See here. The “15 minutes are up” bit after the end is inaccurate. There are other minor inaccuracies, like the color of the altar cloth. The music attempts to make the scene feel beautiful, but I doubt that will mitigate the complaints. The woman is crying at the end in anticipation of a “love court”, but the first thing I thought was how many ex-Mormons tell me how awkward and even creepy their experience felt to them.
Thoughts? Remember, keep your emotions in check. And remember that your taboos are not necessarily our taboos.
Update: Some of my favorite Mormon commentary on the episode:
Most contemporary Mormons feel that regardless of whatever the ceremony itself says about what should or should not be kept secret, all of it should. This extends even to official discourse within the institution itself. Noah Feldman’s concept of ’soft-secrecy,’ twentieth century Mormons’ proclivity to minimize those things which might seem odd or disturbing to contemporary is a useful way to conceptualize this, both within and without the boundaries of the Church.
The secrecy that surrounds the temple is one of the last bastions of peculiarity within a rushing tide of Mormon cultural assimilation. Maintaining that silence within the church is a way to assure ourselves that we are still possessed of holiness, of that special set-apartness that once characterized our entire lives. It’s a way to maintain the power of the distinctions and initiations that make Mormon culture strong and give it clarity…
This episode of Big Love, if it does nothing else, strips away Mormon secrecy and in so doing attempts to shove the Church unwillingly into the bright lights and cacophony of the public square.
David,
“I never said God cursed Adam or Eve. I pointed out that he did not curse them”
But God did curse them. It is not a “natural consequence” if a being is enforcing his will upon others. Besides, the word “Cursed” is used in Genesis 3:17.
“You clear know a false understanding of the doctrine then.”
?
“As I said, the Fall was a fall down. That does not mean it was bad or unnecessary. While in the Garden Adam and Eve were in a celestial state (as taught by Brigham Young), and fell to a Telestial state when they ate the fruit. However, in the celestial state they could not have children, but in the telestial they could. Thus, it was a fall down in nature, but it made it possible for all of us to rise above the angels.”
That is why I used the words “in some sense”. Why could the first humans not have children in a celestial state? God does and He is in a celestial state.
“You left out the word understanding. You have to understand the nature of right and wrong.”
No I didn’t. Anyone can see that I clipped the quote correctly. Yes, “understanding” was in another part but that does not change the thrust of what was written. And one does not need to understand the nature of right and wrong in order to sin.
“Even though it was contrary to the commands of God. No. She knew what she did was wrong, and she knew why it was wrong. She may have had good intentions, but that does not excuse the action. You cannot justify sin with the desire to do good. The pathway to hell is paved with good intentions.”
Amen to that! I am just willing to carry that towards Adam, Eve, and kids. Even so what Barb, your daughter, Adam, Eve, Satan, and everybody else does is willful disobedience. You have to call it otherwise to bail out your theological baggage.
“Yes, but only by ignoring the scriptures and the commands of God. When something in plainly taught by God or his prophets and you go against it, it does not matter why, or what you believe. If you had the oportunity to know, if you read the words, or heard them, and chose to act against them you are still held by them.”
But so many sins, and atrocities, are/were committed by those who have no knowledge of the Bible let alone the rest of the standard works. They do not have scriptural precedence in their minds but their sins are still sins.
“Only with your interpretation of the Bible. I have read the Bible more than once and have found nothing that contradicts what I believe.”
My “interpretation” is right. You have not even offered a meaningful response to why Romans 5:16 does not mean that Adam sinned. It is as plain as plain can be.
“greater wrong”
I am just borrowing your analogy as flawed as it is. The problem is that anyone who has spent any amount of time with children knows that they are little people and most definitely capable of sin. I would also point out that the underlying pre-supposition that is at work here – that an individual can only be judged by what he or she knows – is not one that I operate under or agree with.
“I still see it differently. Also, while God does use people sins they are not necessary. Such as Judas betraying Christ. This was not necessary, and Judas will be punished for the act. However, I still see the passage in Timothy pointing out that Adam was not at fault, giving me the impression that what he did was necessary. ”
Just like when God says “Woe to Assyria, the rod of My anger” (10:5). God most definitely uses peoples sins. He even hardens hearts like he did with Pharaoh. It is debatable how “necessary” these sins are/were but things do not go well for those who commit them.
You wrote earlier that “If you insist that Adam and Eve had the understanding it is an inconsistancy”. According to the Bible, Romans 5:16, Adam is the “one who sinned”.
“However, when you understand that they did not it is no longer an inconsistancy.”
But they did sin. And since they did, Mormonism is inconsistent at its foundation. I know why you have to bail out Adam and not Barb (or anyone else). But the text of the Bible is really that obvious and it goes against the idea of eternal progression.
DAVID
“But they did sin. And since they did, Mormonism is inconsistent at its foundation.”
We do not believe that Adam and Eve sinned and since we do not believe it our faith is consistant. It is inconsistant with your belief, and how you see the Bible, but with our belief and how we see the Bible.
You are still using your beliefs instead of ours. You have claimed our beliefs to be inconsistant, and showed this through stating that you believe differently. This is not logical, and is the only complaint I have had concerning anything you have said in this thread. Your belief may be inconsistant with ours, but that does not make ours inconsistant in themselves.
Now, in Genesis 3: 17-19 it says “And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life; Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field; In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.”
Notice that not only is it the ground that is cursed and not Adam, but that it is done for the benefit of Adam (for his sake). Yes it states that he will die, but that is not part of the curse. The curse is on the land. The effect of it requires that Adam work for his food. This work will be needed until he dies, but this only ends the curse for him. This curse is on all of us, as all of us must work for our daily living.
No where do I see God enforcing his will on Adam or Eve.
As to Romans, it never says that Adam sinned. It states that he transgressed the law. Notice the distiction in terms in verse 14. If others, in the state they were in after the fall, had acting in the same way (or in the similitude) as Adam they would have sinned. But Adam is refered to having transgressed. Verses 15 and 17 call this an offense, and do not use the word sin. It is only in verse 16 that the word sin is used. This is quite easily explained as a literary liscense on Paul part. Sin and Transgression are very similar, being different only in the level of understanding. Thus to use the word sin would be more powerful.
Now, I believe he does this for a simple reason. In the first chapter of this epistle he praises the roman saints for their faith and diligence. Thus he knows that they know the difference between the two, and understand the doctrine of the Fall. He is expanding on this understanding, showing how great the Atonement is. IN other parts of this epistle he expands on other points of doctrine that seem unclear, because he is not giving the foundational doctrine that they are built on. In this way he is able to take the small literary lisense for effect without worrying that his words will cause confusion.
Shemawater
“You are still using your beliefs instead of ours. You have claimed our beliefs to be inconsistant, and showed this through stating that you believe differently. This is not logical, and is the only complaint I have had concerning anything you have said in this thread. Your belief may be inconsistant with ours, but that does not make ours inconsistant in themselves.”
You still don’t get it. Let me repeat my own words again. – “For the record, I understand that according to you and your church their is a distinction between what Adam did and people trying to do the same thing now. However, from an outside opinion (mine) it seems to be a false distinction, one that is inconsistent. ”
“If others, in the state they were in after the fall, had acting in the same way (or in the similitude) as Adam they would have sinned.”
I believe you got to state this as it would undo much of you theology. Hence the inconsistency
I also believe the LDS position is on some level inconsistent with language. When people state that mankind in some way(s) – “fell up” (again, I did not make up this phrase and look at the language I am using) it does violence to the word “fall”. Also, I do see this position as being inconsistent with the Bible.
“Notice that not only is it the ground that is cursed and not Adam, but that it is done for the benefit of Adam (for his sake). Yes it states that he will die, but that is not part of the curse. The curse is on the land. The effect of it requires that Adam work for his food. This work will be needed until he dies, but this only ends the curse for him. This curse is on all of us, as all of us must work for our daily living.”
How is what happened to the land a “benefit” to man? To the curse the ground we live on is to curse us. How is the introduction of death not a part of the curse or a curse itself?
“No where do I see God enforcing his will on Adam or Eve.”
Do you think that Adam wanted these “natural consequences” of his actions? No, God forced death and a cursed earth on mankind. He forced pain in child birth on Eve. They most certainly did not want it but they got it from the All-mighty.
“As to Romans, it never says that Adam sinned.”
Look again, and this time without your theological goggles on. Who is the “one who sinned” in Romans 5:16? That is explicit as you can get as to what happened in the garden. It straight up says Adam sinned and you do not want to believe it.
“This is quite easily explained as a literary liscense on Paul part.”
So if the Bible wanted to convey to you and me that Adam sinned how would it do that? The actual word “sinned” is used as well as a whole host of other nasty words (and not just in Romans either). If we were talking about any other person and we were using the words “sinned”, “transgression”, and “fall” – you, myself, and those reading would think that we were discussing a person who did in fact sin.
“Thus to use the word sin would be more powerful.”
Yeah, to convey the idea that Adam sinned.
“In the first chapter of this epistle he praises the roman saints for their faith and diligence. Thus he knows that they know the difference between the two, and understand the doctrine of the Fall.”
Where are you getting this? Your argument amounts to – “Paul praises their intelligence so it undoes everything he goes on to state”. This is a most definitely eisigesis and a non-sequitur to boot.
Shemawater, if you had a smoking gun on me say – somewhere in the Old Testament it stated that there were multiple Gods and that men can become Gods too, you would cry all day long if I called that “literary license”.
I go this smoking gun on you here. Not only does it state multiple places throughout the Bible that Adam sinned you do not believe it because the actual word is not used. then when it is you brush it off. Face it Adam “sinned”.
DAVID
“However, from an outside opinion (mine) it seems to be a false distinction, one that is inconsistent. ”
-And my point is that it is only an inconsistancy, or false distinction, when you look at it from the point of view of your belief.
“I also believe the LDS position is on some level inconsistent with language. When people state that mankind in some way(s) – “fell up” (again, I did not make up this phrase and look at the language I am using) it does violence to the word “fall”.
-That is because you have the false idea that the Fall is in any way a fall up. It isn’t. The fall is a fall down, and the atonement takes us up. Let us compare it to climbing. We all are on when side of a revene. The other side is higher than the one we are on, and that is where all the food is. We need to get over there. However, inorder to do it we must first decend down into the revene, and then climb up the other side. While we will end higher than we started, the decent is still a downward decent.
Just as Christ was made a little lower than the angels so that he could ascend and be crowned with glory (Heb 2: 7, 9), in like manner the fall lowered all men so that they could be raised in heaven.
“Also, I do see this position as being inconsistent with the Bible.”
-Again, it is only inconsistant with your interpretation of the Bible. I find it in perfect harmony with what I have read in the Bible.
“How is what happened to the land a “benefit” to man? To the curse the ground we live on is to curse us. How is the introduction of death not a part of the curse or a curse itself?”
-It was a benefit because it taught the value of work, and forced us all to learn how to not only care for ourselves, but for each other. Anyways, it is in the scriptures that it was done for our benefit. What do you think the phrase “for your sake” means?
As it was a benefit it was not a curse on us, as the scriptures say. It was a curse on the land done for the good of mankind.
Because of the benefits that come from it. It is through the death of man that they can then be raised to immortality. Without this death they never could, but would be stuck in an inferior body.
“Do you think that Adam wanted these “natural consequences” of his actions? No, God forced death and a cursed earth on mankind. He forced pain in child birth on Eve. They most certainly did not want it but they got it from the All-mighty.”
-I think that once they understood the reason for it they rejoiced in everything that had happened (see the book of Moses). Second, as I believe it was a natural consequence then God did not force it on them. It simply happened. He forced nothing on them, but they brought these changes on themselves. The cursing of the ground did not force anything either, as they could have simply refused to work and dies of starvation. There are always choices, and nobody, not even God, can force you to make any choice if you do not want to.
“The actual word “sinned” is used as well as a whole host of other nasty words (and not just in Romans either). If we were talking about any other person and we were using the words “sinned”, “transgression”, and “fall” – you, myself, and those reading would think that we were discussing a person who did in fact sin.”
-If you were talking about a child under the age of eight, or one who’s mental facalties are equivilant to this, I would not believe that they did in fact sin. I would again say that the term is used for emphasis, but that it is refering to the lesser form of transgression.
Also, I would not use the word transgression unless we were talking of transgressions (or what is commonly called sins in ignorance).
“Where are you getting this? Your argument amounts to – “Paul praises their intelligence so it undoes everything he goes on to state”. This is a most definitely eisigesis and a non-sequitur to boot.”
-What does he undo? You must understand that when teaching you use different methods and teach different topics depending on the knowledge and understanding of the audience. What Paul is doing in using the word sin is letting them know that for them to act in this way would be a sin, and for that reason he calls Adam’s act a sin. However, before that he does make the distintion that Adam only transgressed, as I pointed out. Through the act of Adam, which would be sin for the people he is writing to, death came into the world. It is a beautiful literary lisense.
“Shemawater, if you had a smoking gun on me say – somewhere in the Old Testament it stated that there were multiple Gods and that men can become Gods too, you would cry all day long if I called that “literary license”.”
-In all truth I do see this in both the Old and New Testiment (multiple gods and us becoming like God) but I allow you your interpretation of such scripture that I see as plainly discussing this. I do not complain that you see it differently, nor would I if you said it was aliterary lisense. That is your choice to view it in that way.
“I go this smoking gun on you here. Not only does it state multiple places throughout the Bible that Adam sinned you do not believe it because the actual word is not used. then when it is you brush it off. Face it Adam “sinned”.”
-Adam did sin, as all men sin. However, in eating the fruit he did not.
This is not a smoking gun. As I said, we interpret things differently. There is no doctrine taught by the LDS that I cannot find support for in the Bible. I also understand that you can support all of your doctrine in the Bible. I do not hard on everything we disagree with, even though I could. I simply explain what I believe, and in the best way I can.
Shemawater,
“That is because you have the false idea that the Fall is in any way a fall up. It isn’t. The fall is a fall down, and the atonement takes us up. Let us compare it to climbing. We all are on when side of a revene. The other side is higher than the one we are on, and that is where all the food is. We need to get over there. However, inorder to do it we must first decend down into the revene, and then climb up the other side. While we will end higher than we started, the decent is still a downward decent.
Just as Christ was made a little lower than the angels so that he could ascend and be crowned with glory (Heb 2: 7, 9), in like manner the fall lowered all men so that they could be raised in heaven.”
I do not believe the fall to be anything but down. The only “up” that is achieved is that God is glorified. For mankind as a whole I see the fall consigning many humans to hell, not to mention loads of suffering on earth. The idea of the fall being one that in some way goes up is an idea or phrase that I have gotten from Mormons. You may not share that idea, or you may describe it in a different way, but this type of phraseology is common in Mormon circles; I did not make it up.
“Again, it is only inconsistant with your interpretation of the Bible. I find it in perfect harmony with what I have read in the Bible.”
Yeah, because you are reading in a whole bunch of things that are not there.
“It was a benefit because it taught the value of work, and forced us all to learn how to not only care for ourselves, but for each other. Anyways, it is in the scriptures that it was done for our benefit. What do you think the phrase “for your sake” means?
As it was a benefit it was not a curse on us, as the scriptures say. It was a curse on the land done for the good of mankind.
Because of the benefits that come from it. It is through the death of man that they can then be raised to immortality. Without this death they never could, but would be stuck in an inferior body.”
Scripture reference(s) please. I don’t know about you but life in the garden seemed pretty “good” – as in perfect. God did not curse Adam with work, he already was employed as a gardener, but he was cursed with hard work a.k.a. toil. Also don’t you see how one does not get this from the text of Genesis but rather one must import these ideas in from other texts? Don’t you see how statements like this:
“It was a curse on the land done for the good of mankind.” – do violence to language?
“I think that once they understood the reason for it they rejoiced in everything that had happened (see the book of Moses)”
Really, and do you think that they rejoiced when Cain murdered Abel? They were cursed, and toil plus death were now a way of life where they had not been before. Adam did not go on those long walks with God anymore; there was an angel with a sword keeping them from what used to be their old home. They had paradise and blew it.
“Second, as I believe it was a natural consequence then God did not force it on them. It simply happened. He forced nothing on them, but they brought these changes on themselves. The cursing of the ground did not force anything either, as they could have simply refused to work and dies of starvation. There are always choices, and nobody, not even God, can force you to make any choice if you do not want to.”
Honestly, I encounter this type of thinking alot and not just with Mormons. People are afraid to let God be God. Gravity is a natural consequence and even so God is the author of it. As such he carries some of the blame/responsibility of it. People get hurt and die from it everyday, but it also keeps the planets in alignment. Its all God’s so he can do what he wants. Even so, this is far more direct than a natural consequence like gravity. God pronounces a sentence here. He kicked man out of his garden just like he kicked out a third of the angels from heaven. God is speaking directly to the creature fashioned in His likeness. This is not some impersonal force like gravity or the distance judgment of an uniformed bureaucrat. This is the personal God laying the smack down on his creation. The one “choice” that Adam wanted was to stay in the garden after his sin, but that wasn’t happening. The Choice Giver (or rather Choice Reducer) was not inclined to grant Adam that “choice”. But maybe you are one of those Mormons who believes in a finite god that must obey certain laws of nature.
“If you were talking about a child under the age of eight, or one who’s mental facalties are equivilant to this, I would not believe that they did in fact sin. I would again say that the term is used for emphasis, but that it is refering to the lesser form of transgression.
Also, I would not use the word transgression unless we were talking of transgressions (or what is commonly called sins in ignorance).”
Suppose my position is the correct one. If so, then how would the Bible convey to you that what Adam did was in fact sin? How would it need to be phrased? I asked this same type of question before and I did not get a response.
“What Paul is doing in using the word sin is letting them know that for them to act in this way would be a sin, and for that reason he calls Adam’s act a sin.”
No, he doesn’t he is comparing/contrasting Christ to Adam in Romans 5.
“However, before that he does make the distintion that Adam only transgressed, as I pointed out. Through the act of Adam, which would be sin for the people he is writing to, death came into the world. It is a beautiful literary lisense.”
Nowhere does Paul say that Adam “only” transgressed. I know you make the distinction between “transgression”, “offense”, and “sin” but I do not believe Paul does. Where are you getting that Paul is making that distinction? Also, Paul is not discussing the sins of the people he is writing to other than the general condition of sin; he is comparing Adam to Christ. If Adam did not sin then it makes no sense that “condemnation to all men” was given.
“I do not complain that you see it differently, nor would I if you said it was aliterary lisense. That is your choice to view it in that way.”
But words have meaning and the scriptures are supposed to speak to us. If someone came along and told you that the Book of Mormon is about Chinese scientists who were using time travel in an attempt to right past wrongs, you might say a word or two. The Book of Mormon is not about Chinese scientists and Adam sinned in the garden. If you had a “smoking gun” with regards to polytheism in the OT I am sure you would use it, but it is not there.
“Adam did sin, as all men sin. However, in eating the fruit he did not.
This is not a smoking gun. As I said, we interpret things differently.”
You interpret things differently not based on anything in the text but rather on your underlying theological pre-suppositions. Again, how could the Bible convey to you that Adam sinned if using multiple words like offense, transgression, and even “sinned” are used (throughout various parts of the entire Bible) and yet you won’t call it sin? It seems like you will not accept any wording, even the exact wording, to convey to you this obvious spiritual truth.
Shemawater, I know you have this –
We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression. (2nd article of faith) – hanging over this dialogue. However, I really do wish that you, Barb, and those who are reading would get this spiritual truth:
“So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men”
in order that you could hear this good news –
“even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men.
For as through the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous” (Romans 5:18&19).
Pingback: When is a Transgresion not a Sin??? « GUNDECK
DAVID
I make only a few choice comments on your last post. We are really continuing the same thing over and over, and nothing new is being added, so I will refrain from saying to much on that some point.
I will say only this, the fact that the LDS doctrine does not contradict itself is only fully known when you take all the doctrine. You cannot single out one point, and this has been the great difficulty I have had in these threads. If you single out one doctrine than non-members will always compare it to non-LDS doctrine and find it inconsistant.
Now to your post.
“You may not share that idea, or you may describe it in a different way, but this type of phraseology is common in Mormon circles; I did not make it up.”
-But you misunderstood it, and that is my point. It is used in reference to the entire plan of salvation, and not to the single event of the fall. When taken as a part of the whole, the whole is going up, and thus the part can be seen in that way. However, when taken by itself it is nothing but a fall.
“I don’t know about you but life in the garden seemed pretty “good” – as in perfect.”
-It all depends on how you interpret what is said. As I see it telling me that they could have no children it could not have been perfect, just easy.
“Don’t you see how statements like this: “It was a curse on the land done for the good of mankind.” – do violence to language?”
-How?
“They had paradise and blew it. ”
-Again, a personal view. Also, while the death of Abel was very sorrowful that does not mean that life in general was better. I can say with a fair amount of certainty that the parents of murders do not wish they, themselves, had never been born. They may wish their murdering child was never born, but they are thankful that they had been born, and rejoice in the righteousness of their other children.
“But maybe you are one of those Mormons who believes in a finite god that must obey certain laws of nature.”
-I believe in an infinite God who must obey certain laws. From what you just said either way you look at it God is to blame. If he caused the Fall he is to blame, but he is to blame anyway for creating us. The only way to that God is not to blame for the evil that exists is if you except that there are somethings he cannot do.
“Suppose my position is the correct one. If so, then how would the Bible convey to you that what Adam did was in fact sin?”
-If you are right than you are right. There is no other answer. If you are right than the way it is conveyed to you would be the way it would be conveyed to me. If there is no difference between terms it would not matter, but I would see each the same.
“Nowhere does Paul say that Adam “only” transgressed.” (for bevity I give only the first of this paragraph)
-verse 14 “even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam’s transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.” Notice Adam’s transgression, not sin, and the reference to all men. He is comparing Adam to Christ, but he is telling us that we sin, after the manner that Adam transgressed. Condemnation came on all men because they sin (see our 2nd article of Faith). By the transgression of Adam death came into the world, but we are punished for our sins, not for what Adam did.
“If someone came along and told you that the Book of Mormon is about Chinese scientists who were using time travel in an attempt to right past wrongs, you might say a word or two.”
-I would be curious as to how they arrived at their conclusion, but if they truly believed it that is their business. I really wouldn’t worry because it would have no real chance of convincing any intelligent person who read the book.
“If you had a “smoking gun” with regards to polytheism in the OT I am sure you would use it, but it is not there.”
-There are such verses, but I generally do not point them out as they are contraversial. As an example I would reference the story of the Fall, Genesis 3: 22 “Behold, the man is become like one of us…” God the Father is speaking to the rest of the gods.
“You interpret things differently not based on anything in the text but rather on your underlying theological pre-suppositions.”
-The text calls the tree the Knowledge of Good and Evil. It was not until they ate of this tree that they aquired said knowledge.
Now, in Deut. 1: 39 the Lord says that he will destroy the wicked generation, but the children, who knew not good and evil, would be preserved to posess the land of promise. They are preserved because they had no knowledge, thus they were blameless.
While this is only a sample of what I see in the Bible it shows the idea that without the knowledge you cannot be held accountable by the law of God.
“So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men”
“even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men.
For as through the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous” (Romans 5:18&19).”
-We have never denied either of these truths. However, we read in Ezekial 18: 20 “The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.”
Thus, we are not punished for the acts of any person other than ourselves, and that includes Adam. The result of the fall was the knowledge, and the result of the knowledge is sin. However, it is our actions that condemn us, and not Adam’s.
Shemawater,
“However, when taken by itself it is nothing but a fall.”
When taken as a whole, mankind went down as most of it is not making into the celestial kingdom. And that is just according to Mormon doctrine. According to mine many/most are going to hell. That is not good for the race as a whole.
“As I see it telling me that they could have no children.”
But you do not get this from the Genesis text. You import it from other LDS sources. Nowhere does the Genesis text say that the first two humans were unable to have children until after the fall.
“How?”
Simple logic would dictate that if the curse was good for man then it was also good for the serpent. Cursing a portion of person’s domain is a way of cursing that person.
“Again, a personal view.”
But is it right or wrong? Your view could easily be dismissed as a personal view.
“Also, while the death of Abel was very sorrowful that does not mean that life in general was better.”
Did you mean “worse?
“I can say with a fair amount of certainty that the parents of murders do not wish they, themselves, had never been born. They may wish their murdering child was never born, but they are thankful that they had been born, and rejoice in the righteousness of their other children.”
But Cain slaying Abel was just one of many sorrows they had to endure post-fall. It is just a link in a case that the fall was indeed a fall down.
“I believe in an infinite God who must obey certain laws.”
That is a self refuting statement if there ever was one.
“From what you just said either way you look at it God is to blame. If he caused the Fall he is to blame, but he is to blame anyway for creating us. The only way to that God is not to blame for the evil that exists is if you except that there are somethings he cannot do.”
Ah, we come to the crux of our differences. God is to “blame” (I would use the word “responsible”) but that does not make Him wrong or a sinner. He is free to do what He wants with his creation. Because I believe God created the universe out of nothing, and that He is not a man, He is not subject to rules that we are subject to. This cannot be said of the Mormon God as He is of the same specie as us and all the matter that has ever existed is not the result of his handiwork.
“If you are right than you are right. There is no other answer. If you are right than the way it is conveyed to you would be the way it would be conveyed to me. If there is no difference between terms it would not matter, but I would see each the same.”
Yes, and again words have meaning. There is only so many ways to state that Adam sinned and the Bible uses most if not all of those ways.
“Notice Adam’s transgression, not sin, and the reference to all men.”
You are just restating your position not providing any evidence for it. I believe a transgression is a sin, or at the very least could be. I do not make the sharp distinction between the two as you do. Adam’s sin is also called an “offense” and “sinned”. Paul is talking about those who have sinned from Adam to Moses, even those who did not sin in the same manner as Adam. Even verse 12 says that “because all sinned”. In English it is past tense; it would be interesting to see what it is in the Greek (Aorist?). Verse 18 backs it up when it says, “So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men”. Condemnation, death and sin came through one man just as grace and life comes through one man. Condemnation came to all men because one man, the man, transgressed/sinned.
“There are such verses, but I generally do not point them out as they are contraversial. As an example I would reference the story of the Fall, Genesis 3: 22 “Behold, the man is become like one of us…” God the Father is speaking to the rest of the gods.”
You know the interesting thing about your “interpretation”. No Jew or Christian came up with this interpretation until Joseph Smith. If the “restoration” was to restore the primitive church, then should not this profound and primitive truth be found somewhere in antiquity? It is nowhere to be found. This idea was not lost do to apostasy; it never existed until the 19th century.
“The text calls the tree the Knowledge of Good and Evil. It was not until they ate of this tree that they aquired said knowledge.”
But where does it say that the man and the woman could not be considered “sinners” because they did not have the knowledge of good and evil?
“Now, in Deut. 1: 39 the Lord says that he will destroy the wicked generation, but the children, who knew not good and evil, would be preserved to posess the land of promise. They are preserved because they had no knowledge, thus they were blameless.”
In the Law, God instructs Israel to not punish the sons/daughters for the sins of their parents. However, like so many “laws” God is not bound by them. God can kill people at will and it is not murder. Why? Because He is God.
“We have never denied either of these truths. However, we read in Ezekial 18: 20 “The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.”
Thus, we are not punished for the acts of any person other than ourselves, and that includes Adam. The result of the fall was the knowledge, and the result of the knowledge is sin. However, it is our actions that condemn us, and not Adam’s.”
You have not touched Romans 5:18&19 at all. You merely cited another verse that seems to counter what this one is clearly saying. I, on the other hand will, will interact with what Ezekiel says. Again, like in the Law, God is telling Israel not to punish a son for a father’s sin and visa versa. God is not bound by the laws he lays down for any of His creatures. He is the Lawgiver and it is up to us creatures to obey.
Shemawater, I hope that many others will read this to see the hermeneutical gymnastics one Latter-day Saint must do to get around the clear teaching of the Bible. Show me the Mormon magnus opus that exegetes the book of Romans and comes out with something that does not contradict LDS teaching. It has yet to exist, and I think that the world will wait forever.
“When taken as a whole, mankind went down as most of it is not making into the celestial kingdom. And that is just according to Mormon doctrine.”
-Even the Terrestial and Telestial kingdoms are higher than earth, and as the great majority of the people will be in one of the three the great majority will end higher.
“But you do not get this from the Genesis text. You import it from other LDS sources. Nowhere does the Genesis text say that the first two humans were unable to have children until after the fall.”
-It is alluded to with two different facts. First, there are no records of them having children in the Garden, and second, Eve was to have her conseption multiplied. You can see this in any way you want, but I see it how I see it.
“Simple logic would dictate that if the curse was good for man then it was also good for the serpent.”
-In a way it could be seen that way. However, the serpent got a second, more personal curse which was not part of the curse on the land (going on its belly).
“Cursing a portion of person’s domain is a way of cursing that person.”
-Not always. After all, if a farmer had his apple trees cursed so they became stone he would have one nice tourist atraction and probably would make a decent living in that way, thus it it would be a hidden benefit. I know this sounds crazy, but it is the same principle. The curse sounds bad, and at general inspection is, but there are hidden benefits.
“But is it right or wrong? Your view could easily be dismissed as a personal view. ”
-Right, and I have never said other wise in these threads.
“Did you mean “worse?”
-It should have said “wasn’t better.”
“But Cain slaying Abel was just one of many sorrows they had to endure post-fall. It is just a link in a case that the fall was indeed a fall down.”
-Again, I do not argue that it was a fall down, but that does not mean that it was not good, nor does it mean that Adam and Eve hated their lives after the Fall.
“That is a self refuting statement if there ever was one. ”
-Not really. He is infinite in His existance, in that He has and always will exist. He is infinite in His work, as His work will never cease. He is infinite in His knowledge and wisdom, as He knows and understands all things. He is infinite in His righteousness, having not darkness in him. He in infinite in power, in that He has all power that any being can have, and never runs out of energy to use it.
So, he is infinite, in many ways, but there are some laws he must obey.
“He is free to do what He wants with his creation. Because I believe God created the universe out of nothing, and that He is not a man, He is not subject to rules that we are subject to.”
-This is a god I do not want to worship. It would scare me if such a being truly existed. I do not desire to be the play thing of a conceited being who does as he pleases so that he can glorify himself. It sounds to much like tyrants in the old kingdoms who destroyed the people.
“I do not make the sharp distinction between the two as you do.”
-My point is that I believe Paul was making this distinction in this verse, and that is my evidence, which you seemed to ignore in your previous post.
“This idea was not lost do to apostasy; it never existed until the 19th century.”
-Just because it is not in the limited number of texts we have, or referenced in the later works, does not mean it was not taught. Second, Paul says in 1 Cor 8: 5 ” For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,).” Here is one from the time of the Apostles. Again, I understand you will have a different interpretation, but this is how I see it.
You are the one forced to stretch other scriptures to fit Romans. This must be done because of the stark contradictions that are in the Bible. In Ezekial the Lord is explaining his judgements, and what he judges on. Read the entire chapter. This is not the Earthly Law, as you say, it is the judgement and justice of God. God will not punish the child for the sins of the Father, nor will he punish the Father for the sins of the Children. As such, it is not the transgression of Adam that condemns us, but our actions. However, Romans does appear to say quite the oposite, that we are being punished for the acts of our father. This is a contradiction.
Both of these cannot be true, and yet you have tried to make them so by saying one applies to God and one to man. This cannot be.
There are many verses in scripture that describe God as perfect, with iniquity, or unrighteousness, unchanging and without variableness. God cannot sin, therefore there are certain things he cannot do, for he knows what is Good and what is Evil, as we were made like him when Adam ate the Fruit.
Your god is a conceited being. HIs only purpose is to glorify himself. He had his fun with the angels, but as they were in his presence and knew him they were not quite enough. So he created us, who live outside his presence. In that way he could show of his power and glory and get a new kind of praise. He tells us to believe on him and he will give us a great reward, and then turns people against him so he can show his glory to others. He gives us commands, and tells us that we must obey, but does not follow his own law. This is not a loving Father. This is a hypocrite and tyrant, something that is truly to be feared and avoided.
I believe in a loving Father, a Father whose purpose is to help all his children become like him. A Father who understands us, who knows us, and will do everything in his power to help us. However, he will not tell us to do that which he would not do, nor will he act in opposition to the commands he has given us. He created the world, not for his benefit, but for ours. He placed us here so that we could learn and progress and become even as he is, perfect. He knows that it is only through our ability to choose that we are able to progress, so he allows us to freedom to do what we want. He causes no evil, but allows it for this reason. This is a loving God and Father. This is the Personage who sent his only begotten son in flesh to die for all his children, knowing that it was the only way. This is the God I worship, and the only one I ever will revere, for he is the only one worth serving.
Shematwater,
I have been intently following your exchange with David, and have learned much about Mormon philosophy regarding the fall. Normally I would not jump into an exchange like this but your comment that, “Your god is a conceited being” is tough to take.
Your interpretation of Gen 3:16 is an indefensible reading of the text. While the wording of the Mormon approved KJV is a little archaic, God is saying, “I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing.” This statement is neutral as to whether Eve had even gone through child birth much less claiming that she could not before now go through child birth. Don’t take my word for it read the net bible online they will explain the translation for you.
The problem with your reference to and interpretation of 1 Cor 8:5 is that it ignores the phrase “that are called” in the Mormon approved JKV and “so-called” in almost every newer interpretation. Paul is not putting forward a polytheistic view.
In both of these cases your explanation for your interpretation is “that’s how I see it.” Can you expand on this? Is this part of a new revelation doing away with the plain meaning of the Bible. Are these verses part of Smith’s translation?
You commented that you would fear a God that created the universe out of nothing. That is a good idea. The Psalmist tells us that fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom; Solomon says the same thing (Psalm 111:10; Prov 1:7; 9:10; 15:33). I am just starting “The fear of God” by John Bunyan” but he points out the fear of God is Biblical (Ecclesiastes 12:13). Finally, I should refer you back to Ecclesiastes 12:13 or 1 Peter 2:17 when you make statements like, “Your god is a conceited being.”
GUNDECK
“Your god is a conceited being” is tough to take.”
-This was said in frustration, and I do not usually dish out insults. I apologyze for it.
“Don’t take my word for it read the net bible online they will explain the translation for you.”
-It is neutral. That is why I pointed out that she had not yet had any children, or at least we hae no record of it. With this fact I believe it is just as logical to say that she couldn’t have children before as it is to say she could. It could go either way, so the texts should not be used to prove either.
“The problem with your reference to and interpretation of 1 Cor 8:5 is that it ignores the phrase “that are called” in the Mormon approved JKV and “so-called” in almost every newer interpretation.”
-Partly why I do not read other translations, because they do have different meanings in several pasages from the KJV. If it is left as “called Gods” than it can have the meaning I see in it, as well as teh meaning you see.
“Can you expand on this?”
-This means that when I read teh Bible this is the most obvious and logical meaning that I find in these verses.
“Is this part of a new revelation doing away with the plain meaning of the Bible. Are these verses part of Smith’s translation?”
-It is doing away with nothing, simply clarifying it. These verses are in the Joseph Smith Translation, and are exactly as they are in the KJV. I do not know if they are there because he never got to that part of th Bible, or if he read them and came to the conclusion that they were already worded well.
“Finally, I should refer you back to Ecclesiastes 12:13 or 1 Peter 2:17 when you make statements like, “Your god is a conceited being.”
-Fear has two meanings in the Bible. The fear of God is a reverance and Awe, a respect of his power and authority. However, the fear I speak of is a dread, a feeling of such aweful terror that you will do all you can to avoid what you fear.
I make teh distinction because, as you say we are to fear God, but in 1 John 4: 18 tells us that “There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear: because fear hath torment. He that feareth is not made perfect in love.” If we love God we should not fear him. If we fear him we do not love him. Yet in Deut 6: 5 we are commanded “And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.” If fear and love cannot exist at the same time how can we keep both commandments. There must be different definitions for the word fear, as we are told to fear him, but in loving him we will not fear.
So, when I spoke of fearing the God I descibed I meant this dread, this terror. I did not mean the reverent respect and awe that we are to give to God.
Shemawater,
“Even the Terrestial and Telestial kingdoms are higher than earth, and as the great majority of the people will be in one of the three the great majority will end higher.”
I will point our readers to the exchange Aaron had with Ralph on Mormonism’s Heavenly Hells and and Hellish Heavens. The full presence of the Godhead is not in either of those two kingdoms but it was in the garden of Eden. I cannot see that s being anything but a step down.
“It is alluded to with two different facts. First, there are no records of them having children in the Garden, and second, Eve was to have her conseption multiplied. You can see this in any way you want, but I see it how I see it.”
I think your exchange with Gundeck covered this. Mormonism creates a non-problem here, as even by your own admission, the text can be legitimately read in our way on this issue.
“In a way it could be seen that way. However, the serpent got a second, more personal curse which was not part of the curse on the land (going on its belly).”
Then the serpent got more blessed because he got more cursed. I am just trying to carry Mormonism to its philosophical ends 🙂 That has been what this entire thread was about.
“I know this sounds crazy”
Yeah it does. At least you can see that.
“but there are hidden benefits”
So, the serpent got more of those hidden benefits.
“Right, and I have never said other wise in these threads”
It was a question. Is what I am advocating right or wrong? It is a bit dissmissive to chock up our respective positions as merely personal opinions.
“Again, I do not argue that it was a fall down, but that does not mean that it was not good, nor does it mean that Adam and Eve hated their lives after the Fall.”
But I am not convinced that they didin’t “bl[o]w paradise”. Life in the garden was better pre-fall than post-fall.
“He has and always will exist . . . His work will never cease.”
But has he always existed as God? Honestly the very same thing could be said of you or me.
“but there are some laws he must obey”
Would it not be fair to say that on some level, these pre-existing laws are greater than Him?
“This is a god I do not want to worship. It would scare me if such a being truly existed. I do not desire to be the play thing of a conceited being who does as he pleases so that he can glorify himself. It sounds to much like tyrants in the old kingdoms who destroyed the people.”
So I guess you are not willing to go to any place the evidence might lead. Yes, God is very scary. And if He truly is as I describe Him to be then He is not being conceited; He is merely being God. I can see how to you this would make Him a tyrant. On some level you are right. If God is of the same specie as us He would be wrong, just as earthly tyrants are wrong, to do whatever He pleases. But He is of a different kind than we are; He is not merely a highly exalted man.
“and that is my evidence”
Where is your evidence that Paul uses the terms “transgression” and “sin” in sharply different ways? Yes, the two terms are used but other than that what would lead one to draw the contrast that you do?
“Just because it is not in the limited number of texts we have, or referenced in the later works, does not mean it was not taught.”
Yeah it does if ancient Rabbinic texts and writings of the early church fathers that we do have say the exact opposite of what Mormonism says on the nature of the Godhead.
“Second, Paul says in 1 Cor 8: 5 ” For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,).” Here is one from the time of the Apostles. Again, I understand you will have a different interpretation, but this is how I see it.”
Actually, I beleive the Bible does speak of other “gods”. Psalm 82 says, “you are gods” The Hebrew word “El” can mean god, gods, angels, or judges. However, in John 10, he uses the Greek word for gods, “θεοι”. However, these gods are of a different kind, a different woop and warf as the One True God who created all the gods. That is why the Psalmist says, “Nevertheless you will die like men”.
“You are the one forced to stretch other scriptures to fit Romans”
I don’t think so, but I could easily turn your words around and state that you are forced to stretch Romans to fit other scriptures. That is especially true when you make a statement like this:
“However, Romans does appear to say quite the oposite, that we are being punished for the acts of our father.”
“This is not the Earthly Law, as you say, it is the judgement and justice of God. God will not punish the child for the sins of the Father, nor will he punish the Father for the sins of the Children.”
I will point you to verse 19 that says – “Yet you say, `Why should the son not bear the punishment for the father’s iniquity”. As well as the reference to Deuteronomy that you gave. God does not say exactly as you say “God will not punish the child for the sins of the Father” but rather (verse 19&20) “he shall surely live.The person who sins will die”.
Is this discussing spiritual death or earthly death, be it at Gods hand or the hands of the Isrealites? It does not say either way. Plus, just because God lays down a general rule (be it heavenly, earthly, or both) that each man will be called to account for his own actions it does not necessarily mean that the idea of God setting His face against the human race as a whole (and cursing it) is at variance with what God later revealed here.
“This is a contradiction. Both of these cannot be true, and yet you have tried to make them so by saying one applies to God and one to man. This cannot be.
There are many verses in scripture that describe God as perfect, with iniquity, or unrighteousness, unchanging and without variableness. God cannot sin, therefore there are certain things he cannot do, for he knows what is Good and what is Evil, as we were made like him when Adam ate the Fruit.”
The rules that apply to us do not apply to God. He is the definer of what sin is and it is not Him; he is not a man bound by the rules that we, his creation, are bound too.
“Your god is a conceited being . . . He tells us to believe on him and he will give us a great reward, and then turns people against him so he can show his glory to others. He gives us commands, and tells us that we must obey, but does not follow his own law. This is not a loving Father. This is a hypocrite and tyrant, something that is truly to be feared and avoided.”
One would expect a goat to say as much. Even in earthly matters there are rules that apply to some and not to the ones that make the law/rule. Example: a father child relationship. You have the right to send your daughter to bed at a certain time. However, by sending your daughter to bed at a certain hour you are not bound to go to bed immediately after you tuck her in. How much more so with the God of the universe!
“I believe in a loving Father, a Father whose purpose is to help all his children become like him. A Father who understands us, who knows us, and will do everything in his power to help us.”
I firmly believe that one of many fatal flaws of Mormonism is that it takes the Father-Child comparison way way too far and too literal. In doing so it goes against scripture. Yes, the Father-Child comparsison is the dominant one in both the OT and the NT. However, other earthly analogies are given to describe God’s relationship to His creatures; these erode the literal interpretation of the Father-Child texts. Both Israel and the Church are compared to being a wife of God. The General-Soldier comparison is employed. God is a called a “friend” in parts of the Bible. The Master-Servant relationship is a strong analogy as well. We are all of these to God and none of these. Our realtionship to our Creator is unique and the Bible finds different ways of describing it.
“He created the world, not for his benefit, but for ours.”
I would say He created the world for His benefit and ours. The “ours” being his elect.
“However, he will not tell us to do that which he would not do, nor will he act in opposition to the commands he has given us. He created the world, not for his benefit, but for ours. He placed us here so that we could learn and progress and become even as he is, perfect. He knows that it is only through our ability to choose that we are able to progress, so he allows us to freedom to do what we want.”
What you describe here is an earthly father, who is of the same specie as us. As such it would be wrong for this entity to act in the way I described as God acting. However, I do not believe God is a Father in the same sense that men are fathers to children here on earth.
“He causes no evil, but allows it for this reason. This is a loving God and Father.”
But scripture says that God has sent evil spirits and hardened men’s hearts. Some men are children of the devil. He creates some beings to destoy (like the devil); some men he loves (Jacob) and others he hates (Esau). Joseph Smith could not swallow this tough spiritual pill so he changed scripture in the JST to suit his wrong view of God. Mormons today have a hard time accepting certain spiritual truths from the Bible so they do the hermenuetical shuffle when obvious texts, that contradict Mormon theology, present themselves.
“This is the Personage who sent his only begotten son in flesh to die for all his children, knowing that it was the only way. This is the God I worship, and the only one I ever will revere, for he is the only one worth serving.”
But if this is not the God who spoke to Moses in the desert, then your belief and worship is in vain.
DAVID
“Then the serpent got more blessed because he got more cursed. I am just trying to carry Mormonism to its philosophical ends That has been what this entire thread was about.”
-No. The Earth is cursed, and it waits for the day that the curse will be lifted. For the Earth this curse is not a good thing. The one that is directly curse does not get a benefit from it. However, others can get an indirect benefit from it. So, the curse that was placed directly on the serpant cannot be seen as good, because it is a direct curse.
“It was a question. Is what I am advocating right or wrong? It is a bit dissmissive to chock up our respective positions as merely personal opinions.”
-My point is that neither of us can truly prove ourselves right or the other wrong through an inteletrual debate. I know your wrong, but than you know I am wrong. You have your evidence, and I have mine. Each side is sufficient to make persuassion by reason impossible.
“Would it not be fair to say that on some level, these pre-existing laws are greater than Him?”
-On some level yes, and depending on how you interpret the Bible this is fully supported.
“Even in earthly matters there are rules that apply to some and not to the ones that make the law/rule. Example: a father child relationship. You have the right to send your daughter to bed at a certain time. However, by sending your daughter to bed at a certain hour you are not bound to go to bed immediately after you tuck her in. How much more so with the God of the universe!”
Yes, but even the father must sleep. If the father is up every night, wasting the time, and is never on time to work he is breaking the fundimental law that all men must follow (the need for sleep). He is trying to teach his child this, but in not doing it himself he has damaged the learning of the child. How much greater is it with God. If he does not act in the same way that he commands us to act how can he truly teach us.
The main problem in this discussion has simply been that we believe differently. I have never once said that what you believe is not found in the Bible, as it is. I simply assert that what I believe can also be found in the Bible, when it is translated (or interpreted) correctly.
In all that you have said you have not shown a full understanding of the Doctrine that I believe, and I have attempted to explain it to you. I can do no more, and I will not try.
If you want to actually understand what I believe, and what is generally taught by the LDS church I am happy to explain it, and show you the passages in the Bible that i believe support it. If you want to explain what you believe I am happy to listen. However, I would prefer if neither of us perpusely tries to contradict the other, or to prove the other wrong. I like discussion and debate, but contension I can do without.
Shaematwater,
Thank you for the prompt response. I think you might have misunderstood the points I was making so let me try to better explain myself.
In the Reformed tradition the first rule of interpreting Scripture is to always use scripture to interpret Scripture. Gen 3:16 is a perfect example of this application. While this verse is neutral on whether Eve has ever had children we know that in Gen 1:28 God commanded Adam and Eve to be fruitful and multiply. There would need to be some other evidence to support a theory that God made Adam and Eve incapable of fulfilling this command.
Reread 1 Cor 8:5 in its context (1 Cor 8:3-6 ff.), do you deny that Paul is talking about the Idols of the Greeks. Is it your contention that Paul is affirming the existence of these Greek gods?
Not to take this way off topic but when looking at fear in the OT you should remember that God is our creator,
“who is infinite in being and perfection, a most pure spirit, invisible, without body, parts, or passions; immutable, immense, eternal, incomprehensible, almighty, most wise, most holy, most free, most absolute; working all things according to the counsel of His own immutable and most righteous will, for His own glory; most loving, gracious, merciful, long-suffering, abundant in goodness and truth, forgiving iniquity, transgression, and sin; the rewarder of them that diligently seek Him; and withal, most just, and terrible in His judgments, hating all sin, and who will by no means clear the guilty.(WCF 2:1)”
Look at Isaiah’s reaction in Isaiah 6:5 “Woe is me…” or the Children of Israel’s in Exodus 19:16, 18 “…all the people in the camp trembled…” There will come a day when the elect have perfect love for God, our Creator, and are able to perfectly follow Deuteronomy 6:4 and the rest of God’s law, for those of us on earth that time has not come.
Shemawater,
“No. The Earth is cursed, and it waits for the day that the curse will be lifted. For the Earth this curse is not a good thing. The one that is directly curse does not get a benefit from it. However, others can get an indirect benefit from it. So, the curse that was placed directly on the serpant cannot be seen as good, because it is a direct curse.”
It appears that God cursed all the animals directly:
“Cursed are you more than all cattle”
It is just that the serpent got it more. Also, only the serpent’s mode of transportation is cursed. If the serpent is “cursed” with enmity between its seed and the man’s, then the same is true for humans just in reverse.
“My point is that neither of us can truly prove ourselves right or the other wrong through an inteletrual debate. I know your wrong, but than you know I am wrong. You have your evidence, and I have mine. Each side is sufficient to make persuassion by reason impossible.”
I half agree with you on this one. It depends on what is meant by “prove”. However, people (not just us two) have been persuaded by reason; God has used it in the past to change people’s minds.
“On some level yes, and depending on how you interpret the Bible this is fully supported.”
Not only would I object to your Biblical citations as “proof” that the God of the universe is bound to certain laws of said universe, it is also philosophically inconsistent (and historically too). We differ on our beliefs in this matter because we differ on our beliefs as to the very nature of God. I believe he is transcendent and you do not.
“Yes, but even the father must sleep.”
In the analogy I gave, I never mentioned if the father must sleep or not. The point is the father (you) are not required to go to bed at the same time as the child. There is a different standard, even if the father must sleep at some point in time. On some level the analogy breaks down (as all analogies do). You are of the same specie as your daughter; we are not of the same specie as God (Yes, I know LDS theology says we are). God is only “bound” by the dictates of his own will.
“The main problem in this discussion has simply been that we believe differently.”
I do not want to come off as the type who is contentious at every turn, but I do not see this as a problem. In current American culture, debates are seen as slightly negative but it is not like that everywhere. Get two Middle Easterners together to discuss theology and watch how heated it gets – but the participants do not necessarily view this as bad.
“In all that you have said you have not shown a full understanding of the Doctrine that I believe”
I am actually stating the same thing about you. For the upteanth time, I know you believe differently, I am just pointing out what I see as wrong. There really is a difference between not even representing someone’s position accurately, and having problems with a person’s position. Honestly, your repeated assertion of a lack of understanding on my part comes across as disingeniuine.
“what is generally taught by the LDS church I am happy to explain it, and show you the passages in the Bible that i believe support it”
I must confess to you that I really do believe that on many levels, and in many ways, their is no one single LDS position on many important doctrines. I have run across too many Mormons that differ from each other on foundational issues. I believe that even the “official” teachings of your church lack a degree of “officialness”. I have seen too many authority oriented controversies in Mormondum to say “the church teaches X”. I am not saying this is true for every issue. But on many issues, I have witnessed “cherry picking” of quotes and texts from authoritative sources.
“However, I would prefer if neither of us perpusely tries to contradict the other.”
Not to sound abrasive, but too late. You are Mormon and I am not. We are going to contradict each other.
“or to prove the other wrong”
But we even see precedence of this in scripture. Jesus attempted to “prove” the other side wrong. Honestly I must ask, if you do not want to contend for the true faith (Jude 3) then what are you doing posting here?
Shemawater, I appreciate you hangin in there with me. I really do. But you have got to know that we have different views on some of the most important things in the universe. Our disagreements are going to be more thorny because of the very nature of the discussion we are having.
I must admit that your appeal to subjectivity comes across as a sign of weakness in your position. I like it more when you and other Mormons trumpet your position with some gusto Early Mormons appear to have no problem in getting bombastic and more than a little contentious; I have no problem with this.
So to reiterate again, Adam did sin despite Mormon claims otherwise. I could see the consistency in a fictional character trying to pick the “greater good” in much the same fashion as Adam did. You as a Mormon see a difference, but my entire point has been that the “difference” is an artificial one. What Barb did does come across as somewhat consistent to me because your entire soteriology seems faulty and inconsistent. You must say that Barb sinned, but my whole problem is how you got to the point to say that she “sinned”, Adam did not, and that her particular “sin” was bad. You must call Adam’s transgression something other than sin, for any admission of sin on Adam’s part opens the door to original sin. However, you do this at the expense of the clear teaching of scripture.
“If the serpent is “cursed” with enmity between its seed and the man’s, then the same is true for humans just in reverse.”
-I believe this is more of a curse on satan than on the serpant, but again, that is my opinion.
“God has used it in the past to change people’s minds.”
-God, yes, as he has the power to take the words of reason to the hearts of men. Men, when speaking on matters of faith and doctrine, do not have this power so they cannot persuade (or prove) only convince the other to stop arguing.
I ask for less contension not because I have a weaker point, but because I have had my fill of it. I do not have the authority to act as a mouthpeace for the LDS faith, and for that reason I try not to get too gusto in my words.
I have enjoyed the debate between us, and would enjoy engaging in deferent debates. In truth it is this one that I am tired of. We have both explained our points at least three times. The only place to go is into hostility concerning them, and that is what I wish to avoid.
However, I will close with a simple statement. When Adam was placed in the Garden of Eden he had no understanding of the concept of Good and Evil, and as such could not sin. As it was Eve who ate the fruit first the transgression is at her hands, and not Adam’s. I rejoice that this occured for as a result I have been born into a physical body, and now, through the Atonement of Christ I can be made like my Father in heaven.
Shemawater,
“I believe this is more of a curse on satan than on the serpant, but again, that is my opinion”
I would agree with you on his point. One does not get Satan as being the serpent in this text, however, in other texts of the Bible in points towards the serpent being the devil. I do not mind bringing these texts out with you and using them because in this instance we agree that the texts (other portions of the Bible are authoritative). This cannot be said of the other standard works.
“God, yes, as he has the power to take the words of reason to the hearts of men. Men, when speaking on matters of faith and doctrine, do not have this power so they cannot persuade (or prove) only convince the other to stop arguing.”
I disagree with you. Minds can change. Who does the changing and how this comes about is oftentimes unknown. But reasoning with someone is not bad.
“I ask for less contension not because I have a weaker point, but because I have had my fill of it. I do not have the authority to act as a mouthpeace for the LDS faith, and for that reason I try not to get too gusto in my words.
I have enjoyed the debate between us, and would enjoy engaging in deferent debates. In truth it is this one that I am tired of. We have both explained our points at least three times. The only place to go is into hostility concerning them, and that is what I wish to avoid. ”
Or you could just nod your head and say, “Dave your right” 🙂 Seriously, we both hold to our beliefs strongly which is why we wouldn’t do something like that. But that is not bad and neither is a little contention. I understand you may be upset at yourself for your minor blow-up, but it does not bother me in the slightest.
“he had no understanding of the concept of Good and Evil, and as such could not sin”
This is a philosophical rationalization that is not textually based. Nowhere in the text does it say that Adam is not guilty of sin or that he did not have the capability.
“As it was Eve who ate the fruit first the transgression is at her hands, and not Adam’s.”
I see this as highly inconsistent. If sin in no way no how can ever be counted towards someone else (liker original sin), then Eve’s sin/transgression could not have the power to absolve Adam’s. Her transgression does not justify his.
But we have already come pretty far. I mean you did throw me a pretty big bone by admitting that Romans 5 does seem to point to Adam receiving condemnation due to Adam’s sin.
“can be made like my Father in heaven”
But will you? The answer lies in your own worthiness, and as such you cannot say for sure if you will rise above the bar.
Shemawater, at this point what I am asking for is a little understanding/compassion. Not for myself but for your fellow Latter-day Saints. While I think the situation in Big Love is rare (a Mormon using another person’s temple recommend to get into the temple days before a likely excommunication); I do think some Mormons have used cunning to try get back to Heavenly Father. I am sure that since there has been LDS temples, many a Mormon has fudged to get his or her temple recommend. Can you blame them? They are just trying get back to their father the way Barb was. Barb is a great character; she is just guilty of sticking by her polygamist husband (who thinks he is doing God’s will too). Imagine if your child sinned/transgressed/whatever in order to be with you and be like you.
DAVID
From what I see we have agreed on the main point of the entire discussion, that we believe differently and that is just fine, as long as we understand the others belief. I am happy with this.
As to Barb and what is portrayed in the show, I have compassion and understanding, as well as simpathy. This does not mean they are right, nor does it mean that people who act this way in life are right. There have been those who have used cunning, and those who have lied in the interviews to get a recommend. It is not generally questioned, but it is wrong and condemned by the doctrine of the church. We allow it because we cannot see into the hearts of others. However, these people will be held accountable for their deceit.
“Imagine if your child sinned/transgressed/whatever in order to be with you and be like you.”
-If my child was lost and desided to rob a bank to get the money to come home, I would turn them into the police as soon as I found out. We cannot become like our Father in Heaven through sin because he never sinned, he is perfect, and to be like him we must cast out all desire to sin. As the old saying goes -The pathway to Hell is paved with Good Intentions.
Shemawater,
All I can say is – Yikes!
You would sell out your own child out if she committed a crime?! I hope you have the decency to tell her that before she does any crime so she can have the choice to tell you or not. I do not see how that could be considered compassionate.
You have used that quote before and I agree with it, in fact I put more stock in it than you do. I even extend it to Adam and Eve – you do not. Also, in your theology almost nobody goes to a classical hell; the rode to hell is hard to get on in LDS theology. If I do not believe in that saying then it would not apply to Adam or Barb – there is no difference. God had a point when he told Adam not to eat of the forbidden fruit and that was not to eat of the forbidden fruit. If not His prohibition is meaningless.
Nowhere in the Genesis account is one’s ability to comprehend a factor in determining sin (and I do think Adam could comprehend). God’s has the capacity to hate based on his own will, desire, and council. In Romans we are told that God loved Jacob but hated Esau. And this is before the twins “were not yet born and had not done anything good or bad”. Those who repent do so because the Holy Spirit acted on them first, breathed spiritual life into them, and made them a new creation. They switched teams from light to darkness because God said so.
Furthermore, Paul is quoting Malachi when he writes,”JACOB I LOVED, BUT ESAU I HATED” . When Malachi gave us those words, it was in reference to the nations of Jacob (Israel) and Esau (Edom). Whole nations were selected and fashioned for a purpose before they had even been born. Will you accept the tough spiritual pill that God has the prerogative to hate whole swaths of people?
Ours is a case of monergism verses synergism – relationship verses religion. In my position God acts first and sufficiently. He grabs those he loves, kicking and screaming into the light; he makes dead men live. The children of the Devil burn with him for eternity .In your position man retains part or all of his ability to choose and do right. Men must follow steps to progress, they must attain a higher level or worth or worthiness, to be with God – yet according to you we are all Gods children. The fullness of the Godhead will not be with all of his children (or even most) for all eternity. This is how your God relates to his kids.
I am so glad I serve a jealous, vengeful, and passionate God. I serve an ancient near eastern deity that displayed his dominance over all the other little “gods” a long time ago. He created all things out of nothing and thus He can do what He wants with His creation. God is great; praise be to God!
Haven’t watched the video, but in the quote of the commentary the last sentence says this: “This episode of Big Love, if it does nothing else, strips away Mormon secrecy and in so doing attempts to shove the Church unwillingly into the bright lights and cacophony of the public square.”
It struck me why the church is unwilling to be in the ‘bright lights and cacophany of the public square’. What do they have to hide?
I am sure the sentiment is to protect what they view as a private and holy ceremony. But if they are truly tobe open and truly to be understood, why the fear? If everything is OK, why not own up to what’s there rather than cower in fear of it coming out? Why not proudly say “This is what we beleive and why. This is now out there, but we respectfully request that it not be broadcast more because it is (and fill in the blank).
Shematwater,
You said, “We cannot become like our Father in Heaven through sin because he never sinned, he is perfect, and to be like him we must cast out all desire to sin.” Doesn’t that rule out Adam? I mean in Mormon philosophy didn’t he sin to escape the Garden?
I have only a few more days to continue posting in these threads, and so will do what I can to finish the descussion.
David
I would turn my child over to the law because I love them. It is required that we all must pay for our actions, and if we do not do so in this life than the Blood of Christ will not protect us from the fires of hell in the life to come. I will turn any person in to the police who breaks the law. If they are sent top prison I will visit them often. If they are sentenced to death I will hold their hand to the end. But I will not try and cheat the justice of God or I will stand condemned when he returns.
You had it wrong again. Almost everyone goes to a clasical hell, but few remain there for eternity.
As to God, I prefer the God of Love, the God of Truth, and the God of Justice, the God that will do all he can for his children, and give them the greatest happiness they can have in the eternities, but who will never force anyone to act contrary to their own desires. For those who are placed outside his presence, this is a mercy, for if they were closer they would be in eternal agony being burned by his glory. They acted according to their desires in this life, and are given as great a reward as they can handle. Oh the glory of God our Father, who works to fulfill his desires that all his children be as he is, but who loves us enough to not force us into misery.
MICHEAL
We are not afraid of the world, or of men. We fear the Lord, and at his command we keep things sacred. Just as ancient Israel was not allowed to touch the arc, so the world today is not allowed to see the Temple ceremony. They did not question the will of God, and nor do we.
Beyond this, we fear for the souls of all men. The world is in darkness, and to bath them in too much light at once will cause only blindness. The Light must be brought on slowly, gradually, until the eyes, so used to the darkness, are able to bare the intensity of the pure Light of God that is found within the Temple.
Gundeck
Adam did not sin in the Garden. He had no concept of good and evil, or right and wrong. Yes he knew eating was disobedience, but he did not understand that disobedience was wrong and obedience right. HIs desire was not to do sin, for he did not understand what sin was. Nor was it to do righteousness, for he did not understand this either. It was after he ate the fruit that he had the knowledge, and then he had the desire to do right, as is shown in him covering his nakedness. In other scripture, that I believe in besides the Bible, we have other accounts of Adam doing what God commanded without questioning why. That is who he was. He followed without question, for once he knew right from wrong, he knew that God would always tell him what was right.
Shemawater,
I repeat what I stated before that I hope you have the decency to be honest with your child about what would yolu do should he/she ever committ a crime.
“I would turn my child over to the law because I love them. It is required that we all must pay for our actions, and if we do not do so in this life than the Blood of Christ will not protect us from the fires of hell in the life to come.”
This speaks volumes but is heavily mitigated by your statement later that hell is not eternal. Also, I am not asking you to break the law. As long as you do not aid your child in his/her crime or escape/evasion then you have not broken any law. Even the government recognizes familial loyalty, that is why spouses are not forced to testify against each other.
Your disloyalty to your own is a much greater crime. If you were my kin and you sold out one of our relatives, I would promptly disown you.
“I will turn any person in to the police who breaks the law. If they are sent top prison I will visit them often. If they are sentenced to death I will hold their hand to the end.”
You are seriously delusional if you think someone, even a relative (especailly a relative), would want to have any contact with you after selling him/her out. I know of a certain Jewish devotee that turned over his master and that was considered “law”.
“You had it wrong again. Almost everyone goes to a clasical hell, but few remain there for eternity.”
Are you stating this according to your beleifs or mine? According to mine, hell is most definitely eternal. When I stated this I was not staing it according to your beliefs – wrong again.
“but who will never force anyone to act contrary to their own desires.”
Wrong again. The Bible is filled with examples of God using force against individuals which would include their wills.God is not a Deist; this may not be what you prefer but it is the God of the Bible.
“For those who are placed outside his presence, this is a mercy, for if they were closer they would be in eternal agony being burned by his glory.”
This is such an obvious cop-out and I have heard it numerous times and not just from Mormons. If God so desired, He could send goats to a pretty nice place outside of His presence that would not be hell. It would not be heaven but it would much much better than a classical hell. However, God does not desire to do that. This action (sending people to hell) is not merciful it is wrathful.
“They acted according to their desires in this life, and are given as great a reward as they can handle”
But God is in charge of the whole “right-wrong” system. God is responsible because He could work something out for those unbelieving goats (or children take your pick) but He chooses not to. I would have wrote that God “created” the right-wrong system but according to many Mormons (including yourself) there are rules even God is supersended by and bound to.
“Oh the glory of God our Father, who works to fulfill his desires that all his children be as he is, but who loves us enough to not force us into misery.”
And outer darkness negates this statement. God forces his children into misery when they are cast into outer darkness/hell. God could have chosen to send them to a realm away from His presence but that does not entail “weeping and gnashing of teeth”. Again, even in Mormonism either god, or the eternal laws, degree that even god’s children (if they get way out of hand) can be sent to a miserable hell.
I think it is clear to any reader that we have funadamental differences in theology that stem mostly from our understanding of who God is and is not. We will never be in the same book, let alone the same page, unless we can hammer that out. We can never hammer that out if we cannot come to at least a partial agreement on epistemology.