What About Original Sin?, Pt. 1 (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 colonist. I'm Michael, the ex-Mormon apologist.

I'm Paul Bunyan. Let's get into it. When I was in high school and taking LDS release time or seminary classes, we would spend the first few minutes of each class period reciting scripture mastery verses. One of them was 2 Nephi 2-25, which states, In LDS theology, this passage establishes the idea of a fortunate fall. The suggestion established more explicitly elsewhere in LDS canon that Adam knew that eating of the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil was necessary to bring about the procreation of their offspring.

The book of Moses is Joseph Smith's expansion of Moses' encounter with God on Mount Sinai, wherein Smith expanded the Genesis material to support his theology. In Moses 5, Eve is presented a saying of the fall, Another scripture mastery passage was Mosiah 3-19, which states, This passage supports the idea in LDS theology that humans are free to choose good or evil. The second LDS article of faith is typically seen to reject the doctrine of original sin as classically described within Christian theology. It reads, In his book, Christian Theology, An Introduction, Alastair E. McGrath discusses the doctrine of original sin in The Thought of Augustine. He wrote, McGrath notes that Augustine discussed original sin in using three analogies.

The third analogy treats sin as an essentially judicial or forensic concept, guilt, which is passed down from one generation to another. McGrath contrasts Augustine's thought with that of his theological sparring partner, Pelagius, of whom McGrath wrote, In this sense, Mormonism takes a similar approach to humanity's will and choice, as did Pelagius. Mormon apostle James E. Talmage, in his treatise The Articles of Faith, wrote the following, True, God has given commandments and has established statutes, with promises of blessings for compliance and penalties for infraction.

But in the choice of these, men are untrammeled. In this respect, man is no less free than are the angels, except as he has fettered himself with the bonds of sin and forfeited his power of will and force of soul. The individual has as full a measure of capability to violate the laws of health, the requirements of nature, and the commandments of God in matters both temporal and spiritual, as he has to obey all such. Here, Talmage seems to give credence to the idea of the bondage of the will, but then just as quickly seems to contradict himself. But to read Talmage and Mormonism correctly, I think you have to note that what Talmage is saying here is that humans are born free and may, by their choice of sin, put themselves in bondage, but that they are not in bondage to sin from birth. What I found interesting is that this is a different approach to original sin than you find in, say, Robert Millet. And I'm quoting him from the book Claiming Christ, which he wrote with Gerald R. McDermott, who is a Christian scholar. There, Millet says, quote, every man and woman who comes into mortality is, quote, conceived in sin, end quote, meaning, one, he or she is conceived into a world of sin, and two, conception becomes the means, the vehicle by which mortality, fallen nature, the flesh, is transmitted to the posterity of Adam and Eve.

The effects of the fall are inherited, end quote. So Talmage and Millet seem to present two very different views to original sin within Mormonism. So that's what we're talking about today.

Ability to sin or sin nature, bondage of the will or free will, that's what we're tackling. So, guys, I think the first thing to kind of tackle before we jump in is whether or not I've captured LDS doctrine accurately in my introduction. How do you think I did summing it up? Well, I think that you did a really good job summing it up. As a summary, I think there's definitely some things that you can dive into, and that's what we're going to be doing in the podcast.

But as a basic introduction, absolutely. You hit a nail on the head. Matthew, any thoughts there? From what I understand, it's hard to remember the different views in my past when I studied this stuff. It's hard to keep it all straight.

But from what I recall, I think it was pretty accurate. The thing that's difficult, like you said, is sometimes you'll read a passage that sounds like it goes one way, and then in the same passage or elsewhere, they might sound like they go a different way. So it's a little bit hard to keep it all straight sometimes. I come across this a lot, too, in the forums and things where Latter-day Saints will say some things that sound completely different. And then when you try to bring them to the table and say, look, he's saying this and you're saying that, they will agree with each other and say, oh, well, this is still within the scope of LDS doctrine.

So it's kind of like there's an umbrella there. And as long as you're just within a certain distance of the core doctrine, there's just ways that they say things, but they actually mean something different, like, oh, we're saved by grace. And somebody else might say we're saved by works, but they're actually both saying the same thing, if that makes sense.

Yeah, it does. I think it's hard to reconcile Talmage's statement, though, with Millet's, because Talmage seems to hew directly on a completely free will, right? The individual has as full a measure of capability to disobey as he has to obey. And Millet is presenting a view that to me seems much more in line with the classical view of original sin. That man inherits a sin nature, that the effects of the fall are inherited. But that idea that the effects of the fall, at least in terms of guilt, and maybe we can dig into that when we get to talking about the second article of faith. But it seems to me like when I was LDS, and it's been 10 years next year, so I could be forgetting some things. But it seems to me like when I was LDS, the idea of original sin was kind of anathema.

Am I off base there? I'll tell you how I kind of perceived it, and I'm putting on my apologist hat here a little bit. But it was my understanding that there was an original sin, but that we just viewed it differently from traditional Christianity. So we come to earth with a clean slate, but with a fallen nature. And so we're going to be prone to sin a lot more, but that doesn't mean we have sin.

And so I think that's how I would try to reconcile Millet and Talmage here. Because it's like, yeah, we're conceived in sin, because we're conceived with a sin nature, and we're going to mess up at some point, and that's why we need to have a savior. But ultimately, yes, we still have that choice. But I remember I gave a talk in sacrament meeting one time, and I was talking about we can choose our actions, but we can't choose the consequences for our actions. And sometimes the consequences hinder our future agency. And I used an example. I said, at this moment, I have the ability to run two miles.

And if I practice every day, you know, or train every day, someday I might be able to run 10. But if I sit on the couch and eat potato chips and ice cream every day, well, let's just say that my real life right now is a reflection of that and I can't run to save my life. So that's kind of how I viewed it, that our actions either hinder or promote our agency. Yeah, so that seems consistent with the one statement from Talmage that man is no less free than are the angels, except as he has fettered himself with the bonds of sin and forfeited his power of will and force of soul. Okay, so there's certainly a possibility that to an extent I misread and misunderstood LDS doctrine on original sin, but then again, maybe it's all about original guilt more so than the sin nature. Do you think it's fair to compare Mormon views of sin and free will to those of Pelagius? I would say from my understanding of Pelagius's view is that he was, I mean, he believed that there was no such thing as original sin, that as far as we are, we are completely free to perform good or evil. So I don't think the LDS view is quite, I don't think it's exactly like that, because like you said, we do still inherit a sin nature in the sense that we, I think, how would you describe it? We're more predisposed to commit sin, I think they would say. We're still free to do good or evil, because they, correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that they believe that the atonement cleansed the sin of Adam's transgression.

And because of that, we're free. I think there's a Book of Mormon passage like that, right? Second Nephi 2, maybe? Is that the one that you read earlier, possibly? It might be the one where it talks about opposition of all things.

I think you're right, Second Nephi 2. So they believe that Christ, through his atonement, made it possible for us to do good or evil, that we're kind of free to make that choice, that we are not guilty of that transgression. And they always stress that it wasn't a sin, it was a transgression, because Adam and Eve didn't have knowledge yet, because they hadn't taken the fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. So when they were transgressing God's law, they didn't have a full knowledge of what they were doing, so they don't consider it to be a sin. So they would say that sin requires both committing an act against God's law, and it requires a certain level of understanding or spiritual enlightenment in order to do so. So I think that also correlates to, and I might be getting off topic, but I think that's what correlates to the idea that they have of the age of accountability, where before eight years old, children will do things that are not in accordance with God's law, but since they're without a certain level of maturity or understanding, they don't consider it to be sin. So I think it's kind of the same concept. So yeah, I don't think it's entirely like Pelagius' view. I think from what it seemed like, Pelagius believed that we're completely free to do good or evil, we're not burdened to go more one way than the other way.

Maybe I'm not quite assessing you quite right, what do you both think? That sounded about what I experienced when I was in the church, so I think you got it. 2 Nephi 2.27 is one I was thinking of, wherefore men are free according to the flesh, and all things are given them which are expedient unto man, and they are free to choose liberty and eternal life through the great mediator of all men, or to choose captivity and death according to the captivity and power of the devil, for he seeketh that all men might be miserable like unto himself. I think that's the one I was thinking of. I still have that one memorized.

How sad is that? I guess where I was picking out a commonality between, say, Pelagius and maybe what Talmadge says is, is where McGrath says that for Pelagius the human power of self-improvement could not be thought of as being compromised. And Talmadge says, although God has given commandments with promises of blessings for compliance and penalties for infraction, in the choice of these men are untrammeled.

So I read those two statements. Human power of self-improvement as not being compromised kind of being the same thing as saying that their choice is untrammeled. Who's going to trammel the choice? Or what is going to trammel the choice? Even if it's a sin nature, then in some sense isn't the choice trammeled?

But I think you get what I'm saying. And that's kind of why I pointed out that Talmadge seems to say one thing and then seems to contradict it in the next statement. And that was kind of my understanding of the Mormon approach to free will.

As you were describing, Matthew, the guilt of Adam was paid for by the atonement of Christ. And of course we would make mistakes, but we were completely free to choose good or evil. And my understanding of Mormon anthropology is that at least at a theoretical level, it's possible for someone to be completely obedient.

Do you guys read it differently? I used to think that yes, it was possible to be completely obedient, just that it was really not likely. Near impossible because of that sin nature that it was just going to pull us down. But I was kind of thinking because you're talking about how our choices really aren't trammeled by what we do, by sin.

And I think there's kind of a paradox in Mormonism because on one hand, you've got that scripture in the Book of Mormon that says, Satan, he likes to wind us up with his flaxen cord, and then he binds us with his strong cords and he seals us his. It's like, yes, there is a point where it becomes too late because you are complacent. But then I also see a lot of these apologists, I'll talk about sin and how none of us are perfect.

And then I'll start to kind of make it personal. Like, well, are you telling me that you're perfect? And they'll say, well, no. But what's interesting is they're not slowed down by their own sin. A lot of times they just excuse it real easily and they'll say, well, I'm on the path.

As long as I'm on the path, I'm fine. It's a lot more about learning than it is about actually being clean. Like, oh, we're here to learn to be gods. And they just hate the idea that God would just give salvation away for free because we haven't gotten any wiser or we haven't gotten our battle scars in and you have to do something. And so that is just a paradox that I have seen in the church that on one hand, it absolutely slows us down and binds us. And in another sense, it doesn't seem like it's a big deal to Latter-day Saints at all.

Yeah. And I've made the case before that this to me seems to be a big deal for all of LDS theology. And I'll tie it into a point you made in your article that you published this week, Michael. So if at a theoretical level, because humans have free will as conceived of by Mormon theology, if at a theoretical level someone could be completely obedient, no sin in their lives, then they wouldn't need a savior. And so if someone says, well, okay, that's not really possible, right? We know it's not. Then you have to ask the question, well, then how did Jesus do it on Mormon theology?

Because same species, right? So what enabled Jesus to do it that you or I or Matthew couldn't do it, right? And so then that kind of ties into the point you were making in the first point in your article this week, Michael, about the LDS view of God is that he could fall from being God, right? Which is kind of the opposite side of that coin. If someone could just by their own will, and again, we're talking on LDS theology where we're all of the same species, God and humanity.

If someone could just by their own will be perfectly obedient, then why would God not be able to fall? So it's just the opposite side of the same coin. But it seems to me to be a major problem for LDS Christology, and we can get into that when we dig into the topic of Christology. But any thoughts on that? Well, I guess one thing that jumped into my head is, you know, you also have a lot more like when you're Mormon, there's a lot more like layers to the seriousness of different sins.

You know what I mean? It's like it's almost like Catholicism where you've got like some penal sins and shoot, that's what enabled me to take the sacrament most Sundays because, you know, you're not supposed to take it in the church if you're unworthy. And every time that tray would come around, I'm like, well, I definitely did some things wrong this week. But, you know, it wasn't they weren't major sins. And so then I would still partake and consider myself to be worthy because I just I wasn't counting them. But kind of with what you're saying, it's like, yeah, theoretically, we could be totally obedient and not need Jesus. But on the other hand, even if we're saying that all of us have sinned and fallen short, you know, some of us might not really need Jesus that much. Maybe we just need him to make up an inch that we fell short. And that's a big difference between Mormonism and Christianity, because in Christianity, you recognize that you are a wretched sinner and you have you haven't even made it that inch.

And he's got to make up the whole thing. Yeah, it kind of tees up the difference between that Matthew was alluding to, right, where Adam's act of taking of the fruit is not viewed as a sin. It's viewed as a transgression, right?

It's not as serious. It's not a rebellion to God. And that really kind of tees up, I think, in many ways, a difference in the way that sin is viewed. You know, it's interesting that LDS, a lot of LDSs that are coming out of the Mormon faith will react very strongly against the heavy shame and guilt that they felt within Mormon culture. Whether it's, you know, in relation to bishop interviews, or whether it's in relation to having felt judged by members of their ward for coming home from a mission early or having sex out of wedlock or who knows what it may have been. But there's this sense that they have that they felt an inordinate amount of guilt and shame within their Mormon community.

That seems to me to be something I see talked about quite a bit. And yet, if you get onto some of the boards where evangelicals and LDS discuss things, from my experience, I think evangelicals tend to portray a much more strong view of the seriousness of sin, but less guilt and shame. Do you, Matthew, find that to be the case as well, or am I off base here?

No, I think that's correct. I think it seems like the guilt that, at least in my experience, that I had while I was in the LDS church was the fact that, like you said, there's this tension. We're taught both that we need to strive to live in such a way that we can attain exaltation, because we want to become like our Heavenly Father.

So we want to strive to attain His perfection. So there's this grinding tension that was in my heart, in my mind, saying, okay, I really need to be pleasing to God. I can't even get upset at people.

I can't even say a word that's insulting to someone or even in my head. So I'd be constantly checking the things that I did wrong that day. But in terms of the seriousness of just pride, I don't think I really, truly understood. When I came out of the LDS church, you realize just how completely offensive our sin is to God. It's not merely just like, oh, we didn't reach perfection, you know, like we got to try better tomorrow and maybe we'll get a little bit closer. It's like the chasm between God's holiness and our sinfulness, according to God's word in the Bible, is just so vast. You just find out that like it's such a huge gaping wide chasm between us and God that it's like it's not it's there's no there's no quantity of perfectionism or works or effort that can help even get anywhere close to God. So once you realize that and you really understand, OK, like I can't do it, that's when you really just at least for me, that's when when God just kind of like emptied myself and made me realize that it's not up to me. I really do need a savior, not just someone who gives me the ability to do what I need to do to reach God. It's like he has to actually pick me up and carry me the whole way.

Nothing I can do can even contribute to it. And I wanted to point back to something you were talking about earlier where, well, I guess it's on the same topic where, you know, Mormons don't really and Mormonism, we weren't really taught. We were really we didn't really understand the full significance of our sin against God.

And I think it makes sense when you think about LDS theology as a whole, like James White mentioned in one of his videos where he was talking with Jeff Durbin about Mormonism. And he said that the whole reason that they didn't have such a lower view of sin and God's holiness is the fact that when they see God, they see a man just like them, someone who went through the same trials that we do every day. So when you see that and you look at God, you don't really see sin as that big of a deal. It's it's kind of like when you watch a little kid stumble or fall off his bike when he's learning to ride the bike. So you help him pick himself back up and you get on the bike and then he keeps trying like as in the LDS view of sin.

That's kind of how we saw it is just like a little a little stumbling block, but you get back up and you keep trying kind of a thing. So when we have the incorrect view of who God is, that if we see God as someone like us, someone who overcame the same trials as we do, then you will have a correspondingly incorrect or distorted view of what sin is. Good point. So one of the things that I find interesting is on the boards is I often see evangelicals when when discussing this topic with Mormons, they'll appeal to lived experience to support their belief in original sin.

And one that often kind of makes me chuckle is, you know, when someone will so an evangelical will point out, you know, like if you don't believe in original sin, just look at a toddler. Right. And I've seen Latter-day Saints on the boards get so incensed at that suggestion. Right. Because, you know, as you pointed out, Matthew, Latter-day Saints kind of view it as, you know, we were, you know, the guilt of Adam's sin was paid for by the atonement of Christ. So when when a child is born, it's born, I think, well, maybe it was you, Matthew, that said born with a blank slate.

Right. And and so, you know, there's kind of this tension sometimes between evangelicals and Latter-day Saints over this topic of original sin. Does lived experience play a part in your position on this doctrine now?

And if so, how? So I don't remember. I mean, you're talking about like beyond being eight years old, are you talking about when I was a little kid? Yeah, I guess maybe lived experience isn't isn't a precise enough word choice. I guess what I mean is when you when you look at humanity, does that play a play a part now in your position on this doctrine? I mean, it definitely does. I mean, it's just cool to, you know, you learn something in the Bible, but then you you see it all around you everywhere. You're just constantly thinking like, I mean, when you when I was LDS, my thought was everybody is basically good, like more good than their evil. You know, and that's one of the things that made me so angry at evangelical Christians. It's like you guys believe God's going to throw like ninety nine percent of his creations into hell.

It's like, what about Mother Teresa? And what about this other good person and and these nice atheists? And and I thought people were just just good. And now I look at the world and I'm just every day I'm just like, man, how can people be so evil? And it's like I couldn't see it before.

And now it's as plain as day. But but I think one of the things that really started to get me out of the church was was actually starting to see it in myself, too. And I remember being an institute one day and the instructor was saying he was quoting that that passage in the DNC that says he who sins against the greater light receives the greater condemnation. And I posed this question and I said, are we doing people a disservice by bringing them into the church and giving them that greater light?

Because, you know, we're we're setting the bar higher and we're making that judgment stricter on that person. And so that just caused a firestorm in that institute class. It was pretty crazy. That was like the first time that I that I stirred the pot, you know, and look at me now. But, you know, I just I started to kind of see it in myself because people, the evangelicals would ask me, like, do you think you're going to the celestial kingdom? And I'm like, well, no.

Like, in fact, I'll be lucky if I make it to the celestial kingdom. And so, you know, it's just a lot of that stuff started to shatter my view that, you know, manner just are naturally good. We have a natural leaning towards God.

I mean, that's definitely not true at all. What about you, Matthew? So when it comes to. So I think there's there's several aspects to original sin. Part of it comes down to the fact that because Adam sinned, all all have sinned. And maybe we'll talk a little bit about that, as it says in Romans five. So there's that aspect where where I believe that Adam, you know, because Adam sinned, we're all kind of complicit in that sin, even though we weren't there in the garden. He represented all of humanity. And that's kind of like the reformed view of Adam's federal headship, that he represented humanity. So when he rejected God and his and his commandment, then all of mankind fell with them. And we're all kind of in that same boat.

So there's that aspect. But then if you're talking specifically about the fact that we're born and we're kind of born sinful by nature, I think it does play a part. But I think it wasn't made most clear to me until, like Michael said, when you read scripture and you read what it says about the nature of man.

And then once you really understand that the man is sinful by nature, that we aren't you know, that that it's not our choices that make us evil. You know, we're kind of born sinners. Calvin said that our heart is a factory of idols. We're just by nature, we're just really good at creating idols out of everything and doing what is pleasing to us versus God. And I think this is most evident.

I mean, you can look at the world around us and you can see evidence of that. But I think my view of that was based in scripture. But as Michael said, when you read that and you understand scripture, you see it everywhere. I mean, you look at all the other religions of the world, all of them revolve around some concept of, OK, you are in this state to achieve some kind of higher state.

You have to follow X, Y and Z. And if you follow this path or perform these rituals or do these good works, then you will achieve some higher state or some kind of higher state of existence. So when you look at Christianity, it's the exact opposite. It's not about what we do to achieve salvation.

It's what God has done for us as condescension and giving his life in the sun. So it really has to be based in scripture when we're coming, when we're trying to decide what is true and what is false. But I think that the world around us does confirm what scripture teaches. Yeah, I think there's a tension that I kind of perceive within Mormon theology on this point.

So not too long ago, I made a post in one of our groups on Facebook where I was kind of pointing back to Mosiah 3.19, which I quoted earlier in the intro. For the natural man is an enemy to God and has been from the fall of Adam and will be forever and ever unless he yields the enticings of the Holy Spirit and putteth off the natural man and becometh the saint through the atonement of Christ the Lord. So I asked the question of Latter-day Saints, you know, at what point have you put off the natural man?

Because the passage seems to imply that there's this nature, right? There's this natural man that has a sin nature and as a result is an enemy to God. And the only thing that changes that is the atonement of Christ. But Mormonism has this doctrine of free will and so the question becomes how does a person accept the atonement of Christ and thereby move from the state of being a natural man and an enemy to God into a state of a saint, right? And this passage, Mosiah 3.19, says that, you know, the person must yield to the enticings of the Holy Spirit and put off the natural man, which seems to imply the requirement of having a free will to yield to the Holy Spirit. And yet there's the implication in the first line that the natural man is an enemy to God. So the passage to me seems contradictory and kind of to me reveals that tension within Mormonism where lip service is given to this idea that we have a sin nature but a war in heaven was fought over free will. So that, you know, the human will is kind of all bound up in this question and this doctrine of original sin. So the next question I think we should tackle and this is one where we'll get to see how well you did your homework. What does the Bible say about human will?

Is it free? So if we're talking we're talking post-fall, obviously, I think some most Reformed confessions that admit that Adam and Eve in the garden, they had no sin nature. They were kind of in a state of innocence in the sense that so we would agree in that sense with the Latter-day Saints where they were free to choose both good and evil. They were not compelled to one direction or the other. But now after the fall we see that there is no true freedom and I'm saying this obviously from a more Reformed perspective.

But I'm not saying it just because, you know, I want to call myself Reformed and, you know, I want to jump on the bandwagon. But when I was really studying this out, I think it's really clear in Scripture that we do not have a truly libertarian autonomous free will. And some passages you can point to to demonstrate this are Romans 8.

So I'll read a little bit here from the English Standard Version. It says, For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit set their minds on the things of the Spirit. For to set the mind on the flesh is death, but to set the mind on the Spirit is life and peace. For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God's law.

Indeed, it cannot. Those who are in the flesh cannot please God. So this says that those who are not in Christ, who have not been born again, who have not been changed by nature, we are enemies to God and we cannot even submit to God's law.

We don't even have truly the desire to submit to God's law. So this is also confirmed in, I should have pulled this up already, but Ephesians 2. So Paul is speaking here, he's continuing from Ephesians 1 where he's speaking of all these blessings that the true believers have in Christ. So Ephesians 2 verse 1 says, And you were dead in trespasses and sins in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience, among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath like the rest of mankind.

So I think these two passages are sufficient enough to show two things. One, that by nature, as a result of the fall, we fall after the lusts of the flesh, we fall after evil. And so that is just what we do, that's what we desire, we desire after these sinful things. And two, that we do not desire to follow God, we do not desire to submit to God.

And we are not even capable of submitting to God. Colossians 2, 1 also says that, well I'll just pull it up so I don't misquote it. So Colossians 2 verse 13, And you who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses. So he says, of the former state before salvation and of the state after salvation.

In the former state they said they were dead in their trespasses and uncircumcision of your flesh. So we're spiritually dead, we're incapable of doing what's pleasing to God. Now this goes back, this is an old view, this isn't something that John Calvin came up with, this goes all the way back to Augustine when he was going against Pelagius. He affirmed the doctrine of original sin and he affirmed the need of God's grace and salvation, that we are completely in bondage to our sinful desires without God's grace. So when you see those two contrasted, Augustine who said that we're born with a sinful nature, we cannot please God, we cannot come to him without grace, and Pelagius who said that we're born basically with a neutral nature, not willing, you know, we're capable of doing good and evil. You see that with those contrasting views you really see that that was why they were so different, and why the church opposed Pelagius. So I personally think that the Scripture is clear that truly free will to do good or to please God is not possible apart from God's grace.

Amen. I really like the statement that we are dead in our trespasses, because just from my LDS perspective, you know, you think about work for the dead. Somebody has to go and do that work for the dead person because a dead person cannot go and get baptized or really do anything, you know. And I don't know if you guys have ever tried to teach a dead corpse, like how to drive or, you know, how to work anything, but it's impossible.

And even if you do 99% of the work, they're never going to pick it up. So, yeah, it just definitely shows that we couldn't do anything. We were completely helpless. We didn't have the free will to just be saved. And it says the same thing in the book of John. You know, Jesus says, no man can come to me except the Father that sent me should draw him. So, you know, God's got to make that move. You know, we don't have that ability.

I mean, I do think there's some agency in our lives, but I think it's just so minimal, like I can decide what I'm going to have for breakfast, you know. But one thing I've been thinking about a little bit too is just all the prophecy, you know, in the Old Testament talking about how Christ would be crucified and what would happen if, you know, the Jews at that time had just, you know, said, you know what, like, let's just use our agency and let's not crucify him. You know, if those prophecies hadn't happened, it would have made God a liar. And yet, you know, those prophecies were made. And, you know, it's just God, he just knew exactly everything that was going to happen and we're powerless to stop any of his plans.

Yeah, that's good. I was listening to, I was raking some leaves earlier this week and while I was doing that, I was listening to James White's The Forgotten Trinity on Audible. And he was working through some biblical passages and it just kind of struck me as I was listening, I thought, and you all know, you know, I've been working through the various, you know, Armenian versus Reformed positions on the question of free will for a while now. But it just kind of struck me, the thought that, you know, at least in my own life, I, before I really knew Jesus, I didn't love God. And I, it just kind of, the thought struck me, you know, no one comes to, no one loves God on their own. And Mormonism kind of presents this default position that, you know, we all come with this blank slate and we want to do good and people are generally good. And I know it can be viewed as a fatalistic position to think that while people are wicked, people are evil, right?

And you don't tend to, in your interactions with most people, you think, man, this person is evil, right? But it's the biblical position that no one comes to faith. No one comes to a love of God on their own.

God works first in their life. And the thought struck me as I was raking leaves that I think even LDS would assent to that position if you presented it to them this way and asked them, how do you, what drew you to God, right? And if it's an LDS person who has had God work in their lives, because I believe there are LDS people who have been born again who have had God work in their lives, if it's an LDS person who has had God work in their lives, they will say, they will talk about how God worked in their lives. And I just think that's interesting that lived experience, in my opinion, shows that no one comes to God on their own, even though there are theologies like LDS theology that kind of asserts that that would happen. And they may counter by pointing to that passage like in Mosiah 3 that says that we have to yield to the enticings of the Holy Spirit.

So I think they would probably say that God is calling all of us, that he's trying to entice us, trying to call us to him, give everybody the opportunity to come to him, and then it's up to us to kind of accept that call. And there are Christians that kind of have that perspective that it's like, that may accept the fact that there is original sin and that we're sinful, but that God is trying to entice everyone by different ways and that it's up to us to choose God. But I think it has to be much more than that, because when we look at those passages, it's not just making a simple choice to go down the correct path. It's like we are just so corrupt by nature that even if we see the right path, we don't want it.

That's not what we want. We love sin by nature. We just want to jump straight into sin, even if we know it hurts us. It's like going through a garden of roses.

It's like we just love those roses so much and we'll get pricked and we'll bleed all over the place, but we just love it so much we just can't get enough of it. And it's not until God actually does something to us to change us so that we actually want to come to God. And another problem too is that there may be those who say they want God or they want peace, but as I said, we're so good at coming up with our own understanding of who God is. If we're not changed by God himself, we'll invent a God that we prefer. We'll choose a God that is more enticing to us, that is more palatable. So we're always finding different ways to kind of appease our guilt or to appease our consciences or to reach some kind of status of peace. But until God actually works in our hearts, we won't actually be able to grasp onto that salvation.

Yeah. And that was the point that James White was talking about on the Audible book I was listening to was just that, that humanity's proneness to create a God of our own choosing, right, and that no one comes to the true God, no one comes to the God revealed in the Bible on their own. They are drawn and no one comes to love that God who is revealed in the Bible on their own. They are drawn into that love by God himself. And that thought just struck me as important when I was listening to that, you know, because if you think about lived experience, so many people may say, you know, oh, well, I'm a good person and I love people and I think there may be a God, but not that God that's in the Bible, right?

And so the thought just struck me. You know, no one comes to that true faith on their own and it's not just, you know, as Michael, you were pointing out with John 6, it's not just that the Bible says that. It's lived experience of talking to people and interacting with people in their quest for faith.

That leads me to that point. And in regards to Messiah 3, Matthew, that was the exact point I was trying to tease out with the question that was posted in one of the boards is that, you know, at what point does a Latter-day Saint become not an enemy? Because, you know, Latter-day Saint theology posits that someone can fall from salvation, right? That if they sin, they can be held responsible for those sins if they don't repent of those sins. And so could fall from salvation. And so I was asking the question, you know, at what point are you no longer an enemy to God?

If the natural man is prone to sin and you can fall from salvation by sinning, at what point in your life are you no longer an enemy to God? And no one touched the question at all. But that was the point of the passage I was trying to kind of tease out there. You know, Paul, I actually asked a question kind of like yours in one of these forums one time, and I was trying to ask them if the church ever does rebaptisms for the dead. And they're like, what are you talking about? I'm like, well, they still have their agency, right? So if they can choose to be baptized in the spirit world, then certainly some of them choose to apostatize, right?

And they didn't like that at all. They're just like, well, you know, we don't know. But I mean, the thing is, like in LDS theology, you're never saved until you've endured to the end. And if there's still agency in the next life, then you've still not reached the end.

And so you're constantly in a state of peril and you can constantly fall. And it's not something they ever think about. You know, they go to the temple and do this work for the dead. And they're just like, okay, their work's been done, like happy endings all around.

And it's like, well, that person still has their agency, so you don't know that. But just to kind of go along with what you were saying, too, I just really like this verse in 1 John 4, verse 10, where it says, Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the perpetuation for our sins. Yeah, I love that verse, too. I've got a part two of my article on why I still love God that covers my kind of first encounter with that passage while I was on my mission.

So you can look forward to reading that. Oh, I do. But it's just kind of interesting here because I think Mormon theology kind of says that, you know, when we love God, He reciprocates that love to us.

But Christianity is none of us love God, and He gives us undeserved love and grace, and that's what opens the door for us to love Him back. Yeah, yeah. We thank you for tuning into this episode of the Outer Brightness Podcast. We'd love to hear from you. Please visit the Outer Brightness Podcast page on Facebook. Feel free to send us a message there with comments or questions by clicking Send a Message at the top of the page, and we would appreciate it if you give the page a like. We also have an Outer Brightness group on Facebook where you can join and interact with us and others as we discuss the podcast, past episodes, and suggestions for future episodes, et cetera. 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, CastBox, Google Podcasts, PocketCasts, 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. Come to me, all you labor. And I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me. For I am gentle and I'm lowly in heart. And you will find rest for your soul. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light. I am the way and the truth. And if you love me, I'll keep my word. I'll make my home in you. No one comes to the Father but through me.

There's nothing and no one else to give. I stand at the door you're hiding behind. Can you hear me?

I'm knocking. Won't you let me inside? And you will find rest for your soul. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light. I am the way and the truth. And if you love me, I'll keep my word. I'll make my home in you.

I'll give my life to set you free. And now I live so that you will be a life in me. And you will find rest for your soul. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light. I am the way and the truth. And if you love me and keep my word. Then you will find rest for your soul. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light.

I am the way and the truth. And if you love me and keep my word. I'll make my home in you. I'll make my home in you. In you.