The more interesting question is whether we Mormons believe that Father ever sinned. I do not believe that question to have been answered. We tend to believe, with Lorenzo Snow, that “As man is, God once was. As God is, man may become.” That aspiration seems to be consistent with John 1: 12 and 17: 21 – 23.
If we can become “as God is” despite our current sinfulness, I see no horror in the possibliity that Father may (before He become God) have sinned, repented, and been redeemed,.
A refreshingly honest Mormon left the following comment on the video:
The more interesting question is whether we Mormons believe that Father ever sinned. I do not believe that question to have been answered. We tend to believe, with Lorenzo Snow, that “As man is, God once was. As God is, man may become.” That aspiration seems to be consistent with John 1: 12 and 17: 21 – 23.
If we can become “as God is” despite our current sinfulness, I see no horror in the possibliity that Father may (before He become God) have sinned, repented, and been redeemed,.
It’s nice to find an honest Mormon like this. It’s especially refreshing when so many LDS internet-defenders deceptively insist that the exclusive position of Mormonism is that God never sinned.
Hey, that’s a secret…er, uh…I mean…sacred ceremony, and I won’t talk about it. And I’m obviously up way too late posting.
Well this isn’t all that dramatic really. We are, after all talking about the Mormon god here. We certainly aren’t talking about the God of the Bible. We learned from Andy Watson’s excellent article on the BoA that the Mormon god is an entity called Hin who is depicted in Joseph Smith’s work on facsimile #2 in the BoA as exposing himself. I don’t get to excited about this stuff because Mormon’s aren’t talking about God here. They’re talking basically about “a god” much in the same spirit as the Jehovah Witnesses. So Christian’s just simmer down. This has nothing to do with us. It’s just more of the same weird stuff found in Mormonism. This is all kook fringe religious dogma that fits in perfectly with SLC LDS Mormonism.
I was just explaining to some friends this past weekend the basics of Mormonism. I think their mouths are still agape. Once people get the low down on Mormonism they are so shocked that they wouldn’t touch it with a ten foot pole. This topic is just one more example of why Mormonism needs to hide it’s beliefs from the public.
Funny enough, a young friend of mine, who is also non-LDS but surrounded by them (and is also feeling called to witness to them) just barely sent me his thoughts.
He said “Mormons believe that God was once a man. They believe that he did the right things to gain exaltation and become a god, correct? Okay, so if they believe God was once a man, do they believe that he ever sinned as a man?
If they believe he sinned as a man, then they must believe that he needed a savior or else he couldn’t have “become perfect” to gain “exaltation”.
They also believe that Jesus is fully man and not God, right? Do they believe that Jesus is/was perfect and never sinned? I have just been thinking about this. If they do in fact believe that God sinned as a man, and that Jesus (in their eyes being a mere man without the fullness of deity) never sinned, then they are believing that a human being can be better than God even before “exaltation”. Their false Jesus, would be better than their false God, because he didn’t need a savior and their God did.”
See, this is transparent stuff to the world outside brainwashville 😉
That’s why I don’t really mess around with the Mormon challenge that someone should read and pray if the BoM is true. All a person has to do is do a side-by-side comparison of the Mormon god Min and God. Mormons adore and worship a pagan deity fully exposed by Joseph Smith. So despite the attempts of Mormons to do a cover up of their god and attempt to fool the general public and their prospects about who the Mormon god is, a quick search will allow the average person to know what Mormons try to hide.
I know that the pagan god Min cannot save Mormons but salvation is not their major concern. Making it to minigod status is the goal. Clouded by that delusion, Mormons put on their costumes and do their Free Mason rituals in the hope that these phony rituals will lead them to becoming gods.
So all we have to know is who their god is and the fact that they desire to be one of these gods. We don’t have to go any further in the discussion.
Its amazing how simple it really is, isn’t it?
setfree,
The reaction of your friend was almost identical to the first thoughts that popped into my head concerning the (alleged) past life of Jesus; namely, if Christ was like us and we need a savior, didn’t Christ need a savior too? If he didn’t need a savior, then why do we?
I have never got an answer from Mormons on this one, not even an acknowledgment of the dilemma it poses.
…err…
I played this video twice and I’m still horribly confused. Maybe its because my brain has been embedded in the Bible for too long.
What’s the point of this notion of “royal line of sinless saviors”? It seems to run contrary to Lorenzo Snow’s thoughts, which seem to say that God is just like us, in other words, not from a “special” gene pool in any way.
Just in case you missed it, here’s Lorenzo again…
“Still, tis no phantom that we trace
Man’s ultimatum in life’s race;
This royal path has long been trod
By righteous men, each now a God:
As Abra’m Isaac, Jacob, too,
First babes, then men–to gods they grew.
As man now is, our God once was;
As now God is, so man may be, —
Which doth unfold Man’s destiny. . . .”
So, were Abraham, Isaac and Jacob part of this royal line of sinless saviors too?
The thing is, I’m pretty sure I’m not of this “royal line”, so it seems pointless for me to even try to get on this particular wagon.
There is no official doctrine from the church authorities on this one so anything I say is just my thoughts.
There are many nuances and asides with this topic that leave things open to interpretation and I have heard many different ideas about this.
First the couplet – this could just be discussing that God was once mortal like we are – leaving the interpretation of John open to be truth – that God was a Saviour for His world and led a sinless life.
If we look at a statement from JS –
(From Gospel Principles Chpt 47)
Here it can be interpreted that God was a Saviour for His world like Jesus is for ours. However, it can also be interpreted that JS was showing that if Jesus could live on an earth as a physical, mortal being then it is not absurd to believe that God did as well – without referral to Him being Saviour.
All our teaching and doctrine says is that God lived as a mortal, physical being on an earth like this one – it does not say if He was a sinless Saviour for that world or not or if He sinned.
Our teachings also do not describe the conditions of this earth that He lived on either. Aaron, if you read further into the transcript Satan said to God something like he was only doing what was done on other worlds – giving the fruit of the tree. This sounds like on other worlds this fruit was not forbidden and was given freely. If true, then why? God knows and He hasn’t told us.
If this is the case, then this could indicate that on God’s world the fruit was freely given and that no one sinned in eating – thus God could have received His knowledge by eating the fruit and without sinning in doing so.
Interesting video, mostly asking why we believe such a principle when one considers that evil came into the world, and God even allowed it to be so. He allowed us to understand the difference between good and evil, understanding what sin was by showing us only through commandments he revealed through his prophets. So Aaron, what if you were born into this world, and God never spoke to you, would you think differently about what was right or wrong? How would you know?
Theodore of Mopsuestia (c. 350-428), bishop of a small town near Paul’s Tarsus, said of the garden:
“[God] did not place death upon man either unwillingly or against his better judgment, neither did he provide access to sin for no good purpose; for he was able, if he did not wish this to be so, to do otherwise. But he knew it was beneficial for us, nay more, for all rational creatures, at first to have access to evils and inferior things, and thereafter for these to be blotted out and better things introduced. . . . For if from the beginning he had made us straightway immortal, we would be no different from irrational creatures, not knowing our own good. For ignorant of mutability, we would be ignorant of immutability; not knowing death, we would not know of the riches of immortality; ignorant of corruption, we would not praise incorruption; not knowing the burden of passions, we would not marvel at impassibility. ”
Said Augustine: “God, who is supremely good in his creation of natures that are good, is also completely just in his employment of evil choices in his design, so that whereas such evil choices make a wrong use of good natures, God turns evil choices to good use. . . . Evil things are allowed to exist in order to show how the righteousness and foreknowledge of the Creator can turn even those very evils to good account.”
As far as the question about if He sinned or not – again we do not know anything about the conditions on His world, if they were the same as here on ours or different. As I said, our doctrine only states that He was a mortal, physical being like ourselves.
But I have said this in the past, Jesus atonement paid for our sins. He (Jesus) took our sins upon Himself and suffered for them so we would be able to stand before God and be shown as pure and sinless. As Sharon said in a previous article – “God does not merely repair our sin-torn souls. He reweaves the fabric of our lives, replacing the beat up, stained and battered cloth with a beautiful new quilt of His own design.”
If it’s beautiful and new then there is no sin – not even a patch-up job.
Even the Bible states God will remember our sins no more (Isaiah 43:25), our sins will be as white as wool (Isaiah 1:18). I know what you said Aaron about God still remembering them just not using them against us on the day of judgment – but then you are contradicting the Bible with that idea. It is also saying that the atonement is just a patch-up job, not a ‘beautiful, new quilt’. So logically, if the Bible states that we are perfect through Jesus’ atonement and that God will not remember our sins – then we are sinless – we have not sinned. That is true redemption and something we will never fully understand until we are there on the day of judgment.
That is why God can say that He is perfect, regardless of whether He did sin on His earth or not.
Yes, I agree that there is the underlying ideology of our doctrine saying that God sinned on His earth. But again, redemption is grand and beautiful and strong enough to remove all of those stains if we are truly faithful and make us truly sinless and perfect.
Continued,
The straw-man is your personal analysis of Sin or Evil. Where LDS principles and doctrine teach, did not God give our first parents access to sin in the Garden of Eden – the tree of knowledge of good and evil? Is sin not just inevitable but in some way a necessary part of God’s plan for us? If God is good, why does he permit evil to exist?
So Aaron, since you cannot explain the reason for sin, you blunder in making our doctrine sound silly by proclaiming something that was never really stated one way or another by any of our Prophets, like many things that are stated in the Bible are not completely yet understood in their fulness, hint the “trinity” as explained by Evangelicals. When the day comes you can discourse on a triune God that is understandable and easy to explain to regular members will then give you that same liberty to ask sincere questions of our Doctrines we acknowledge are not yet explainable.
“Job is perplexed why he, a good and pious man, has suffered the catastrophic loss of family and fortune. His friends all offer theories, none of which are comforting, while Job becomes insolent in his despair and challenges God to manifest the reason for his indictment (Job 31:35-37).
“Then the Lord answered Job out of the whirlwind, and said, Who is this that darkeneth counsel with words without knowledge? Gird up now thy loins like a man; for I will demand of thee, and answer thou me. Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth?” (Job 38:1-4). As the Lord catalogs his ineffable and mighty acts, Job is humbled and convinced that, even if there is no apparent reason for his suffering, God does nothing without a purpose. Those purposes, according to Job, are beyond human understanding.” Reference, Early Christianity and the Question of Evil
Carl W. Griffin
Ralph please clear this up for me, “This sounds like on other worlds this fruit was not forbidden and was given freely”
If the fruit was freely given then it would be easy to conclude that there was not a fall, if there was not a fall then where is free agency?I ask this because the Mormon Missionaries use the Garden of Eden as a point were men and women stated to use use agency, that is, after the fall. So if God was given the fruit freely, and there was no transgression on “his world” the he did not have free agency. In Mormonmythology this sounds like Satan’s plan of salvation, which is to remove free agency and make everyone obey the law.
Now if God did have a choice to eat of the fruit then I would argue so did Adam and Eve, the difference I guess is that Eve was deceived into eating the fruit.
My last comment. If the fruit was given freely, and the plan of salvation is a tried and true way of making it back to heaven; then why would “our” God change the plan, or why was the plan changed for his world. Are the other gods in Mormonism Peed off because now there is a rouge god who either didn’t have to face transgression or because he is making his children face transgression.
Personally- I think this is rather confusing, by design, in order to create institutionalized Awe among the LDS members
As Mormons are, I once was;
As I am now, Mormons may become ~ Saved
This whole question of whether God sinned in a past life seems pretty worthless to me. Who really cares?
As a non-believer, I actually can respect the Mormons for trying on this one. At least one religion tried to answer the question of where God came from, instead of just copping out by saying he has always existed. Sure, they got the whole thing wrong, but kudos for the effort.
Ralph, you sounded evangelical for a moment! If this is your true belief then separate yourself from your LDS brothers.
This is not LDS doctrine. Taken directly from lds.org this is the doctrine of atonement and repentance:
Christ’s death on the cross did not actually pay for your sins. It was a not a substitutionary payment as the Bible teaches. It was nothing more than a means to allow you to show worthiness to attain godhood by becoming sinless, true repentance, which I have demonstrated by quoting LDS Gospel Principles in past posts. Remember, contrary to what is stated above:
Thus, your repentance, not Christ’s atonement is what secures your exaltation. Christ only made repentance possible not actual.
First, I would like to address this so called claim that the Father learning through the fruit to be contradictory to the gospel. Such is not the case, and though the statement is true, like so many statements made by satan and his followers, it conceals the complete truth.
In our pre-existance, as spirit children of God, we knew good and evil. We had this understanding. It is what gave us the power to chose sides in the great war. However, when our spirits entered the physical body the union of the two caused a veil to pass over our minds, at which point we forgot what we previously knew. It was through eating the Fruit that Adam and Eve altered their bodies, which in part lifted this veil for them, restoring this understanding that they had as spirits. For us, this understanding is a gradual process that comes as our bodies develop and the link between our spirit and body is more fully connected.
Thus, all men born into mortality gain the knowledge of good and evil because Adam and Eve ate of the fruit. the same goes for Christ, for he was born into a mortal body, and for the first years of his life he was in a state of ignorance until his body developed enough to allow such understanding. It was obviously much faster for him, and his understand increased beyond most men by the time he was twelve, but he still had the same veil when he was born. He did progress to perfection as a spirit in the pre-existance, but as a mortal he gained the knowledge anew through the Fall of Adam.
As the Father was once mortal he also gained his knowledge in this same way.
Thus, the statement that this is the way the Father gained his knowledge is true, but only part of the truth, thus misleading and dishonest.
As to the whole Royal Line of saviors, it is the only theory that fits with all the words of the Prophets, and is more or less confirmed by Joseph Smith in the King Follett Discourse. It is found at this site, page 346. http://scriptures.byu.edu/tpjs/STPJS.pdf
“The Scriptures inform us that Jesus said, As the Father hath power in Himself, even so hath the Son power—to do what? Why, what the Father did. The answer is obvious—in a manner to lay down His body and take it up again. Jesus, what are you going to do? To lay down my life as my Father did, and take it up again.”
Here we have Joseph Smith declaring that the act of Atonement was done by the Father, for the Son was only doing that which the Father had done. Christ had power in himself to lay down his life for the sake of the world, which power no other man on this Earth had. This power was shared by his Father, thus his Father was the savior os his generation. The line must continue back, for Christ taught that the son can only do what he sees the Father do, and thus our Father’s Father must also have been a savior, for that is the only way in which our Father could have gained the power to do it, and to give that power to his son, Jesus Christ.
As they were all saviors, and we know that for such an act to have any effect the person must be perfect, we know that the Father was perfect.
This is what Joseph Smith taught.
As to President Snow’s quote, it is in perfect harmony with it. The reason he lists the ancient patriarchs is because we can be like them, we can do all that they did. While Christ is our perfect exemplar, we cannot do what he did for only he had that power. Thus, we strive to be like Christ, in doing as other great men who have already been exalted have done.
So here is the question: If men (and former men on other planets) are born with Adam’s original nature and are able to choose right from wrong and never fall (as LDS doctrine and Pelagius taught), then why is a messiah even necessary? Why aren’t men allowed to work out their salvation from birth? Survival of the fittest. Only those who are truly worthy to become gods will make it. Because, as I showed in the above post, Christ’s atonement was nothing more than a chance for a “do-over” after a soul reaches the age of accountability. LDS salvation is nothing more than a man-centered system to exalt mankind and ignore the future penalty for sin.
As can be demostrated with logic and referring to the pattern of human courts: feeling really bad about committing a crime, saying you’re sorry, and vowing never to commit the crime again does not get you out of paying the penalty for the crime. If that was true I’d be out of a job. We are all serial lawbreakers. Without Christ’s atonement we would all be liable to pay for our sins, which is what makes the doctrine of hell reasonable.
LIV4JC
What do you mean by Adam’s original nature? If you are refering to my post you seem to misunderstand what I said. If we were born with Adam’s original nature (and I assume you mean physical not spirit) we would never know good from evil, for in that state it was not possible. Of Course, taking all the doctrine into account, we would not be born either, for their bodies were not capable of reproduction while in the Garden.
We are born with Adam’s changed nature, or the nature of his body after the Fall. When he fell he was an adult, and thus the time for his mind to be opened to the concepts of Good and Evil was negligable (instantaneous). But, with that same nature the undeveloped body is unable to grasp such concept.
Now, as to working out our own salvation, that is exactly what we are commanded to do. However, only Christ progressed as a spirit to perfection, and thus only Christ came to this world with the power to be perfect. No one else progressed to that degree before this life, and so no one else in this life has the power to be perfect. Thus, to leave it to us would be a certain condemnation of every living soul. However, we are able to do our part, and if we refuse to do so than the atonement of Christ will have no effect on us.
You also said “feeling really bad about committing a crime, saying you’re sorry, and vowing never to commit the crime again does not get you out of paying the penalty for the crime.” You seem to think that this is all repentance is, when you leave out the most important part, which is restitution. All else will avail nothing if you do not restore to the best of your ability that which was lost because of your actions. Thus you must pay for the crime, but the payment is reduced by the atonement of Christ.
That is one LDS opinion, albeit a popular one among LDS defenders (not nearly as much among LDS laymen). As I write elsewhere,
If 1 billion sinful spirit children repent and become exalted gods someday, that means there are 1 billion gods who once sinned pre-godhood and two known gods who never sinned pre-godhood. The problem is simply moved from two to the 1 billion. That’s quite a ratio of sinless-savior-gods to once-sinned-gods. If the royal line of sinless savior gods position is correct, the problem has simply been alleviated for those under the two sinless-savior-gods, but not for those under the other once-sinned gods of the cosmos. Hence Mormons are still left with the burden of defending a perverted cosmos of exalted gods, full of ~99.9+% once-sinners.
But forget the ratio. If even one of the exalted gods in the Mormon cosmos was once a sinner, it’s perverted to have such a god calling his spirit children to worship and praise and adore and serve him as the “Most High” and “Eternal Father” and “King of Kings”.
Sit down for a moment if you’re reading this. I have something provocative to say.
Perhaps the reason the Mormon Heavenly Father calls people to silence concerning Heavenly Mother is that she has a blemished mortal past as a reckless prostitute. I know that’s hot rhetoric, but if you think it’s merely so, let’s ask Ralph: Do you believe it’s possible our Heavenly Mother(s) could have been such a sinner in the past?
Do you see how crazy this gets? Please, Mormon friends, come to your senses. Sing with me,
Always was holy, is holy, and will be holy!
I’m a sinner, my God never was, and no sinner shall ever rightfully call for divine worship,
Aaron
Aaron, those are REALLY good points. I hadn’t thought that long or hard on this issue, enough to get to that point yet (but I know you have). You’re absolutely right. If Shem (for example) is going to be a god, and all the other LDS on this and every other planet and every other lifetime, then most gods were sinners. So why not ours?
I want to point out that NOWHERE, not even in MORMON SCRIPTURES, is the name ELOHIM given to “God the Father”. Isn’t that weird, LDS?
Shemawater,
Is part your discussion leading to 2 Nephi 2:11?
“For it must needs be, that there is an aopposition in all things. If not so, my first-born in the wilderness, righteousness could not be brought to pass, neither wickedness, neither holiness nor misery, neither good nor bad. Wherefore, all things must needs be a compound in one; wherefore, if it should be one body it must needs remain as dead, having no life neither death, nor corruption nor incorruption, happiness nor misery, neither sense nor insensibility.”
Its funny however that the opposite of holiness should be uncleaniness, or unholiness. Well, that is a very strongly dualistic point of view, associated with that is the concept of ‘free will’, sin and judgement.
I know that non-LDS christians will not look to the BOM as authorative, but do any non-LDS agree with these concepts and this line of thinking?
The part I don’t understand is the origin of evil. If there is no darkness or unholiness in god, how could it be found anywhere in creation?
Its interesting that some philosophies in world deny any dualism. Not good/evil, mind/body, etc… I found an article about physics that even said something about a continuum between moving objects and stationary objects. Its really relative, which at first I found odd, but it makes sense. An object sitting on your table appears to be ‘not moving’, but in reality its on earth which is moving.
Interestingly enough i just thought about mormonism makes grey the distinction between matter and spirit. Isn’t there a scripture passage which states that ‘all is matter’, that spirit is matter, but its more refined? I think in the more general dual perspective this would have been the duality between spirit/matter.
Enki,
I’ve been having some thoughts on the whole good/evil and how it relates to God idea. But it’s not really for MC. Any chance you want to converse by email?
Christian Brothers
Remember what we are basically dealing with in Mormonism is a pagan fertility cult populated by men who think they are going to become gods and procreate for eternity with their goddess wife or wives if they catch some Mormon luck. This religion was started by an occultist with a magic rock who had enough creativity and power of persuasion to seduce people into believing his fantasy.
It’s obvious that our Mormon posters don’t know if they’re on foot or horseback when it comes to the multiplicity of these gods and their nature. They have rejected the living God for a graven image that is nothing more then a being who, according to Mormon lore, isn’t much better than they are. Maybe that’s the attraction.
Enki wrote “I know that non-LDS christians will not look to the BOM as authorative, but do any non-LDS agree with these concepts and this line of thinking?”
Enki,
I’m very cautious about any philosophy that says that evil is necessary in any way, shape or form.
I suggest that the consideration of the nature of good and evil should start with the premise that evil is not necessary to the existance of the cosmos and all the creatures (including us) who inhabit it. In other words, we don’t need evil and sin to be truly human (truly fulfilling our creation mandate).
Conversely, our salvation from sin and evil is a process that restores us to our true humanity; it’s not something that deprives us of an essential part of our human nature.
The fact that we are currently dominated by sin and evil in this life is an impost on our humanity, from which we need to be saved. And, because we are the authors (or progenitors) of sin, we are not the ones who can act as saviors. If you are a sinner, you cannot be a savior (how many times does this theme get repeated in Biblical texts?)
The basis for this approach, I suggest, comes from the creation stories in Genesis, in which the cosmos and every creature in it (including us) was created “good” before the introduction of sin.
Anyhow, these are the thoughts that underpin my “theory of sin”.
Falcon, do you ever get tired of the same motif? If not, I sure do.
Sincerely, Richard. 🙂
Martin, well-said!
Setfree,
I would be open to receiving your e-mail if you wish to take the conversation off of MC.
Charleshicksjr,
What about the non-believer, what is the explanation of how and why things exist? Maybe there is power in just accepting that things are, but that seems rather ‘flat’. Of course thats my LDS upbringing, hoping for something outrageously unreal. But reality is better than any fantasy…well most of the time. I imagine this is another topic to be continued outside of MC.
Along with the questions I asked Ralph, I’d like to ask the rest of the ld’s, how many gods are you comfortable with? 2, 10, 10 million? Is there a god of all gods kinda like a God-father (Think Mafia).
Kevin,
We know that partaking of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil was forbidden on this world which is what made it a sin/transgression (I don’t want to get into an argument about these 2 words) on this world. What we don’t know is if it was forbidden on other worlds. If it wasn’t then it would not be a sin to partake of it on those worlds. Their ‘fall’ could have come about in some other manner and those worlds would still have free agency and sin, etc. So the plan of Salvation would still be applicable on those worlds, just ‘started’ in another manner in comparison to this world.
liv4jc,
You did not understand what you copied and pasted from the LDS site. Let’s look at the atonement.
”Atonement: The suffering and death of Jesus Christ, through which resurrection is provided to all mortals and eternal life is offered to those who have faith in Christ and repent of their sins.”
What does it say? Through Jesus’ suffering and death resurrection is provided to all mortals. So in other words we are all resurrected regardless of our faith. But then it states ” eternal life is offered to those who have faith in Christ and repent of their sins.” Eternal life is the CK and becoming like God. What does this say are the requirements for eternal life? FAITH in Christ and repenting of our sins. So first and foremost is faith in Christ.
Then under repentance it supports this idea when it says ”Repentance is made possible by the Atonement of Jesus Christ, who paid the price for the sins of all humanity.”
Repentance is contingent on faith in Jesus, it is not a stand alone as you have described it to be. And what I have bolded is in opposition to your post above even though you quoted it – indicating that you did not understand it. But to make it simpler – without faith in Jesus we could never repent and receive forgiveness from God for our sins. Thus it is our faith in Jesus that secures our exaltation.
Martin,
The idea of good suggests within it the idea of bad. Its duality, which is a major theme of christianity. The duality of god/creation, good/evil, body/spirit, heaven/hell etc…duality is a theme for some other religions, such as Zoroastrianism. Zoroastrianism is believed to have had an influence on the abrahamic religions such as Christianity, Islam, Judaism. Duality is not a feature of every philosophy, Buddhism for example encourages a non-dualistic view.
In the Genesis creation, things were created “good”. Is this the same word that appears in the phrase ‘good and evil’? Is the word meant to convey the same thing if it is? I understood the first good to mean ‘complete’, that ‘he’ was satisfied with creation. Good and evil to mean the acquisition of moral reasoning.
“Gordon and Rendsburg[1] have suggested that the phrase טוֹב וָרָע, translated good and evil, is a merism. This is a figure of speech whereby a pair of opposites are used together to create the meaning all or everything, as in the English phrase, “they came, great and small”, meaning just that they all came. So the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil they take to mean the Tree of All Knowledge.” Wikipedia “tree of knowledge of good and evil”. This source also suggests the translation of ‘tree of consciousness’.
The issue is not really that ‘evil’ is necessary, but that it arrives with ‘good’. The judgement of one suggests the other. The story can be understood to mean that prior to this point there wasn’t good or evil, that god is beyond this duality.(not that we are able to see beyond many dualities) If I understand it correctly, isn’t god in christianity also dualistically seperated from the material universe?
Martin, I just looked up the two ‘goods’ they appear as the same word in hebrew. With my limited knowledge of linguistics however, the meaning of a word often depends upon context. I don’t know enough about hebrew to comment any further.
Ralph SAID on September 8th, 2009
“There is no official doctrine from the church authorities on this one so anything I say is just my thoughts.” Cut the crap Ralph, anyone who had the misfortune of being Mormon for more than 15 minutes-KNOWS that this the goal of all of Mormonism. This disingenuous “official doctrine” dodge is weapons-grade lying, just like the unofficial/official doctrine is weapons-grade horse-crap. The weeny factor is just way too high in “The Church” My Bible talks about the makers and lovers of lies. Yours in Christ… HI MOM
Enki wrote “Of course thats my LDS upbringing, hoping for something outrageously unreal.”
Enki,
You remind me of Morpheus’ line in the film ‘The Matrix’, when he first brings Neo out; “Welcome to the desert of the real”.
Enki,
Thanks for your fascinating observations. Like you, I’m not an expert in linguistics, so I turned to Robert Alter’s translation and commentary of the Books of Moses. Unfortunately for us, he doesn’t comment on the two “goods” that you mentioned. Neither does my New Bible Commentary. Hhmmm…maybe Wikipedia is a better source after all.
I’ve been thinking today about whether “evil” is an ontological creature. If it is not, then the question “who created evil” is nullified. According to this paradigm, evil is not a created “thing”, but rather a quality attributed to some of our actions (didn’t the Greek philosophers argue over this?).
Obviously, I find this an attractive proposition, not least because attempts to describe the Bible as a “battle between good and evil” universally fail to address the nuances and ironies of the Biblical story.
I have also found some problems with my earlier implication that the experience of evil is not a necessary part of human life. Firstly, this idea appears to force Gen 3:7 (in which the human beings’ eyes are opened). Also it might run contrary to John 3:5 if Jesus is using the idiom “born of water” to mean someone who has passed through the troubles of life (compare the Exodus through the sea and, as you noted earlier, the association between “sea” and “hell”, which has strong support in Biblical texts).
Which is a very long way of saying that my “theory of sin” is very much work in progress. Any suggestions are welcomed.
Enki wrote “If I understand it correctly, isn’t god in christianity also dualistically seperated from the material universe?”
As I understand it, yes and no.
Yes, in the sense that God is not created. He is the one from whom all creation flows (John 1:3). This creation includes everything material, and everything immaterial (Col 1:16).
Incidentally, the “immaterial” part of His creation includes all the precepts, laws and ordinances that govern the creation, contrary to LDS theology, which places God under the jurisdiction of these laws and precepts.
No, in the sense that He remains intimately involved with His creation (“…sustaining all things by His powerful word…”, Heb 1:3).
In stark contrast with Gnosticism, the God of the Bible actually delights in His material creation (Gen 1:10 – there’s one of the “goods” that you mentioned earlier), and intervenes in it. The most striking example is God taking on a human (material) form and entering into His creation in order to redeem it (Phil 2:6-11). In the example of Jesus, God is very much present and involved in His creation; He is “Immanuel” – ‘with us [is] God’ (Matt 1:23).
I suggest that God is “bound” to His creation, though He is ontologically separate from it. Better still, He is “cleaved” to His creation as a husband is “cleaved” to His wife.
Hay Hank,
I have a solution for what seems to be irritating you. Don’t read what I write! I’m not writing for you anyway. I write for those lurkers who pass through here and that I might have one shot at; tripping their curiosity and causing them to do a little research into the occult foundation of Mormonism.
(two smiley decals with one blowing a kiss)
the falcon
ENKI
I was speaking to the concept of opposites in part.
To all those who refuse to consider that evil is a necessary part of existance I would like to say two things.
First, I agree that it is not, as Adam and Eve existed in the Garden without evil, but then they also existed with good.
Second, could anyone explain to me how good can exist without evil?
As to the “Royal line of Saviors,” few people in these thread truly seem to understand the truth concerning the entire doctrine. In this statement I include most LDS members, and indeed most members in the church in general. The questions presented by Aaron are lagitemate, but they are also easily answered. The problem is that no one on these threads has the authority to do so. Yes, I know the answer, but the Mysteries of Heaven are to be reserved for the faithful, revealed to them through the Holy Spirt. As much as people want to hate Paul’s teaching methods, these things are the toughest meat of the Gospel, and thus are not to be shared with those who are not weened from the milk.
There may be other members on these threads who are also able to answer such questions, and I hope the choose not to.
The question put was regarding the possibility of God the Father sinning, which I have shown to be impossible by the words of Joseph Smith. Anything beyond this is outside my authority to teach.
Ralph said:
“Repentance is contingent on faith in Jesus, it is not a stand alone as you have described it to be. …to make it simpler – without faith in Jesus we could never repent and receive forgiveness from God for our sins. Thus it is our faith in Jesus that secures our exaltation.”
this is a quote from mormon.org (the official LDS church website)
“If you endure to the end of your life and stay true to your covenants, you will receive eternal life.”)
Also this:
“He promises to forgive your sins and let you return to live with Him, provided you keep your covenants”.
So, while faith may help you keep all the ordinances, principles, commandments and covenants, it’s the KEEPING OF THEM that gets you ‘eternal life’.
SETFREE
But without faith, even keeping your covenants will do nothing for you.
Repentance is not a stand alone thing, but neither is faith. However, faith must come first, and without it nothing else is possible.
shematwater, if you ever want to discuss these super-secret heavenly mysteries over a Danish beer, call me.
Thanks SetFree.
That indeed is the Mormon program as quoted from their own source. Now our friend Ralph is either ignorant as to Mormon “exaltation” (not salvation we should notice) or he is pulling the old Mormon bait and switch. As has been pointed out endlessly, Mormons are experts at making their scam sound like good old regular Christianity. They often accuse all of us, even exMos, of not understanding Mormonism and then we get these so called Mormon experts showing up with dogma that is all over the park.
As I pointed out in my first post above, all we really need to know is who they claim as their god. After that, all of Mormonism’s other weirdness can be pretty much ignored. It’s interesting in an odd sort of way, but everything is dependent on the fact that they acknowledge a false god.
Step number one is to get them to acknowledge who their god is and we can’t accept the end run they try and pull when they say they believe in one god (and then whisper “of this world). Step number two is to introduce them to the One, everlasting, never changing God. After that it’s their choice. The problem is that their false piety, and their pride in thinking that they are hearing from “a god” and that they will indeed become one, keeps their feet buried in cement. They can’t step forward and receive eternal life that God is offering them through Jesus Christ.
FALCON
I don’t think Ralph is ignorant, nor do I think what he says is any different than what any other LDS member learned in our doctrine would say.
Faith is the first step in the saving process. All things must be done in order, so if you try and skip over this first step nothing else will matter. In fact, without this first step no a person can receive of nothing higher than the Telestial Kingdom, for in ignoring faith they would be living a Telestial life. Thus it is faith that secures us our exaltation. It is our keeping of the covenants that prevent us from losing our exaltation, but faith is what gets us our exaltation.
The real problem with what you say, and with what most people outside the church think, is that we deny the power and necessity of Faith. There seems to be this odd notion that if you believe personal works are necessary you have to reject the necessity of Faith. If people don’t really believe this they do a good job at making it sound like they do. I think this comes from the basic belief in “One Heaven and one Hell” and “all sins are equal.”
It is possible to believe that both Faith and Works are required. However, it is not possible if you do not believe in the varying degrees of glory in heaven. As we LDS do believe in these degrees it is very easy for us to believe both are required, and only having both together can one attain the highest degree.
AARON
I thank you for the invitation, but I will never discuss the sacred mysteries with one who is not of the Church of the Firstborn, for they are reserved for such.
Now Shem, you have NOT been through the temple, right? How is it you are getting the knowledge of these super secret mysteries??
You again assert that Faith is first, etc. But what I am trying to point out is that your faith DOES NOT GET YOU THERE (eternal life in CK), it is the KEEPING OF ALL THE COVENANTS (etc) THAT DOES.
See, it’s a HUGE difference.
Especially when you consider that Jesus won’t let you in, UNLESS you KEEP YOUR COVENANTS!
(of course, maybe Joseph Smith will? and some secret handshakes? sort of a side-door or something?)
See here’s the deal, Mormons in their twisted logic, are waiting for exaltation to godhood. There is no assurance for them that becoming a minigod is going to happen. Christians are talking about salvation. Huge difference as is obvious. Christians have the assurance of salvation right now because of faith in God’s perfect sacrifice for our sins. We can add nothing to what God has done for us.
In the Mormon system, (Mormons) have to prove that they are worthy to become gods. Good luck, I’d say! Judging from the talent pool here on Mormon Coffee, I’d advise our Mormon friends to come up with a plan B and break it to the wife gently because she’s got her heart set on the big mansion in the sky. I don’t see a lot of gods in embryo among this group on MC or with any other Mormons I come in contact with.
Slapping a little Bible on the top of an aberrant and pretty cheap knock-off of Christianity won’t make it in today’s world like it did in days past. Folks who hear the unadulterated Mormon story up front won’t even let the boys on the bikes in the front door. Their view of God and their attempts to be one is repulsive and not “deeply spiritual” as Mormons try to kid themselves into thinking.
shematwater on September 9th, 2009 SAID
AARON
I thank you for the invitation, but I will never discuss the sacred mysteries with one who is not of the Church of the Firstborn, for they are reserved for such.
Same old stale pretentious Mormon response. The bizarre affectation that all things truly spiritual are only within the grasp of Mormons. Like pretty much everything I’ve read on this board it can be dismissed out out hand with as much evidence as Mormons provide…none. Another lame fall back position that is stock in trade Mormonism. To the true Christians here, the fact that your still a TBM is all the evidence we need to dismiss your claim to a higher spirituality. I for one have been on both sides of that fence and can testify that there is no comparison. The bogus man-made doctrines of Mormonism vs. true Christianity.
Please try to absorb the notion that deep longing and conviction reinforced by childhood indoctrination is not a sufficient description of the real Christianity. When I was a child…, yes I used to believe in Santa and Joseph Smith. I still pray for a greater awakening for those lost in Mormonism, it’s a terrible place to be lost.
Shemawater,
“…Adam and Eve existed in the Garden without evil, but then they also existed with good.
Second, could anyone explain to me how good can exist without evil?”
I don’t know of any tree which imparts this type of knowledge, if it ever existed it certainly doesn’t exist now. From what I gather the story is symbolic, trying to explain the origins of the duality of good and evil. It reminds me of stories which explain the origin of tides, from what I understood it wasn’t meant to be literal. There is pandoras box, in which evils are released, but hope remained in the box. I am sure there are many other stories of the origin of good and evil.
There may be a problem of sinful spirits becoming gods, but there still a general problem of the origins of evil. Why and how could a fully holy and good god allow, provide access to or create evil?
Martin had suggested that “…evil is not a created “thing”, but rather a quality attributed to some of our actions (didn’t the Greek philosophers argue over this?). ” I am sure its been a subject of debate for centuries. A logical outcome of duality is ‘free will’. It follows that if one thing can exist independently of another, then something or someone could act independently from other things. But that is not my observation.
Setfree and Falcon,
We LDS believe that LIVING faith saves (James 2:17, 20, 26) and that we gain our salvation at the day of judgment when we are judged. Whereas you like to think that you are saved straight away when you profess faith in Jesus and that you are saved DESPITE your works, giving you a DEAD faith (James 2:17, 20, 26). Despite what any of you Ev Christians say about having to change your life style if you believe, you all keep saying just that – you are saved despite your works. The underlying doctrine of this belief, believe it or not, is that you believe that you have a free pass to do what ever you want to and you are still saved. As Martin Luther said, after one has confessed faith in Jesus, one can commit hundreds of adulteries and murders a day and still be saved. I think it was Michael P that said a few weeks ago to me, that we are saved despite our works – in other words he is saying exactly what Martin Luther did.
We (LDS) teach that when we have true faith in Jesus it will then give us the desire and drive to follow Jesus commandments and the style of life that He wants us to live – ie works/actions/deeds that Jesus has asked and/or requires of us. He did leave commandments for us to live (for example Matt 22:34-40; John 13:34). A command is a requirement, not a suggestion. These are easier and a higher law than the 10 Commandments and the Law of Moses, but they are still law and commandments for us to live.
The apostles in the NT taught against certain things as well, saying that committing these acts kept one from heaven/Kingdom of God (Gal 5:19-21; 1 Cor 6:9-10). 1 Cor 6:9 says “Be not deceived” no one who commits these acts will gain the Kingdom of God, it does not state ‘except the ones professing faith’.
But the main point is that WITHOUT living faith in Jesus, one can live a perfect life, but still will not go to the Celestial Kingdom because they did not have faith in Jesus. So living faith in Jesus is paramount to our exaltation.
Ah Earth to Ralph……you still like to haul out that tired old line about Christians thinking that they can do whatever they want and still be saved. How many times do we have to go over this with you? I will try one more time with the understanding that it is to your Mormon advantage to believe this about Christians so you can wag your finger and do the na, na, na, na, na routine.
OK so Ralph focus:
“What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace might increase? May it never be! How shall we who died to sin still live in it?…..knowing this, that our old self was crucified with Him, that our body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves to sin; for he who has died is freed from sin…….Even so consider yourselves to be dead to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus. Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body that you should obey its lusts.” Romans 6:1-12
Do I have to draw you a picture Ralph? I know you are so focused on becoming a god that the thought that God gives us salvation as a gift is far beyond your ability to comprehend. Christians are not working for minigod status. We know who God is. He is One. Mormons believe in a false god, a false gospel and a false jesus. Your god was a sinful man. Some god you’ve got there! There is no salvation in Mormonism.
I’m reminded of the question of the Phillipian jailer in the Book of Acts when he asked the all important question, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved.” In answer to what he should “do” the apostle Paul told him to “believe in the Lord Jesus Christ” and he’d be saved.
We understand that when someone believes it’s not just intellectual assent or acknowledging that Jesus was a real live historical figure. We understand that even the devil believes as the demonic cried out to Jesus acknowledging who Jesus was or as James tells us in his epistle that “you believe God is one? So do the demons and they shutter.”
Saving faith would include understanding our sinful condition, understanding that a part from God’s grace and gift of eternal life we have no chance, and a sense of turning from walking in the flesh and walking by the Spirit of God.
The Bible tells us that a just man falls seven times a day. That’s forty-nine sins a week for a just man. John tells us in (First John 2:1-2) “My little children, I am writing these things to you that you may not sin. And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous; and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins…..”
Mormonism is clueless about God’s gift of salvation. Mormons are focused on becoming gods and being personally exalted to a level of deity. As such, Mormons, work, work, work, thinking that if they jump through the right hoops they can be a god. A sinful man becomes a god. Satan has done his work well when it comes to Mormons. Mormons think they have a high level of spiritual understanding with their foolish claims of becoming gods. This is demonic; the wrong spirit.
Ralph,
I agree with Falcon. That’s an old, worn-out argument that has already been replied to several times. We DO NOT believe in dead faith. We believe that the old man (fleshly) has died with Christ, and we now walk in the newness of life with the risen Christ. It is Him that lives in us, therefore will we be out murdering? Hardly.
As far as the references you gave, read them in context. Hopefully you’ll be able to see the whole picture.
You said “WITHOUT living faith in Jesus, one can live a perfect life, but still will not go to the Celestial Kingdom because they did not have faith in Jesus.”
This is not a valid argument, since there is not one who lives a perfect life. Right? Or do you know someone 😉
Now, questions I hope you have asked yourself… when will I be perfect? what if I die tonight? will I be in the middle of keeping all my covenants, commandments (which of course are more than Jesus gave), principles and ordinances? If you’re not perfect, and you die tonight Ralph, do you get any more chances?