Mormons and Caffeinated Soft drinks

Related Posts: The Word of Wisdom

Summary: The Mormon code of health is called the Word of Wisdom. It states that we should abstain from “hot drinks,” tobacco, and alcohol; that we should enjoy wholesome foods and eat meat sparingly.

Hot drinks are taken to mean caffeinated coffee and tea. But then, why would coffee and tea be prohibited? It is usually posited that it is their caffeine content. But if they are prohibited because of caffeine then shouldn’t other caffeinated drinks also be avoided? such as Coke and Pepsi? Many Mormons believe so. Others not.

Officially, caffeinated coffee and tea are prohibited. As for Caffeinated sports drinks and colas, some Mormons will tell you the Word of Wisdom prohibits them, others will say not. Your answer will vary from person to person, but officially they are not.
In this post I shall explore the caffeinated soft drinks issue and go a little into its history.

(For a discussion about the caffeine issue see Gregory Smith, “The Word of Wisdom in a Caffeinated World,” at Mormon Times; and “Teas” by Kaimi Wenger at Times & Seasons; and “Health Practices” from LDS Newsroom.)

Read more...

The Word of Wisdom

This post will discuss the Mormon code of health, often referred to as the Word of Wisdom. The historical context in which this code of health came about will be discussed as well as its history from the time it was written to the time it became a requirement for Latter-day Saints, on up to the present time. There is also a strong cultural prohibition against caffeinated soft drinks, but no formal prohibition against them. I will discuss the caffeine issue in a separate post.

Related Posts: Mormons and Caffeinated Soft Drinks

What it says
The revelation called the Word of Wisdom was, according to the section heading, revealed at Kirtland, Ohio on February 27, 1833. The revelation states that we ought to abstain from “hot drinks,” eat meat sparingly, and that we should avoid tobacco and alcohol products. (For the entire revelation see D&C 89:1-21.) Those who adhere to this code are promised “health in their navel and marrow to their bones; And shall find wisdom and great treasures of knowledge, even hidden treasures”; they shall “run and not be weary…walk and not faint.” The Lord then promises, “the destroying angel shall pass by them, as the children of Israel, and not slay them” (D&C 89:18-21).

It also stipulates that “wholesome herbs God hath ordained for the constitution, nature, and use of man.” Of the meat of beasts and birds, “they are to be used sparingly…[and] only in times of winter, or of cold, or famine.” And tobacco “is an herb for bruises and all sick cattle, to be used with judgment and skill,” but it is “not for the body, neither for the belly.”

From early on hot drinks were interpreted as being coffee and tea; because coffee and tea were common and served hot, “hot drinks” seems to have been generally applied to them—I have never heard it interpreted otherwise.[1] It has been posited that the reason behind the prohibition of coffee and tea is that they contain caffeine—the prohibition against tea does not extend to herbal tea, however. As far as decaffeinated coffee is concerned, it would be frowned upon; I don’t know any active Mormon who drinks it. Some interpret the Word of Wisdom as including a prohibition against all caffeinated drinks, soft drinks included. Others believe that “hot drinks” applies only to coffee and tea. However, a Mormon can have a Coke and still obtain a temple recommend (see below).

(For a discussion about the caffeine issue see Gregory Smith, “The Word of Wisdom in a Caffeinated World,” at Mormon Times; and “Teas” by Kaimi Wenger at Times & Seasons; and “Health Practices” from LDS Newsroom.)

Adhering to the Word of Wisdom's proscription of coffee, tea, tobacco, and alcohol is a requirement for holding important positions in the church, as well as for temple attendance. In order to enter a temple a Mormon must have a temple recommend, signed by his bishop and Stake President—during the temple recommend interview the interviewee is asked if he abstains from coffee, tea, tobacco, and alcohol.

Historical context
Though Brigham Young was not present at the time, according to his information the circumstances which brought about the Word of Wisdom were as follows.

The brethren came to that place [Bishop Whitney’s store] for hundreds of miles to attend school in a little room probably no larger than eleven by fourteen. When they assembled together in this room after breakfast, the first they did was to light their pipes, and, while smoking, talk about the great things of the kingdom and spit all over the room, and as soon as the pipe was out of their mouths a large chew of tobacco would then be taken. Often when the Prophet entered the room to give the school instructions he would find himself in a cloud of tobacco smoke. This, and the complaints of his wife at having to clean so filthy a floor, made the Prophet think upon the matter, and he inquired of the Lord relating to the conduct of the Elders in using tobacco, and the revelation known as the Word of Wisdom was the result of his inquiry. (JD, 12:157-158)

But the Word of Wisdom goes beyond tobacco use to include instruction about the use of alcohol, hot drinks, herbs, meat and grain. Clyde Ford makes some very interesting points about this: “If tobacco was the principal question, why does tobacco occupy only one verse? And why are not the chewing and smoking of tobacco specifically mentioned? How does the proper food for an ox relate to Emma’s concern regarding tobacco?” (Ford, 137-138). Some sections of the Word of Wisdom seem to be iterations of previous revelations. It was revealed in 1831 that the sick “shall be nourished with all tenderness, with herbs and mild food” (D&C 42:43). Later that year it was revealed, “the herb, and the good things which come of the earth…in the season thereof, are made for the benefit and the use of man, both to please the eye and to gladden the heart…for unto this end were they made to be used, with judgment, not to excess” (D&C 59:17-20). Both predate the 1833 Word of Wisdom revelation. Ford posits that the Word of Wisdom was compiled from previous revelations; if so that would account for its rather unusual structure. [2], [3]

Much of the advice contained in the Word of Wisdom was, in fact, common medical wisdom of the time. A treatise on diet from 1828 contains the warning,

The art of extracting alcoholic liquors from vinous liquors, must be regarded as the greatest curse ever inflicted upon human nature. The fatal effects of dram-drinking have been vividly depicted by numerous writers; and the awful truth has been too frequently illustrated. (John Ayrton Paris, A Treatise on Diet, p. 289)

Another health book published that year contains this warning, “those who debase themselves by this sordid gratification, are constantly troubled with sickness at stomach…the finer feeling are thus insensibly weakened and subdued...so great are the inroads of this destructive habit upon the mind, that with it, every vice may enter” (James Rymer, A Treatise on Diet and Regimen, 1828, p. 47, italics original). The warning of these physicians is not very different from the one contained in the Word of Wisdom, “inasmuch as any man drinketh wine or strong drink among you, behold it is not good…And, again, strong drinks are not for the belly.” The Word of Wisdom also mentions that strong drinks are “for the washing of your bodies.” Some have interpreted this to mean perfume, which contains alcohol—I’m skeptical about that interpretation. The part about strong drinks being “for the washing of your bodies” is unclear but seems to prescribe alcohol for external cleansing. I haven’t found any references from the period explaining what this was suppose to achieve, but apparently it was an accepted practice of the time. An anti-Mormon book published in 1840 says, “The first [commandment] is, that strong drink is forbid, except as an external application—in this we are inclined measurably to agree with the mandate; but believe there might be reasonable arguments urged in favor of its internal use, under particular circumstances” (E.D. Howe, History of Mormonism, p. 229).

As for tobacco the Word of Wisdom says, “tobacco is not for the body, neither for the belly, and is not good for man, but is an herb for bruises and all sick cattle, to be used with judgment and skill.” Rymer’s book says that tobacco fumes will “stupify the brain, and deaden the invigorating power of the nerves upon the whole bodily system” (p. 45). Apparently tobacco was used as a remedy for bruises: “The first English book on first aid came out in 1633 recommending tobacco as an antidote to poison and as an unguent for wounds or bruises, etc” (Grace G. Stewart, “A history of the medicinal use of tobacco 1492-1860,” Medical History, Vol. 11, No. 3, July 1967, p. 240).[4] Tobacco has been used successfully in treating scab on sheep, cattle, and horses, as well as a treatment for animal parasites generally.[5]

Of eating meats the Word of Wisdom teaches that “the Lord, have ordained [them] for the use of man with thanksgiving; nevertheless they are to be used sparingly…only in times of winter, or of cold, or famine…these hath God made for the use of man only in times of famine and excess of hunger” (D&C 89:12-15). Part of this is common sense: food tended to be scarcer in winter; vegetables were more abundant during summer; meat would keep better in winter. But the general understanding was that meat produced heat, therefore its consumption was favorable during winter. A Physician of that period, Caleb Ticknor, writes,

The question in this place naturally presents itself, whether or not animal food is equally proper at all seasons in a temperate climate. From the fact that animal food is proper and necessary for health in polar regions, and that a vegetable diet is equally proper and necessary in the torrid zone, we may conclude that in winter, in our own climate, an animal diet is the best, while vegetables are more conductive to health in the summer season. And such a conclusion is born out by almost universal experience. (Caleb Ticknor, The Philosophy of Living, 1836, p. 37).

In the opinion of another physician “animal food, though more easily digested than vegetable, is more stimulant to the stomach, and more productive of heat and general excitement” (Ticknor citing a Dr. Jackson of Philadelphia, Ibid., p. 59).[6] This is very similar to the advice contained in the Word of Wisdom: meat should be consumed “only in times of winter, or of cold, or famine” and “Every herb in the season thereof, and every fruit in the season thereof.” However, the advice that meat should be used sparingly didn’t seem to have strong support from physicians of the time.[7]

The Word of Wisdom says, “hot drinks are not for the body or belly.” But there is no specification as to the exact meaning of “hot drinks.” Because coffee and tea were quite common it seems to have meant those two drinks. But it should be pointed out that in the contemporary view of the early nineteenth century any hot beverage was generally considered to be detrimental to one’s health. Paris writes, “fluids heated much above the temperature of the body are equally injurious: it is true that they will frequently, from their stimulus, afford present relief; but it will always be at the expense of future suffering, and be compensated by subsequent debility” (A Treatise on Diet, p. 156). Combe writes, “The temperature at which liquids are taken is a matter of perhaps greater consequence than it is usually considered. As regards the teeth, we have already seen that either very cold or very hot substances coming in contact with them are apt to be injurious. As regards the stomach, the same principle hold true.”[8] Also, “Liquids, such as soup, tea, and coffee, taken at a very high temperature, also are injurious, but not to the same degree [as cold liquids]. They relax the mucous membrane and weaken the action of the muscular coat, and in so far tend to impair digestion” (pp. 272-276). (Physicians of the time also viewed cold drinks as possibly fatal if taken after strenuous exercise.[9])

From principle to commandment
Though adherence to the Word of Wisdom was “not by commandment or constraint” it is nevertheless the “will of God in the temporal salvation of all saints in the last days.” Throughout the nineteenth century it was seen as strong advice, but not a requirement. Indeed, in 1836 Joseph Smith attended a wedding during which, he records, “We then partook of some refreshments, and our hearts were made glad with the fruit of the vine. This is according to the pattern set by our Savior Himself, and we feel disposed to patronize all the institutions of heaven” (CHC, Vol. 2, p. 369). Brigham Young’s policy was to walk a fine line between preaching adherence and leaving people free to choose. In 1865 he preached, “Let us raise our own tobacco, or quit using it…The Lord gave me strength to lay aside tobacco, and it is very rarely indeed that I taste tea or coffee; yet I have no objection to aged persons, when they are fatigued and feel infirm, taking a little stimulus that will do them good” (JD 11:140-141). In 1860 he said, “Many of the brethren chew tobacco, and I have advised them to be modest about it…Do not glory in this disgraceful practice. If you must use tobacco, put a small portion in your mouth when no person sees you, and be careful that no one sees you chew it. I do not charge you with sin. You have the ‘Word of Wisdom.’ Read it…It is, at least, disgraceful to you to expose your absurdities” (JD 8:362).

Throughout the nineteenth century the saints were committed and recommitted to more strictly adhere to the Word of Wisdom’s prohibitions against alcohol, tea, tobacco, and coffee. But it nevertheless remained “not by commandment” and had never been a test of fellowship. Reportedly at a conference in 1851 Brigham Young “rose to put the motion and called on all the sisters who will eave off the use of Tea, Coffee, etc., to manifest it by raising the right hand…And then put the following motion; calling on all the boys who were under ninety years of age who would covenant to leave off the use of Tobacco, Whiskey and all things mentioned in the Word of Wisdom to manifest it in like manner” (Frontier Guardian, Vol. 3, No. 22, November 28, 1851; cited from McCue p. 67). In 1859 he said “it is my positive counsel and command that drinking liquor be stopped…In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, I command the Elders of Israel-those who have been in the habit of getting drunk to cease drinking strong drink from this time henceforth, until you really need it…As I have already requested, I now again request the authorities of this Church in their various localities to sever from this society those who will not cease getting drunk” (JD 7:338).[10]

That it was “not by commandment” is affirmed by Brigham Young in a sermon given October 30, 1870: “In some respects we have to define it for ourselves—each for himself—according to our own views, judgment and faith, and the observance of the Word of Wisdom…must be left, partially, with the people…We cannot say you shall never drink a cup of tea, or you shall never taste of this, or you shall never taste of that; but we can say that Wisdom is justified of her children” (JD 14:20.) Heber J. Grant (b. 1856; ordained an apostle in 1882 and President of the Church in 1918; d. 1945) is a good illustration of how the Word of Wisdom was viewed by average devout Mormons. As a young man (before he became an Apostle) in an effort to gain weight so that he could get a life insurance policy to protect his mother, he began drinking beer on the advice of a doctor.

At first Heber found beer “bitter and distasteful”…But he quickly acquired both a business and a personal taste for it. Within a year, he secured the fire insurance business of most Salt Lake City saloons and Utah breweries, an additional ten pounds, and a growing relish for the savor of hops. His daily four-glass limit became five, and occasionally grew to six.

He warred with his acute sense of conscience. Rereading the Word of Wisdom, he resolved to abandon his drinking and place his health and his mother's future with the Lord, “insurance or no insurance.” But resolutions were easier made than kept. “I wanted some [beer] so bad that I drank it again,” he confessed. Finally…he overcame his obsession and ceased drinking. As quickly, he lost his trade with the saloons and breweries of the Territory. (Ronald W. Walker, “Young Heber J. Grant's Years of Passage,” BYU Studies, Vol. 24, No. 2, Spring 1984)

As the twentieth century approached preaching on the Word of Wisdom became stricter as to adherence, especially for church officers. In 1894, President Wilford Woodruff, said, “The Word of Wisdom applies to Wilford Woodruff, the President of the Church, and it applies to all the leaders of Israel, as well as to the members of the Church; and if there are any of these leading men who cannot refrain from using tobacco or liquor in violation of the Word of Wisdom, let them resign, and let others take their places” (Collected Discourses, Vol. 4, October 7, 1894). In 1897 Apostle George Q Cannon said, “I am today at my present age, and I never have drunk tea and coffee. I scarcely know the taste of either tea or coffee, and I have never touched tobacco, nor anything intoxicating” (Ibid., Vol. 5, January 1, 1897). In 1902 the First Presidency and Twelve Apostles made it a rule not to fellowship those who operated saloons (Alexander, 79). Alexander writes, “In the same year, Joseph F. Smith urged stake presidents and others to refuse recommends to flagrant violators but to be somewhat liberal with old men who used tobacco and old ladies who drank tea. Habitual drunkards, however, were to be denied temple recommends…By mid-1905, members of the Twelve were actively using stake conference visits to promote adherence…In keeping with the change in emphasis, the First Presidency and Twelve substituted water for wine in the sacrament in their temple meetings…beginning July 5, 1906” (Ibid.).[11] In the decade prior to Heber J. Grant’s administration the Word of Wisdom enjoyed greater emphasis than in times past, but after 1918 it was more strictly enforced. According to Alexander adherence to the Word of Wisdom became a requirement for temple privileges in 1921 (p. 82). (See also “Word of Wisdom,” Encyclopedia of Mormonism.) The General Handbook of Instructions from 1933 instructed bishops that members seeking temple privileges “should observe the law of tithing…observe all other principles of the Gospel, [and] should keep the Word of Wisdom” (Alexander, 82).

Moving toward stricter adherence began in the late nineteenth century and overlapped with the national temperance movement in the United States. The Mormons were latecomers to the national prohibition movement which was spearheaded by evangelical Protestants. However when temperance became a national issue church authorities generally supported prohibition laws. (Though B. H. Roberts, a Seventy, fought prohibition laws and supported their repeal.)[12] National prohibition was created by the Eighteenth Amendment which was passed on October 28, 1919 and went into force January of the following year. The Twenty-first Amendment that ended it was passed in 1933. The timing of Utah’s convention was such that it was the state which gave the three-fourths majority necessary for ratification. Thus on December 5, 1933 at 5:32 pm EST, Utah became the state that ended prohibition (“Liquor Milestone,” Time Magazine, Dec. 11, 1933). The London Star’s headlines were “The Deciding Vote by Latter Day Saints,” and the London Evening News' was “Prohibition is dead—The Mormons Killed it—Whoopee—Happy Days Are Here Again” (“Last Mile,” Time Magazine, Nov. 20, 1933)—Apparently Great Britain exported a lot of alcohol to the United States. But even without Utah’s vote prohibition was doomed. Had Utah voted dry, Kentucky’s vote would have ended it, Kentucky having voted a week earlier to end it but had not yet had a constitutional convention to make it official (Ibid.). In Utah the vote clearly favored ending prohibition, 99,943 to 62,437 (Kearnes). In analyzing the vote Larry Earl Nelson found that of the seventeen rural counties only four voted to repeal; of the twelve urban counties nine voted to repeal. In twelve of the counties voting for repeal 55 percent of the population were Mormons (Kearnes).[13]

An economic interpretation
Mormon essayist and educator Leonard J. Arrington (1917 - 1999) makes a very good case that one of the reasons behind preaching adherence to the Word of Wisdom was economic. In 1861 Brigham Young complained “We annually expend…$60,000 to break the ‘Word of Wisdom’” (JD 9:31). In 1867 Wilford Woodruf said, “Very few of us have kept the Word of Wisdom; but I have no doubt that if the counsel of President Young were carried out it would save the people of this Territory a million of dollars annually” (JD 11:369).[14] The reason for this frugality was partly that, in the frontier, goods were scarce: tobacco, coffee, and tea were seen as luxuries. But even after Utah became economically integrated to the rest of the nation this view endured. In 1926 Heber J. Grant said, “let me say right here that I am convinced beyond the shadow of a doubt that if the Latter-day Saints had observed the Word of Wisdom, and if the money that has been worse than wasted for tea, coffee, tobacco and liquor, had been utilized for missionary service, we would have had the millions of dollars for the work of the Lord” (Conference Report, October 1926, p. 7).[15]

When Sunday school lessons on the Word of Wisdom are taught, often the great expense of tobacco and alcohol consumption are mentioned, along with testimonies of the money saved by adhering to the Word of Wisdom. One of the purposes of the Word of Wisdom is “the temporal salvation of all saints in the last days” (D&C 89:2).

What is it like today?
Today the usual prohibitions of tobacco, alcohol, coffee and tea are maintained. But the Word of Wisdom is often mentioned in conjunction with other addictive or harmful substances. Elder Boyd K Packer (Apostle) said,

Members write in asking if this thing or that is against the Word of Wisdom. It’s well known that tea, coffee, liquor, and tobacco are against it…There are many habit-forming, addictive things that one can drink or chew or inhale or inject which injure both body and spirit which are not mentioned in the revelation…Everything harmful is not specifically listed; arsenic, for instance—certainly bad, but not habit-forming! He who must be commanded in all things, the Lord said, “is a slothful and not a wise servant” (D&C 58:26). (President Boyd K. Packer, “The Word of Wisdom: The Principle and the Promises,” Ensign, May 1996.)

President Gordon B. Hinckley (d. 2008) said,

Pornography is one of the hallmarks of our time. Its producers grow rich on the gullibility of those who like to watch it. In the opening lines of the revelation which we call the Word of Wisdom, the Lord declares: “In consequence of evils and designs which do and will exist in the hearts of conspiring men in the last days, I have warned you, and forewarn you, by giving unto you this word of wisdom by revelation” (D&C 89:4). (President Gordon B. Hinckley, “Loyalty,” Ensign, May 2003.)

Concluding remarks
The practical health benefits of abstaining from alcohol and tobacco, coffee and tea, are obvious. The collective health benefits are something Mormons are quite proud of. (See William T. Stephenson, “Cancer, Nutrition, and the Word of Wisdom: One Doctor’s Observations,” Ensign, July 2008 and Clifford J. Stratton, “The Xanthines: Coffee, Cola, Cocoa, and Tea,” BYU Studies, Vol. 20, No. 4, Summer 1980)—It's also a point of pride that BYU has been #1 on the Princeton Review's list of stone-cold sober universities for the past 11 years (see BYU NewsNet; here). However tobacco and alcohol promote chronic disease, which was not a major cause of death until the twentieth century. Lester E. Bush pointed out: “First, the major impact of the Word of Wisdom appears to be on chronic diseases of adulthood such as cancer and heart disease, aliments of relatively little impact in the nineteenth century—because people didn’t live long enough to die from them…Second, the largest single demonstrated factor in favor of twentieth-century Mormon longevity is the failure of Mormons to smoke cigarettes, a custom that became commonplace in America only after the invention of cigarette making machinery very late in the nineteenth century. In many important areas of health…it is not so much that Mormons do ‘better,’ but rather that non-Mormons now collectively do worse” (Bush, 59).

But even so, the timing of the change of the Word of Wisdom from being a principle to a commandment can be seen as providential. Bush points out,

Circumstances changed around the turn of the century in such a way that its guidelines could unquestionably promote better physical health (i.e., there was more cigarette smoking and less serious infectious disease). That this development—the implications of which were not apparent to the medical scientists for decades—coincided with a decision by the church leadership to require firm adherence of the Word of Wisdom is quite remarkable. It may well represent their most demonstrably prescient insight to date in helping assure that the “destroy angel” of disease will “pass us by” (Bush, 60).

Journal Articles about the Word of Wisdom

Gary J. Bergera, “Has the Word of Wisdom Changed Since 1833?,” Sunstone , Vol. 10, July 1985.

Clyde Ford, “The Origin of the Word of Wisdom,” Journal of Mormon History, Vol. 24, No. 2, Fall 1998.

Lester E. Bush, “The Word of Wisdom in Early Nineteenth-Century Perspective,” Dialogue, Vol. 14, No. 3, Autumn 1981.

Robert J. McCue, “Did the Word of Wisdom Become a Commandment in 1851?,” Dialogue, Vol. 14, No. 3, Autumn 1981.

Thomas G. Alexander, “The Word of Wisdom: From Principle to Requirement,” Dialogue, Vol. 14, No. 3, Autumn 1981.

Leonard J. Arrington, “An Economic Interpretation of the ‘Word of Wisdom,’” BYU Studies, Vol. 1, Winter 1959.

John Kearnes, “Utah, Sexton of Prohibition,” Utah Historical Quarterly, Volume 47, 1979.

Brent G. Thompson, “‘Standing between Two Fires’: Mormons and Prohibition’: 1908-1917,” Journal of Mormon History, Vol. 10, 1983.



End Notes_________________________

[1] An 1868 issue of the American Phrenological Journal contains a short a response to a question.

“A number of your subscribers would like to have your opinion, through the columns of the Journal, upon the following subject. The people of this Territory--Utah--are making strenuous efforts to abandon the pernicious habit of drinking tea and coffee. Persons who have been in the habit of drinking those beverages twice, and sometimes three times a day, find it hard to partake of a meal on a cold winter day without the accustomed beverage.
“Do you think it necessary in our cold climate that we should drink hot or warm drink of any kind? or, in other words, does the system, when in health, require hot or warm drinks to give tone to it, or to create an artificial heat sufficient to withstand the inclemency of our cold winter season.

“Ans. Tea and coffee are simply luxuries, not necessary to health or life. Hot drinks are injurious. More colds are contracted in consequence of the general habit of using them, than from almost any other one cause. The sugar and the cream used in tea and coffee are nutritious, and therefore food. But neither tea nor coffee afford anything which can prolong life. No harm can come from their total abandonment.
“If one's stomach has been accustomed to hot tea or coffee for years, it may not be best to drop it at once; but lessen its strength from day to day till reduced to water with the sugar and cream. Then, instead of pouring it down hot from the pot, let it cool--and in time pure cold water will be relished as well, and to an unperverted appetite, better than any mixture. Try it. (here)

[2] Ford concludes, “the Word of Wisdom is complex and possibly not a literary unity. The three main parts were not necessarily received at the same time, may not have been addressed to the same group, or probably were not responding to the same issues…Comparing the revelations in the Book of Commandments (1833) and the Doctrine and Covenants (1835) easily establishes the fact that the Prophet Joseph Smith expanded some revelations after they were originally received (e.g., D&C 7, 27). Furthermore, other sections of the Doctrine and Covenants appear to be compilations of two or more individual revelations” (Ford, 153)

[3] The unusual structure becomes apparent after a careful reading. Verse nine says “And again, hot drinks are not for the body or belly.” The words “and again” are confusing: are they to mean a repetition of things “not for the body or belly”? If not, why are “hot drinks” not mentioned previously? Verse 17 says that barley is “for all useful animals, and for mild drinks, as also other grain.” Is this intended to give an OK to alcoholic beverages made from barley? such as beer? It has never been interpreted that way; the proscription of strong drinks seems to include all alcoholic beverages, except for the use of wine in the sacrament which must be locally made. Also, the opening, “for the benefit of the council of high priests, assembled in Kirtland, and the church, and also the saints in Zion,” seems redundant. Simply saying that it was intended for all the saints would be sufficient. Also, it has been noted by several authors that the introduction (verses 1-3) was not an original part of the revelation. Those three verses were originally part of the chapter heading (Ford, footnote 8). For example, the 1852 edition of the Doctrine and Covenants:

Ford points out: “Note that ‘Amen’ and ‘Even so, Amen’ end many of the revelations. Some sections of the current LDS Doctrine and Covenants have these endings in the middle as well as at the end of the revelation, suggesting that two or more original revelations have been combined. Often the next verse begins with: ‘And again.’ Examples include Sections 30, 72, 75, 96, 124. Other sections, such as 88, are also composite (see heading of section.)” (See footnote 77 in Ford).

[4] A home remedy book from 1885 says, “[Tobacco] not only seems to cure all cases of bruises, sprains, wounds, bunions, corns, sore throats, erysipelas of the dead or face, sore eyes, etc., but the suddenness of the cures is most remarkable” (Thomas Lanier Clingman, The Tobacco Remedy, 1885, p. 24).

[5] An edition of the New England Farmer, Saturday, April 26, 1823, here; “Tobacco dips for Sheep Scab,” The Farmers Bulletins (1913), from the U.S. Department of Agriculture; The Sportsman’s Dictionary (1807), p. 102, here; Medical and Veterinary Entomology (1915), “Bovine Scabies”; Journal of the Royal Agricultural Society of England, Vol. 19, 1858, p.149).

[6] Here Dr. Ticknor is quoting Dr. Jackson who in Ticknor’s opinion was “second to no medical man in this country.”

[7] “It may be considered to be proved by general experience, that animal food is more nourishing than vegetable food” (The Philosophy of Living by Herbert Mayo p. 54). And, “The preceding examples are valuable as showing the impressions of practical persons upon the questions of what diet is the most nourishing, what the least so. We seem authorized to concluded that meats contain the most nutriment, milk and eggs the next, the best farinaceous food the next, fish the next, vegetables the least” (p. 58). As to meats versus vegetables Ticknor writes, “The extend to which we may indulge, I have no disposition to limit by certain fixed abstract ‘rules.’ This I leave for each person to settle, in the first place, with his conscience, in the second, with his health, and in the third, with his purse. (The Philosophy of Living, p. 63, italics original).

[8] As to teeth Paris writes, “It is a popular idea that hot liquids injure the teeth. I entertain great doubts upon the subject” (p. 157).

[9] Combe notes that, “It is well known, for example, that a copious draught of cold water, taken in a state of perspiration and fatigue, is often instantly fatal” (p. 273).

[10] In 1867 Brigham Young said,

We, for instance, exhort the Saints to observe the Word of Wisdom, that they may, through its observance, enjoy the promised blessing…What did we drink hot when that Word of Wisdom was given? Tea and coffee. It definitely refers to that which we drink with our food…the Spirit whispers to me to call upon the Latter-day Saints to observe the Word of Wisdom, to let tea, coffee, and tobacco alone, and to abstain from drinking spirituous drinks. (JD 12:117)

[11] The wording in the word of wisdom gives approval of the use of wine when “assembling yourselves together to offer up your sacraments” and that it should be “pure wine of the grape of the vine, of your own make.” A revelation from 1830 says “it mattereth not what ye shall eat or what ye shall drink when ye partake of the sacrament, if it so be that ye do it with an eye single to my glory” (D&C 27:2).

[12] B.H. Roberts writes to Elder Rugder Clawson president of the Quorum of Twelve Apostles,

All this gives me the opportunity of saying that to my way of thinking there is no connection between state prohibition and our Word of Wisdom. State prohibition is based on compulsion as all human-made laws must be, while the Word of Wisdom is just what its name implies, namely a Word of Counsel from the Lord as to what is good for all his saints, but it is not given by way of “compulsion” or “constraint”; and certainly does not rest upon physical force as state prohibition does and must do if it continues. (Roberts to Clawson, September 20, 1933. Typescript copy in Special Collections Library, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah; cited from Kearnes)

[13] Around 1911 the population of Salt Lake County was only 40.3% Mormons (Thompson, 43).

[14] Another example is from Brigham Young: “Speaking of the completion of this railroad, I am anxious to see it…’But,’ says one, ‘we shall not have any money.’ Yes, we shall, if you and I observe the Word of Wisdom, we shall have plenty of it” (JD 12:54-55).

[15] Later in the twentieth century Apostle John A. Widstoe counseled, “Humanity has need for the warning and help offered by the Word of Wisdom…There is too much poverty, because money is spent for things injurious to the body…There is not enough faith; not enough prayer…by obedience to the Word of Wisdom they may be corrected” (The Word of Wisdom: A Modern Interpretation, p. 248, 1950).

The Godhead: God or Gods?

In this post I will explore the LDS concept of the Godhead and God, and give a justification for our use of monotheistic language.

Related Posts: The Nature of Christ ; Whom do we Worship? ; The Trinity ; Is Mormonism Christian? ; The First Vision ; Whence God? Talking about God

Tritheism
Our first article of faith says, “We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost” (AoF 1:1). These persons constitute the Godhead. Along with our Christian cousins we believe Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are distinct from each other. Where we differ is in how we constitute the persons of the Godhead, both individually and as God. The orthodox Godhead consists of one divine essence; the persons of the Trinity are of this essence; thus each is God. It would thus be inappropriate to think of the Godhead as a tripartite counsel: for there is only one God. In the Mormon view the Godhead is definitely tritheistic—it consist of three beings who is each a God. Joseph Smith taught,

[An] everlasting covenant was made between three personages before the organization of this earth…[they] are called God the first, the Creator; God the second, the Redeemer; and God the third, the witness or Testator. (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 190)

On another occasion he said that Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, “constitute three distinct personages and three Gods” (Ibid., p. 370). Thus we sometimes talk of the Godhead as a presidency. Elder Bruce R. McConkie (Apostle; d. 1985) wrote, “Three glorified, exalted, and perfected personages comprise the Godhead or supreme presidency of the universe” (“Godhead,” Mormon Doctrine). LDS Apostle Orson Pratt (d. 1881) explained it this way,

The Godhead may be illustrated by a council, consisting of three men-all possessing equal wisdom, knowledge and truth, together with equal qualifications in every respect. Each person would be a separate distinct person or substance from the other two, and yet the three would form but one council. Each alone possesses, by supposition, the same wisdom and truth that the three united or the one council possesses. (Cited from B. H. Roberts, Seventy's Course in Theology, Vol. 5, p. 45 )

Divine Unity
Though we believe the Godhead consists of three distinct persons, each a God, it is taken for granted that they share an intimate unity. The Encyclopedia of Mormonism (EOM) says,

Jesus’ declarations that he and the Father are “one,” and to know one is to know the other, indicate that the unity or “oneness” of the Godhead—in purpose and mind and testifying of one another—is of primary worth and seems to diminish the importance of making distinctions among its members. (“God the Father: Names and Titles”)

In researching for this post I found that General Authorities often used words like union, harmony, indwelling, oneness, and divine nature when describing the internal unity of the members of the Godhead. B. H. Roberts (General Authority; d. 1933) wrote, “This oneness is…a oneness of mind, of knowledge, of wisdom, of purpose, of will.” According to Roberts the meaning of this oneness is found in Jesus’ prayer, “That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us” (John 17:21). According to Roberts, “as Jesus found the indwelling Spirit of God within himself, so he would have that same Spirit indwelling in his disciples…and in this way become of one mind, actuated by one will…this is the explanation of the mystery of the oneness both of the Godhead and of the disciples” (The Mormon Doctrine of Deity, Ch. 2).

But if the Godhead is tritheistic why do we talk about God and not Gods? Robert’s explanation represents typical Mormon thinking, but it falls short of explaining our monotheistic language. The same EOM article says, “Among Latter-day Saints, the title ‘God’ generally identifies God the Father. Occasionally, God may refer to the unified Godhead of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost (cf. 2 Ne. 31:21; D&C 20:28) and at times to each member individually (AF, pp. 159-63)” (Ibid.). When we talk of God we often intended to mean the Father, or Son, or (rarely) Holy Ghost, or (very rarely) the Godhead. What the EOM omits is the fact that Mormons frequently talk of God in the sense of God-as-a-person, lacking any identifying qualification. It is purely monotheistic language. Simply pointing out that the oneness “is of primary worth” and that there is a “diminish[ed]…importance of making distinctions” does not explain enough. I once asked my LDS roommate who we worship. He quickly replied, “God.” (See Whom Do We Worship?)

So how can we speak of God when we believe there are three Gods in the Godhead? Similar language is found in the Book of Mormon. This passage from the book of Alma mentions God the Father, and then says that Father, Son, and Holy Ghost is one God. We are “arraigned before the bar of Christ the Son, and God the Father, and the Holy Spirit, which is one Eternal God” (Alma 11:44). This indicates that the Father has primacy; but also that Father, Son, and Holy Ghost constitute an Eternal God. Other passages also express unity in the Godhead. In 3 Nephi chapter 11, “the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost are one” (3 Nephi 11:27); and in 2 Nephi the doctrine of Christ is the only true doctrine “of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, which is one God” (2 Nephi 31:21). So how can we justify our monotheistic language? A passage from the book of Mosiah is illustrative. The prophet Abinadi taught that the Father and Son are “one God, yea, the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth” (Mosiah 15:4). The transition from Father and Son, to them being “one God…the Eternal Father” indicates that though separate there is divine unity. In the case of Abinadi’s statement, their unity is such that in relation to heaven and earth they are “the Eternal Father.” Their oneness is relational: In isolation there can be no unity. But their uniqueness is also relational: There is no father without a son. In a similar sense, the judgment bar consists of God the Father, Christ the Son, and the Holy Spirit; and being thusly united they are designated as “one Eternal God.” And in the doctrine “of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost,” thusly united they are “one God.” Their oneness is typically mentioned with qualifications of “the Father of,” “the true doctrine of,” “the bar of,” or in connection with the baptismal formula (3 Nephi 11:25-27), or bearing witness (3 Nephi 11:36; Ether 5:4), or singing praises (Mormon 7:7).

Monotheistic Language
This is my way of understanding our “nondescript” monotheistic language. When the Gods of the Godhead determine a course of action, it is not three separate judgments which have the same conclusion. There is only one judgment, the judgment of God (Alma 58:9; 2 Nephi 25:3; D&C 19:12-13). Though each person of the Godhead loves us with perfect love, their love is not three separate loves that happen to agree. Because of their unity it is only God’s love (1 John 4:7-8; 2 Cor. 9:7). Similarly, because of their intimate unity we can speak of the mind of God (Moses 4:6), the will of God (2 Nephi 10:24), “God who knoweth all things” (Mormon 8:17), and the work of God (D&C 8:8). The same is true for the goodness of God, the commandments of God, the mercy of God, the justice of God, the power of God, the plan of God, the anger of God, the voice of God, the gift of God, the righteousness of God, and the greatness of God—which are all scriptural phrases. Also, the church is not co-owned by the three persons of the Godhead. They preside in a unitive harmony. So we have the “church and fold of God” (2 Nephi 9:2). Because of their unity they cannot act inharmoniously. So Nephi is justified in saying, “God hath been my support” (2 Nephi 4:20). And so is Alma in saying, “O God, thou hast been merciful unto me, and heard my cries” (Alma 33:9).

Because the Godhead consists of three divine persons who act with unitive harmony we are comfortable with passages such as, “the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent” (John 17:3); “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God” (John 1:1-2); Jesus Christ is the “Only Begotten of the Father” (Alma 5:48) and also the “Son of God” (Matt. 16:16); in Christ the “entire fullness of God’s nature dwells bodily” (HCSB, Col. 2:9); and “For the Father himself loveth you, because ye have loved me, and have believed that I came out from God” (John 16:27).

The source of our monotheistic language is our understanding of the divine harmony that is present in the Godhead. I see our use of the word ‘God’ as a blurring of the individual natures of the persons of the Godhead focusing on their shared attributes. It is not a mere personification of common attributes or an anthropogenic description of unity. Our monotheistic language is not empty. In many ways they act as one. God may be then thought of as a strong synonym for the united Godhead. And being thusly united we may speak of God --a sort of cursive God. For example, this verse from the Doctrine and Covenants, “Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are one God, infinite and eternal, without end” (D&C 20:28).

Social Trinity
Some people are under the impression that we believe in a social trinity.[1] On occasion our monotheistic language coupled with our doctrine of the Godhead seems to beg social trinitarianism. But even though our language sometimes approaches it, our theology does not. Social trinitarians argue passionately that a social trinity is not tritheistic. But in the Mormon conception the Godhead consists of three beings who is each a God, who in many ways think and act as one; the exact nature of their unity has never been made explicit, but one could say it is more like a tritheistic social trinity. Because the exact nature of their unity is unclear there is room for personal belief and a few Mormons have adopted a social trinity for their model of the Godhead God.[2] But even so, there are differences in language. Social trinitarians would be comfortable with “there are three persons in the Godhead, each fully divine.” Whereas a Mormon would say, “there are three persons in the Godhead, each a God.” I suppose if one wanted to downplay “a God” to mean “a divine person” then our monotheistic language would be along the lines of a social trinity; I’m not sure there is a difference between being fully divine and being a God—one criticism of the social trinity is that it is tritheistic leaning. Personally, I think their unity is such that our monotheistic language is justified, but I do not adopt social trinitarianism.

Summary
There are a few parallels between the Mormon conception of the Godhead and the traditional Christian one: both consist of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; the Son is “subordinate” to the Father, and the Holy Ghost “subordinate” to the Father and Son; and they are distinct from each other.[3] The starkest difference is that we believe there are three Gods in the Godhead. In the traditional Godhead Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are of the same substance: hence the Athanasian Creed says, “we are forbidden…to say, There are three Gods,” and emphasizes that there is “neither confounding the Persons nor dividing the Substance.” In the Mormon conception the members of the Godhead are not of the same substance: “The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost…is a personage of Spirit” (D&C 130:22).

Ultimately our understanding of the unity of the Godhead is limited by the fact that describing the divine is drawn from and limited by human experience and language. Because knowledge of God is revealed—not derived—our language is heavily analogical. When it comes to comprehending the nature of God, we see “through a glass, darkly” and “know in part” (1 Cor. 13:12); we can only partially apprehend the interior life and unity of the Godhead.




End Notes_____________________________
[1] Cornelius Plantinga, Jr. has described three conditions for sound social trinitarianism:

“(1) The theory must have Father, Son, and Spirit as distinct centers of knowledge, will, love, and action. Since each of these capacities requires consciousness, it follows that, on this sort of theory, Father, Son, and Spirit would be viewed as distinct centers of consciousness or, in short, as persons in some full sense of that term. (2) Any accompanying sub-theory of divine simplicity must be modest enough to be consistent with condition (1), that is, with the real distinctness of Trinitarian persons….(3) Father, Son, and spirit must be regarded as tightly enough related to each other so as to render plausible the judgment that they constitute a particular social unit. In such social monotheism, it will be appropriate to use the designator God to refer to the whole Trinity” (“Social Trinity and Tritheism,” Trinity, incarnation, atonement: philosophical and theological essays, p. 22; italics original).

[2] Blake Ostler has argued that “a more adequate and consistent understanding of God in Mormon scriptures is Social Trinitarianism” (“Re-vision-ing the Mormon Concept of Deity,” Element, Vol. 1, No. 1). See also Jacob Hawken's Philosophy Blog and Mormon Metaphysics.

[3] I am basing this on the Westminster Confession,

In the unity of the Godhead there be three persons, of one substance, power, and eternity; God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost (Matt. 3:16-17; Matt. 28:19; 2 Cor. 13:14; 1 John 5:7). The Father is of none, neither begotten, nor proceeding: the Son is eternally begotten of the Father: the Holy Ghost eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son (John 1:14, John 1:18). (WC 2:3)

Fall of Man Part II

Fall of Man Part II

Defense of the Doctrine

Related Posts: The Fall of Man Part I ; Creation Ex Nihilo ; Omniscience ; Election ; Doctrine of Agency

As I mentioned at the end of my previous post (The Fall of Man Part I), our doctrine of the fall of man presents a dilemma for the believing Mormon. We believe that the following state of affairs existed in the garden of Eden. Adam and Eve were given the two commandments (1) don’t eat the forbidden fruit and (2) multiply and replenish the earth, and that (2) couldn’t have been done without breaking (1). To most people this would seem contradictory; in fact many Mormons refer to the “conflicting commandments” given in Eden. But then, how could God give a commandment to Adam and Eve and want them to break it? Did God want them to sin? It appears that the LDS belief about the state of affairs in Eden lacks coherence. What is needed is an explication of the coherence of that state of affairs.

The approach I shall take is a simple one. If there is a proposition p and another proposition q, and p and q appear to be quite incompatible, then believing in both p and q tends to reflect badly on the believer. In order to claim consistency all that is needed is another proposition r that includes p and entails q. Further, this idea only needs to be plausible. If so, then one may more easily believe in both p and q. (I came across this approach in Alvin Plantinga's Free Will Defense. See The Nature of Necessity chapter 9.) For Mormons the apparently inconsistent beliefs of (1) and (2) are in question. Though a Mormon might reject the overall premise of my defense, if it holds up to scrutiny then even in disbelief he may still claim (1) and (2) are consistent—the idea only needs to be plausible.

At the end of this post I also include some short quotes about how other faiths view the fall of man; but only for the purpose of illustrating where the LDS doctrine fits into the various schema of fall of man doctrines.

I shall accept on the authority of scripture the following things: Adam and Eve could not have had children before the fall (2 Nephi 2:23) and they could not know the difference between good and evil without eating the forbidden fruit (Moses 5:11). I do not discuss much the physical effects of the fall—physical death, separation from God—because I don’t need them for my argument.

The Defense

Because Adam and Eve’s situation in the garden was uncomplicated (see footnote 5) the following generalization is reasonable and sufficient for my argument.

Firstly, in LDS beliefs some commandments are more important than others, and some sins are more egregious than others.[1] This can be seen in the two types of commandments: ones that say thou shalt and ones that say thou shalt not. Generally thou shalts are the higher laws, by which I mean they point us towards a greater good. They also require effort. If I want to obey the precept cloth the naked, feed the hungry, and visit the sick, I have to be up and doing. On the other hand, obeying thou shalt nots does not always require effort. It’s easy to obey the commandment “thou shalt not kill” if I waste my life with video games. But just the opposite is true when breaking commandments. Neglecting charitable acts is easy if I waste my life with video games, but to break the command “thou shalt not kill” I have to be up and doing. The consequences are interesting. To repent of neglecting charity I must make an effort to live a more virtuous life. But to repent of breaking a thou shalt not commandment is not always simple—I can’t unto murder. So the following generalizations can be made. (i) Thou shalts are generally a higher form of good—visiting the sick, clothing the naked, etc. (ii) Obeying thou shalt nots generally amounts to less good than (i) because obedience can be realized by wasting one’s life. (iii) Breaking thou shalt nots typically amounts to a very great evil—stealing, killing, adultery, and so forth. (iv) Breaking thou shalt commandments generally amounts to less evil than (iii) because repentance means living a more virtuous life. These combinations of obedience and disobedience can be ranked from worst to best. (See figure above.)

I make this point because there are higher laws; some commandments are more important than others. And obedience to a given commandments it not always meaningful.

(A lot more could be said about this. See footnote [2]. See also The Mormon concept of Heaven[s] for a little more on thou shalt and thou shalt not commandments.)

Most Mormons understand Adam and Eve’s dilemma as strictly a choice between (1) don’t eat the forbidden fruit and (2) multiply and replenish the earth. They tend to see (1) and (2) in terms of mutual exclusion. But I believe there is more to it than that. Because one commandment couldn’t be obeyed without breaking the other these two commandments intersected, creating a new choice, a choice for which no specific commandment was given. The choice created by their intersection becomes (3) to not eat the forbidden fruit, and to not multiply and replenish the earth, and (4) eat the forbidden fruit and multiply and replenish the earth. God did not tell them how to choose, but (3) can be realized by spending eternity playing Mario Brothers. [3] Only (4) involves meaningful obedience: “Adam fell that men might be, and men are that they might have joy.” In other words, if two commandments A and B intersect, if one cannot be obeyed without breaking the other, it is no longer a choice between A and B. It is a choice of (A and not-B) or (B and not-A). The intersection results in a new synthesis. As for Adam and Eve, this new state of affairs includes the conjunctive alternatives of (3) and (4). Generally, when it comes to simple exclusionary choices—such as choosing which job offer to accept—this idea is not especially profound. In other cases it is. For example, an overburdened doctor who must choose which of two terminally ill patients he will save; though it’s a terrible thought, such a situation is conceivable. And in the case of the overburdened doctor, I doubt he could discover which patient to save by studying the commandments. In other words, God did not instruct him how to choose. But this idea is also found in less dramatic situations, such as having to balance time demands between church and family responsibilities. As Elder Dallin H. Oaks taught, “As we consider various choices, we should remember that it is not enough that something is good. Other choices are better, and still others are best. Even though a particular choice is more costly, its far greater value may make it the best choice of all” (“Good, Better, Best,” Ensign, Nov 2007, 104–8). In the case of Adam and Eve’s situation, I believe the intersection of (1) and (2) resulting in (3) and (4) was according to God’s purpose, designed to bring about the fall of man. I have already argued that obedience to some commandments can be more meaningful than obedience to others. But God’s purposes can be found not only in his commandments, but also in the ways they can intersect. Hence God’s purpose wasn’t found in (1) and (2), or even (3). His purpose is found in (4).

Justifying the LDS doctrine on the fall then comes down to the purpose of God’s Edenic commandments. Was God’s purpose found in (1) or (2)? or in their intersection? Jesus said, “Which is greater: the gold, or the temple that makes the gold sacred?…the gift, or the altar that makes the gift sacred?” (NIV, Matt. 23:17-19). According to Jesus, the source of sacredness was found not in the gold or the gift, but in a higher power. So which is greater: the commandments? or the purpose for which they were given? The purpose behind a commandment makes it sacred, as stated by Paul, “the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life” (NIV, 2 Cor. 3:6). If God’s purpose isn’t found in the letter of the law it follows there is a deeper purpose behind it. So when Jesus said of loving both God and neighbor, “On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets,” (emphasis added) he was teaching that the law and all its complexities have a deeper purpose than their technicalities. This easily harmonizes with Book of Mormon teachings. God arranged that precarious situation in Eden “to bring about his eternal purposes” (2 Nephi 2:15). Nephi taught that a world without opposition would “destroy the wisdom of God and his eternal purposes” (2 Nephi 2:12). And Alma teaches, “And thus God bringeth about his great and eternal purposes, which were prepared from the foundation of the world” (Alma 42:26).

To understand what was the purpose of God’s Edenic commandments we must consider the following. Any commandment intended to promote the avoidance of evil is meaningful. But the forbidden fruit wasn’t evil: God doesn’t create evil things; and besides, fruit isn’t evil. Furthermore, there’s nothing ontologically evil about physical death (by which I mean the separation of the spirit from the body). And since God possesses knowledge of good and evil, knowledge of good and evil is a good thing. So why was the forbidden fruit forbidden, with punishments attached, unless to bring about God’s purpose in man? I believe that every commandment has a purpose. God doesn’t give commandments simply because he can. But because the forbidden fruit wasn’t evil obedience to its corresponding commandment would be meaningless. And without purpose behind the commandment it too would be meaningless. I must conclude that the prohibition to avoid the forbidden fruit acquired purpose by intersecting with God’s other commandment, and that God’s purpose for giving the prohibition was its intersection. Because God wants us to know (and hence learn) the difference between good and evil, bitter and sweet, and “good, better, and best,” then it seems reasonable to believe that intersections are part of his eternal plan.

The following points suggest God planned the fall. (1) God told Adam to stay with his wife. Why? If Eve ate the forbidden fruit he would then have to choose between commandments, and God would want him to stay with his wife. (2) Physical death and knowledge of good and evil are the effects of eating the forbidden fruit. The first is not evil and the second is a good thing. (3) God permitted Satan to tempt Adam and Eve; because of their innocence their deception was a fore drawn conclusion; and besides, Satan’s chances of success increase with each attempt. (4) God drove them out of the garden not because they sinned but because he didn’t want them to eat from the tree of life and live forever, which contradicts the idea that God wanted Adam and Eve to live in blissful Eden. If so, he could have simply removed the tree of life to an inaccessible location. Finally, as Tad Callister (author of The Infinite Atonement) points out, Eve is not given her name, or the title “mother of all living,” until after Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit (Gen. 3:20). (The Infinite Atonement, p. 43; see footnote 20). The mechanism for bringing about the fall and getting both Adam and Eve out of the garden is explicit.

But why would God go through this rigmarole? I must conclude that a fallen world can only be brought about as a consequence of a broken commandment. A fallen world immediately implies at least one broken law to begin with. God actualized the fallen world by first creating a perfect world and through intersecting commandments created a new choice, only one of which was meaningful. The meaningful choice—to eat the forbidden fruit—is justified because the purpose for the prohibition is in its intersection, not in its technical meaning.

But we can relate to the fall in another way. We can each think of ourselves as being like Adam or Eve (or Adam and Eve as being like us). We are born into the world innocent and free from all sin (Moses 6:54-55). And unavoidably, our appreciation of right and wrong begins as children when we commit our first disobedient act, to which our parents give us correction. We can see this in the story of Adam and Eve. They were raised to obey their Father in heaven, and it was only after their disobedience that they felt shame. They experienced fear, hid from God’s voice, and were quick to pass the buck: “‘The woman whom you gave to be with me, she gave me fruit of the tree, and I ate’…The woman said, ‘The serpent deceived me, and I ate’” (ESV). God did administer punishment, but also helped them along by providing clothing (Gen. 3:21). Eventually Adam and Eve grew up and realized, “because of my transgression my eyes are opened, and in this life I shall have joy” (Moses 5:10).

Here is a simple paradox. Sin cannot be committed without knowledge of good and evil. But knowledge of good and evil came into the world through the “sin” of eating the forbidden fruit. So, whence the evil? It also follows that those who are born free from sin and without knowledge of good and evil—such as little children (Moroni 8:8)—will never be able to sin, as their acquiring that ability is paradoxical. How can knowledge of good and evil exist without sin? How can sin exist without knowledge of good and evil? It seems that the paradox can be avoided if it’s possible to acquire knowledge of good and evil through transgression, that is, “sinning” in innocence. It seems that this state of affairs must be. One cannot learn the difference between right and wrong by committing only good acts, because without knowledge of good and evil their goodness cannot be known. And it would be nonsense to speak of Adam and Eve committing a charitable act in innocence for the same reason. The only way to begin the process of acquiring knowledge of both good and evil is through transgression. In other words, the world was created “good” and it was transgression that introduced knowledge of good and evil. So it seems that this must be so for all of us; during childhood we commit our own original transgression, that is, some childish act of disobedience, and from there our appreciation of right and wrong begins. (See also [4].)

The final thing that needs to be considered is why Adam and Eve would eat the forbidden fruit. After all, not doing something can be easy; and besides, it would kill them. According to LDS beliefs, before the fall Adam and Eve were innocent, almost like children, so they couldn’t know which was the morally significant choice. And because the correct choice required effort they had to be enticed: “man could not act for himself save it should be that he was enticed by the one or the other” (2 Nephi 2:16). The enticement came by way of the Serpent’s half truth, “Ye shall not surely die: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil” (Gen. 3:5-6). The part about not dying was a lie; the part about being “as gods, knowing good and evil” was true.

Was the fall ordained by God?

Calvinists believe in predestination, so they believe the fall was ordained according to God’s sovereign will—sin, though, is contrary to his will. Theodore Beza (successor of John Calvin) wrote, “We receive far more in Christ than we lost in Adam. Therefore, it was best and most useful for us that Adam fell” (here). John Calvin said,

When I say, however, that Adam did not fall without the ordination and will of God, I do not so take it as if sin had ever been pleasing to Him,…[or] that the precept which he had given should be violated…yet none of these things render it impossible that, for a certain cause, although to us unknown, he might will the fall of man. It offends the ears of some, when it is said God willed this fall. (John Calvin on God’s Willing Permission of Sin)

The Mormon interpretation of the fall differs from the Calvinist view on many points. God did indeed ordain the fall of man. But he wanted Adam and Eve to eat the forbidden fruit. God desires free beings to freely love and worship him, but they could not do so without knowledge of good and evil. How else could they understand the difference between God’s commandments and Satan’s enticements? or understand the goodness of God? After all, John 17:3 says eternal life is to know God; and his goodness is one of his essential attributes. The tree is called the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, not the tree of the knowledge of evil alone.

I bring up the Calvinist view because few Mormons understand that other faiths also teach the fall of man was ordained by God. They tend to think that we are the only ones who believe that way.

Some objections

I once heard a televangelist bemoan the fall as one of the most dreadful things to ever have happened. My response to his sense of loss is this. “If it was God’s purpose for Adam and Eve to remain forever in Eden then they screwed up God’s plan in a really big way. But LDS teachings say, ‘the works, and the designs, and the purposes of God cannot be frustrated’ (D&C 3:1).” The televangelist might concede that God’s purpose was frustrated, but point out it was man who screwed up. But consider it from another perspective. Suppose Adam and Eve didn’t eat the forbidden fruit; suppose they stayed in the garden and multiplied as commanded.[5] Then their children probably would have also been instructed to abstain from the deadly forbidden fruit, and if any one of them did eat it, they would fall. With the Serpent in the garden it’s very likely that eventually many of them would fall—Adam and Eve did. If so, it implies a world very different from the one God intended: those living in Edenic bliss and those expelled from the garden who are able to distinguish good from evil. This means that some kind of fall was unavoidable and, if it was God’s plan that none should fall, that his plan was impossible. “But,” the televangelist might retort, “perhaps God had something very different in mind and Adam and Eve screwed it up before it was finished?” I would reply, “If that is the case it becomes difficult to argue God’s plan was frustrated if the actual plan is unknown. The LDS interpretation is much easier. The scriptures describe exactly what God wanted to happen.”

One might object again and ask, “If God wanted to create a fallen world to begin with, why didn’t he do so from the off?” I would respond, “If the fall is part of the creation then in a way he did. In LDS temple instruction the premortal Adam assisted the premortal Jesus (whom we know as Jehovah) in the creation of the earth. It was Adam and Eve’s purpose to bring about the final phase of God’s creation of a fallen world.”[6] (See also footnote 4.) Another complaint might be, “If it was God’s purpose that Adam and Eve fall then Satan must be helping God. Are Satan and God in cahoots?” The answer to that question is NO. But there are points in history where God uses the wicked to further the divine plan. The most obvious example of this is the crucifixion of Jesus: “Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain” (Acts 2:23). Another example is God bringing Joseph to Egypt. Joseph said to his brothers, “You planned evil against me; God planned it for good to bring about the present result—the survival of many people” (HCSB, Gen. 50:20). As to the fall, God understood that moral good can’t be brought about without the possibility of moral evil. Satan knew that moral evil can’t be brought about without knowledge of good and evil. So God permitted Satan to tempt Adam and Eve, and Satan obliged. That much seems clear from the Genesis account.

So there it is. Spending eternity in Eden without knowledge of good and evil, pleasure and pain, happiness and misery would be a meaningless existence and contrary to God’s purposes for man. The prohibition against eating the forbidden fruit would be meaningless unless it intersected with another commandment. From the intersection a new choice was created, only one of which was meaningful. Because God’s purpose is found in the intersection, eating the forbidden fruit was not a sin for two reasons. (1) It was God’s purpose for Adam and Eve to fall. And (2), because of their innocence they could not be held morally responsible; hence their eating the forbidden fruit was a transgression. Because of their innocence they could not recognize which was the morally significant choice, so God permitted the Serpent to beguile them. They ate the forbidden fruit, the fall occurred, and God’s plan for progressing his children moves forward.

Conflicting commandments; the higher law

It is not uncommon to hear Mormons speak of God giving conflicting commandments to Adam and Eve, thus allowing them to exercise their agency by choosing between commandments.[7], [8] I don’t like the term “conflicting commandments” because it puts one commandment against another; it denies harmony in God’s overall plan. It also seems a narrow way of thinking about Adam and Eve’s choice and it reflects badly on God.[9] Still others say that God did not technically forbid Adam and Eve from eating the forbidden fruit (Moses 3:17). God forbade it because of its consequences: “when you eat of it you will surely die” (NIV). However, God says to Adam and Eve, “I have forgiven thee thy transgression in the Garden of Eden” (Moses 6:53); thus, it required forgiveness, so the prohibition was not a mere explanation of consequences.

It is also not uncommon to hear Mormons speak of Adam and Eve as obeying the higher law.[10] Though this seems more reasonable than the other approach, it too has its difficulties. It implies Adam and Eve knowingly obeyed the higher law, which implies they were not deceived, which contradicts the Biblical story. Also, how could they obey the higher law without knowledge of good and evil? Tadd Callister has taken a middle ground. He writes,

It is difficult to fully understand why God gave seemingly conflicting commands in the Garden. Some people feel that the “command” not to partake of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil was more a warning than a commandment, and thus, Adam and Eve purposefully “disobeyed” a lower law in order to fulfill a higher one.

The scriptures suggest, however, that Eve was at least partially deceived. This “conflict” of commandments seemed to be a necessary part of the grand plan, so that man would not later claim that God forced him to accept the awesome responsibility of mortality. (The Infinite Atonement, p. 36.)[11]

Final thoughts

If my arguments about the fall of man hold up then it’s a new twist on the older Mormon interpretation of “line upon line.” God’s purpose is to uplift man, and one way he does this is by giving us commandments. If a new commandment doesn’t replace an older one it’s possible that God’s purpose is found not only in the old and the new, but also in the way they intersect. A new synthesis is created, but one that is never static. Mormon beliefs include the idea of value universals, and that these universals exist independent of all other things, even God. One of God’s purposes is to help humanity achieve the greatest possible good; to help us realize in our lives and communities things that are “virtuous, lovely, and of good report” and to avoid things that are truly bad. The things that God wants us to do and to avoid can be called good values: charity, honesty, forgiveness; refraining from adultery, theft, and murder. But good values need not be in one-to-one correspondence to the commandments. The number of good values could easily exceed the number of commandments. After all, it’s not possible for a person to deal with a seemingly endless list of commandments for every particular situation in which he might find himself; and besides, God wants us to think and to listen to the promptings of the Holy Spirit (D&C 58:26; 9:8). God’s way of helping man live and promote good values includes the commandments, as well as the way they intersect. Whence, it is important to discover the moral (or morally superior) choice (D&C 9:7-9).

As far as I can tell the LDS view of the fall of man is highly unique. In traditional theistic religion God is a necessary being, a being that cannot not exist, and man’s existence is contingent, depending entirely upon God. Most of the Abrahamic religions hold to the belief that the fall brought about man’s estrangement from God, resulting in human misery and sorrow, and putting us in an unnatural, undesirable condition. The Westminster Confession reads, “Man, by his fall into a state of sin, hath wholly lost all ability of will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation” (“Free Will,” Westminster Confession). As seen by traditional Christianity, the fall is what makes the abundant grace of Christ possible. Mormon theology is very different. The fall gave us genuine freedom. And despite its effects, people can do good by their own choosing. Though man is dependant upon God for a great many things, the entirely of man’s being is not contingent. There is an aspect of man, usually called intelligence, which cannot be created or made. (See D&C 93:29-30; Abr. 3:18.) Because man’s being is not entirely contingent, God’s plan to promote “the immortality and eternal life of man” (Moses 1:39) is very different from a would-be plan in a would-be world filled with beings created from nothing whose purpose is to worship God. Mormons believe, in a very real way, that man is counterpart with God. God’s plan to educate and advance the knowledge of mankind generally and individually includes his commandments and the way they intersect; mortality with all its difficulties; the sufferings, death, and resurrection of Christ; the reality of repentance and genuine salvation from the effects of sin.

What Others Believe

Calvin’s view ~ because of the fall man inherits total depravity: [Because of the fall] a hereditary depravity and corruption of our nature, diffused into all parts of the soul, which first makes us liable to God’s wrath… First, we are so vitiated and perverted in every part of our nature that by this great corruption we stand justly condemned and convicted before God… For our nature is not only destitute and empty of good, but so fertile and fruitful of every evil that it cannot be idle…whatever is in man, from the understanding to the will, from the soul even to the flesh, has been defiled and crammed with his concupiscence [i.e. longing for things forbidden, all kinds of lust] Or, to put is more briefly, the whole man is of himself nothing but concupiscence. (Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion; cited from Sterling M. McMurrin’s The Theological Foundations of the Mormon Religion, p. 61)

A Jewish view ~ man is frail, God is merciful: Man is responsible for sin because he is endowed with free will; yet he is by nature frail, and the tendency of the mind is to evil…Therefore God in His mercy allowed man to repent and be forgiven. Jewish theologians are divided in regard to the cause of this so-called “original sin”; some teach that it was due to Adam's yielding to temptation in eating of the forbidden fruit and has been inherited by his descendants; the majority, however, do not hold Adam responsible for the sins of mankind.…R. Jose said that every soul, before departing, visits Adam, and is convinced that it must blame its own wickedness, for there is no death without sin. …On the other hand, it is maintained that at least four persons—Benjamin, Amram, Jesse, and Chileab—died without having committed any sin and merely as the result of Adam’s weakness in yielding to the temptation of the serpent… Some of the Rabbis, while disclaiming the influence of Adam’s sin, made the sin of the golden calf…a hereditary one, affecting twenty-four generations, till the final destruction of the Jewish state in the time of King Hezekiah. (“Sin,” Jewish Encyclopedia).

A Catholic view ~ the fall brought about an inherited privation of grace: Original sin is the privation of sanctifying grace in consequence of the sin of Adam…by the declaration of the Second Council of Orange (A.D. 529): one man has transmitted to the whole human race not only the death of the body, which is the punishment of sin, but even sin itself, which is the death of the soul. As death is the privation of the principle of life, the death of the soul is the privation of sanctifying grace which according to all theologians is the principle of supernatural life. Therefore, if original sin is “the death of the soul”, it is the privation of sanctifying grace…The absence of sanctifying grace in the new-born child is also an effect of the first sin, for Adam, having received holiness and justice from God, lost it not only for himself but also for us. If he has lost it for us we were to have received it from him at our birth with the other prerogatives of our race. Therefore the absence of sanctifying grace in a child is a real privation, it is the want of something that should have been in him according to the Divine plan. (“Original Sin,” Catholic Encyclopedia)

A Russian Orthodox View ~ the fall brought about bodily passions that make sinning easy: “Sin was not ingrained in human nature. Yet the possibility to sin was rooted in the free will given to humans… The consequences of the Fall for the first humans were catastrophic. They were not only deprived of the bliss and sweetness of Paradise, but their whole nature was changed and disfigured. In sinning they fell away from their natural condition and entered an unnatural state of being. All elements of their spiritual and corporeal make-up were damaged: their spirit, instead of striving for God, became engrossed in the passions; their soul entered the sphere of bodily instincts…After the Fall the human person ‘became deaf, blind, naked, insensitive to the good things from which he had fallen away, and above all became mortal, corruptible and without sense of purpose’ (St Symeon the New Theologian). Disease, suffering and pain entered human life. Humans became mortal for they had lost the opportunity of tasting from the tree of life. (Bishop Hilarion Alfeyev; here)[12]

The Moslem view ~ Adam and his wife were deceived and removed from the garden, ending their felicity: Adam! Dwell thou and thy wife in the Garden, and enjoy (its good things) as ye whish: but approach not this tree, or ye run into harm and transgression. Then began Satan to whisper suggestions to them, bringing openly before their minds all their shame that was hidden from them (before): he said: “Your Lord only forbade you this tree, lest ye should become angels or such beings as live for ever.” And he swore to them both, that he was their sincere adviser. So by deceit he brought about their fall: when they tasted of the tree, their shame became manifest to them, and they began to sew together the leaves of the Garden over their bodies. (Koran, Sura 7:19-22; Translated by Abdullah Yusuf Ali)

[God] said to the angels, “Prostrate yourselves to Adam”, They prostrated themselves, but not Iblis [Satan]: he refused. Then We said: “O Adam! Verily, this is an enemy to thee and thy wife: So let him not get you both out of the Garden, so that you art landed in misery. There is therein (enough provision) for thee not to go hungry nor to go naked, nor to suffer from thirst, nor from the sun’s heat.” But Satan whispered evil to him: he said, “O Adam! Shall I lead thee to the Tree of Eternity and to a kingdom that never decays?” In the result, they both ate of the tree, and so their nakedness appeared to them…Thus did Adam disobey his Lord, and allow himself to be seduced. (Koran, Sura 10:116-121; Translated by Abdullah Yusuf Ali)

Footnotes_________________________________

[1] To repeat what Elder Dallin H. Oaks said, “it is not enough that something is good. Other choices are better, and still others are best” (“Good, Better, Best,” Ensign, Nov 2007). Also, the Book of Mormon mentions a sin “most abominable above all sins” (Alma 39:5-7). Hence there is an unforgivable sin (Matt. 12:32; Jacob 7:19). Oaks’ and Alma’s statements illustrate that there are grades of good and grades of evil.

[2] Resisting temptation is not always easy, and some spiritual sins—lack of charity for example—are extremely sinful: For without charity we are nothing (1 Cor. 13:2-3; Moroni 7:44). Dividing commandments into two camps has the effect of making sins of action more sinful than those of omission. Janice Allred writes in “Toward a Mormon Concept of Original Sin,”

Although there is something to be gained in seeing man as a dualistic being, seeing the spirit as the good part and the body as the evil leads to difficulties. It tends to make us believe that the worst sins (or even the only sins) are physical—lust, gluttony, self-indulgence, sloth—and to forget the spiritual sins—pride, the will to dominate others, unbelief, mistrust, envy, hate. (Janice M. Allred, “Toward a Mormon Concept of Original Sin,” Sunstone, 6/1/1983)

While the makeup of man is by no means well defined in Mormon thought, it appears that not only the natural man (our baser instincts) needs to be overcome, but our spirit also needs to be born again. Jesus makes this point to Nicodemus, “no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again…no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit. Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit. You should not be surprised at my saying, ‘You must be born again’” (NIV, John 3:3-7). This added dimension to the idea of progression implies that in the premortal life we progressed to the limit which that sphere would allow, but even then our spirits were imperfect. The purpose of mortality includes the struggle for the spirit to control bodily passions, as well as time for spirit itself to become more perfect.

[3] God does give Adam and Eve a hint about how they should choose: “But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it, nevertheless, thou mayest choose for thyself, for it is given unto thee; but, remember that I forbid it, for in the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die” (Moses 3:17)

[4] What this means is that God created the world “good,” just as the scriptures say he did (Gen. 1). And that God introduced knowledge of good and evil through transgression which began the process of learning the difference between good and evil. But consider this counterfactual. If God were evil then he would have created a world flawed and imperfect, full of wickedness, and then permitted Adam and Eve to gain knowledge of good and evil by allowing them to commit a “good” act accidentally. But God is good. So the fall did not happen in that way.

[5] Why were so few commandments given in Eden? Perhaps the reason is quite simple. God can’t tell Adam and Eve to love their neighbor because they have none. He can’t tell them not to commit adultery because they are husband and wife, and there’s no one else around; I’m also inclined to believe they were not sexually active in Eden. They couldn’t tell a lie because they had nothing to lie about until they broke a commandment. They can’t steal because there is no concept of properly rights. In their situation meaningful commandments are hard to come by.

[6] Another retort might be, “But before the fall God pronounced his work finished, and that it was good!” My response would be, “God simply pronounced that a given level of the creation was finished, it was as he intended it to be.”

[7] Apostle Bruce R. McConkie (d. 1985) wrote,

Thus we see why the Lord gave two conflicting commandments--one to become mortal and have children, the other to not eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil out of which mortality and children and death would result. The issue is one of choosing between opposites. Adam must choose to become mortal so he could have children, on the one hand; on the other hand, he must choose to remain forever in the garden in a state of innocence. (A New Witness for the Articles of Faith, p. 91)

[8] Some Mormons believe that Adam and Eve knowingly chose to obey the higher law. That is, Eve was not deceived when she ate the forbidden fruit; nor was Adam coerced by Eve. But this creates a problem. If they knowingly obeyed a higher law they must have known which was the higher law, which means they learned which was higher. But the Bible clearly says Eve was beguiled. I remember when I was an LDS missionary in South Africa, trying to figure out how Adam and Eve could have knowingly obeyed the higher law (without God telling them what to do), and how they could have figured out the two commandments were conflicting. I came up with a rather unusual explanation, which, except for sharing it with one missionary, I kept to myself. Firstly, how did Adam and Eve figure out they could not have children? My conclusion was they must have been sexually active in the garden of Eden—After all they were husband and wife. Because the woman experiences pregnancy she was the first to realize she could not conceive children. But one might object, “If God gives a commandment to multiply and replenish the earth then it must be possible for them to do so.” “But,” I would have retorted, “that commandment applies to all, and some couples can’t have children. It’s up to God if conception occurs. As long as they are trying they are being obedient. Also, the phrase ‘they shall be one flesh’ does have a sexual connotation.” After Eve realized there is something missing from her condition she was open to other options. I can’t recall the entirety of how my argument went, but eventually she realized that eating the forbidden fruit was the right thing to do. I have since learned that this interpretation is not so unusual. (See David P. Wright, “Sex and Death in the Garden of Eden,” Sunstone, June 1998).

The notion that they must have known what they were doing occasionally comes up in Mormonism. “It gives us pause to wonder how long Adam and Eve spent in the Garden weighing the two apparently conflicting commandments. Brother Hugh Nibley has suggested that by the time they were tempted by the being who symbolically is called a serpent, Adam and Eve had concluded that they must partake of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, for the Hebrew text indicates that all that transpired did so in a systematic fashion. It seems apparent that they went from precept to precept, from truth to truth” (Beverly Campbell, Eve and the Choice Made in Eden, “Learning in the Garden”).

[9] In my posting Opposition In All Things I leaned toward the conflicting commandments explanation, and that Adam and Eve knowingly obeyed a higher law. In this post I have backed away from that. The inconsistency is due to development in my own thinking.

[10] For example Apostle John A. Widtsoe (d. 1952),

In life all must choose at times. Sometimes, two possibilities are good; neither is evil. Usually, however, one is of greater import than the other. When in doubt, each must choose that which concerns the good of others—the greater law—rather than that which chiefly benefits ourselves—the lesser law. The greater must be chosen whether it be law or thing. That was the choice made in Eden. (Evidences and Reconciliations, p. 194)

[11] Callister further writes,

If Adam and Eve had partaken with “full” knowledge of obeying a higher law, as some would suggest, one wonders why the scriptures would have used words and phrases such as “beguiled,” “deceived,” “yielded” and even “spiritually dead” (D&C 29:41), to describe their Edenic conduct and subsequent state of affairs. One also wonders how they could have “full” knowledge when they lived in a state of innocence, knowing neither good nor evil. In that state of innocence, it would not have been possible for them to completely comprehend which choice was good and which was evil. One further wonders why Adam, upon responding to the Lord’s question, “Hast thou eaten of the tree whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldst not eat…?” (Moses 4:17), would shift the “blame” or responsibility to Eve, and likewise, she would further shift the “blame” to the Serpent (Moses 4:18-19). If they had proceeded with a full or even partial knowledge of the consequences, this would have been an appropriate moment to respond: “We knowingly broke the lesser law in order to keep a higher one.” (The Infinite Atonement, p. 37)

[12] Bishop Hilarion Alfeyev also mentions two ways of understanding original sin,

The consequences of the Fall spread to the whole of the human race. This is elucidated by St Paul: ‘Therefore as sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned’ (Rom. 5:12). This text, which formed the Church’s basis of her teaching on ‘original sin’, may be understood in a number of ways… Different readings of the text may produce different understandings of what ‘original sin’ means. [The first is] that each person is responsible for his own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression. Here, Adam is merely the prototype of all future sinners, each of whom, in repeating Adam’s sin, bears responsibility only for his own sins. Adam’s sin is not the cause of our sinfulness; we do not participate in his sin and his guilt cannot be passed onto us.

[The second] can be understood as the passing on of Adam’s sin to all future generations of people, since human nature has been infected by sin in general. The disposition toward sin became hereditary and responsibility for turning away from God sin universal. (here)

The first interpretation is very similar to the LDS view of original sin. Our articles of faith read, “We believe that man will be punished for his own sin and not of Adam’s transgression” (Articles of Faith 1:2).