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.
Sure, that went on in Solomon’s Temple.
Sometime before or during the time I watched the entire episode of Big Love it dawned on me that there is a precendent in scripture for what Barb (the character going though her endowment) did. Barb talked her sister or mother into using her recommend so she could get into the temple. She was not “temple worthy” but she did it anyway . . . breaking a rule in order advance herself towards godhood in this life and the next. Isn’t that the take that Mormons have on the fall? Adam and Eve “fell up”. God gave them a test, putting two commandments in opposition to each other, and they chose the better one. Could this not be said of Barb too? Couldn’t her deception to gain temple access, on the eve of her excommunication, just be a test Heavenly Father was giving her? Could this not also apply to living in polygamy even though the LDS church says that it is bad now? Could this not apply to HBO for wanting to gain some secret knowledge (cough gnostic cough)?
So let’s recap.
Barb was not supposed to go into the temple and receive her endowment but she did.
Barb’s mother or sister was not supposed to let her use her temple recommend but one of them did.
Adam and Eve were not supposed to eat of the forbidden fruit and they did.
According to Mormons, HBO should not have aired a portrayal of temple rituals but they did.
Somewhere at sometime some Mormons/ex-Mormons leaked info about LDS temple ceremonies. They were not supposed to do it but they did.
Mormon Masons were not supposed to divulge Masonic secrets to non-Masons but they did it anyways.
The Nauvoo Lodge charter was suspended but Mormon Masons kept carrying on as usual. They were not suposed to keep meeting together as Masons while their charter was suspended but they did.
All the above individuals listed above (except for maybe HBO and possibly even they may have Mormon consultants), be they fictional or real, are/were Mormon in some way and they did something they were not supposed to do. In some instances Mormons would say the disobedience was okay, actually obedience, and then for other instances they would say it is wrong. I fail to see the difference.
David
You are seriously lacking in real understanding of the LDS doctrine. I will point a few things out.
Genesis 2: 25 “And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.”
So, we see that Adam and Eve, before they ate the Fruit, did not know good and evil. They were innocent.
This is much different than the woman in this show who have the knowledge of Good and Evil, and still do evil.
Also in 1 Timothy 2: 14 we are told “And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.”
Here Adam is freed from all blame. It was the act of the woman that caused the Fall and Adam did what had to be done.
So, the comparisson is a bad one. One must know what wrong is before they can be guilty of it.
As concerning the Fall in general, yes it was a set-up. However, as you point out, it was necessary. There had to be the opposition or Adam and Eve would have remained as they were. The opposistion was in the two trees however, not in the command not to eat of the one. this command was given so that when they did eat of the tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil God would be justified in thrusting them out of the Garden. If it was not given than such an act would have been unjust.
As to the supposed punishments, I don’t see it, even in Genesis. God curses the serpant because it was not necessary for him to tempt Eve. However, no curse is put on the Woman, nor on the Man. the only other curse is put on the ground, and it is done for the sake of the man, to benefit him. As Adam was exonerated, shown through the Epistle to Timothy, it wouldhave been unjust to punish him. These statements are made to show the natural concequence of their actions. They ate the fruit and their bodies and minds were changed. As a result they were subject to all the pains and trials of mortal life.
Shemawater,
“Here Adam is freed from all blame. It was the act of the woman that caused the Fall and Adam did what had to be done.”
Adam is not freed from all blame. He ate of the forbidden fruit.- “even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam” Romans 5:14
“It was the act of the woman that caused the Fall and Adam did what had to be done.”
No, both the man and the woman sinned.
“So, the comparisson is a bad one. One must know what wrong is before they can be guilty of it.”
But they knew it was wrong to eat of the forbidden fruit. God forbid it, they did it, that is called sin.
“As to the supposed punishments, I don’t see it, even in Genesis . . .However, no curse is put on the Woman, nor on the Man. the only other curse is put on the ground, and it is done for the sake of the man, to benefit him.”
How about death? Since when is a curse a good thing?
In the context of the First Epistle to Timothy, headship and not righteousness is being discussed. Nowhere is Adam let off the hook. Eve was deceived, Adam was not, but that does not mean that Adam did not sin.
I was commenting on the arbitrary nature of the Orwellian black/white dialectic of Mormonism (which you so aptly demonstrated). A fall is a fall down, that is inherent to the word “fall”. Just because I do not by into this absurdity does not mean I am not aware of it. – “However, as you point out, it was necessary.” I understand it but I do not agree with it. Man individually and collectively sinned in the garden and that is bad thing; it was not necessary, and eternal progression is not theological baggage I must press on the text of Genesis. I know your church rejects that (2nd article of faith) but you can be the one to contend with Paul and I Corinthians 15.
I can see how Mormons, like Barb, could feel the need to use cunning in order to advance themselves.
Yikes, that gave me the heebie jeebies like I haven’t had since my wife and I went through the Washington D.C. temple. I remember when she and I got to the “celestial room” and how incredibly weirded out we were. I still remember driving away and the two of us looking at each other. We clearly were freaked out but we couldn’t talk about it outside of the temple. Sacred, not secret, doncha know. Far from the beautiful, spiritually uplifting experience it was built up to be, it was something I am horrified that we participated in now that I look back at it. I pray for His forgiveness for that whole event.
We really want to prop up the opinion of adulterers in order to create a hostile environment for LDS–but we ask you to keep your emotions in check as we attempt to minister to LDS by offending them. And if you do respond appropriately, we will moderate you.
Disingenuous? Maybe just a little bit?
I do wonder, when at the last day you find that these ordinances are of God–and you have been trampling them under your feet–will Arthur Sido be there to save you with his adulteries? Probably not, Arthur will have problems of his own to deal with.
As far as Adam and Eve are concerned…I wouldn’t call it a ‘set up’…I would call it a ‘plan’…something ev’s don’t seem to ascribe to the purposes of God. Why else would God place Adam and Eve in the garden? What was the purpose of all that? And what goes on in heaven after we die? We just kneel down and worship God for eternity? What happens to our families? Are they irrelevant in the next life? What of those who never knew His name in this life, are they going to hell? What of the teachings of Elijah in Mal 4:6? What of Paul referencing baptisms for the dead in Corinthians 15?
Ev’s readily reject the substance of the restored gospel as revealed in the temple–but don’t have any substance of their own to fill in the vacuum they create. You aren’t advancing your faith by rejecting another! Many here are left to wonder what it is you actually BELIEVE in, rather than reject.
Grace and peace in Christ to you, Arthur. Writing your experience out helps hundreds others who feel inside like they wish they knew of someone else who had similar reactions. Don’t let the Mormons here discourage you.
David,
you said “Man individually and collectively sinned in the garden and that is bad thing; it was not necessary,…” Do I understand correctly that you are saying the fall was not necessary? If that is so then you have just negated your whole faith. The fall was needed so a Saviour could come, that being Jesus Christ. Without the fall there is no need for Jesus Christ. God did not make a mistake in planning the fall, He did it for the exact purpose to allow a Saviour for us.
Ralph,
The fall was no surprise to God. However, this does not take away the guilt of Adam, Eve, and all or humanity (I know Mormons disagree with the last one). Adam could have procreated, thus fulfilling God’s command to go forth and multiply, without having to eat of the forbidden fruit. Sex is not bad, and one can be “innocent” and still know what sex is. Mormonism creates a problem where one does not exist (and it is not in the text either) by making it “necessary” that Adam must have his eyes opened by eating the forbidden fruit. He could have fulfilled God’s command without sinning. Are you saying that Adam did not sin?
Aaron, discouraged? I have no idea what she is even talking about! I only hope that this testimony can help steer others out of mormonism or away from it in the first place.
Amanda, these ordinances of God you speak of spring from the imagination of Joseph Smith. They are not found in the temple of the Old Testament, nor are they found in the Gospel of Jesus Christ. They are in fact contrary to the teachings of the Bible and are a perversion using the name of Christ.
Pingback: Green Oasis » Temple Ceremony, Respectfully Done
BTW Amanda, as a follower of serial philanderer, you might wish to be careful casting aspersions of adultery around…
The temples have been of interest to me since I stated examining Mormonism, and frankly I didn’t see anything overtly offensive about the clip, in that it were completely propagandized or done with any spirit of malice, though perhaps I missed it or it was cut off. (Don’t have tv much less HBO.)
As for the discussion on the “necessity of the fall” I don’t think we can say that it wasn’t planned or known from before the foundation of the earth (Ephesians 1:4) however I don’t believe that the Mormon position is defensible either, that is that God forced Adam to sin, be it through giving him opposing commandments, lest we make God the author, initiator, and originator of evil.
Amanda wrote:
Apologetics has three parts, first we sanctify Christ as Lord in our hearts, eg state our beliefs, then we give an answer for the hope that is within us, eg defend our beliefs, this second part is the portion of apologetics that takes place here and our beliefs are often defended here by destroying arguments and every lofty opinion or pretension raised against the knowledge of God, taking every thought captive to obedience in Christ. Furthermore this is actually a tiny section of Christian apologetics in the world, or because Christian also destroy the arguments of Muslims, atheists, Jehovah’s Witnesses, etc. do those Christians not know what they believe either?
Lautensack
Amanda, I don’t think all we will do in heaven is kneel down and worship God for all eternity. But, even if that is all we were going to do, God is so huge, immense, and endless, that that would be enough for us. The more we will learn about God, the more it will feel like there is to learn. Eternity won’t be too long to learn about God. I don’t think we will be bored there either. Would you really rather share your husband with multiple wives, birth millions of spirit babies, and take over your own planet as a goddess with your god-husband? I hope that doesn’t sound sarcastic, because I really don’t mean it to be. How could you possibly want, or, more importantly, believe that that is what God wants for you?
The way the temple ceremony was shown to me really made it seem a lot less weird than it could have been portrayed. The biggest problem to me is that the ceremony appears to be a bunch of baloney; no content really, just secrets, handshakes, and odd repeated phrases – all while dressed in some kind of whacked out bakers uniform. That was my honest assessment before I saw this video, and this video reinforced that while actually making it seem a little less so. I think a well produced dramatization of the entire ceremony like shown here would be very beneficial in allowing people to see just what they’re getting involved with should they join the LDS Church. It’s similar to Scientology wanting to keep secret it’s beliefs – because if people knew the space aliens and atomic disaster story going in, they would probably never join up. Similarly, these temple ordinances have a feel of some kind of non-Christian chanting/strangeness that most would look at and either laugh or have a sense of dismay or disgust. It truly is not of God in my assessment.
David,
You state the following: “Sex is not bad, and one can be “innocent” and still know what sex is.”
What is your understanding of leviticus 15:18?
Arthur Sido,
The scene sort of reminds of me a pool table or a sort of gambling table…hit me more more time! Except they haven’t brought out the cards yet. And what is that object in the center of the table? is it a board game? They do sort of vaguely look jewish, and isn’t that what lds people think they are? ‘new jews’? They also sort of remind me of images of druids around stonehindge, except they aren’t wearing fig leaves.
As creepy as it was for you, there are some aspects of non-LDS christians that I find kind of creepy as well. Especially the nuns in the black outfits, with the incantations of ‘the lords prayer’ or ‘hail mary’, empowering their talisman. The stories of and around the stigmata are very creepy. This isn’t limited to just catholics either. I went to a pentacostal church and I found the whole speaking in tongues thing very creepy. All kidding aside, this scene does feel a bit like intruding on something. It makes it seem very sad. I think they tried to make it seem like what its like for an LDS person to go to the temple for the first time. I don’t think I would remember all the dialog they show.
Enki,
I would make a distiction between “unclean” and “sin”. I think it is a legit distiction. For one, the words are different in English, Hebrew, and Greek. Second, did you see the context of the verse you cited? Are you telling me that everytime a woman menstrates she is sinning? If we look at the broader context of the Torah would people with skin conditions be living in sin? There are a whole host of things that can make a person unclean but that does qualify as a sin.
Greetings all…haven’t commented in ages but still lurk once in awhile. Had to respond to Amanda. Here is what I believe in…I believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all that is, seen and unseen.
I believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father. Through him all things were made. For me and for my salvation he came down from heaven: by the power of the Holy Spirit he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary, and was made man. For my sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate; he suffered death and was buried. On the third day he rose again in accordance with the Scriptures; he ascended into heaven and is seated
at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and
the dead, and his kingdom will have no end.
I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father
and the Son. With the Father and the Son he is worshiped and glorified. He has spoken through the Prophets. I believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
I acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins. I look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.
So there are plenty of things EVs believe…however I don’t believe in boys with magic rocks looking into hats and I don’t believe in stealing rituals from the Masonic lodge and passing them off as a restored Gospel. Pshaw indeed!!
That said…as far as the topic at hand I have to feel somewhat sympathetic to the LDS. I always cringe when I see a minister/church represented by the media in whatever form. They rarely ever portray things accurately. Blessings to all…back to the saltmine!
Enki, I only vaguely remembered all of the handshakes and oaths and stuff when we got out, but the common linkage of creepiness you referred to all stems from adding to the Word of God, whether muttering incantations or excesses in tongues or wearing weird outfits in a temple. All are man made additions to the Word and pervert the Gospel.
“Adam is not freed from all blame. He ate of the forbidden fruit.- “even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam” Romans 5:14”
Being freed from all blame does not mean he did not commit the act, nor does it mean that the act was not a transgression of the law. It means that Adam had to make a choice, and he made the best one possible, and since it was forced by the action of the woman he is not to blame, but the woman.
“No, both the man and the woman sinned.”
Neither sinned. As neither knew good from evil, or right from wrong, they could not sin. Just as a little child cannot sin because they lack the understanding. sin can only coe when one knows and understands the law.
“But they knew it was wrong to eat of the forbidden fruit. God forbid it, they did it, that is called sin.”
But hey did not know. They could not know. It was not until after they ate of the fruit that they gained the knowledge. They had no understanding before the act.
“How about death? Since when is a curse a good thing?”
You didn’t really pay attention to what I said did you? If I take a knife a jab it through my heart is it God that has killed me? Is it god that made my heart stop beating? No. It is the natural concequences of my action. Just as death was a natural consequence of eating the fruit. It was not caused by God.
“In the context of the First Epistle to Timothy, headship and not righteousness is being discussed. Nowhere is Adam let off the hook. Eve was deceived, Adam was not, but that does not mean that Adam did not sin.”
Yes he is, and it is being used as a reason why the man is the head of the family. The man is the head because Adam was not at fault but Eve. Both transgressed the Law, but it was Eve who was to blame.
“A fall is a fall down, that is inherent to the word “fall”.
Yes, and it was fall of sorts, as Adam and Eve were thrust out of the presence of God. They fell to a mortal state from an immortal state. However, without this fall they could not have risen to higher glory. As it is said, God made us a little less than the angels so that he could raise us up to be heirs with Christ.
“Just because I do not by into this absurdity does not mean I am not aware of it. – “However, as you point out, it was necessary.” I understand it but I do not agree with it.”
I don’t care if you don’t agree with it. In your first post you used this as an argument to try and justify the characters in the show through the LDS doctrine of the Fall. Your point was that since we believe the transgression of Adam was a good thing, as it help others, than the transgression of others, as long as it is for good, is exceptable. this is what I was refutinig in pointing out that Adam and Eve did not understand, and that Adam was not to blame. You tried to use our doctrine against us and I simply showed how you failed.
“I can see how Mormons, like Barb, could feel the need to use cunning in order to advance themselves.”
You cannot con God, and trying yo do so will only end in your own damnation.
You have tried to use LDS doctrine to justify the acts of a character and have failed. When I pointed out how the argument does not work, explaining the LDS doctrine, you have told me I cannot use the same LDS doctrine as you to disprove what you said. Seems hypocritical, especially when you concider that I understand the doctrine better than you.
I have found this to be the case in many arguments. The LDS doctrine will be presented, but either only in part, or in misunderstanding. We of the LDS faith will then respond to explain the truth of the doctrine, and will be told that we can’t be right about what we believe because the mainstream christians believe differently.
Enki,
In order to understand these passages in Leviticus we need to understand the difference between the ritual and ethical commands in the book. Generally the first half of the book, chapters 1 to16, is seen as ritual commands. While the second half of the book, chapters 17 to26, is considered to contain ethical or moral commands. This is a general distinction only, because a close reading shows that it is sometimes impossible to disconnect the ethical from the ritual and vise versa.
When examining the ritual commands the words “unclean”, “clean”, and “holy” can cause the modern reader some problems. These words do not necessarily have a moral or hygienic connotation. Instead of looking at “unclean”, “clean”, and “holy” as moral states we need to see them as states of ritual purity rather than moral purity. Once again it is difficult to separate the ritual from the moral but just because something is demonstrated to place someone in the state of ritual “unclean” it does not mean that the person is morally unclean. One way of looking at this is to remember that by calling national Israel to maintain a state of ritual purity our Lord is pointing us to seek moral purity in all aspects of our lives.
Looking at Leviticus 15:16-18 ff. we have commands regarding the ritual purity of national Israel, not judgments on the morality of sex.
Shemawater,
“and since it was forced by the action of the woman he is not to blame, but the woman.”
Where are you getting this from? It is not in the text. Adam was not “forced”. How could Eve force Adam to do anything?
“they could not sin.”
Yes, they could. They were free moral agents. God gave them a prohibition that they understood – “From the fruit of the trees of the garden we may eat; but from the fruit of the tree which is in the middle of the garden, God has said, `You shall not eat from it or touch it, or you will die’.” Adam was even afraid of God when God came looking for them. God cursed them because they sinned. Are you really saying that God cursed them even though they were sinless?
“But hey did not know.” They did know. Even Eve repeated God’s command back to the serpent?
“No. It is the natural concequences of my action. Just as death was a natural consequence of eating the fruit. It was not caused by God.”
For one, God is the one who instituted the natural consequence (unless you hold to the position that there are eternal principles that are not contingent upon God and are older than Him), so even then He is responsible for death on some level. Two, the text does not say definitively how Adam died – if it were natural consequences or a direct action by God. It leans towards the latter, “Till you return to the ground, Because from it you were taken; For you are dust, And to dust you shall return.”
“The man is the head because Adam was not at fault but Eve. Both transgressed the Law, but it was Eve who was to blame.”
How do you figure. Both ate the fruit and both were cursed.
“However, without this fall they could not have risen to higher glory.”
I understand this is the LDS take on things, but it is not in the text. One must buy into eternal progression for your statement to be true. I am not saying that eternal progression is true or false at this point. I am just stating that one gets that idea from other texts.
“we believe the transgression of Adam was a good thing”
Don’t you see how this statement does violence to language? Rather than trumpeting my own success, I will leave it up to the readers who’s position is the stronger one.
“You cannot con God, and trying yo do so will only end in your own damnation.”
I agree with this statement. Because of man’s sin in the garden, men are born at odds with God. Unless God changes a persons heart they are doomed. Nobody can con God including Adam and Eve.
“You have tried to use LDS doctrine to justify the acts of a character and have failed. When I pointed out how the argument does not work, explaining the LDS doctrine, you have told me I cannot use the same LDS doctrine as you to disprove what you said. Seems hypocritical, especially when you concider that I understand the doctrine better than you.”
How humble of you. 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.
“We of the LDS faith will then respond to explain the truth of the doctrine, and will be told that we can’t be right about what we believe because the mainstream christians believe differently.”
Again I understand your position I just think it is wrong. However, in these types of discussions merely belonging to a certain faith group does not guarantee that one knows or believes all the tenants of his/her faith. In other words, just because someone is a Muslim (or a Mormon, Catholic, etc.) that does not mean that by default the Muslim will always have more knowledge about Islam then a non-Muslim.
If a Mormon were to go against some modern prohibition to advance his or her self, I do not think in that individuals mind that he/she would see what he/she is doing as a sin. A Mormon could see himself as being in the position of Adam (even if your church holds the opposite position). So again, I (and possibly many others) fail to see the distinction even if your church says there is one.
Shemawater,
I am wondering how you deal with Hosea 6:7.
Lautensack
On one of Aaron’s quotes above “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.”
Didn’t Christ bring God into the bright lights and cacophony of the public square? Wasn’t that part of his core mission?
If this is so, why, in heaven’s name, are Mormons attempting to lock God back into the closet through their secret rites and exclusive ceremonies?
David wrote “The Nauvoo Lodge charter was suspended but Mormon Masons kept carrying on as usual. They were not suposed to keep meeting together as Masons while their charter was suspended but they did.”
David, can you share your sources?
My understanding is that JS joined the Masons in 1842, not long before masonic rites started to feature in Mormon ceremonies. However, I could be wrong and I can’t think of the sources for this info. Is there a reliable non-Mormon masonic source out there that can verify the record?
Martin,
To my knowledge, the info that stated earlier in this thread is not contested by Mormons. In that way it could be considered “common knowledge”. The last link is the longest but it has the most info; it is put out by mason(s).
http://www.signaturebookslibrary.org/essays/mason.htm
http://www.ldsendowment.org/masonry.html
http://www.mastermason.com/bridgeportlodge181/MORMON01.HTM
DAVID
You are simply being rediculous. You tell me that everything I say is wrong, unless I agree with LDS doctrine. As I am LDS it is fairly certain that I do.
I am not trying to convince you that the LDS are right, but to point out that your attempt to use our doctrine to justify others failed. I also understand that this idea can be mistakenly understood by nonmembers, but only when they do not know the full truth of the doctrine. This is why I try to explain the full truth, and yet you keep denying that.
A few comments about Adam and Eve.
They knew the command, yes, but they did not understand what good and evil was. My daughter knows that she is supposed to be in bed by seven, but she does not know that it is naughty not to be. Eve knew the law, but not the concept.
Also, Adam did hide from God, but this was after he had eaten of the fruit and now had this knowledge of Good and Evil, as I pointed out. Before he ate of the fruit he was naked and not ashamed. After he ate the fruit he knew his nakedness and was ashamed. Even in the text we read that he hid because he was naked, not because he had eaten the fruit. He did not want God to see him naked, so he hid and made some crude cloths. Adam ate the fruit so he could remain with Eve, and the text supports this.
If Adam and Evil had this knowledge of Good and Evil than what was the point of the tree? Why not call it the tree of death, which fits better with the tree of Life? It was called the tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil because it gave this knowledge to those who ate it.
I can see all this in the text. I also see in the Text of Timothy Adam being exonerated. Whether you agree with it or not does not matter to me.
Launtensack
I really don’t quite get the connection. Hosea does not reference the Fall. He simple says that like all men, or the Natural Man, Isreal had fallen into sin. He lays no blame on Adam or Eve.
Shemawater,
“You tell me that everything I say is wrong, unless I agree with LDS doctrine. As I am LDS it is fairly certain that I do”
No, I am telling everyone that the LDS position is inconsistent.
“This is why I try to explain the full truth, and yet you keep denying that.”
I am giving an outsiders view to something that is inconsistent.
“Adam ate the fruit so he could remain with Eve, and the text supports this”
Really? The text says nothing about why Adam ate of the fruit other than he tried to blame it on Eve.
“If Adam and Evil had this knowledge of Good and Evil than what was the point of the tree? Why not call it the tree of death, which fits better with the tree of Life? It was called the tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil because it gave this knowledge to those who ate it.”
Adam did not know good from evil in any given situation, but in this one he did because God told him so. What was the point in the prohibition if Adam was not a free moral agent?
“I can see all this in the text. I also see in the Text of Timothy Adam being exonerated. Whether you agree with it or not does not matter to me.”
Where in the text of Timothy do you see it saying that Adam did not sin?
For the record I do disagree with you, but do not accuse me of misrepresenting the LDS position. The truth is because you have a synergistic gospel (man has to do his part) that you have to downplay sin. You have to downplay Adam’s sin, you have to downplay your sin, and you have to downplay your daughter’s sin. Men (and women) are lousy at keeping their end of anything; we even brake our own rules. Mormons come up with all sorts of ways of getting around the Genesis account, but at the end of the day a fall is a fall and falls fall down not up.
Seriously Shemawater, non-religious people get the text of Genesis (even if they do not believe in it). It was not until Joseph Smith that people started saying that the Fall was a fall up. Again, this does violence to language. The title of the Big Love episode is Outer Darkness. Barb was trying to circumvent that place by falling up. As fallen as that is she was simply following what she thought was a “fallen” example. She was trying to advance herself as you believe Adam and Eve did. I know you see a distinction but trust me, many others do not..
Gundeck,
I don’t understand what ritual purity means, and any distinction between morally unlcean. Does the O.T. use the same word, ‘unlcean’ in describing the consumption of unclean meats, and in describing sex, as well as menstration and various manifestations of disease?
This fits into this discussion because the LDS temple ritual contains a vow to follow the law of chastity. From what I understand this is a higher level of commitment for Mormons than baptism, but does not conflict with it. As part of this ‘contract’ the LDS person wears a temple garment, which to me seems like a physical and mental device to assist towards filling that vow, and all other LDS obligations. If you see a photo of a couple wearing their garments, you can see that this would be quite effective.
Here is a concious statement of the law of Chastity by a pro LDS wepbage. (it may not be an officially endorsed webpage)
“Living the law of chastity does not mean asceticism. Rather, it means to “bridle all [our] passions, that [we] may be filled with love” (Alma 38:12). Within marriage, physical intimacy strengthens the divinely ordained bond between husband and wife. By protecting the soul against carnality, chastity safeguards the joys of marriage in this life and exaltation in the life to come. Only the morally clean may enter the temple, where Latter-day Saints solemnly covenant to keep themselves chaste so that they may receive God’s greatest blessing, eternal life (D&C 14:7).”
-Light planet,”Law of chastity”
What is probably not so conscious is what the temple garment does to the wearers within marriage. Yet it is stated “bridle all [our] passions, that [we] may be filled with love” To take the carnal edge off of the carnal aspect of sex. Someone at Mormon coffee complained that it did that, and got in the way of him feeling as much intimaticy.
I have often wondered about the doctrine of the virgin birth. Matt. 1: 23.Isa. 7: 14. What is consciously emphasized by christians is that this is a sign of his divine incarnation. What is not so conscious, is perhaps the ‘virgin’ aspect, that it happened without sex. The LDS church however, has a slightly different take that it was a natural process and no biological law was broken.
In the catholic church marys conception was through regular physical sex, but that it was immaculate.
“The doctrine of the virgin birth of Jesus (i.e., Mary’s virginal conception of Jesus) is not to be confused with that of the Immaculate Conception. The latter holds that Mary herself was conceived in the normal way, but immaculately (i.e., without original sin).”
-wikipedia, virgin birth of Jesus
I am not so sure what is the conscious message concerning an immaculate conception, but it sort of sounds like sex without the carnal impulse. Paul appears to place high value on celibacy, while at the same time realizing that not everyone is interested in that or able to do so. 1 Cor. 7: 7-9 No where in any of this does it say that sex is a sin, but there is a subtle subliminal message that it is carnal, and ‘unclean’.
David,
Thanks for the links. Here are a couple of pertinent extracts from
http://www.signaturebookslibrary.org/essays/mason.htm
The caveat…
“writers from both sides have been hampered by a significant lack of original source material. The records of the Grand Lodge of Illinois were almost entirely destroyed by fire in February 1850. Smaller fires of uncertain origin destroyed records in the region surrounding Nauvoo, and many aspects of the relevant history must rely on circumstantial evidence”
…which answers my previous query…
“The Smith family’s Vermont origins were influenced by Freemasonry and its lore… In particular, Masonic legends of a lost sacred word, once engraved upon a triangular plate of pure gold, profoundly affected the Smith family, leading directly to treasure hunting and other activities for which they would later become known.”
…in other words, the origins of the Book of Mormon…
“The Smith family fell into the [group of those who believed Masonry was of divine origin but had become corrupted by human ambition], and Joseph Jr. saw the restoration of “pure Masonry””
…in other words, the origins of the idea of the Restoration of the Gospel.
I’ve been misled into looking into the Bible to try to find the origins of Mormonism! I should be looking into Freemasonry.
David,
You said:
“I would make a distiction between “unclean” and “sin”. I think it is a legit distiction. For one, the words are different in English, Hebrew, and Greek. Second, did you see the context of the verse you cited? Are you telling me that everytime a woman menstrates she is sinning? If we look at the broader context of the Torah would people with skin conditions be living in sin? There are a whole host of things that can make a person unclean but that does qualify as a sin. ”
I asked “What is your understanding of leviticus 15:18? ” I never brough up the word ‘sin’, although it might have been implied by your statement,
“Sex is not bad, and one can be “innocent” and still know what sex is.”
Your the one that put innocent in quotations. In this context doesn’t this indicate that the word meaning is changed in someway?
a definition of innocent, ” free from guilt or sin especially through lack of knowledge of evil.”
Shemawater,
My mistake I should have checked the english translation most LDS use. Interestingly enough the KJV translates Adam as man. However rather than debate hermeneutics, I will provide you with my translation so you can see why this confusion arose. Also while I would like you to interact with this, without knowledge of Hebrew I won’t ask that you or any LDS do since they reject the non-KJV as authoritative. Anyways here’s the passage.
“Like Adam, they have broken the covenant. There they have dealt faithlessly with me.” – Hosea 6:7
Lautensack
Enki wrote:
Enki, according to that definition of innocent then yes one can know what sex is and still maintain their innocence. I think this position is biblical lest Genesis 3 comes before Genesis 2. Eg. Genesis 2: 24-25 “24 Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. 25And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed.” That is unless you believe cleaving and holding fast are not biblical euphemisms for sex, Jesus seemed to think they were (Mark 10:1-12).
Enki,
So are you disagreeing with what I wrote? If sex between a husband and wife is OK (which it is) then how is that a loss of innocence? This is especially true as the man and woman were naked and felt no shame. By itself sex is not a sin, I think we agree on that. Also, it is worth pointing out that the cleanliness laws came after the account of the fall.
Is there a point you are trying to make? I think we are in agreement here. I don’t see the issue. I put “innocent” and “necessary” in quotes because these words are often used by Mormons regarding the fall. Sometimes they use different words but the view is still the same.
After all the hoopla building up to this, I have to say that I though HBO did a tasteful job of depicting this portion of the temple ceremony. The temple workers were soft-spoken and helpful. The emotion of the “foretaste” of what the after life will be like, with the evident emphasis on relationships, was accurately portrayed. I did not sense anything that could be considered disrespectful. I think it was true to what Mormons believe about life after death. So, I don’t see what the big deal is. All the other discussions branching out from this are not relevant to what the buildup was about, which I thought had to do with HBO being disrespectful and tasteless–which they weren’t–so I’ll leave that to all of you.
Peace and Blessings!
David
You have shown an inconsistancy that exists only in a misunderstanding. If you insist that Adam and Eve had the understanding it is an inconsistancy. However, when you understand that they did not it is no longer an inconsistancy.
I do not believe little children are capable of sin. They lack the understanding to be. Even Christ has told us to be like children to enter the kingdom of God (18: 3).
One must understand the law before they can be guilty of sin. They can transgress the law, but it is not sin. A transgression is a breaking of the law. A sin is a willful disobedience when you know what you do is wrong. If you have no understanding you cannot sin.
Thus, Adam and Eve could not sin, children cannot sin, and those whose mental faculties prevent them from understanding cannot sin.
As to the Timothy reference, I see Paul telling Timothy that the Man is the head of the house. Why is this? Because it was Eve who was deceived, not Adam. It was Eve who caused the fall, and Adam simply did what had to be done, which I believe is stay with Eve so they could be fruitful as commanded.
And no one ever denied that the Fall was a fall down. It was. Adam and Eve were immortal, and fell to a mortal state. This also cause the Earth to fall from a Celestial orbit to a Telestial orbit. We have never denied that it was a fall down. We simply say that in falling down it was made possible for us to rise even higher.
You do misrepresent the LDS doctrine, as you mix it with non-LDS doctrine. You give our doctrine, then show why you believe differently, thus we have to be inconsistant. Yet it is only inconsistant with your beliefs, not ours.
I do not downplay any sin of any person. I just understand what sin is and do not accuse the innocent.
I also understand that Non-Religious people see the Bible more your way, but that really doesn’t matter. You are discussing LDS doctrine, not others doctrine. What others believe is not proof that our belief is inconsistant. It is only proof that others disagree with us.
Shemawater,
“You have shown an inconsistancy that exists only in a misunderstanding. If you insist that Adam and Eve had the understanding it is an inconsistancy. However, when you understand that they did not it is no longer an inconsistancy.”
There are several foundational pre-suppositions that we both have that are different. For one I do believe that one can sin even in ignorance. Two, I believe that there is such a thing as corporate sin whereby someone can be in sin without actually sinning. One operating pre-supposition that Mormons have (and most people) is that people can only be judged by what they know. I reject it as I believe it is unbiblical.
In Adam and Eve’s case they still could sin. They were morally neutral as opposed to the natural man that is morally negative. They could (and did) understand a prohibition. Again, I do not misunderstand I reject the LDS position as fall was indeed sin.
“One must understand the law before they can be guilty of sin.”
This does not jive with Hebrews 9:7 “but into the second, only the high priest enters once a year, not without taking blood, which he offers for himself and for the sins of the people committed in ignorance.”
“A sin is a willful disobedience when you know what you do is wrong. If you have no understanding you cannot sin.”
This speaks volumes. Under this rubric most of what goes on under the sun is not sin. Often times people sin when they think they are doing good. History is filled with examples of atrocities that took place because someone thought that he/she was doing the right thing. Remember what I stated about trying to downplay sin?
“It was Eve who caused the fall, and Adam simply did what had to be done, which I believe is stay with Eve so they could be fruitful as commanded.”
Where are you getting this “did what had to be done” thing? The text does not say why Adam ate of the fruit. Even if you won’t call Adam’s sin “sin”, then it at least is a transgression. One persons transgression never necessitate another transgression. “The was a way out” so that Adam did not need to sin/transgress; Adam and God could have could have done something.
“We simply say that in falling down it was made possible for us to rise even higher.”
I am not commenting either way if this is right or wrong, I am just stating that one does not get this from the Genesis account.
“You do misrepresent the LDS doctrine, as you mix it with non-LDS doctrine. You give our doctrine, then show why you believe differently, thus we have to be inconsistant. Yet it is only inconsistant with your beliefs, not ours.”
For the record, I know that Mormons will cry foul if someone tries to do today something akin to what Adam & Eve did then (I mentioned this earlier). I just do not see the difference. It is inconsistent with my beliefs and I am showing that. But that is not a misrepresentation or misunderstand that is called “commentary”.
David,
The point is that there is often more than what is immediately obvious or consciously taught. I do think that there is some necessity within Mormonism, christianity and the jewish faith to instill a sense of ‘uncleaness’ around sex, and to do things physically and mentally to ‘clean it up’, that is to remove much of the sensual aspects. This is necessary for the directed procreation directives.
Enki wrote “I do think that there is some necessity within Mormonism, christianity and the jewish faith to instill a sense of ‘uncleaness’ around sex, and to do things physically and mentally to ‘clean it up’, that is to remove much of the sensual aspects.”
Enki, I think you’ll find a stronger aversion to the physical functions of human nature within Gnosticism. Whatever Christianity is, its not Gnosticism.
I don’t believe the Bible teaches such an aversion, though it plainly places boundaries on when it is, or is not, appropriate to engage in sex and sensuality.
Consider Gen 1:28 “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground”. If we follow the story, we find that this command occurs before sin entered the world. Now, I don’t know how we could comply with the command without engaging in work and sex, so it follows that they are part of God’s good, unspoilt creation, which makes them inherently ‘clean’.
The story continues with the fall (Gen 3:6-7) and the curse (Gen 3:16-19). Note that the curse specifically touches on sex and work again. My reading is that work and sex were not introduced as a result of human sin (which would make them inherently ‘unclean’), but that the curse introduced futility and meaninglessness to these important aspects of human existence.
Its as if God says “if you take me out of your life, what you’ll have left is a hollow, lifeless emptiness”
P.S If you want sensual, read the Song of Songs.
Martin,
I don’t believe the garden of eden account tells of any children of adam and eve. Wasn’t it sometime after being cast out that they had children?Unclean? Leviticus 15:16-18 ff. I didn’t write that.
“I don’t believe the Bible teaches such an aversion, though it plainly places boundaries on when it is, or is not, appropriate to engage in sex and sensuality. ”
I don’t believe aversion is the correct word. Sex is usually a messy process, and its true, there usually is a ‘clean up’ after it. How many senses can be involved in it. Sight, sound, smell, taste, touch.
In the context of other posts, mormons state the following. “bridle all [our] passions, that [we] may be filled with love” (Alma 38:12).” The edge of sensuality is taken off with the practice of wearing the temple garment. Even in the practice of plural marriage, LDS people ‘bridle all their passions’, I really believe that. In some posts you seem to question if the LDS people really truely practiced plural marriage or adultery.
Some may have practiced adultery, but for the larger part it appears that they practiced plural marriage. I say this because there is a characteristic genetic signature associated with mormons, especially in families that have the longest history. They had instructions to practice directed procreation, mirroring those practiced in the O.T. These are plural marriage and monogamy. Monogamy is what is practiced today. The LDS people have officially abandoned plural marriage, but it appears to have accomplished its purpose. These two forms of directed procreation are much easier to practice where and when ones passions are bridled. Mormons and christians have no desire to totally kill sexuality, they need that to create new followers and to pair bond the parents.
” To control or restrain with or as if with a bridle”
Wow, I just read this whole discussion.
Shemawater said,
“They knew the command, yes, but they did not understand what good and evil was. My daughter knows that she is supposed to be in bed by seven, but she does not know that it is naughty not to be. Eve knew the law, but not the concept.”
First of all, it isn’t naughty to not be in bed by seven – it is naughty to disobey your father.
Perhaps a slightly adjusted analogy might be more useful – For arguement’s sake, lets say it’s a “sin of cursing” to say “f you”. I have told my daughter not to say that to people. She doesn’t know why and she doesn’t know what it means. But she knows I have told her not to and that I will punish her if she does it. If she does say “f you”, one could argue her guilt in the “sin of cursing”, but she would be punished for her sin of disobedience, of which she had full knowledge because I gave it to her.
“Also, Adam did hide from God, but this was after he had eaten of the fruit and now had this knowledge of Good and Evil, as I pointed out.”
I find it interesting that in Gen 3:11 God asks Adam, “Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten of the tree from which I told you not to eat?” = Who TOLD you? You ate the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, so now you don’t need to be told what is good and evil anymore (as God had done with the tree commandment). Satan’s promise that they would “be like God” wasn’t completely false; they became like God because they learned good and evil by themselves, and thus became responsible for that knowledge. Death is a result of the guilt that comes from being unable to handle that responsibilty, sinning, and being unfit to be in the presence of aholy God. That is why redemption is necessary.
While the fall was not unforseen, neither was “necessary” as Ralph said. At the risk of confusing people what are not good at sports analogies, I will give one to illustrate the condition of never having a fall vs fall and a saviour. Having an undefeated season in sports is great and wonderful, and having a dramatic comeback is great and wonderful as well. To say that a team (man) must lose (fall) so that a hero (Jesus) can rise and lead the team to victory (redemption) in order to experience a glorious season (existence) mixes causality and makes for a very nice almost true statement. Wouldn’t it be just as glorious for a team (man) to have a hero (Adam) lead them to an undefeated (sinless) season (existence)? Can you imagine an undefeated team sitting around at the eand of the year and saying,”Geez, we wish we would have lost some more games this year so we could have made a comeback.” Rather than the fall being necessary for Jesus to be able to come and save us, the fall made it necessary for Jesus to be our saviour. Small word difference, big meaning and implication difference.
To argue that they didn’t realize they were sinning when they sinned begs the question as to how Eve could argue with the serpent before giving into him.
While Shemawater’s definition of sin is quite narrow and slippery (perhaps he is a lawyer?), he still managed to say it best with “A sin is a willful disobedience when you know what you do is wrong. ”
Sounds like a good summary of what happened in the first few verses of Gen 3.
“and you will be as gods,” …now, did the angel promise that to Smith or did the devil promise that to Eve? The more things change, the more they stay the same.
Megan said “Would you really rather share your husband with multiple wives, birth millions of spirit babies, and take over your own planet as a goddess with your god-husband? I hope that doesn’t sound sarcastic, because I really don’t mean it to be. How could you possibly want, or, more importantly, believe that that is what God wants for you?”
From a man’s POV, would you really want to be surrounded by a bunch of pregnent women for teh rest of eternity? My wife is in here 4th pregnancy, and that sounds less like heaven and more like the other place to me! (Ok, so this last comment is more of a joke than a serious comment)
Enki asked me “In some posts you seem to question if the LDS people really truely practiced plural marriage or adultery.”
No, I don’t question it at all. The early Mormons practiced plural marriage and believed it was commanded of them by God. Current Mormons don’t, and the answer I got when I asked why was “we don’t do that any more”. For me, this begs the question that if it was commanded by God, who had the right to un-command it?
As far as adultery is concerned, the records show that Joseph Smith did, in fact, enter into plural marriage with women who were simultaneously married to other men. This fits the definition of adultery. Therefore, Joseph Smith was, in fact, an adulterer. The fact, also, that he multiplied his adulterous relationships as his career progressed signals to me that his new religion was not all that he claimed it to be.
Thanks for the link to Lev 15. There’s plenty here about bodily emissions (male and female) and the cleansing required to make a person clean in regard to participation in the temple cult. What’s the message of this passage? It seems to me either that you try to recreate the cleansing system that it describes (which would be difficult to impossible to do, given the absence of a physical tabernacle or temple), or you try to determine what purposes these commands achieve. I notice that the commands don’t result in excommunication for the person who experiences these physical conditions, however a cleansing is required. In the context of the NT, I think we can interpret this in terms of God not hating us because we are human beings with physical bodies, but we do need cleansing. Now, we no longer get cleansing from the Temple, but we get it from Christ, who is the fulfilment of the law, which includes Lev 15.
You also wrote “Mormons and christians have no desire to totally kill sexuality, they need that to create new followers…” This is rather naive. I won’t deny that a large proportion of current Christian people come from Christian families, but there’s a saying that God has no grand-children. We don’t create new followers by out-breeding the opposition, but by preaching the Word and inviting people into the Kingdom, whether they come from Christian families or not.
Protestants, in particular, promote the values of salvation by faith in Christ alone. This necessarily excludes the values of salvation by being born to Christian parents. Its peculiarly hard on Christian parents who see their children wander from the church, but that’s the way it is.
Enki,
Can’t you see my point that Mormonism creates a non-problem by taking the command to subdue the earth and making it contingent upon obtaining the knowledge of good and evil? Don’t you think that some of the “uncleanliness” associated with sexual functions (in the OT but also in other religious texts) is because they involve bodily fluids and those are well, gross? Are you suggesting we adopt an “anything goes” approach to sexuality?
DAVID
You really mis the point. My point is you can’t prove us inconsistant by saying you don’t agree. That proves nothing. Our doctrine may be inconsistant with your beliefs, and inconsistant with the way you interpret the Bible. I will admit that they are. However, our beliefs are not inconsistant with the rest of our beliefs. That is the point.
As to knowing a command and understanding good and evil, let me relate a study that was conducting in the early 1900’s. A psycologist posed a question to several children. He told them, “A father had two sons. The first was playing in the office, bumped into the desk and spilt the ink bottle, causing a large mess and ruining several papers. The second, after an argument with his father, took the ink and purposefully smeared it over one page of his father’s paper. Of the two boys, whose actions were more naughty?” (this is general, as I don’t have the actual study in front of me) I thin we will all agree that the son who purpusefully destroyed one paper was more in the wrong than the one who caused teh accident. Yet, small children did not judge on intension, but what actually happened, so they blamed the accident of the greater wrong. They understood it was against the rules to get into their fathers papers, but they did not understand the concept of right and wrong. It was the older children who became to think in terms of intensions and motives. Around the age of eight years they began to show that they truly understood that the first was only an accident, while the second was truly wrong.
For this reason I do not believe that small children can truly sin, and I believe Adam and Eve had this same understanding of things before they ate of the fruit. They did not understand right and wrong.
On a final note. If the Fall was not unexpected, but God still planned for Adama nd Eve to remain in the Garden than it must be that he had two plans laid out from the beginning, not being sure which one he would need. Or, if he only planned for one, but it was possible for it to go either way he left himself open to surprise. Either way he is no longer all knowing. The only way I can see to keep his omniscience is if he not only knew that it was likely to happened, but planned for it.
Also, if it was not necessary why did he not prevent it? Isn’t he all powerful? why did he let it happen?
Shemawater,
So, I guess you are saying that God cursed Adam and Eve even though they were sinless. You may disagree with me but don’t tell me that I misunderstand when I clearly know that Mormons believe that Adam “fell up” in some sense.
According to your statement, “ A sin is a willful disobedience when you know what you do is wrong” your position (that Barb and her family members sinned) is inconsistent with your definition. Barb thought she was doing the right thing. Again, most of the atrocities or even most of the sins that have been committed down through history were done by people who thought they were doing nothing wrong or that thought that they were doing the right thing. Indeed, most if not all sins are considered right by those who commit them, or else they would not do them.
Your position is also inconsistent with the Bible. The Bible speaks of individuals committing sins of omission as well as committing sins while ignorant. Romans 5:16 says that Adam sinned, “The gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned; for on the one hand the judgment arose from one transgression resulting in condemnation, but on the other hand the free gift arose from many transgressions resulting in justification.” The entire context of Romans 5 is discussing Adam and Christ, “the one who sinned” is Adam. There are other verses as well but if you will not accept this one I doubt you will accept the others.
Even using the analogy you gave, the boy who accidentally spilled ink on his father’s papers sinned. The boy sinned by playing somewhere he should not have; the children saw this and identified it. I would agree with you that the intentional destruction of property is the greater sin – “more naughty” – but this means that first boy did in fact sin.
God did plan for the fall. I agree with you on that one. But that does not mean that Adam did not sin. Throughout the Bible, God uses people’s sins to accomplish His purposes. But they are still sins.
David and Shemawater;
Are we sinners because we sin, or do we sin because we are sinners?
I tend to think the Biblical answer is ‘both’. We are born into an environment that promotes sin, and we become entangled and complicit in the sin it promotes. Even if we don’t get the chance to sin, we’re still bound in the “kingdom of sin”, which, like Egypt, is under God’s judgement.
Given that we can’t get ourselves out of this mess, individually or corporately, we need a saviour, who is not imprisoned like us, to spring us from jail.
That’s how I read the narrative on the Exodus, upon which so much of the redemption language of the NT is based.
Getting to Adam, we are truly the sons of Adam because our present reality is controlled by Adam’s inheritance. I suggest that’s why we need to be “born again” (John 3:3), so that our present reality is changed so that is controlled by the inheritance of the last Adam, Jesus Christ. See 1 Cor 15:22 “For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead, For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.”
P.S. I can’t see how an act of “falling up” can be considered to be a good, or neutral, thing if brings death to all of humanity.
Martin,
“Given that we can’t get ourselves out of this mess, individually or corporately, we need a saviour, who is not imprisoned like us, to spring us from jail”
No argument from me there. I would up the ante however. Growing up in church all the analogies to sinners in sin were something akin to a person in raging sea who is drowning and Jesus comes to save him/her.
These type of analogies are not very accurate. A more accurate one would be your dead corpse is at the bottom of the sea and the Holy Spirit brings your dead corpse to land and breaths air back into your lungs. An even better analogy would a soldier who is pent up in a fort that is about to be over-run. The commander of the army captures him and turns him to his side.
Where most analogies fall short is that humans start off on God’s side which we are not by the flesh. We are born at odds with God until he changes are hearts. The seed of Adam are at war with God and we need to become knew creatures. We sinned in the garden and because of that we keep sinning.
David,
I am just trying to point out there there might be more to a teaching or concept than what is consciously taught. For instance Mormons are probably more consciously aware certain aspects of ‘the law of chasity’ than others. That the temple garments guard against fornication and adultery is probably much more conscious than its effects upon the married couple who have the right to participate in sexual activity. Wearing the temple garment is akin to placing a harness on a work animal. “bridle all your passions”(Alma 38:12) This verse suggests that temple mormons wear the garment during love making. As such it greatly reduces the sensual aspects of sex by providing a visual and tactile barrier to much of the body. In addition from what I understand there is a temple symbol over each nipple, which is a highly erotic point on the body.
Polygamy and strict monogamy are unnatural. Many other aspects of the mormon gospel are probably also not natural. Mosiah 3: 19 However, mormons probably place the greatest concern around sexual sins. The temple garment appears to be a physical device for keeping polygamy and monogamy.
The ancient hebrew god called the jewish people to be a peculiar people. Deut. 14: 2 Restated in the chrisitan faith. 1 Pet. 2: 9. Polygamy and monogamy are two ways of inducing a new ethnicity within a group of people, as they are directed forms of procreation. Solomon and David are two well known people in the O.T. to have practiced polygamy, rightly or wrongly. That David participated is particularly interesting, as he probably was chosen for is literary skills. He is identified as writing around 70 psalms. There may have been other characteristics he was chosen for.
The creation the “peculiar people…above all the nations that are upon the earth” also
required the exclusion of segments of the population for various reasons. Either through death, exile, or excommication. This is by no means a complete list.
(Exodus 22:20, Numbers 1:5, Deuteronomy 13:1-10, Leviticus 20:27,Exodus 22:18, Leviticus 20:10, Leviticus 20:11, Leviticus 20:13, Leviticus 20:15, Deuteronomy 22:13-21, Deuteronomy 20:14, Deuteronomy 22:23-24, Deuteronomy 22:25, Leviticus 21:9, Levitucus 24:17, Exodus 21:16, Leviticus 20:2-5, Exodus 21:17, Exodus 21:15, Exodus 21:29, Deuteronomy 21:18-21, Leviticus 24:16, Deuteronomy 17:12, Deuteronomy 19:15-21, Exodus 21:22-23, )
Still more:
A male who was not circumcised: Genesis 17:14
Eating leavened bread during the Feast of Unleavened Bread: Exodus 12:15
Manufacturing anointing oil: Exodus 30:33
Engaging in ritual animal sacrifices other than at the temple: Leviticus 17:1-9
Consuming blood: Leviticus 17:10. This would include eating rare meat.
Eating peace offerings while ritually unclean: Leviticus 7:20
Waiting too long before consuming sacrifices: Leviticus 19:5-8
Sexual activity with a woman who is menstruating: Leviticus 20:18
Going to the temple in an unclean state: Numbers 19:13
Persons teaching another religion: Deuteronomy 13:1-11
A prophet whose prophecy does not come true: Deuteronomy 18:22
Gluttony and excessive drinking: Deuteronomy 21:20
Thats a lot to examine, and no I haven’t looked everything up. I got the list from another site. But somehow all rules and customs worked towards creating the jewish people and made them to be a “peculiar people, a holy nation”. I honestly do believe that Polygyny and monogamy induce ethnicity faster than non-directed forms of procreation. The problem is that it reduces genetic diversity, especially in smaller communities. Polygyny in particular can also increase undesired genetic characteristics, as noted by critics of the FLDS who currently participate, and also have a small community.
Martin,
You said:
“You also wrote “Mormons and christians have no desire to totally kill sexuality, they need that to create new followers…” This is rather naive. I won’t deny that a large proportion of current Christian people come from Christian families, but there’s a saying that God has no grand-children. We don’t create new followers by out-breeding the opposition, but by preaching the Word and inviting people into the Kingdom, whether they come from Christian families or not.
Protestants, in particular, promote the values of salvation by faith in Christ alone. This necessarily excludes the values of salvation by being born to Christian parents. Its peculiarly hard on Christian parents who see their children wander from the church, but that’s the way it is. ”
Well, not exactly. I have met many fundementalist christians who were born into fundementalist families. Sure they say they each had to find christ for themselves, but it sure helped that their parents and grandparents, etc…where fundementalist christian, as far is it helped instill the belief as second nature to the children.
There is one point that is valid…sort of. Any religion can die if it doesn’t meet some need. In theory any of the worlds religions could just suddenly stop, if the masses just suddenly find that it doesn’t fill a need of some type. That could be christianity as a whole, Islam, or even hinduism, all of which have a long history and millions and millions of the faithful. Somehow I don’t see any of the major world religions just suddenly not having any following, even though in theory they could, say this coming friday.
The role of heredity is difficult to dismiss so easily. Catholics are keenly aware, and take efforts to ensure that children raised in a religiously mixed family are raised catholic. Mormons have an agressive missionary program, but firmly believe in families. I have a feeling that the number of 4,5,6,7 generation mormons are quite high. So mormons are gaining numbers by multiplication and by conversion. They even adjusted a number of beliefs to promote more children. The not so virgin birth, celestial marriage with the promise of millions and billions of children. I have heard that even genelogy and works for the dead somehow promote larger families.
For Zoroastrians their faith is maintained completely by heredity. One could choose to leave, but the general consensus of the zoroastrian community is that one must be born of two zoroastrian parents to clearly be zoroastrian. On some occations they admit someone born to just a zoroastrian father. On no occation is a convert accepted.
On the opposite end of the spectrum, you have the shakers who did not believe in parenting children. The only way to continue the faith was by converts, and for a time by adoption, although that has changed.
“Although there were six thousand believers at the peak of the Shaker movement, there were only twelve Shakers left by 1920. In the United States there is one remaining active Shaker community, at Sabbathday Lake, Maine, which as of 2008 has four members. The Sabbathday Lake community still accepts new recruits, as it has since its founding. Shakers are no longer allowed to adopt orphan children after new laws were passed in 1960 denying control of adoption to religious groups, but adults who wish to embrace Shaker life are welcome.” Wikipedia, “Shakers”
With all that said, I don’t think my comment is naive at all. The last example really shows what could happen to a religious community that is entirely made up of converts only, it could die out. Do you know of an example of a fundmentalist christian community that is only by conversion only? (with no member ‘brought up’ fundementalist christian?)
DAVID and everyone else
“So, I guess you are saying that God cursed Adam and Eve even though they were sinless.”
-I never said God cursed Adam or Eve. I pointed out that he did not curse them, but that he simply told them what would be the natural consequense of their actions. Again you are taking your belief to show ours inconsistant.
“You may disagree with me but don’t tell me that I misunderstand when I clearly know that Mormons believe that Adam “fell up” in some sense.”
-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.
“According to your statement, “ ‘A sin is a willful disobedience when you know what you do is wrong’ ”
-You left out the word understanding. You have to understand the nature of right and wrong.
“your position (that Barb and her family members sinned) is inconsistent with your definition. Barb thought she was doing the right thing.”
-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.
“Again, most of the atrocities or even most of the sins that have been committed down through history were done by people who thought they were doing nothing wrong or that thought that they were doing the right thing. Indeed, most if not all sins are considered right by those who commit them, or else they would not do them.”
-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.
As an example I would use the Mountain Meadows Massacre. These men took the doctrine of Blood Atonement and used it to justify their murders. They were wrong, and they knew they were wrong. But they told themselves they right, they convinced themselves they were right because that is what they wanted to do.
“Your position is also inconsistent with the Bible.”
-Only with your interpretation of the Bible. I have read the Bible more than once and have found nothing that contradicts what I believe.
“I would agree with you that the intentional destruction of property is the greater sin – “more naughty” – but this means that first boy did in fact sin.”
-My point is that little children can not tell what truly makes one worse than the others. Also, I never said the children were not allowed in the room. They were not to get into the papers, yes, but they were not banned from the room. So they did not sin, and yet they were still blamed for the greater wrong.
“God did plan for the fall. I agree with you on that one. But that does not mean that Adam did not sin. Throughout the Bible, God uses people’s sins to accomplish His purposes. But they are still sins.”
-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.