Basis of the Mormon Felix Culpa

Larry Kirkpatrick, June 10, 2005

In the book of Mormon, 2 Nephi is one of the most important chapters for Latter-day Saint theology. One of its key points relates to the LDS view of the Fall. In Mormon theology, the Fall is a good thing, for it enables man to experience joy. Sin thus becomes explainable—it is a means to an end, and a good end. Let’s look at this.

2 Nephi and the Fall

Consider 2 Nephi 2:22-25, the key passage in our discussion:

And now, behold, if Adam had not transgressed he would not have fallen, but he would have remained in the garden of Eden. And all things which were created must have remained in the same state in which they were after they were created; and they must have remained forever, and had no end. And they would have had no children; wherefore they would have remained in a state of innocence, having no joy, for they knew no misery; doing no good, for they knew no sin. But behold, all things have been done in the wisdom of him who knoweth all things. Adam fell that men might be; and men are, that they might have joy.

If we diagram out the logic of the argument, creating the following dictionary,

T    Adam transgressed.
F    Adam fell.
R    All things remain in the same state.
C    Adam and Eve have children.
I    Adam and Eve remain innocent.
M    Adam and Eve experience misery.
J    Adam and Eve experience joy.
G    Adam and Eve do good.
S    Adam and Eve sin.
B    Men exist.

and letting ~ stand for “not,” “&” stand for “and,” “∨” stand for “or,” and “→” stand for “if/then,” the logic could look like this:

~T → ~F & [R & ~C & I & (~M → ~J) & (~G → ~S)] ∨ (F → B → J)

The logic of the argument proposes two pathways, one if Adam had OBEYED God and one if Adam DISOBEYED. Let us put the two potentialities side by side:

OBEY	DISOBEY
Remains in garden of Eden	Removed from Garden of Eden
Things remain as originally created	Things do not remain as original
Adam and Eve have no children	Adam and Eve do have children
Adam and Eve remain innocent	Adam and Eve do not remain innocent
Adam and Eve have no joy	Adam and Eve have joy
Adam and Eve know no misery	Adam and Eve know misery
Adam and Eve can do no good	Adam and Eve can do good
Adam and Eve do not sin	Adam and Eve sin
Adam and Eve hardly exist	Adam and Eve exist

For men to exist, have children, have joy, the argument is that they must know misery and must sin and only after sinning can they do good. The purpose of human existance is that humans experience joy, and to experience joy, humans must willfully exercise their agency to disobey God. Then they will know misery by experience. In other words, in Genesis three we find that Satan was right all along and God did not really mean what He said, for He actually desired that men would sin and experience misery in order that they might be enabled to do good and to know joy. This, in sum, is the argument. We cannot agree with this argument, as we shall soon explain.

Roman Catholicism’s Felix Culpa

That “great and abominable church,” surprisingly enough, upholds a very similar error. In the Catholic church, the Fall is where man broke God's rules, damaged himself, and thus all men became guilty. To the Catholic, the Fall is a fortunate event—a felix culpa (See Catechism 412), a “happy fault,” or what has also become known as the theory of the “fortunate fall.”

A special portion of the Latin Mass, offered on the Saturday before Easter almost universally in the Catholic Church (until Vatican II) went like this: “O felix culpa quae talem et tantum meruit habere redemptorum.” Translated, this is “O blessed sin [literally, “happy fault”] which received as its reward so great and so good a redeemer.” (See http://www.ksu.edu/english/baker/english233/g-felix_culpa.htm, accessed March 18, 2004, 3:44 p.m. PST).

Since the gospel problem as understood by the Catholics is fundamentally a legal one, the fall of Adam is understood to make the whole race guilty, introducing all humans into a state of sin. The Catholics call this “original sin.” Roman Catholicism’s felix culpa seems to rise from a combination of legally and mystically centered aspects in itself. A misunderstanding of what sin is and how God interacts with human free will seem to be at the root of this.

The felix culpa theory raises the question of whether God is being fair or not in condemning man and then saving him. If the Fall was fortunate, then Adam’s choice to sin, far from being a lapse in good judgment was perhaps a moment of inspiration, and sin becomes excusable. If sin becomes excusable, man’s condemnation becomes unjust.

A Response

In contrast to Roman Catholicism, the Latter-day Saints’ felix culpa is built atop a dualistic religion. Evil is necessary that we might know what good is, and vice versa. This is the theory. Remember, in the LDS view, if Adam and Eve do not experience misery, they are prevented understanding what joy is. Thus evil is a necessary component of the moral domain. Good is good specifically and only in contrast of evil. However, we would argue that for ultimate good to exist, evil is not required. The possibility of evil must be, but the actual existence of evil is not required. Men must be permitted to choose evil but no man must choose evil. The Fall is not inevitable. No excuse can be given for sinning. Ever.

Consider these items from the Spirit of Prophecy:

From the beginning, God and Christ knew of the apostasy of Satan, and of the fall of man through the deceptive power of the apostate. God did not ordain that sin should exist, but He foresaw its existence, and made provision to meet the terrible emergency (Ellen G. White, Desire of Ages, p. 22).

Had Adam and Eve never disobeyed their Creator, had they remained in the path of perfect rectitude, they could have known and understood God (Ellen G. White, Selected Messages, vol. 1, p. 291).

It was possible for Adam, before the fall, to form a righteous character by obedience to God’s law (Ellen G. White, Steps to Christ, p. 62).

God, without ordaining, made provision for sin’s existence. Had man obeyed God according to His instructions, he would have been at no deficit in knowing Him. Righteous living was possible without falling. Remember, the LDS view says that man cannot do good unless first Adam does evil.

What is fascinating is that the presence of a tree and a text of obedience appears not to be unique to earth. Consider:

The Lord has given me a view of other worlds… an angel attended me from the city to a place that was bright and glorious. The grass of the place was living green, and the birds there warbled a sweet song. The inhabitants of the place were of all sizes; they were noble, majestic, and lovely. They bore the express image of Jesus, and their countenances beamed with holy joy, expressive of the freedom and happiness of the place. I asked one of them why they were so much more lovely than those on the earth. The reply was, ‘We have lived in strict obedience to the commandments of God, and have not fallen by disobedience, like those on the earth.’ Then I saw two trees, one looked much like the tree of life in the city. The fruit of both looked beautiful, but of one they could not eat. They had power to eat of both, but were forbidden to eat of one. Then my attending angel said to me, ‘None in this place have tasted of the forbidden tree; but if they should eat, they would fall’ (Ellen G. White, Early Writings, p. 39).

James 1:15 says that when sin is finished, it brings forth death. But according to the LDS view, when sin is finished, it brings forth joy. In Romans 6:1 the question is asked, Shall we sin so that grace may more abound? The answer is, No! But the answer of 2 Nephi is, Yes!

Neither the Bible nor the wiritngs of Ellen White support a dualistic universe or anything like the felix culpa. So what is the way forward for working with Mormons on this topic?

Deeply entrenched Mormons will probably have little philosophical objection to a dualistic cosmology. But others may be much more accessible. There is a fundamental gap between the understanding of being on probation here, proving oneself valiant here, and obeying heavenly Father by keeping His commandments, and the idea that in the garden God wanted Adam to disobey. It may also be useful to survey afresh the four standard LDS Scriptures to see what kind of collection of anti-dualistic teachings might be found.

One might agree profusely with the idea of agency (LDS language for human free will), but having the ability to make moral choices does not suggest we have to sin or not know joy. If sin can be explained, it can be excused. Dualism offers an excuse for sin. If there is an excuse for sin, then what business does man have seeking to prove himslef valiant during his probation, and what business does god have consigning anyone to the lower spheres in judgment (as understood in Mormonism)?

This is just a beginning of thinking about an approach to this topic.