianity only state that Jesus Christ will come to judge the living and the dead, and the New Testament makes clear that those who have been baptized and believe have been made right with God … as if there is no sin.
Peace to you.
I might add, that I’m responding more to the Article of Faith itself rather than your comments about it. You do express some insights into the difference between consequence and punishment. The challenge is that the OT references use “punishment” as the term. I’ll also grant, as I read the Articles of Faith in their entirety, that they build one upon the other. I will argue, however, that there are serious flaws in most of the Articles of Faith.
rusty, i stumbled across your blog and am intrigued by your progression through the lds articles of faith. thanks for the open discussion you are allowing.
it seems that your distinction between “consequence” and “accountability” is splitting hairs pretty finely, but not necessarily incorrectly. a question: in your understanding, what is the “consequence” of adam’s transgression? based on that answer, how was adam “accountable” for this transgession?
secondly, is this 2nd article of faith derived from the bible or from the book of mormon? i ask because as i read the bible, it seems to speak differently than what the article of faith expresses.
The 2nd article of faith is so intriguing, I can’t wait for the 3rd article to be published. Send me the link when it comes out.
Do you really believe in that propaganda?
Rusty - if the “consequence” of adam’s sin is that he is removed from the garden and must work for sustenance for the rest of his days, then what are sinners today “removed” from? when i read the bible it talks about death being the consequence. what do you think?
also, can you apply your distinction of “consequence” and “accountability” to adam? i am still trying to understand the difference. if the consequence was to be removed from the garden, then how was adam “accountable” for his sin?
thanks for your response
thanks for your response. if i follow what you are saying, then when a person is born, they are not under any judgment (or accountability) for sin, they are merely mortal. therefore, a person can live a life without sinning and would not need Christ’s atonement for sin. though i guess, from above, the person would still die a mortal. is this correct?
how does mortality ensure that a person will not be perfect and sin? it seems that if people are pure when they are born, then it would be easier to prevent them from sinning rather than Jesus having to die and be resurrected to pay for their sins, doesn’t it?
I’m not sure this scripture speaks to the question of sin’s inevitability, but Romans 3:23-25 says:
23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:
25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;
i have been thinking about this very same subject (sin). It seems God wants us to forgive others without retaliation but He doesn’t seem to be able to do the same thing that he commands of us. He requires a ’sacrafice’ (His Son). Why is that? Why can’t we forgive our neighbor and then kill his dog as a sacrafice? (ok that wasn’t the best analogy, but I know you know what I am talking about. I can’t get around the idea that he demands more from us than He is willing to do. Why can’t He just forgive like the rest of us morals have too? Please don’t throw the ole “justice” factor at me, there is no justice when we forgive the person who just murdered my mother (for example).