What About Original Sin?, Pt. 2 (Articles of Faith Series)

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him was not anything made that was made. In Him was life, and the life was the light of men.

The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it. We were all born and raised in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, headquartered in Salt Lake City, Utah, more commonly referred to as the Mormon faith. All of us have left that religion and have been drawn to faith in Jesus Christ based on biblical teachings. The name of our podcast, Outer Brightness, reflects John 1-9, which calls Jesus, the true light which gives light to everyone. We have found life beyond Mormonism to be brighter than we were told it would be, and the light we have is not our own.

It comes to us from without, thus, outer brightness. Our purpose is to share our journeys of faith and what God has done in drawing us to His Son. We have conversations about all aspects of that transition, the fears, challenges, joys, and everything in between.

We're glad you found us, and we hope you'll stick around. You are listening to Outer Brightness, a podcast for post-Mormons who are drawn by God to walk with Jesus rather than turn away. I'm Matthew, the nuclear Calvinist. I'm Michael, the ex-Mormon apologist.

I'm Paul Bunyan. Let's get into it. Okay, so we've covered what the Bible says about the human will. What effect does sin have on the human will, and is the Bible clear on that point? There is a sense in which I think we can kind of agree with the Book of Mormon where it says that, like Michael was saying earlier, that there's kind of this downward path you can go down where Satan is slowly dragging you towards him. If you keep going into deeper and deeper sin, then it becomes more and more difficult to come back out.

So I think that is true. As we commit sin and as we go deeper into sin, it can become more difficult for us to turn away from that sin. But ultimately, even repentance is a gift of God, so we can never truly repent of our sins without God's grace. But I think there are certain degrees of sinfulness that we can reach by regressing into our sinful ways. So I'm not sure if that's kind of what the question was trying to ask, like how sin affects our free will. I don't know, maybe I'm going in a different direction.

No, I think you're right. It's kind of like freedom of the will versus bondage of the will. The Bible seems to present the idea that the human will is in bondage to sin until God acts to free a person from that bondage. And as an ex Latter-day Saint, for me, that idea was so hard to accept. I didn't want to believe that a person was in bondage and that the only way out of bondage was not a choice made by the individual, but a choice made by God to draw that person into relationship with his son and thereby save that person.

And I think that is a key difference between LDS theology and Christian theology, biblical theology, that is tough for Latter-day Saints to accept. But I also think that the Bible is clear on that point, that a person is dead in their sins and trespasses. Michael, I remember quoting that passage to you when you were kind of struggling through similar concerns on your way out in a Facebook Messenger conversation several years ago now. And, you know, a dead person can't act, as you noted in the argument you were making about, you know, is there rebaptism for the dead? So, yeah, I think the Bible is pretty clear on that point. Do you agree, Michael?

Yeah, absolutely I do. And I was kind of thinking too, like, just what you asked, does sin, you know, take away some of our agency to a degree? I think that it can, you know, even after salvation.

You know, I think that Christians can become addicted to things and it can become a hindrance to us in life or just receiving some of God's blessings. But I'm like, I'm looking at Romans chapter six right now, starting in verse 15. It says, What then shall we sin because we are not under the law but under grace?

God forbid. Know ye not that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey? His servants ye are to whom ye obey, whether of sin unto death or of obedience unto righteousness. But God be thanked that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you, being then made free from sin, you became the servants of righteousness. And it's actually one of the things I really like about this passage, though, you know, in Mormonism, you're always somewhere in between being a sinner and being righteous. And usually you like to think of yourself as being closer to the righteous side of things. But in verse 18, he says free from sin.

And in verse 20, he says, when you were the servants of sin, you were free from righteousness. So really, it's a dichotomy. It's either we're righteous or we're sinners. There's no in between. No, there is in between, right? Because that's how people end up in the terrestrial or telestial kingdoms, right?

They're not quite sinless enough to be in God's presence. Yeah, well, Romans six, it basically, you know, if I were to summarize it, what it basically says is there is no terrestrial kingdom. Right. Sorry.

Yeah. There are some passages like that just say that we're sinful, that there is no third way, like you said, or in Romans five, I was talking about, it talks about how through one brought many condemnation upon all and through one, righteousness came upon all. And now it doesn't mean that everyone's saved. It just means that because of Adam's transgression or Adam's sin, sorry, the Mormon terminology is popping up again.

So I'll just quote it. It says, but the free gift is not like the trespass, for if many died through one man's trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift by the grace of that one man, Jesus Christ, abounded for many. And the free gift is not like the result of that one man's sin. For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation, but the free gift following many trespasses brought justification. For if, because of one man's trespass, death reigned through that one man, so I add in there a little ellipsis, that's Adam, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ. So that again, I think that Romans five just puts a nail in the coffin, along with Romans six, that there's no different degrees of glory. It's like you're either in Jesus Christ by God's grace or you're under condemnation in Adam. The fact is that you're either in Christ or you're not. There's no in between. So I think that's kind of off topic from the question we just asked, but I felt like that passage was relevant to what Michael was saying.

Yeah, definitely. So what do you think about Augustine's three analogies that Alistair McGrath touched on about the effects of sin? I'll remind what they are. The first one treats sin as a hereditary disease, passed down from one generation to another.

The disease weakens humanity and cannot be cured by human agency. The second treats sin as a power which holds us captive and we can't break free on our own. The third analogy treats sin as essentially judicial or forensic, namely guilt, which is passed down from one generation to another. What do you think about those three analogies? So I hadn't really heard all of those analogies really before today, but I was kind of thinking about them all and I actually really like them. I think they're good analogies.

I think a good fourth analogy would be that it's kind of like mixing M&M's with Skittles and Reese's Pieces. Wait, wait, wait, wait. I thought we talked about the Trinity last time.

No, yeah. I posted a picture earlier that proved total depravity by having a big bucket and they mixed in spaghetti. My brain's lost. I tried to say Skittles, M&M's and Reese's Pieces all at once. But yeah, they mix it all up in the same container.

I was just going to comment on that and say total depravity. I thought this was the Holy Trinity. No, it's a modern wheat and tare story is what it is.

You can't separate them from each other. Okay, let's take a little bit of time to count the angels dancing on the head of a pin. Is that worse than pineapple on pizza? It's about the same.

I don't know. Wow, you're killing me right now. I would rather have pineapple on pizza than that situation. I mean, if it was just the M&M's and the Reese's Pieces, it'd probably be okay.

But the Skittles, I don't know. I'm a pineapple pizza only-ist, so yeah. I was a little bit afraid that you were going to say that pineapple pizza is worse. Well, that sounds very legalistic to me, Matthew. Nope, all other pizzas are heresy. And Michael is saying in true KGB English, thou shalt putteth off the pineapple. Yeah, well, there were many other toppings. And if all the toppings that should have been put on the pizza were, I suppose the whole world could not contain the toppings that should be put on pizza. Wow. I kind of have a counter question for you guys, though, because one of the things that I've kind of seen as an analogy for sin is a debt.

What do you guys think about that? I think that goes to the judicial or forensic concept, because Paul uses a lot of very forensic terminology in Romans when he's talking about justification. Justification is a very legal, it's a very litigious term. It's used within that concept of the courtroom where you're declared righteous or guilty. So maybe it would fit in with that. I would think this idea that we're guilty. We have a debt that we can't pay. So because of that, we're found guilty. Maybe are you saying that it should be considered something slightly different?

I don't know. I almost felt like it didn't quite fit into those. It's just a different thing, just a debt that you can't pay off. And no matter how much you put into it, it doesn't ever come close to paying it off. But then, through a marriage to somebody with eternal wealth, it's the only thing that gets you out of the hole. I think that really kind of gets into some of the various views on how the atonement works that have been put forth by various theologians throughout the centuries. Debt and the atonement being the payment of that debt is one of them. We can kind of get into that when we tackle the atonement more in-depth. What I thought was interesting about the third analogy is that as I thought about Mormon theology relative to Original Sin versus Christian theology, that seems to be really where maybe there's the starkest contrast. A Latter-day Saint might really take issue with the idea of a person being guilty for Adam's act of partaking of the fruit, for Adam's act of disobedience.

The second article of faith really kind of tackles straight ahead the concept of Original Guilt. We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, not for Adam's transgression. So there's this idea that your guilt is yours alone, and Adam's guilt is his alone, and neither the twain shall meet.

But Matthew, as you were reading from Romans 5 verse 16, that doesn't seem to be the biblical view. The passages in the free gift is not like the result of that one man's sin. For the judgment following one trespass, Adam's sin, brought condemnation, not just for Adam.

It brought condemnation for all of humanity. But a free gift following many trespasses brought justification, not just for Jesus, for what he did in his obedience, but for the many who are his followers. And so, although there seems to be this rejection of Original Guilt within Mormon theology, it's hard to get away from that in Romans. And I do wonder how a Latter-day Saint would approach that passage in context.

You know what else is kind of interesting? I was just thinking about that second article of faith, and just the wording of it is kind of a contradiction too, because how can you be punished for Adam's transgression if it wasn't a sin in the first place? It's almost like they're acknowledging in that article of faith that it is punishable, but since we're not the ones who did it, he's going to be punished, not us. So you're saying that the fact that they view it as a transgression is directly tied to the fact that that transgression is not, we're not accountable for that transgression? Are you asking me or Paul that?

You. No, I mean, I'm just saying that Paul said earlier, and I agree with him, that Latter-day Saints will often say that that wasn't a sin because they didn't have the knowledge of what they were really doing. That was Matthew that said that. Was that you, Matthew? I think so.

Sorry, it all blurs together. But if it wasn't a sin, then why are they saying that, you know, that we can be, not us, but that it's punishable? You know, that they're not saying in the second article of faith that nobody will be punished for Adam's transgression. They specifically say, but for our own sins. So they're kind of equating it to a sin in that second article of faith, you know, we will not be punished for Adam's transgression, but for our own sins. See, and I always understood the way that it is viewed as a transgression and by transgression meaning that it's not as serious as a sin. Not that it's not still disobedience, but it's not as serious as a sin and the reason why is because on Mormon theology, really, they were doing the will of God in partaking of the fruit, right? Because without having partaken of the fruit, they would never have had seed, humanity wouldn't have come about. And so they were kind of tricked into bringing about God's will for them to multiply and replenish, but they still had to disobey one of his commandments to do so. Now, never understood why that had to be the case, but that seems to be the way that it is on Mormon teachings. But I've always understood that distinction between sin and transgression to be related to that, that there was this sense in which they were bringing about God's plan anyway. Right, so they're going to be punished for bringing about God's plan. Yeah, okay.

Yeah, that's all. So I know for me, I've mentioned that because of Mormonism's commitment to the concept of free will, this doctrine of original sin was one of the hardest for me to understand and embrace as I was studying through the Bible and Christian theology. Did you guys find that to be the case for you as well, and if so, why or why not?

It's kind of difficult for me. When I was questioning, I always kind of had one foot in the door of Mormonism and one foot in Reformed theology. I started watching James White's stuff, and it's like you can't get more opposite than Mormonism and Reformed theology. You know, like Reformed theology is like everything's entirely of grace, and Mormonism is like grace helps, but most of the work's up to you. So it really bothered me, all the things we talked about before, this idea that many people are going to be condemned before God, that there's so many people that have died without Christ, and that they'll be condemned before him in judgment.

And so it was just really heavy concepts, because in LDS theology, it feels kind of like a nice fluffy blanket. Like as missionaries, I was always trying to push myself to try to teach as many people as I could. I'm like, I got to help people, you know, but it wasn't a heaven or hell kind of situation. It was more like I need to help people be happy, because if I don't teach somebody, you know, there'll be missionaries on the other side after death.

You know, they'll get their chance eventually, but I tried my hardest to give it to them now while it could still benefit them on earth. And so then when you take that kind of security, that safety blanket away, and you realize that like we are born condemned, and we have this sinful nature, and we need to accept Christ in faith and repentance to be saved. It was really hard for me to, it was a really big pill to swallow. But I think the passages we talked about, especially John 6, when James White exegeted John 6, for those who don't know what exegesis means, it just means like drawing out of the text, out of the Bible, what it's saying. So when James White was exegeting or expositing John chapter 6, and he goes through it, and he got to that verse, it says, No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, which Michael quoted earlier. That really bothered me, like I stuck on that text for days, for weeks, and I was just looking at it, and I'm like, I can't, it can't be saying what that's saying, you know, like we are free to choose, like God would not leave us in a state where we can't choose him. But it was just by God's grace that it's like I couldn't refute it, you know, the text is just so clear that God has to extend grace to us, for us to even come to him, and because of the fall, we are in this state of guilt and sinfulness. So it was very difficult at first to both understand this idea of original sin and its consequences, and to accept the biblical truth concerning it. For me, this was probably the thing that I fought off the longest after becoming a born-again Christian.

I really had to let go of it, it had to be just, I think I just fought it kicking and screaming for so long. Just holding on to that LDS view, as much as they trample the justice of God, and they do that by saying everybody's going to inherit a kingdom, and everybody gets a second chance in the next life, they definitely, it just doesn't feel just when you're a Latter-day Saint to say that God's punishing everybody for something that Adam did, and they weren't even, we weren't even alive. So, you know, I think about that and just be like, you know, that's just wrong, you know, God wouldn't do that, and I just, I really have had my mind blown by reading Romans chapter five, and I'm not going to go into it a lot, because you know, Matthew's already talked a lot about it here tonight. But it's very clear when you read Romans chapter five, that there is original sin, and it's really comparing it to, you know, it's comparing the first Adam to the second. So that's Adam and Jesus, and what they did really, really works the same way a lot, you know, by one man, we were condemned, and by one man we are saved, and there's just no room to wiggle out of that, you know, like I have to accept that there is original sin, and you know, it's been a bit of a fight for me, and I'm glad to be here and to be able to accept that. Yeah, I mean, it's completely biblical.

Yeah, amen. What are some of the objections that LDS make to the doctrine of original sin and your response to them? One thing that's kind of come to my mind is, it's actually from the Book of Mormon, but it's Moroni chapter eight. It's talking about how little children cannot sin because they are alive in Christ, and part of the way that was explained to me was that they can technically sin, it just doesn't count. I don't know if you guys have ever heard that explanation. I think there's a couple of different theologies in Mormonism that you can take, but that is one of them that basically, you know, it just disappears in Christ, and that's one of the things I kind of will bring up too, is like, you know, when they turn eight, you know, I guess Mormons kind of do believe in an original sin, but it just takes hold when you turn eight, apparently. So I guess there's just kind of a difference there. You know, we believe we're born with it, and then they believe that it just doesn't take hold for a while, if that makes sense.

It does, it does. So, you know, referring to the age of accountability as when a child turns eight years old, it's why, at least in modern Mormonism, the Salt Lake City variety, children are baptized generally at the age of eight, whereas in early Mormonism, that was not the case. But if you think about that, what you just noted, you know, that little children are alive in Christ, what that suggests is that a person, when they're born, until they reach the age of accountability, is quote unquote, alive in Christ, right?

Yep. And then there comes a point where they are no longer alive in Christ. And so it's just kind of, why?

Why would that be the case? If a little child is alive in Christ and should die, will go to the celestial kingdom because they were alive in Christ and hadn't reached the age of accountability, why is there this arbitrary age of accountability where suddenly a person is no longer alive in Christ and accountable for their own sins and susceptible to whatever effect in Mormon theology, the fall has upon them? It just seems odd that if a person under the age of eight is technically saved in Mormon theology, why would they suddenly be unsaved at the age of eight? And why would God do that?

Exactly. And I guess the point I'm trying to make there is that to a Mormon, it doesn't make sense that there would be original sin, but it makes far more sense that there would be original sin than that we would be alive in Christ and then suddenly die afterwards, eight years later. And I actually really like using this analogy, too, because in that chapter, it says that it is like basically heresy to even think that these children need baptism because baptism is for repentance and children do not need repentance. And I love just using this symbolically, too, because I'm like, look, this passage describes my condition perfectly as a saved Christian. I am alive in Christ.

I do not need anything to save me. You know, it's just kind of a way to, I guess, use their own theology to kind of show them, you know, where I stand. And I guess part of the reason, like one of the things they might kind of say to me is, you know, it puts us at such a disadvantage and it does, you know, like it really takes away that agency that they hold so dear if you're going to accept the doctrine of original sin. And the answer to that is, you know, Christ, you know, the Father draws us. And it's really just through Christ and his mercy. And yeah, the odds are stacked against us with original sin. But man, that's just nothing compared to the grace of Jesus Christ and what he is able to do for us. Amen.

Matthew, what do you got? Well, I was thinking about all the objections that Latter-day Saints have specifically to Reformed theology, but I think it applies whether you're Reformed or not, because Arminians, Arminian theology would say that they would agree that original sin occurs, but then God extends grace to basically all mankind to some extent. So whether you're Reformed or not, you know, we believe in the idea of original sin. It's an Orthodox Christian belief.

And so maybe they don't. So I see two main objections. One is that, like I think we've already kind of discussed it, you know, how can you look at a little child and say that it's sinful? My opinion on kind of when I was a Latter-day Saint was that children, they commit transgressions, as we talked about earlier, but since they don't have the knowledge or maturity, that they're not sin. So transgressions are covered in Christ's atonement, similar to Adam and Eve's transgression. So it's not that it was good, it was still breaking God's law, but since they didn't have the knowledge, it's kind of covered.

It's Christ covered it for them automatically. That's kind of how I viewed children below the age of accountability. So when you bring up this idea of original sin, that we're born sinners, and I wanted to bring up some passages that talk about that. But one of the things that Latter-day Saints will say is, well, do you think little children are sinners or they're sinful? And so then instead of trying to use my logic, I just point to Scripture. So hold on one second, please.

Okay. So Psalm 51 5 in the English Standard Version says, Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me. Elsewhere, as I said in Ephesians 2, it says at one time we all lived among them, fulfilling the cravings of our flesh and indulging its desires and thoughts. Like the rest, we were by nature children of wrath. And Psalm 58 3 says, The wicked are estranged from the womb, the liars go astray from birth. So I think we have to admit, if we look at Scripture, that it says that it might cause controversy, because I know that there are a lot of Christians that will point to some passages as evidence of some age of accountability.

But I don't think there's anything that clearly teaches that. So based on Scripture, we're born with this sinful nature and we're kind of born with this condemnation. So as a result, Latter-day Saints will often point to kind of an emotional appeal. They'll say, Well, you think that every baby that dies is going to go to hell because of your original sin doctrine? You think all these babies are going to go to hell?

And so I just respond, I don't know. You know, I don't know what's in the mind of God regarding the salvation of infants. You know, if it were up to me, I would, you know, of course, I hope that all those who die in infancy are elect and they receive eternal life.

But I really can't say either way. So we just have to have a true, correct understanding of who God is, that whatever God does, it will be right, it will be just. And we just have to have faith in Him. So I know it's very difficult.

You know, I have friends that lost children in childbirth or that had children that they lost before they came to full term. And so we have to be very careful when we talk about this subject. But we have to be very biblical. We just have to say what God has spoken, that grace is free, that you cannot force grace. There's a passage in Romans that says that the remnant was chosen by grace and not of works.

Romans 11. So too, at the present time, there is a remnant chosen by grace. And if it is by grace, then it is no longer by works. Otherwise, grace would no longer be grace. So grace is not something that we can demand of God or that we can work or extract from God. It's something that God gives willingly and freely. So God could freely, willingly give grace to save all infants. That's up to God and His choice. So that's one really big objection I hear from Latter-day Saints is this idea that we believe, you know, Christians believe there's all these babies in hell. But I have to say, I don't assert that. I don't know what happens to those who die in infancy. Did you want me to go into the other one that's pretty common?

I don't want to take up all the airtime. No, you're good. And the second big one is maybe it's more related to salvation by grace and not necessarily original sin. But I think that this idea that, well, OK, you're saved by grace, so you just believe and you're good and you can sin all you want.

You know, like we can kind of just commit whatever sins we'd like. But we see all throughout scripture, all throughout the Bible, that God is constantly reminding His people to come toward Him, to repent, to turn away from sin. And all throughout the Old Testament, we see Israel, we see them turning to false gods and idols. And in the New Testament, we see them falling into all kind of gossiping and all kinds of sinfulness. And so God's constantly trying to pull us back toward Him.

There's a few passages I wanted to read about that. So 1 Peter 2.11. Beloved, I urge you as aliens and strangers to abstain from fleshly lusts which wage war against the soul. Psalm 97.10. Hate evil, you who love the Lord, who preserves the souls of his godly ones.

He delivers them from the hand of the wicked. 1 Corinthians 15.34. Become sober minded as you ought and stop sinning, for some have no knowledge of God.

I speak this to your shame. James 1.21. Therefore, putting aside all filthiness and all the remains of wickedness and humility, receive the word implanted, which is able to save your souls. Hebrews 3.13. But encourage one another day after day, as long as it is still called today, so that none of you will be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin. And the entire epistle of Hebrews is constantly calling these people to faith in Christ and faithfulness and continuing in that faith. So we don't see original sin as just saying like, okay, we're sinful, God saves us, and then we're good to go.

You know, we're kind of just, you know, we can kind of do whatever we like. Original sin, it corrupts everything in us. You know, we're completely corrupted by the sinful nature. And God has to completely change our natures, make us into new creations.

2 Corinthians 5 talks about. He has to completely change us, radically change us into some new creation. And we will not desire to do sin after that. We shouldn't desire to do sin. We'll want to please God.

We'll want to follow Christ. So maybe that, like I said, maybe that's not directly related to original sin. But I mean, that's just one of the big objections I see to Christian theology.

Yeah, for sure. I think probably the number one objection I see from Latter-day Saints is the one, Michael, you keyed in on and Matthew, you alluded to as well. And that is related to little children, the fate of little children who die. And, you know, Paul the Apostle in talking about the resurrection, you know, said that if Christ is not raised from the dead, we are of all men most miserable.

And the point he's making there is that, you know, if the resurrection did not happen, then Christians are miserable because they believed in a false hope. And I think that there's nothing more pernicious than giving someone a false hope for them emotionally and spiritually. And as I think about some of the doctrines of Mormonism related to salvation for the dead and the fate of little children, I can't help but think that, you know, in some ways it's false hope, especially when you know the history of how those doctrines within Mormonism came to be.

The grief that, you know, Joseph Smith and Emma Smith must have felt at the death of their, the deaths of their children. And, you know, you can't help but sympathize with them, but to develop doctrines out of emotional situations seems to me to be a dangerous way to go. And so one of the things that as I've become a Christian and studied that I've really tried to do, and I've talked about it before, is make sure that my theology is grounded in the Word of God. Because if we're to know anything about God, it's going to be His revealed Word about Himself.

And so, and I guess where I'm going with all of that is that I don't want to give anyone a false hope. And Matthew, you were right to call out that we have to be careful when we're talking about this because people have painful situations. I have painful situations in my life that I think about when I think about these doctrines. But like I was saying about listening to James White's book, The Forgotten Trinity, while it was raking leaves, and the thought that struck me, the related thought that came with what I mentioned earlier was that I didn't bring myself into existence. Humanity did not bring itself into existence. And so we owe our very existence to our Creator. And just like I didn't have anything to do with my first creation, I also am not responsible for my recreation in Christ. Jesus told Nicodemus when he came to Him that one cannot see the kingdom of God unless that person is born again. And I did not become born again on my own. As I think it was Michael you said earlier, being born is something that happens to you.

It's not something that you bring about on your own. And so in relation to the doctrine of original sin, yes we do have to be careful, but I think we also have to be grounded in the Word of God and what it says there. And I think we've touched on that fairly adequately here in this episode. I think you said earlier Michael that when you have a biblical understanding of original sin, that really allows us to have a greater understanding and appreciation for the atonement of Christ because if we don't think we're that bad to start off with then we really don't need that much help to become good. Or if we assume we're already born good then why do we really need a Savior? And I think that's a point that really needs to be driven home is that if we understand just how fallen we are, just how helpless we are, we're dead in our trespasses and sins.

We're not sick, we're not hurting, we're dead. And I think that the instance of Jesus with Lazarus is the perfect example to demonstrate that. He waited, he could have come earlier and healed him while he was still alive, but he waited specifically to make sure that he had died. And he came to visit and then they asked him, why didn't you come earlier?

If you came earlier you could have saved him. And so to demonstrate God's grace and God's power, he rose Lazarus from the dead and he commanded him to rise up and to walk out of the tomb and he did. And I think that's, Christ was trying to teach us something there. He's trying to say that this physical raising of the dead, of Lazarus from the dead, is analogical to God's raising us from spiritual death to spiritual life. And if we were never spiritually dead in the first place, then we don't really need to be brought to spiritual life. So I think once we have to understand those two things, how they juxtapose each other, spiritual death and spiritual life, and how just completely incapable we are of coming to God in faith without his grace. So once we understand that, then we can truly appreciate and know just how gracious God is.

Yeah, I like that too. You're talking about how Lazarus was dead and Christ brought him back. And just because I'm a snarky person, like in general, the thought that came to my mind was, oh, he was only mostly dead. And I think as a Latter-day Saint, that's kind of how you view your situation. It's like even when you're in the grossest sin, it's like, I'm only mostly dead. But if you're just mostly dead, then that means the atonement of Christ is only mostly amazing. You know, the worse your situation is, the worse mankind's situation is, the more amazing the atonement of Christ actually is.

And Mormonism with its doctrine that man is good or man is the same species of God, all that does is it diminishes Christ and it diminishes his atonement and what he did because it just really wasn't that spectacular. Yeah, absolutely. Amen. You can also send us an email at outerbrightness at gmail.com. We hope to hear from you soon. You can subscribe to the Outer Brightness Podcast on Apple Podcasts, Cast Box, Google Podcasts, Pocket Casts, Podbean, Spotify and Stitcher. Also, you can check out our new YouTube channel. And if you like it, be sure to lay hands on that subscribe button and confirm it. If you like what you hear, please give us a rating and review wherever you listen and help spread the word.

You can also connect with Michael the Ex-Mormon Apologist at fromwater2wine.org, where he blogs and sometimes Paul and Matthew do as well. Music for the Outer Brightness Podcast is graciously provided by the talented Brianna Flournoy and by Adams Road. Learn more about Adams Road by visiting their ministry page at adamsroadministry.com.

Stay bright, Flyer Flies. Music for the Outer Brightness Podcast is graciously provided by Adams Road. Music for the Outer Brightness Podcast is graciously provided by Adams Road. Music for the Outer Brightness Podcast is graciously provided by Adams Road. Music for the Outer Brightness Podcast is graciously provided by Adams Road. Music for the Outer Brightness Podcast is graciously provided by Adams Road. Music for the Outer Brightness Podcast is graciously provided by Adams Road. Music for the Outer Brightness Podcast is graciously provided by Adams Road. Music for the Outer Brightness Podcast is graciously provided by Adams Road. Music for the Outer Brightness Podcast is graciously provided by Adams Road. Music for the Outer Brightness Podcast is graciously provided by Adams Road. Music for the Outer Brightness Podcast is graciously provided by Adams Road. Music for the Outer Brightness Podcast is graciously provided by Adams Road.