He came to his own, and his own people did not receive him.
But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name,
he gave the right to become children of God, who were born,
not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man,
but of God. –John 1:12-13
Brigham Young taught,
“The scriptures made use of by Elder George A. Smith this morning, show the way in which the former Saints became the sons of God. ‘But as many as received Him, to them gave He power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on His name.’…
“I think, however, that the rendering of this Scripture is not so true as the following, namely: ‘But as many as received Him, to them gave He power to continue to be the sons of God.’ Instead of receiving the gospel to become the sons of God, my language would be—to receive the gospel that we may continue to be the sons of God. Are we not all sons of God when we are born into this world? Old Pharaoh, King of Egypt, was just as much a son of God as Moses and Aaron were His sons, with this difference—he rejected the word of the Lord, the true light, and they received it. For ‘this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men love darkness rather than light, because their deeds are evil.’ [John 3:19] Then we receive not the gospel that we may become the sons of God, but that we may remain the sons of God without rebuke. …My doctrine is—that there never was a son and daughter of Adam and Eve born on this earth whose names were not already written in the Lamb’s book of life, and there they will remain until their conduct is such that the angel who keeps the record is authorized to blot them out and record them elsewhere.” (Brigham Young, November 17, 1867, Journal of Discourses, 12:100-101)
Brigham Young’s interpretation of the passage from John 1 doesn’t make sense if we look at the broader context. Young says all human beings are already sons of God when born into this world; that receiving Christ gives people the power to continue as or remain sons of God. But John says those who receive Christ become children of God, born not by any human endeavor, but born of God (John 1:13).
In chapter 3 John talks more about being born of God, this new birth: You must be born again, born of the Spirit, that “Whoever believes in Him may have eternal life.” (John 3:15).
In chapter 8 John records Jesus saying,
“If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God…You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and has nothing to do with the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies. …Whoever is of God hears the words of God. The reason why you do not hear them is that you are not of God.” (John 8:42-47)
Brigham Young contradicts Jesus. Jesus says sons do what their fathers desire; that those who belong to God hear His words. Brigham Young says those who are sons of God instead do what is evil, thereby casting themselves out of the family.
Our problem with sin is so much greater than Brigham Young ever imagined. Christian theologian R.C. Sproul explains:
“Our problem with sin is that it is rooted in the core of our being. It permeates our hearts. It is because sin is at our core and not merely at the exterior of our lives that the Bible says: ‘There is none righteous, no, not one; there is none who understands; there is none who seeks after God. They have all turned aside; they have together become unprofitable; there is none who does good, no, not one.’ (Romans 3:10-12)
“It is because of this condition that the verdict of Scripture is heard: we are ‘dead in trespasses and sins’ (Ephesians 2:1); we are ‘sold under sin’ (Romans 7:14); we are in ‘captivity to the law of sin’ (Romans 7:23); and are ‘by nature children of wrath’ (Ephesians 2:3). Only by the quickening of the power of the Holy Spirit may we be brought out of this state of spiritual death. It is God who makes us alive as we become His craftsmanship (Ephesians 2:1-10).”
Great post, Sharon. I had never read that quote from Brigham Young before and am once more amazed by the differences between Mormonism and Christianity. I thank you for all this education on the subject!
Sharon, an interesting topic with much doctrinal substance to discuss.
What is the difference between a prophet and a theologian? A prophet knows spiritual truth from direct personal experience gained from divine revelation whereas a theologian can only hope to postulate his theological position surmised from an imperfect understanding of the written words of prophets. In other words a prophet speaks from first-hand knowledge whereas a theologian speaks from speculation. This is the great strength of the LDS Church – we are led by living prophets and not by theologians who can only misconstrue the words of dead prophets.
The subject of the familial relationship between man and God the Father is an interesting one to consider. The LDS Church affirms that we (the whole of humanity) are the literal descendants of our Heavenly Father that we are indeed Children of God. This is a very radical theological statement that is in sum and substance a marked contrast to the position held by other Abrahamic faiths (Judaism, the various forms of contemporary Christianity and Islam). Notwithstanding the abundance of scriptures affirming that we are the Children of God, other Abrahamic faiths contend that this phraseology is only allegorical or metaphysical and is not to be taken literally – hence the confusion regarding the interpretation of the biblical passages cited in the opening post.
The primary song "I am a Child of God" is my personal favorite. It reveals profound truths regarding the familial relationship between our Heavenly Father and us, His Children. These great truths have been repeatedly revealed to us by the Lord's prophets yet mankind fails to understand the simplicity of these truths.
Knowing that I am a Child of God has a profound bearing on my outlook. I do not consider myself to be a "totally depraved creature" as depicted by neo-Calvinist theology but rather I have a much more optimistic self-image knowing my divine parentage. As a Child of God I seek to return to my Heavenly Father and I strive to "learn all that I must do to live with Him some day".
Food for thought.
One thing that stood out to me is when Young said, "My doctrine is…" Shouldn't we follow "Gods Doctrine" and not man's? Anything he said after that phrase should be thrown out of their theology based on the fact that it is the "philosophy of men mingled with scripture".
This is a fine article you'd written, Sharon. For some years, I've noticed this difference you describe between Biblical and LDS doctrine:
A. We are adopted into God's family, becoming His child at the point of salvation,
vs.
B. Everyone is a child of God.
As I understand it, the reason for the discrepancy is the LDS belief, fairly commonly held, that they (and everyone else) have lived earlier lives or existences. During this earlier existence a glorified man and woman gave birth to their spirits. They regard this man as their God; hence, they are a child of a God and Goddess; children of God. (An interesting side-note: the Book of Mormon does not teach this and in fact contains passages supporting the Biblical teaching that man becomes a child of God through faith. Unfortunately, this was abandoned in favor of Young's un-Biblical (and for that matter, un-Book of Mormon) teachings.
I am especially fond of this topic today, of becoming children of God and being adopted into God's family. The adoption of our daughter was finalized just hours ago! Our daughter has been ours for six months, but now it is official! We took a picture with the judge just a big ago, smiling, and Stacia cried with joy. Usually people cry in a court room because they're paying a fine or going to jail! But we were happy to be there!
<img src="http://farm4.static.flick…
One of my most treasured approaches to God when I am in sin and when I feel unworthy is being reminded of a loving Father who adopted me unto permanent sonship. I may run out the back door, but the front door is always unlocked, and I will always belong to Him, and my heart is ultimately in his hands unto eternal life. This has provided tremendous encouragement and absolution over sin and motivation to, so to speak, come back through the front door.
Sadly, this way of thinking seems foreign to a worldview that practically suppresses the beauty of spiritual adoption by accentuating the non-biblical notion of naturally being children of God. In Christianity, all the children of God have eternal life and spend eternity with Him. In Mormonism, you can be saved as a child of God unto damnation and torment and eternal regret. This also practically abridges the glory of Jesus as the only begotten Son of God, since although Mormonism ascribes to him this title with respect to incarnation-identity, it seems less significant in a worldview where we are all pre-mortal spirit sons and spirit daughters.
Enjoy a day of celebration,
Aaron
I totally agree, Soy Yo!!
SteveH,
First I am wondering exactly what a neo-Calvinist is? Could you please explain this term. Also could you please show me the Judaic scriptures, that is the Old Testament passages, which create this framework that we are literally Children of Elohim. I will submit that there are Old Testament passages which state the people of Israel are Children of the LORD, (eg. Exodus 4:22; Deuteronomy 14:1; etc) that is of YHWH however when we deal with LDS theology that would make them Children of Jesus not Elohim. One could come to this from a literal translation of Hosea 1 and 11 however when the same hermeneutic is applied to chapter 2 not only would God be the Literal father of Israel but also the Literal husband. I don't know about you but I'm not going to pull a Song of Solomon 2:3 with my father that's for sure.
Lautensack
Even the Book of Mormon borrows from the Protestant framework of total depravity (albeit the Arminian viewpoint on it specifically, but this is nonetheless striking considering the now-Pelagian optimism of Mormonism). Alma 42:10 calls us "carnal, sensual, and devilish, by nature,", and 2 Nephi 4:17 among other BofM passages calls us "wretched". Mosiah 3:19 says "the natural man is an enemy to God", and Ether 3:2 says, "we are unworthy before thee; because of the fall our natures have become evil continually". Smith obviously loved borrowing phraseology from Paul. And you can see how he borrowed language from Genesis 6:5, "every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually." The BofM's optimism is not in our being deities in species or Gods-in-embryo, but rather in the salvation provided via yielding to the enticing of the Spirit and the atonement. I'd be happy if Mormons truly returned to a plain historical-grammatical reading of the BofM, but that would require chucking institutionally promoted LDS teachings that have been going on for decades, and doing that with integrity would require publicly ruffling some institutional feathers.
Congratulations Aaron!
What wonderful news!
Aaron,
The notion that "the Book of Mormon borrows from the Protestant framework of total depravity" is total nonsense. The authors of the passages cited (Nephi, Mosiah, Alma) lived and died some 1,500 to 2,000 years prior to the Protestant Reformation. You might as well claim that the author of Proverbs was an Arminian. One can easily find phraseological parallels in many of the 66 Books of the canon.
I stand by my assertion that it is better to follow the counsel of a living prophet of God than to be swayed in every which direction by the misguided postulation of theologians. Jean Calvin's erroneous notions of grace, the total depravity of man, etc. have produced a very distorted theology which bedevils us to this day.
Steve, if you register a username at the commenting service, you won't have to be moderated every time you submit a comment.
I absolutely agree that it is nonsense that ancient authors were able to anachronistically borrow from Paul. It is this kind of thing that seems to have driven Mormon Blake Ostler to argue for his "expansion theory" of the BofM, which asserts that Smith expanded (added to) ancient material with his own mixture of things.
For outsiders, it is part of the evidence that points to the BofM being fraudulent.
I am especially fond of this topic today, of becoming children of God and being adopted into God's family. The adoption of our daughter was finalized just hours ago! Our daughter has been ours for six months, but now it is official! We took a picture with the judge just a bit ago, smiling, and Stacia cried with joy. Usually people cry in a court room because they're paying a fine or going to jail! But we were happy to be there!
<img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3221/3056234453_99e0d6a13f.jpg?v=0">
One of my most treasured approaches to God when I am in sin and when I feel unworthy is being reminded of a loving Father who adopted me unto permanent sonship. I may run out the back door, but the front door is always unlocked, and I will always belong to Him, and my heart is ultimately in his hands unto eternal life. This has provided tremendous encouragement and absolution over sin and motivation to, so to speak, come back through the front door.
Sadly, this way of thinking seems foreign to a worldview that practically suppresses the beauty of spiritual adoption by accentuating the non-biblical notion of naturally being children of God. In Christianity, all the children of God have eternal life and spend eternity with Him. In Mormonism, you can be saved as a child of God unto damnation and torment and eternal regret. This also practically abridges the glory of Jesus as the only begotten Son of God, since although Mormonism ascribes to him this title with respect to incarnation-identity, it seems less significant in a worldview where we are all pre-mortal begotten spirit sons and spirit daughters.
A particularly concerning issue regarding adoption is the Fall. When I have pressed the context of Romans 8:16 to some intelligent Mormons (including professors), they will sometimes agree that the passage does not speak of 1) being children of Christ or 2) being natural born children of the Father. It rather speaks of 3) being adopted unto the Father as children. But the obvious question is, why do children have to be adopted if they are already children of the parent doing the adopting? The primary response I have received is that at the Fall (and through the individual fall of each man) the children of God lost/lose their inheritance and consequently have to, with God's necessary gracious help, prove themselves worthy achieving it back. Think about it, the Fall was good and praiseworthy and worth imitating according to Mormon leaders, but according to professors I have talked to, that was the reason and event for the children losing their inheritance and having to prove themselves worthy to achieve it back. It seems perverted for a Father to disinherit his children in response to them obeying the spirit of his law (i.e. pursuing progression and experience via fallen mortality).
All that said, I would encourage any Mormon to do a survey of the NT doctrine of spiritual adoption, and to know that your Creator loves you, but he supremely loves his Only Begotten Son. He is willing and ready to adopt you permanently into his family unto eternal life and kingdom-enjoyment and everlasting intimate fellowship. And you don't have to prove yourself worthy of this. Rather, as Sharon quoted, "But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God." (John 1:12-13)
Enjoying a day of celebration,
Aaron
Even the Book of Mormon borrows from the Protestant framework of total depravity (albeit the Arminian viewpoint on it specifically, but this is nonetheless striking considering the now-Pelagian optimism of Mormonism). Alma 42:10 calls us "carnal, sensual, and devilish, by nature,", and 2 Nephi 4:17 among other BofM passages calls us "wretched". Mosiah 3:19 says "the natural man is an enemy to God", and Ether 3:2 says, "we are unworthy before thee; because of the fall our natures have become evil continually". Smith obviously loved borrowing phraseology from Paul. And you can see how he borrowed language from Genesis 6:5, "every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually." The BofM's optimism is not in our being deities in species or Gods-in-embryo, but rather in the salvation provided via yielding to the enticing of the Spirit and the infinite atonement. I'd be happy if Mormons truly returned to a plain historical-grammatical reading of (much of) the BofM, but that would require chucking institutionally promoted LDS teachings that have been going on for decades, and doing that with integrity would require publicly ruffling some institutional feathers.
Aaron you clearly married way above yourself. Congrats!
SteveH,
"The authors of the passages cited (Nephi, Mosiah, Alma) lived and died some 1,500 to 2,000 years prior to the Protestant Reformation."
The doctrine of total depravity is not a product of the Protestant Reformation, it is integral to the Bible all the way back into Genesis.
Read this post I wrote on the subject just after being born again last year. It begins with the idea that man can become like God in that we can possess and cultivate godly attributes, but we cannot become those attributes as God is attributes. But more in line with Sharon's post here, it also refers to C.S. Lewis' discussion about creation versus begetting:
"What God begets is God; just as what man begets is man. What God creates is not God; just as what man makes is not man. That is why men are not Sons of God in the sense that Christ is [Matthew 5:9; Romans 8:14; Galatians 3:26; Revelations 21:7]. "
How is it then that they are referred to as angels? (Revelation 12:7-12) Did they already evolve past manhood when they were cast out?
As for your other questions.
Hebrews 12:9 – Who is the writer addressing? He is addressing believers, that is those who are born of God (John 1:13; 3:3) This in no way insinuates that God is the literal father of our spirits.
Job 38:7 – It would be safe to say that the "sons of God" in this passage are angels. (cf Job 1:6; Isaiah 6:1-6; Luke 1:23-24; Rev 12:9) If this were speaking about men then Job could answer YHWH when he asked "Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth?" saying "I was there and shouted for Joy."
Jeremiah 1:5 – Does not say that Jeremiah knew God rather that God knew Jeremiah. Are we going to limit God's omniscience in such a way that he cannot know all creatures he will ever make?
Ecclesiastes 12:7 – Who here is denying that God gave man his spirit, would not the spirit be a good and perfect gift from above, coming down from the Father of lights?
2 Timothy 1:9/Titus 1:2 – These are just silly. First God made the promise to the promise to God's elect before the foundation of the world. (Ephesians 1:3-4) In my church we have a program called true love waits where the students make a promise to their future spouse to be faithful. Does their not knowing whom they shall marry negate the promise? Not at all for one to promise something to someone does not mean they know to whom they are promising, I am speaking in human terms since God has infinite foreknowledge therefore it is not as though He was promising to someone He was unaware of. This in no way means that prior to the foundation of the earth humans were alive.
Lautensack
DOF: welcome back; hope you are seeing God's hand in all your realm. simple question: are you comforted by the gospel as presented and understood by today's evengelicals??
I liked the following in your post:
Prophets spoke forth the truth of God's plan in plain language – if prophets need prophets to interpret prophets, where does it end? It will become a string of interpretations contradicting one another and changing over time. This is the clear pattern of the "latter day prophets" – always interpreting, always changing, never firm or clear.
To me the irony of this is : the LDS have been able to sell large numbers of people on the ideas that 1) God 's word in the Bible is NOT that clear and understandable (or consistent) and that 2) the word given to us who would acccept it by todays modern prophet is a huge upgrade, and so much easier to understand, etx…. my experience on this blog tells me different, the words or BOTH the modern prophets AND the MORMONS who follow them are anything but consistent and clear. Give me that old time religion, and the old book any ol' day: controversies and hard to get parts included..
GOOD POST, MO'
Excellent post, Sharon! This doctrine is one of the more damaging, in my opinion, in terms of preventing people from believing and receiving what God has said concerning their sin, the hopelessness of their human condition, and the real reason Christ died for them. God says we must receive His only begotten Son, the Word who was made flesh, in order to become His adopted children (not his begotten children – there is only one of those). It's the pattern of Satan to question what God has said (Gen. 3:1), to twist it, and to set forth doctrines that whitewash man's deplorable, wretched condition, exalt man, and teach a different means of reconciliation than what is set forth in Scripture.
Soy Yo!! Love your comments. Welcome back to the blogosphere! 🙂 I read your post today on your blog and was glad to see you back at it.
Aaron, Congratulations on the adoption of your little girl – what a blessing!
Excellent post, Sharon! This doctrine is one of the more damaging, in my opinion, in terms of preventing people from believing and receiving what God has said concerning their sin, the hopelessness of their human condition, and the real reason Christ died for them. God says we must receive His only begotten Son, the Word who was made flesh, in order to become His adopted children (not his begotten children – there is only One of those). It's the pattern of Satan to question what God has said (Gen. 3:1), to twist it, and to set forth doctrines that whitewash man's deplorable, wretched condition, exalt man, and teach a different means of reconciliation than what is set forth in Scripture.
Soy Yo!! Love your comments. Welcome back to the blogosphere! 🙂 I read your post today on your blog and was glad to see you back at it.
Aaron, Congratulations on the adoption of your little girl – what a blessing!
The distinction of how we define ourselves as children of god is another key difference between Mormons and Christians. To Christians, while everyone is created by God, not everyone is a child of God. Mormons think everyone is a child of God. This was established above, but SteveH represents well when he describes the positive self-image of automatically being a child of God. That's nice, but kind of Stuart Smalley-ish. I don't view the issue as one of self-esteem, for when I accepted Christ, I was given the assurance to know I am a child of God. I realized how hopeless I was on my own, and that I needed God to help me be all I can be, all I was created for in the first place.
SteveH was reminded of a hymn. So am I. I am reminded of Blessed Assurance. The words as penned by Fanny Crosby go as such:
Blessed assurance, Jesus is mine!
O what a foretaste of glory divine!
Heir of salvation, purchase of God,
born of his Spirit, washed in his blood.
(Ref)This is my story, this is my song,
praising my Savior all the day long;
this is my story, this is my song,
praising my Savior all the day long.
2.Perfect submission, perfect delight,
visions of rapture now burst on my sight;
angels descending bring from above
echoes of mercy, whispers of love.
3.Perfect submission, all is at rest;
I in my Savior am happy and blest,
watching and waiting, looking above,
filled with his goodness, lost in his love.
"I in my savior am happy and blest…" What wonderful words, and it raises a question of what true confidence is. Is it in myself, as a natural born child of God, as the Mormons think, or does it come when one accepts the Son of the Living God into his heart, as Christians think?
Congrats on the adoption Aaron!
Sharon's comments do not make sense with Matthew 5. I will quote with caps for emphasis.
44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
45 That ye MAY be the CHILDREN of your FATHER which is in heaven:
47Be ye therefore perfect, even as YOUR FATHER which is in heaven is perfect
The Savior is explaining how TO BECOME the CHILDREN of God, all the while referring to God as their Father. If He is their Father then they must already be His children.
So, are we to assume that they are His children but not His children? It doesn't make sense the way Sharon has explained it. Only in the context that they are already His Children (premortal) but have come to earth and sinned that they have seperated themselves from the family. This, the Jews clearly understood. Therefore, the Savior is explaining to them how to gain a Child of God status by being spiritually reborn through the Atonement (becoming Perfect).
I rather like BY explanation. Make much more sense to me
Aaron,
The BoM doesn't borrow from a Protestant platform, it is simply a continuation of the same gospel that has been preached since the world began. My Sunday School topic last Sunday: Mosiah 3/Ether 12. It is alive and kicking, same old gospel of repentance. Why preach this? Because the worth of souls is great! Why? They are the Children of God.
Thus this is not a day "of many words". "Say nothing but repentance unto this generation" That is what the Lord has said in our day and I would think would sound comforting to the evangelical.
that would depend on what they are preaching. When they testify of Jesus Christ I feel a kinship with them (sons of God).
For those who know little about the LDS faith (thus feel no "duty" to tear it down) I tend to feel comforted when I am with them. I am not comforted by the discussions here. Because the thrust is "speaking evil of the Lord's anointed". I realize that this group does not see it that way. But the Lord has revealed to me the reality of living prophets and it "becometh every man who hath been warned to warn his neighbor". So whatever the topic may be, if the "gospel" presented it designed to build faith in Jesus Christ, then I am comforted.
However, I cannot accept someone elses intereptation of the scriptures over the revelation I have received.
I will say that I am usually ok with what you (Germit) have to say.
Mobaby and Germit,
The prophets did indeed speak forth the truth of God's plan in plain language. However, it is the religionists and theologians who have removed much of that which is plain and precious from the word of God and substituted their own ideas. Hence that is why today there are over 5,000 different Protestant sects with each vying for what they consider to be God's truth yet disagreeing on every imaginable topic. Clearly, the world of Protestant theology is anything but clear, consistent, and unambiguous and indeed is morphing into something different everyday. Protestant theology is rudderless and shifting with every change of doctrine.
In contrast, LDS doctrine is guided by prophets of God who speak from first hand experience revealed directly to them. Critics like to harp on the vagaries of some extraneous and peripheral opinions of some church leaders like Brigham Young yet ignore the remarkable consistency of the body of LDS doctrine.
SteveH
You stated above "theologians who can only misconstrue the words of dead prophets." I have not found this to be true. Theologians can misconstrue, or they can elucidate the plain meaning of the text. God has revealed Himself in scripture in a clear manner that can be understood by anyone without the interpretation of theologians or prophets. Theologians who love God and proclaim the truth of Christ can help expound on the meaning of the Bible being all about the Messiah Jesus and his redemption of man through His crucifixion and resurrection. Prophets spoke forth the truth of God's plan in plain language – if prophets need prophets to interpret prophets, where does it end? It will become a string of interpretations contradicting one another and changing over time. This is the clear pattern of the "latter day prophets" – always interpreting, always changing, never firm or clear. God has spoken to prophets, the Bible was recorded in plain language easily understood pointing us to Christ crucified. In the context of the Bible, the plain meaning of the scripture quoted here is that we become children of God when we come to God through Christ's redemptive sacrifice – we are adopted as God's children through Christ. Children of wrath, children of the devil become a new creation and children of God the Father. I am a child of wrath by nature, and now, a child of God by divine intervention through Christ. I am clothed in the righteousness of Christ by God's grace and Christ has taken my sin and depravity upon Himself. I cannot think of a more glorious or wonderful gift. – God's unmerited favor for a depraved sinner like me.
Arthur,
It is clear that the "doctrine of total depravity" wherein mankind is deemed to be a totally decrepit creature is indeed a product of the Protestant Reformation, specifically the product of Jean Calvin's rather perverted and bleak theological viewpoint. This complete and utter negativity of man's condition is not present in Roman Catholic, Greek Orthodox, or Coptic theological traditions.
Aaron,
The fact of the matter is that the Book of Mormon has been relentlessly attacked since it was first published in 1830 yet it still stands undiminished as a witness of Jesus Christ.
Notwithstanding the numerous shop-worn arguments repeatedly made against the BoM by various "critics" over the past 180 years this witness of Jesus Christ continues to triumphantly go forth into the world. Millions of individuals have put the Book of Mormon to the test of faith and prayer and have discovered for themselves the authenticity of this scared volume of holy scripture and testify that it is indeed the Word of God.
If you say so, Steve.
It would be helpful to point out a distinction:
"We must be careful to note the difference between total depravity and "utter" depravity. To be utterly depraved is to be as wicked as one could possibly be. Hitler was extremely depraved, but he could have been worse than he was. I am sinner. Yet I could sin more often and more severely than I actually do. I am not utterly depraved, but I am totally depraved. For total depravity means that I and everyone else are
depraved or corrupt in the totality of our being. There is no part of us that is left untouched by sin. Our minds, our wills, and our bodies are affected by evil. We speak sinful words, do sinful deeds, have impure thoughts. Our very bodies suffer from the ravages of sin." (>>)
According to Paul we are not children of God by nature, but rather "by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind." (Ephesians 2:3)
Thankful that God regenerated my heart from its state of total depravity,
Aaron
If you say so, Steve.
It would be helpful to point out a distinction:
"We must be careful to note the difference between total depravity and "utter" depravity. To be utterly depraved is to be as wicked as one could possibly be. Hitler was extremely depraved, but he could have been worse than he was. I am sinner. Yet I could sin more often and more severely than I actually do. I am not utterly depraved, but I am totally depraved. For total depravity means that I and everyone else are depraved or corrupt in the totality of our being. There is no part of us that is left untouched by sin. Our minds, our wills, and our bodies are affected by evil. We speak sinful words, do sinful deeds, have impure thoughts. Our very bodies suffer from the ravages of sin." (>>)
According to Paul we are not children of God by nature, but rather "by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind." (Ephesians 2:3)
Thankful that God regenerated my heart from its state of total depravity,
Aaron
If you say so, Steve.
It would be helpful to point out a distinction:
"We must be careful to note the difference between total depravity and "utter" depravity. To be utterly depraved is to be as wicked as one could possibly be. Hitler was extremely depraved, but he could have been worse than he was. I am sinner. Yet I could sin more often and more severely than I actually do. I am not utterly depraved, but I am totally depraved. For total depravity means that I and everyone else are depraved or corrupt in the totality of our being. There is no part of us that is left untouched by sin. Our minds, our wills, and our bodies are affected by evil. We speak sinful words, do sinful deeds, have impure thoughts. Our very bodies suffer from the ravages of sin." (source)
According to Paul we are not children of God by nature, but rather "by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind." (Ephesians 2:3)
Thankful that God regenerated my heart from its state of total depravity,
Aaron
Steve, do you consider Blake's theory a relentless attack?
MichaelP,
True confidence comes from knowing the eternal and sublime truth that we are part of God's family: we are his children and He is our loving Father and Jesus Christ is our Brother. There is a powerful and eternal bond of love and reassurance there.
This differs profoundly from the incredibly bleak theological outlook of the Protestant (Calvinist) theology which spouts the perverted notion that we are merely depraved lumps of clay deserving of nothing but the scorn of a wrathful god. With such a perverted theology it is no wonder that evangelicals are so sour.
Aaron,
Have you ever read the various articles written by Blake Ostler? Mr. Ostler is a very scholarly defender of the LDS Church and its doctrines. His work (specifically the one you cited) defends the authenticity of the Book of Mormon and its claim of divine origin.
To suggest that Blake's writings are somehow an attack on the Book of Mormon or the LDS Church reveals that you either have not read Mr. Ostler's work or you have completely misunderstood his words.
Are you sure it is bleak? It is kind of a harsh outlook, if you stop there. But don't forget that we were created so that we might be in relation to him. That's an awesome thought that deserves his praise! You also ignore the change in our status when we do realize our true state, and the power of his redeeming love.
While much criticized, the book the Power of Positive thinking bases its entire positive message on the verse that says that "I can do all things" with Jesus. While the book has its problems, that aspect is accurate. Why should one be down when you've got Christ on your side?
I think your focus, though, is our depraved nature before we accept Christ, and not our relation to him after we accept him in our hearts. But, can you point to a Biblical message that states anything other than our depraved nature? In other words, is your notion of happy people Biblical?
When I read the Bible, I get a very different message than that.
The source of this disconnect, is clearly the belief in the pre-existance of our spirits. If you accept that concept, as we LDS do, then the "become sons of God" phrase refers to our born-again event. The symbolism of baptism occurs twice, first with the baptism of water, then the baptism of spirt. The first symbolizes death and rebirth of the flesh, the second death and rebirth of the Spirit. The baptism of the Holy Ghost is a full immersion event when the Holy Spirit fills our hearts and our whole souls with testimony.
Just because we are reborn as sons of God doesn't mean we never existed as spirits before. It would be rediculous to say that our flesh did not exist before we were baptised by water. Do you see my point? Catch the parallelism involved?
The source of this disconnect, is clearly the belief in the pre-existance of our spirits. If you accept that concept, as we LDS do, then the "become sons of God" phrase refers to our born-again event. The symbolism of baptism occurs twice, first with the baptism of water, then the baptism of spirit. The first symbolizes death and rebirth of the flesh, the second death and rebirth of the Spirit. The baptism of the Holy Ghost is a full immersion event when the Holy Spirit fills our hearts and our whole souls with testimony.
Just because we are reborn as sons of God doesn't mean we never existed as spirits before. It would be rediculous to say that our flesh did not exist before we were baptised by water. Do you see my point? Catch the parallelism involved?
If we were NOT children of God before we were born then please, answer me these quesitons:
Job 38:4 Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth?
38:7 …and all the sons of God shouted for joy.
Who where the sons of God who shouted for joy when the world was created?
Jer 1:5 5 Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee…
How could this be?
Titus 1:2 In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began;
God promised us eternal life WHEN?
Eccl 12:7 Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it.
How can your spirit return to a place it has never been?
5. 2 Tim 1:9 Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began,
When was this promise made? To whom was it made?
Hebrews 12:9
Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live?
Why does Paul compare and contrast the father of our spirit with the father of our flesh? Answer; because we are dual beings, and as such we have two different fathers.
Steve, I understand that Ostler defends the BofM, but he nevertheless believes in his expansion theory, that Smith added to an ancient text with a mixture of his own contemporary knowledge. How do you feel about that?
Steve, I understand that Ostler defends the BofM, but he nevertheless believes in his expansion theory, that Smith expanded / added to an ancient text with a mixture of his own contemporary knowledge. How do you feel about that?
Aaron,
You are mincing words. In the English language "total" is synonymous with "utter".
According to Paul, Jesus Christ, the Prophets of the Old testament and the Apostles of the New Testament, and the Prophets and Apostles of this Dispensation we are the direct children of our Heavenly Father – but heck, why should we listen to them?
It is the vain philosophies of men that try to deny this eternal and sublime truth.
Logical question from this post: are there spirits that never make it to human form? Where did they come from and do they have a second chance like us humans do (ie, baptism for the dead)?
SteveH: thanks for the dialogue.
Well, on occaision, your prophets have indeed spoken very clearly. First polygamy was out, then in, and since 1890 , out for now. First the blacks were cursed and not worthy, then cursed but now the curse is lifted (for now ??) and considered worthy or potentially worthy. I could add to this list…… Add to the flip flop the strangely cautious (some would say "deceptively so") language of Hinckley regarding the exaltation of man to godhood, a theme VERY clearly taught by prior prophets. "Well…..not sure we really teach that….." "we don't know much about that……" you get my point ?? What WAS clear for JS and Brigham apparently isn't so clear any more . Why is that ?? Oh, yeah, changing revelation to each generation….Whatever..
You can EASILY make a case that Protestants are 'all over the board', but it seems you are living in a rather large glass house yourself, looking for another rock….
GERmIT
MichaelP,
I think that you have answered your own question. The Bible is replete with examples of individuals who have found spiritual joy and happiness by seeking God and striving to do His will.
If you're not willing to listen to important historical nuances to doctrine, then I'm not sure we can have a constructive conversation, Steve.
Germit,
As I stated in my post "critics" of the LDS Church and its doctrines love to attack peripheral issues such as polygamy. It is understandable that President Hinckley was reluctant to respond to hypothetical questions regarding speculation on the nature and origin of God the Father. We really do not know much about that subject nor is it taught to any great degree in LDS chapels. Such matters are in the realm of speculation and conjecture and are at best peripheral to our main concern and focus which is the atonement of Jesus Christ.
It seems to me that "critics" of Mormonism are forever mired in the 19th century and are obsessed by their gross caricature the LDS Church, its doctrines and its people. Such "critics" really do not know or wish to know the contemporary LDS Church.
> "That ye MAY be the CHILDREN of your FATHER which is in heaven"
I'm not sure how this points to the Mormon doctrine of already being children of God by nature. It seems Jesus is simply using the sonship language of similarity. In the language of Matthew 5, if you're not a peacemaker and you're not blessing your enemies, you're not fulfilling the "that you may be the children of your father" concept.
SteveH: my point, and I think Mobaby's as well, is simply this: it seems every bit as easy to become "mired" in what that prphets say and have said, as it is "mired in the interpretations of theologians". There seems to be ample ambiguity to go around , you choose to see the protestant situation as weighty orj consequential, and your LDS issues as either 'peripheral' or some other excuse. To think that the 'word from the prophet' is more consistent or 'sure' seems like smoke and mirrors to me. How is trusting that a theologian/preacher/teacher heard from God so different than trusting that a prophet heard from God ?? Either may be 'sure', and seemingly either may be garbled. And course, knowing what I do of JS and Brigham's respective lives, I'll stay with the theologians, thank you. GERMIT
Your question: How is it then that they are referred to as angels? (Revelation 12:7-12) Did they already evolve past manhood when they were cast out?
Because evangelicals have defined angels incorrectly. It is not a post earth life role, but a pre-earth life role.
The better question is, why does the Bible refer to Lucifer's followers as "his angels"? What exactly is an angel to Lucifer? Do they have wings or horns?
What if I told you that the angel Gabriel was none other that the prophet Noah?
An angel is a disembodied spirit on special assignment with power and authority from God. In some cases an angel has a physical body, but still, on special assignment with power and authority from God.
The wings are, and always have been a symbol of the power and authority from God.