Skip to main content

There Is No Curse, Part 3: The Human Race

Image
By

Never has any passage of scripture come with more scrupulosity to the heart of man than Mosiah 3:19 has to me:

For the natural man is an enemy to God, and has been from the fall of Adam, and will be, forever and ever…

It’s a passage which seemed to enter with great shame into every feeling of my heart. I heard this passage mentioned and quoted again and again - it appears in General Conference addresses a total of 347 times, over half of which occurring in my lifetime (according to the LDS General Conference Corpus). It’s a passage that implies a divine curse on not just one people group, not on one continent, but on the whole of the human species - an original sin, as it were.

Mosiah 3:19 would have you believe that you and I are God’s personal enemies, because we are the posterity of Adam and Eve. Depending on how you read LDS theology, I either did or didn’t have a choice here, a subject too dense to get into just yet; and either way, an omniscient God supposedly laid the groundwork for my birth. According elsewhere in the Book of Mormon (specifically, 2 Nephi 2), God actually created those preconditions precisely because he intended for me to be born of Adam and Eve…only to be immediately assigned a status as enemy of the sovereign god of the universe.

If I were making a model plane and needed to use glue, how could I also accuse that glue of being my enemy? I could only get mad if it were my own incompetence that got my fingers stuck together, but it’s not the glue’s fault - that’s just what it does. God, if he is not incompetent but omniscient and omnipotent, would hardly see our fallen nature as a threat, and LDS doctrine repeatedly echoes Paul’s sentiments that “[God’s] power is made perfect in weakness” (2 Corinthians 12:9; compare with Jacob 4:7, Alma 26:12, Ether 12:27, D&C 35:13). That’s not the language someone uses about their enemy.

Growing up in the LDS church, this scripture paralyzed me with fear. I wanted to love God, and I thought he loved me, and yet he saw me as his enemy? I knew that Jesus taught to love our enemies, but the existence of an enemy is the result of flawed human nature, not the product of a loving Heavenly Father. In fact, it brought me immense solace to read in Matthew that God was so good that He would give good things to His children who sought Him out. What good man gives a stone when his children ask for bread (see Matthew 7:9-12)?

Now you may be asking, what’s so wrong with recognizing that there is a tremendous gap between our imperfect and fallible states and the perfect and infallible state of God? Because, dear reader, that is not the only implication of these passages. To be separated from God is not the same as being exiled from God - exiled for something for which I bear no responsibility, because of a nature that I did not choose, nor can I choose to put off without God in the first place.

Some faithful LDS members will attempt to rationalize the sober implications of Mosiah 3:19 by appealing to the second half of the verse, which at first glance does imply that man’s fallen nature is not necessarily inevitable:

…unless he yields to the enticings of the Holy Spirit, and putteth off the natural man and becometh a saint through the atonement of Christ the Lord, and becometh as a child, submissive, meek, humble, patient, full of love, willing to submit to all things which the Lord seeth fit to inflict upon him, even as a child doth submit to his father.

First of all, the word “inflict” seems at direct odds to Jesus’s assurance in Matthew 7 that God is too good to return evil for good, and yet that is what the God of Mosiah 3:19 intends for his children, even when they become saints. Of course, no Mormon will say that being God’s chosen people makes them exempt from suffering, but if our fallen state were merely a separation, there would be no need for God to cause suffering, and any parent caught acting this way with their children in real life would be immediately castigated and possibly even arrested for child abuse.

More astonishing, though, is that the author reasons that “little children” are automatically covered by Christ’s atonement because of - get this - their fallen nature. That is to say, in spite of the fallen nature of little children, they are automatically spared; but that same fallen nature condemns us as adults. The LDS myth of the “age of accountability” does nothing to assuage this contradiction - in spite of sharing a fallen nature, little children are exempt from condemnation (to say nothing of the author’s complete lack of awareness that toddlers are, in fact, not submissive, humble, or patient!).

Once again, there is a much simpler explanation: Mosiah 3:19 exists in contradiction to the other frequent invocations of the fall of Adam in LDS doctrine, and any attempt to harmonize them inevitably results in prioritizing one passage over another via special pleading, such that neither is read for what they say, but instead transformed into something none of them say. In short, Mosiah 3:19 is an inaccurate depiction of humanity even in the LDS church, and in no way demonstrates that humanity is cursed for having fallen.

Our human nature is not a curse, it's just who we are.


Check Your Understanding:

Test how well you understand the critique of Mosiah 3:19 and the LDS doctrine of the “natural man.”

1. What emotional impact did Mosiah 3:19 have on the author while growing up?




2. What central contradiction does the author highlight about being an “enemy to God”?




3. How does the author contrast Mosiah 3:19 with the teachings of Jesus in Matthew 7?




4. What issue does the author raise about the verse’s assumption that children are submissive and meek?




5. Why does the “age of accountability” fail to resolve the doctrinal tension?




6. What broader conclusion does the author reach about Mosiah 3:19?




7. What message does the author leave readers with?




8. What rhetorical point does the author make with the image of Adam and Eve being cast out?




Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The "Mormon" Trademark is About to Expire

By Mason
 The request for Mormon Stories to rebrand has spread quickly through Mormon spaces. Followers learned that the LDS Church had reached out with claims that the podcast was infringing on the “Mormon” trademark. The demand leaned on the legal idea that the Church owns the word.  The request was shared on social media by @mormstories, but those posts seem to have been removed. Fortunately, copies of the email were  shared on reddit. But there is a significant detail sitting behind this entire dispute. The Church will have to renew the "Mormon" trademark in the 2026 to 2027 window.  Source: USPTO database When that time comes, they must prove that they still use the word “Mormon” in active commerce. USPTO rules are clear on this point. A trademark only survives if the owner can show that it is still printed on actual goods or services that are still being sold or distributed. The official guidelines spell it out at uspto.gov under “ Keeping your registration alive .” He...
3 comments
Read

Are You Temple Worthy?

By Mason
Temple worthiness isn’t just about "good behavior" in Mormon teaching. It’s a gate that determines who qualifies for the highest blessings the religion offers. The church teaches that only people judged worthy can enter the temple, make covenants, and receive the ordinances that lead to exaltation, which is the belief that humans can become like God and live forever with their families in the celestial kingdom.  This makes worthiness interviews a spiritual checkpoint that can shape someone’s identity, their standing in the community, and even their hope for eternity.    Are You Worthy to Enter a Mormon Temple? Are You Worthy of the Mormon Temple? Yes No Restart Enter the Temple
6 comments
Read

Early Mormon Criticisms - 1: Caution Against the Golden Bible

By Mason
This series looks back at how early critics of the church reacted to the rise of Mormonism. Some mocked it, others warned against it, and a few tried to make sense of it. Each post features a real historical excerpt and some quick context to show how critics viewed the new faith as it was unfolding. For this first article, we are going to look at one of the first known in-depth public criticisms of the Book of Mormon, which appeared before the book itself was publicly available.  On February 20, 1830, Cornelius Camden Blatchley, a New York physician and writer known for his skeptical views on organized religion, published an article titled “Caution Against the Golden Bible” in the New-York Telescope . Written only weeks before the Book of Mormon’s official release in March of that year. Most of his arguments are still being used to this day. The Complaints Presented by Blatchley He specifies reading the Title page as well as   pages 353–368 of the original Book of Morm...
Post a Comment
Read

Code Names and Church Finances

By Mason
Members of the Mormon church are expected to give ten percent of their income as tithing. It’s treated as a basic requirement of faithful membership. But even though members contribute a significant portion of their earnings, they aren’t given a clear accounting of how that money is used.  The Utah church does not release detailed budgets, financial reports, or yearly accounting. Members of the church donate fully on trust, without the kind of transparency they would expect from almost any other major charitable organization. Ensign Peak This lack of transparency became harder to overlook during the Ensign Peak investigation. For years the church separated its investment funds into thirteen shell companies and failed to fulfill federal reporting requirements.  The SEC found that this structure used by the church was designed to conceal the true size and unity of Ensign Peak’s holdings.   Per the SEC's 2023 report: " The Securities and Exchange Commission today announced c...
Post a Comment
Read

Early Mormon Criticisms - 2: The Book of Pukei

By Mason
This series looks back at how early critics of the church reacted to the rise of Mormonism. Some mocked it, others warned against it, and a few tried to make sense of it. Each post features a historical excerpt and some quick context to show how critics viewed the new faith as it was unfolding. Part 1 can be read here In 1830 a man by the name of Abner Cole published a criticism of Joseph Smith called the Book of Pukei in the Palmyra Reflector, published under the name "Obadiah Dogberry Esquire".   Cole had access to Grandin’s print shop and saw early pages of the Book of Mormon before the public did. His reaction took the form of a mock scripture that rewrote Joseph Smith’s story into a  joke. That choice wasn’t random. He was simply recounting the events surrounding Joseph smith in a pseudobiblical style, Cole shows us that he likely recognized the Book of Mormon as part of that same genre. Events Parodied in The Book of Pukei     1. Angel Moroni – Cole rewr...
Post a Comment
Read
Link copied!