Articles of Faith: What Do Latter-day Saints Believe About the Fall of Adam 2?

Article of Faith 2

   We believe that men will be punished for their own sins,

                    and not for Adam’s transgression.

 This essay will continue a discussion started last week about the Fall of Adam and Eve as stated in the second Article of Faith of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I laid a foundation for discussing this Article of Faith by discussing moral agency, or the freedom to choose good or evil. This essay will discuss sin and punishment for sin using the words of Elder James E. Talmage (The Articles of Faith [1890], 57-61).

Sin – What is the nature of sin? To this question the Apostle John replies: “Sin is the transgression of the law” (1 John 3:4) …. As God is the embodiment of perfection, such opposition is rebellion against the principles of advancement and adherence to the practices that lead to degradation. Sin is any condition, whether omission of things required or in commission of acts forbidden, that tends to prevent or hinder the development of the human soul. [Emphasis added.] As a righteous course leads to eternal life, so sin tends toward the darkness of the second death. Sin was introduced to the world by Satan; yet it is by divine permission that mankind are brought in contact with sin, the contrast between evil and good thus being learned by experience.

According to the technical definition of sin it consists in the violation of law, and in this strict sense sin may be committed inadvertently or in ignorance. It is plain, however, from the scriptural doctrine of human responsibility and the unerring justice of God, that in his transgressions as in his righteous deeds man will be judged according to his ability to comprehend and obey law. To him who has never been made acquainted with a higher law the requirements of that law do not apply in their fulness. For sins committed without knowledge – that is, for laws violated in ignorance – a propitiation has been provided in the atonement wrought through the sacrifice of the Savior; and sinners of this class do not stand condemned, but shall be given opportunity yet to learn and to accept or reject the principles of the Gospel….

Punishment for Sin – As rewards for righteous deeds are proportionate to deserving acts, so the punishment prescribed for sin is made adequate to the offense. But, be it remembered, both rewards and punishments are natural consequences. Punishment is inflicted upon the sinner for disciplinary and reformatory purposes and in accordance with justice. There is nothing of vindictiveness or of desire to cause suffering manifest in the divine nature; on the contrary, our Father is cognizant of every pang, and permits such to afflict for beneficent purposes only. God’s mercy is declared in the retributive pains that He allows, as in the blessings of peace that issue from Him…. Comparison with physical pain, such as the tortures of fire in a sulphurous lake, serve to show that the human mind is incapable of comprehending the extent of these penalties. The sufferings entailed by the fate of condemnation are more to be feared than are any possible inflictions of physical torture; the mind, the spirit, the whole soul is doomed to suffer, and the torment is known by none in the flesh.

Consider the word of the Lord regarding those whose sin is the unpardonable one, whose transgression has carried them beyond the present horizon of possible redemption; those who have sunk so low in their wickedness as to have lost the power and even the desire to attempt reformation. Sons of Perdition they are called. These are they who, having learned the power of God afterward renounce it; those who sin wilfully in the light of knowledge; those who open their hearts to the Holy Spirit and then put the Lord to a mockery and a shame by denying it; and those who commit murder wherein they shed innocent blood; these are they of whom the Savior has declared that it would be better for them had they never been born. These are to share the punishment of the devil and his angels – punishment so terrible that the knowledge is withheld from all except those who are consigned to this doom (emphasis added), though a temporary view of the picture is permitted to some. These sinners are the only ones over whom the second death hath power….

The Duration of Punishment – As to the duration of punishment, we may take assurance that it will be graded according to the sin; and that the conception of every sentence for misdeeds being interminable is false. Great as is the effect of this life upon the hereafter, and certain as is the responsibility of opportunities lost for repentance, God holds the power to pardon beyond the grave. Yet the scriptures speak of eternal and endless punishment. Any punishment ordained of God is eternal, for He is eternal. His is a system of endless punishment, for it will always exist as a place or condition prepared for disobedient spirits; yet the infliction of the penalty will have an end in every case of acceptable repentance and reparation. And repentance is not impossible in the spirit world (emphasis added). However, as seen, there are some sins so great that their consequent punishments are not made known to man; these extreme penalties are reserved for the sons of Perdition.

The false doctrine that the punishment to be visited upon erring souls is endless, that every sentence for sin is of interminable duration, must be regarded as one of the most pernicious results of misapprehension of scripture. It is but a dogma of unauthorized and erring sectaries, at once unscriptural, unreasonable, and revolting to one who loves mercy and honors justice. True, the scriptures speak of everlasting burnings, eternal damnation, and the vengeance of eternal fire, as characteristics of the judgment provided for the wicked; yet in no instance is there justification for the inference that the individual sinner will have to suffer the wrath of offended justice forever and ever. The punishment in any case is sufficiently severe without the added and supreme horror of unending continuation. Justice must have her due; but when “the uttermost farthing” is paid, the prison doors shall open and the captive be free. But the prison remains, and the law prescribing punishment for offenses is not to be repealed….

 

 

 

Will the Senate Confirm Todd Blanche as AG?

President Donald Trump’s nominee for Attorney General, Todd Blanche, has been on old for a few days because Republican Senators John Cornyn of Texas and Thom Tillis of North Carolina refused to advance Blanche for official confirmation, according to Virginia Grace McKinnon. 

Cornyn and Tillis were opposed to a planned anti-weaponization fund, and the DOJ and Blanche officially rescinded the fund. However, Cornyn and Tillis wanted a written document that addressed their concerns on the IRS audit agreement and the anti-weaponization fund.

The $1.8 billion fund was part of President Trump’s settlement with the IRS, a settlement that came from the IRS unlawfully published his tax returns. Trump has threatened to put the fund back on the table if Blanche does not get confirmed. The purpose of the fund is to help American citizens who were unfairly targeted by the Biden administration. Trump denies that the fund was meant to benefit his friends and allies.

The bottom line is that Blanche’s nomination could advance out of the committee on Tuesday and his confirmation approved or disapproved on Saturday. The Senate needs to act on this nomination to enable Americans to have an Attorney General?

 

Who Is Nell Stevenson Bright?

My VIP for this week is Nell Stevenson Bright, female pilot of World War II. According to Lee Benson at the Deseret News, Nell was 21 years old in early 1943 when she saw an article in an issue of Flying Magazine about a new program. 

The article said that the U.S. Army was recruiting female pilots to make more men available for combat duty. The female pilots would work behind-the-scenes where they would test planes, ferry aircraft, transport cargo, and train new pilots. The name of the squadron was Women Airforce Service Pilots, better known as WASP.

Nell Stevenson looked at the requirements: Female. Check. Twenty-one years of age or older. Check. Five-foot-4 or taller. Check. Pilot’s license. Check. Thirty-five hours of flight time. Check. (She had 75.)

At a time in history when women weren’t allowed to serve on juries in many states or even open their own checkbooks – let alone fly in combat – Nell now had her chance to help America win the war.

More than 25,000 women applied to be WASPs, 1,830 were admitted and 1,074 completed the six-month course that included schooling in navigation, physics, Morse code, meteorology, military law and mechanics.

Nell was one of the select few. In the critical years of 1943 and 1944, through D-Day and beyond, she trained on and flew almost every plane in the U.S. Army Air Corps fleet, from bombers to fighters to everything in between. She was one of the first women chosen to pilot a B-25 bomber.

All while wearing her lipstick (the Army insisted its women flyers look ladylike).

The closest she got to the front was Biggs Field in El Paso, Texas, and Mather Field in Sacramento, California. But there’s no way of calculating the enormous impact her out-of-the-limelight service, and that of her fell WASPs, had on the men they trained, the planes they tested and the outcome of the war.

These days, [she] can be found living at the Legacy Village retirement home in Sugarhouse….

This past June 20, she celebrated her 105^th birthday.

She is the last living WASP….

 

What Did John Adams Say About Defending Constitutions?

The topic of discussion for this Constitution Monday concerns communism, Democratic Socialists of America, and the youth group of the Democrats. Daniel McCarthy recently shared his thoughts on this topic in an article published in The Daily Signal. 

The Democratic Socialists of America don’t like being called communists….

Yet, however the group self-identifies, its agenda is openly revolutionary.

It plans call for, among other things, abolishing the United States Senate and making the executive branch and the Supreme Court subservient to the House of Representatives.

Like many a revolutionary organ, the DSA acts as a party within a party, and it increasingly represents the youth wing of the Democrats….

Yet DSA’s ideas are remarkably old-fashioned – so old, in fact, they were refuted by John Adams in 1787.

That was the year he began publishing a multivolume work called “A Defence of the Constitutions of the United States of America.

It was so long ago Americans still spelled “defence” with a “c.”

The book refers to “constitutions,” plural, because Adams hadn’t seen the new U.S. Constitution drawn up in Philadelphia that year.

He was actually defending the state constitutions against French intellectuals who insisted they should be more radical.

That was just two years before the outbreak of the French Revolution, with all the murder and mayhem it would bring.

The old French versions of today’s DSA schemers condemned bicameral legislatures for the same reason Mamdani’s and AOC’s fans do now: Their idea of “democracy” called for centralizing power in a single body.

No checks, no balances, and certainly no federalism – the whole nation was to be personified in an omnipotent unitary legislation.

Adams, who had been one of the first American revolutionary leaders to call for independence from Britain, was no enemy of popular self-government.

But pure democracy would be as bad as any other kind of centralized despotism – so he defended the “mixed” constitutions of the states, almost all of which had separate upper and lower legislative chambers and divided legislative, executive, and judicial power.

The federal Constitution was drawn up on the same principles – and combined them with a division of powers between the states and national government.

A glance at how the Constitution has performed for the last 239 years, compared to the chaos and bloodshed that engulfed revolutionary France once the proto-DSA types started getting their way there, shows who was right.

But DSA, not content with dreaming of an end to capitalism, wants to end constitutionalism as well.

Revolutionary parties, like Russia’s Bolsheviks, have often had such farfetched goals – the point isn’t to achieve them so much as it is to wreck whatever already exists.

DSA’s first step is to radicalize the Democratic Party, making previously outrageous ideas like packing the Supreme Court seem mild by comparison to the Democratic Socialist program. Abolishing the Senate may be politically impossible, but de-legitimizing it is a way to delegitimize obstacles to centralized power – not just the Senate itself, with its equal representation for all states, large or small, but the very principle of federalism.

 

… DSA wants to make the whole country like California, only worse. That’s their idea of democracy – the socialist version.

It’s the revolutionary French version as well, and it’s as un-American as anything can be. Yet it’s a magnet pulling the Democratic Party hard to the left.

Notoriously, DSA has a disproportionate number of members who are highly educated but low-paid or unemployed.

Like the Marxists of the last century or the French philosophes of the century before that, they’re sophisticated enough to seem like they know what they’re talking about, if you haven’t learned how disastrous their ideas have proved to be in practice.

But American education doesn’t teach much about the horrors of communism or France’s Reign of Terror.

Radicals occupied the educational establishment early on, and now they’re reaping political rewards for the ignorance they’ve fostered in the public.

According to recent Cata Institute polling, Generation Z – Americans between ages 14 and 29 – favors socialism over capitalism by 53% to 45%, though the “Democratic Socialist” label polls less well.

Despite having “democratic” in its name, however, DSA doesn’t need majority support to bring about revolutionary change for the worse: A motivated minority is enough when the majority is unaware of its danger.

 

What Is the Great Work that Nehemiah and Ezra Were Doing?

 My Come Follow Me studies for this week took me to Ezra and Nehemiah in a lesson titled “I Am Doing a Great Work.” The following information introduced the lesson.

The Jewish people had been captives in Babylonia for about 70 years. They had lost Jerusalem and the temple, and many had forgotten their commitment to God’s law. But God had not forgotten them. In fact, He had declared through His prophet, “I will visit you, and perform my good word toward you, in causing you to return” (Jeremiah 29:10). True to this prophecy, the Lord made a way for His people to return—both to Jerusalem and, more importantly, to their covenants.

And He raised up servants who accomplished “a great work” (Nehemiah 6:3): A governor named Zerubbabel oversaw the rebuilding of the house of the Lord. Ezra, a priest and scribe, helped the people turn their hearts back to the Lord’s law. And Nehemiah led the rebuilding of the protective walls around Jerusalem. They met opposition, but they also got help from unexpected sources.

Their experiences can inform and inspire ours because we too are doing a great work. And like theirs, our work has much to do with the house of the Lord, the law of the Lord, and the spiritual protection we find in Him.

The following principles are taught in this scripture block: (1) The Lord inspires people to accomplish His purposes (Ezra 1). (2) The house of the Lord is a place of joy (Ezra 3:8-13; 6:16-22). (3) God has an important work for me to do (Ezra 4-7; Nehemiah 2; 4; 6). (4) I am blessed when I study the scriptures (Nehemiah 8).

This essay will discuss principle #1 about God inspiring people to help accomplish His work. After Persia conquered Babylonia, the Lord inspired the Persian king, Cyrus, to send a group of Jews to Jerusalem to rebuild the temple. God gave the following charge to Cyrus (Ezra 1:1-4).

1 Now in the first year of Cyrus king of Persia, that the word of the Lord by the mouth of Jeremiah might be fulfilled, the Lord stirred up the spirit of Cyrus king of Persia, that he made a proclamation throughout all his kingdom, and put it also in writing, saying,

2 Thus saith Cyrus king of Persia, The Lord God of heaven hath given me all the kingdoms of the earth; and he hath charged me to build him an house at Jerusalem, which is in Judah.

3 Who is there among you of all his people? his God be with him, and let him go up to Jerusalem, which is in Judah, and build the house of the Lord God of Israel, (he is the God,) which is in Jerusalem.

4 And whosoever remaineth in any place where he sojourneth, let the men of his place help him with silver, and with gold, and with goods, and with beasts, beside the freewill offering for the house of God that is in Jerusalem.

God inspired King Cyrus to assist in the rebuilding of the temple in Jerusalem. Cyrus was not a Jew; he was a Persian. There was no good reason The following verses tell us that Cyrus announced to his entire kingdom that he was sending Jews back to rebuild the temple in Jerusalem. He called for all the Jews that could go to go. For those who could not go, the king asked them to donate gold and silver.

Can you think of any men or women, members of the Church and people who are not members of His Church, whom the Lord uses to help with His work? I would, of course, name prophets and apostles, ancient and modern-day. I would also name Johannes Gutenberg (printing press), Columbus, the Founding Fathers of the United States who wrote and signed the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution, and other great men and women.

After the U.S. Embassy was moved to Jerusalem, the Israeli government minted a Temple coin with the likenesses of Cyrus and Donald Trump on it. This means that the Jewish nation considers the work of Trump as great as that of Cyrus.

 

The nation of Israel minted this Temple Coin to commemorate the US Embassy being moved to Jerusalem

Are Young Women Responsible for Falling Marriage Rates?

Marriages are stronger when husbands and wives work together as equal partners, and strong marriages usually result in strong families, communities, states, and nations. Last Thursday night I posted a discussion about an article by Maria Baer and Brad Wilcox titled “Opinion: The Amazonian Trap.” Tonight’s discussion will be based on an article by McArthur Krishna in a rebuttal to the earlier article.

In her article titled “Opinion: Single women are no longer choosing shoddy marriages –what men can do about it,” Krishna explained that today’s young women are rejecting the idea that any marriage is better than none. 

Increasingly, single women are rejecting the idea that any marriage is better than no marriage. They are not turning away from love, commitment or family; they are turning away from marriages in which they are expected to obey, carry a disproportionate share of the work or have their voices routinely disregarded.

The question is not simply why fewer young women are choosing marriage. The more important question is: What kind of marriage do we hold up as worthwhile … and why is the onus on young women …?

Recent research suggests that many young women have good reason to be cautious. Across attitudes toward authority, the division of domestic labor and whose voice carries weight in a relationship, the evidence reveals persistent inequalities that can prevent marriage from being a place of mutual thriving.

For example, a recent study conducted by King’s College London of 23,000 participants from 29 countries found that almost one-third of Gen Z men thought that wives should always obey their husbands and that men should be the final decision-makers in a relationship.

Another prominent study from the University of Michigan found that when men marry, they gain an hour of discretionary time – and women lose seven. A more recent study by Pew Research found that even when women earn as much as their spouse, wives still contribute double the number of hours required to maintain a house and family.

Finally, a UCLA study found that wives incorporate relevant information from their spouse … while men do not.

Taken together, these studies and others indicate that flourishing marriages are in danger due to lack of partnership.

While both men and women are responsible for creating healthy marriages, the recent piece published in the Deseret News focused only on what women can do. Here, let’s talk about what men can do.

1. Men can show up as partners

Partnership marriages mean marriages where both partners’ needs and wishes are considered so all thrive. Decisions are made as equals rather than hierarchically. Resources such as time and money are split….

2. Men can contribute more to family life

Married men can evaluate their holistic contribution to married and family life. If they provide financially with a full-time job, what is contributed after those work hours? (A full-time parenting job is much more than 9-5.) This is an opportunity to learn about the concept of “mental load.” … Married men need to consciously choose to contribute to the domestic demands of family life.

For unmarried men, there’s an opportunity to learn the skills to successfully take care of your future family. Many men would do anything to protect their families — so start by learning to do laundry, cook, clean and communicate. (These activities keep your family healthy and strong!)

A comprehensive study from Europe found that when men participated in family life more, divorce dropped 34%.

3. Men can learn to listen to women

If your first instinct is to discount this information, you might wonder why. The Gottmans (the renowned husband-wife team that has done the most comprehensive research on healthy marriages … and what prompts divorce) say that respect is a key foundation to a healthy marriage. Listening to your partner and attempting to understand where they are coming from is an integral component of respect.

If we are serious about strengthening marriage, the solution is not to pressure young women to marry or to tell them their expectations are too high. The onus is not on one party.

The question is not whether young women are willing to choose marriage. The more valid question is: “Are men and women, together, willing to build marriages worth choosing?”

The goal is a divine marriage where both parties contribute to creating a relationship where joy, vitality and mutual thriving are present.

 

Will the 2026 Mid-Term Election Have Integrity?

The liberty principle for this Freedom Friday concerns election integrity. President Donald Trump is insisting on honest and fair elections in the upcoming federal elections. On March 31, 2026, President Trump signed an executive order on voting in federal elections. The order, titled “Ensuring Citizenship Verification and Integrity in Federal Elections,” would give overlapping responsibilities to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the U.S. Postal Service. The order gave DHS the responsibility to compile a list for each state of U.S. citizens who will be at least 18 years old by Election Day, and the Postal Service the responsibility to transmit ballots from only voters whose names appear on the list.

As they usually do, 20 Left-leaning states, led by California, challenged the order, arguing that eligibility to vote is a states’ right issue under the U.S. Constitution. Emma Pitts at the Deseret News reported on the issue as follows. 

U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani sided with the states on June 25, and [she] prohibited the federal government from implementing the order ahead of the Nov. 3 election.

“The States alone determine voter-eligibility requirements, subject only to the outer limits of the Constitution,” the Massachusetts judge ruled, adding, “This injunction does not bar the federal government from providing assistance with verifying citizenship or eligibility of any voter if the assistance is provided at the request of any State and within the framework provided by Congress.”

Talwandi refused the Trump administration’s request for a pause on her injunction, causing the defendants to then request a pause from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1^st Circuit. The appeals court ultimately refused to pause the lower court’s injunction:

“Were the EO (executive order) to take effect for the elections taking place in September and November, it would sow confusion and threaten disenfranchisement of many eligible voters. And given that the Government ‘make(s) no argument that (its) actions were legal on the merits,’ and ‘there is generally no public interest in the perpetuation of unlawful (government) action,’ the public interest does not favor a stay.”

In the federal government’s last attempt to lift the lower court injunction while the underlying appeal continues in the 1^st Circuit, U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer filed to the Supreme Court.

The filing does not ask the Supreme Court to issue a ruling on the constitutionality of Trump’s election executive order right now; instead, it asks the justices to determine what rules should be in effect while that litigation continues.

“A stay – along with an immediate administrative stay – is also warranted because the injunction below imposes irreparable harm on the government,” Sauer argued. “Absent a stay, the government will be unable to obtain appellate relief from an order that bars implementation of a presidential policy that seeks to ensure voter integrity in the upcoming November 2026 election. Accordingly, both the irreparable harm factor and the public interest favor the government.”

On Tuesday, 12 states, headed by Alabama, sided with the Trump administration’s request to temporarily pause the 1^st Circuit’s order while litigation continues.