When Scripture Confirms the Critique: Reading Mosiah 2-4

After I posted my critique of the Mormon Fall doctrine as shown in Elder Oaks talk The Great Plan, a commentor responded:

"Your post very much misrepresented the teachings of the church and your perspective on God is also very misaligned with the church that you profess to know much about. I highly suggest you study Mosiah 2-4. It addresses your post better than I can."

So I did. I read Mosiah chapters 2-4.

And he was right about one thing: these chapters absolutely address my post.

But what I found was more damning than illuminating.

A Note on "Misunderstanding"

Before I get into the text itself, I need to address something this commentor said: that my perspective is "very misaligned with the church that you profess to know much about."

I want to be clear: I don't misunderstand Mormon theology. I understand it intimately.

I spent over thirty years in the church. I attended seminary all four years of high school. I served a mission. I was endowed in the temple. I held multiple callings. I took enough Institute of Religion classes to graduate twice.

And these chapters he sent me to? I've read them dozens of times. Multiple verses in Mosiah 2-4 are scripture mastery verses. They are scriptures I was required and eager to memorize in seminary.

Mosiah 2:17 - "When ye are in the service of your fellow beings ye are only in the service of your God."

Mosiah 3:19 - "For the natural man is an enemy to God, and has been from the fall of Adam, and will be, forever and ever, unless he yields to the enticings of the Holy Spirit..."

Mosiah 4:30 - "But this much I can tell you, that if ye do not watch yourselves, and your thoughts, and your words, and your deeds..."

I know these verses by heart. I've quoted them in talks. I've taught them in lessons. I tried to teach them to investigators. I've applied them to my life for decades.

So when I critique them now, it's not because I misunderstand what the church teaches.

It's because I understand exactly what the church teaches. And I'm finally seeing the problems with it.

The suggestion that I'm "misaligned" with church doctrine is both dismissive and inaccurate. I'm not misunderstanding the theology. I'm disagreeing with it. I'm critiquing verses I have memorized, doctrines I have lived, teachings I have internalized.

When he tells me I've misunderstood, what he's really saying is: "You can't possibly understand this correctly and still disagree."

What I Found

It's been a very long time since I sat down and read multiple chapters of the Book of Mormon. Years, probably. Maybe longer.

As I read, I found myself doing something I haven't done in that same length of years. I took notes. Verse by verse. Asking questions. Noticing patterns.

What emerged was a detailed breakdown that's far too long for a Facebook comment. What follows is a more comprehensive breakdown:

These chapters confirm everything I said about Mormon theology being built on manufactured shame and degradation rather than genuine love or justice.

Let me show you what I mean.

The Degradation Rhetoric

King Benjamin's entire discourse is saturated with language that emphasizes human unworthiness:

Mosiah 2:21 - "If you should serve him with all your whole souls yet ye would be unprofitable servants."

Even perfect obedience isn't enough. Even giving everything you have still makes you unprofitable.

Mosiah 2:25 - "Ye cannot say that ye are even as much as the dust of the earth."

You're less than dust. Not just humble. Not just failing to recognize God's greatness.

Mosiah 3:19 - "For the natural man is an enemy to God, and has been from the fall of Adam, and will be, forever and ever, unless he yields to the enticings of the Holy Spirit."

Your natural state is God's enemy. Not just flawed. Not just imperfect. An enemy. I'll return to the full verse later.

Mosiah 4:19 - "Are we not all beggars?"

Even after being taught about Christ's atonement, even after committing to keep the commandments, the people are reminded: you're beggars. Dependent. Without inherent worth.

This isn't humility. This is systematic degradation.

The Pattern Is Clear

These aren't isolated verses. This is the framework:

1. You are inherently worthless (dust, unprofitable, beggars)
2. Your natural state is God's enemy (not just flawed, but enemy)
3. Even perfect obedience wouldn't be enough (unprofitable servants)
4. Only through complete submission can you escape this state
5. And you'll never fully escape it. You'll always be dependent, always begging, always less than

The church teaches that you're fundamentally broken. That your nature is evil. That you can't trust yourself. That only through the church's ordinances, only through complete submission, only through endless striving can you maybe, possibly, eventually become acceptable.

And even then, you're still unprofitable. Still begging. Still less than dust.

What's Missing

Here's what these chapters don't address. Points he said would be better answered in verse than it would be by him:

1. Natural suffering

Nothing in Mosiah 2-4 explains how earthquakes, cancer, birth defects, or childhood diseases lead to growth and progression.

The discourse focuses on moral choices: keeping commandments, serving others, avoiding sin. But it doesn't touch the problem of natural evil.

Why do children get cancer? How does that contribute to anyone's growth? What commandment prevents tsunamis?

The theology has no answer for this.

2. Why couldn't God conceive of a better plan?

Mosiah repeatedly emphasizes that the Fall was necessary, that the Atonement was prepared "from the foundation of the world" (Mosiah 4:6-7).

God knew He was sending us into a state where we would be "soiled," where we would become His enemies, where we would need redemption.

He designed this system.

So why couldn't an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving God conceive of a plan that didn't require so much suffering? Why couldn't He create beings who could grow without being degraded? Who could choose without being condemned?

The answer can't be "this was the only way" if God is truly omnipotent.

3. Why do we walk by faith when Lucifer didn't?

This is the question that breaks the entire framework.

Lucifer rebelled in heaven. With full knowledge of God. With complete information about the plan. Without any memory wipe.

A third of the host of heaven chose to follow him. Again, with full knowledge and information.

They had agency without the veil. They made choices without faith.

So why is faith required for us but not for them?

If agency can exist with full knowledge (as Lucifer proves), then the veil isn't necessary for choice.

And if the veil isn't necessary, then why impose it? Why require us to figure out which of thousands of competing religious claims is true based on feelings and cultural conditioning?

King Benjamin in Mosiah doesn't address this at all.

The God This Reveals

Here's what I can't reconcile:

I simply can't reconcile the god you believe in with the one I find in the text of the scriptures.

God knew the Fall would happen (He planned it).

God knew we would become His enemies (natural man).

God knew we would be degraded to less than dust.

God knew suffering would be massive and often gratuitous.

God knew most people would never hear the true gospel (or would hear conflicting versions).

God knew the vast majority would end up in kingdoms lower than the celestial (broad is the path that leads to destruction, narrow the way that leads to life).

He knew all of this before creating any of us.

And He did it anyway.

Then He offers to save us from the very conditions He designed. But only if we find the right church (among thousands), accept the right ordinances (that most people never access in mortality...and posthumous ordinances aren't mentioned in The Book of Mormon), and submit completely (yielding to the Holy Spirit in all things).

Mosiah 2-4 presents this as God's love. As a plan of happiness. As a joyful destiny.

But when you actually read what it requires: the degradation, the shame, the endless unworthiness, the systemic suffering, it doesn't look like love.

It looks like control.

Why This Matters

A commentor sent me to these chapters thinking they would answer my critique.

And they did. Just in a way I think he didn't fully anticipate.

Because these chapters don't defend the theology. They demonstrate exactly what I was critiquing.

The shame cycle, the manufactured unworthiness. It's all explicit in the text. Not because of what you've done, but because of what you are. Because of Adam's choice that you inherited.

And the control mechanisms are clear:

• Don't "trifle" with these words (Mosiah 2:9 - don't think too hard)
• Leave and you're given to Satan (Mosiah 2:36-39 - fear-based retention)
• Thought crimes are punishable (Mosiah 4:30 - even your mind isn't free)

The Mosiah 3:19 Problem

Let me come back to the full verse at the center of this:

"For the natural man is an enemy to God, and has been from the fall of Adam, and will be, forever and ever, unless he yields 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."

This verse encapsulates everything wrong with the theology:

1. Your nature is God's enemy - Not just flawed, not just imperfect, but enemy

2. This has been true since the Fall - You inherited it, you didn't choose it

3. It will be true forever unless you submit - You can never escape your nature, only suppress it through constant submission

4. You must become as a child - Submissive, unquestioning, accepting whatever is "inflicted" upon you

5. "Willing to submit to all things which the Lord seeth fit to inflict upon him" - Even the language acknowledges God is inflicting things on you

This isn't love. This isn't growth. This isn't a plan of happiness. The premortal perspective isn't mentioned in this verse.

This is teaching people to accept abuse by reframing it as God's will.

What I See Now That I Couldn't See Then

For decades, I internalized these verses and felt them deeply. I felt the weight of being unprofitable, less than dust, God's enemy by nature. I felt the shame of my thoughts, my doubts, my normal human desires.

And I believed that feeling was evidence of the Spirit testifying of truth.

But it wasn't the Spirit. It was shame. Installed shame. Manufactured unworthiness.

That's not salvation. That's dependency by design.

Anticipated Response: "But What About the Atonement?"

A believing member might read this and think: "You're ignoring that the entire discourse is about Christ's redemption. Yes, it describes the fallen state, but only to show how much we need the Savior. The degradation language is just showing the contrast: how far we are from God and how miraculous it is that He still offers salvation."

I understand that reading. I used to make that argument myself.

And yes, King Benjamin's discourse does talk extensively about Christ's coming, His suffering, His Atonement. Mosiah 3 describes His ministry. Mosiah 4 talks about applying His blood and receiving forgiveness.

I'm not ignoring that. I'm saying it doesn't solve the problem. It's part of the problem.

Here's why:

The framework requires you to be broken so God can fix you.

It's not that you're flawed and God helps you improve. It's that you're fundamentally corrupted (enemy to God, less than dust, unprofitable even at your best) and only complete submission to His specific plan can make you acceptable.

That's not describing a problem and offering help. That's manufacturing a problem and offering the only solution.

A truly loving God wouldn't need to degrade you to save you. He wouldn't need to tell you that you're His enemy, less than dust, unprofitable even at your best, just so the contrast makes His love seem greater.

That's not love. That's manipulation.

Think about it this way: What if I tried to convince you that you were worthless, broken, and fundamentally flawed. Then I told you I was the only person who could fix you. But only if you submitted completely to my guidance, would you call that love?

Or would you recognize it as an abusive relationship dynamic?

The Atonement doesn't cancel out the harm of the degradation language. It requires it. The system needs you to believe you're broken so you'll accept the fix. And according to Mormon theology, God designed the test knowing you would become "soiled," knowing you would become His enemy, knowing you would need redemption. He created the problem. Then He offers the solution.

That's not rescue. That's creating dependency.

Where This Leaves Me

I don't write this to attack the commentor. I appreciate that he engaged. That he pointed me to scripture he thought would answer my concerns.

But it didn't answer them. It confirmed them.

These aren't problems I'm imposing on the text from outside. These are problems in the text itself.

I spent thirty years reading these scriptures and feeling the shame they prescribed. Believing I was God's enemy. Believing I was less than dust. Believing even perfect obedience would make me unprofitable.

Now I read them and see the mechanism clearly: create unworthiness, offer the only solution, maintain control through manufactured dependency.

That's not a plan of happiness. That's spiritual abuse.

And I'm done pretending it's love just because the text calls it that.

If you're still in the church and you read Mosiah 2-4 and feel uplifted, I'm not trying to take that from you. But I am asking: what are you actually being taught? That you're less than dust. That your nature is God's enemy. That you must submit to whatever is inflicted upon you.

Is that really what love looks like?

I used to believe it did.

I don't anymore.

And if you don't either, I hope you find a way to release the shame that is so deeply installed.