The Mormon Church recently released an updated edition of its scriptures. One of the resources that underwent some change is the Bible Dictionary, found in the back of the LDS edition of the KJV Bible (print editions). In reviewing some of the changes made to the new digital edition I found one of particular interest in the entry titled “Fall of Adam and Eve.”
The entry previous to the new changes said (in part),
“Before the fall, Adam and Eve had physical bodies but no blood. There was no sin, no death, and no children among any of the earthly creations. With the eating of the ‘forbidden fruit,’ Adam and Eve became mortal, sin entered, blood formed in their bodies, and death became a part of life. Adam became the ‘first flesh’ upon the earth (Moses 3: 7), meaning that he and Eve were the first to become mortal. After Adam fell, the whole creation fell and became mortal.” (Bible Dictionary, “Fall of Adam,” 670)
This doctrine, blood forming as a direct result of the Fall, is consistent with the teachings of other Mormon authorities. Joseph Fielding Smith, who became the tenth President of the Mormon Church, was firmly convicted of this doctrine. He wrote,
“We are also taught that, not being subject to death, Adam had no blood in his veins before the fall. Blood is the life of the mortal body…There is no blood in an immortal body, and when Adam transgressed the law and ate the fruit that had been forbidden there came a drastic change in his body and it was transformed from the condition where there was no death to a condition where it became subject to death, or mortality, and from that time forth blood was the life-giving fluid.” (Man, His Origin and Destiny, 362-364)
“We know that when Adam was placed on the earth it was pronounced ‘good,’ and he, as well as the earth, was not subject to death. There was no ‘curse’ on the earth. There was no blood in his body, but he had a spiritual body until it was changed by the fall. A spiritual body is one which is not quickened by blood, but by spirit. Before the fall Adam had a physical, tangible body of flesh and bones, but it was not quickened by blood. The partaking of the forbidden fruit caused blood to exist in his body and thus the seeds of mortality were sown and his body then became temporal, or mortal, subject to the vicissitudes of mortal change. The Lord created all things upon this earth physically and immortal, or free from the seeds of death. The fall of Adam brought the change upon the earth and all things upon its face partook of the conditions imposed upon Adam in the fall.” (Church History and Modern Revelation, 2:5-6)
“Now when Adam was in the Garden of Eden, he was not subject to death. There was no blood in his body and he could have remained there forever. This is true of all the other creations… After the fall, which came by a transgression of the law under which Adam was living, the forbidden fruit had the power to create blood and change his nature and mortality took the place of immortality, and all things, partaking of the change, became mortal.” (Doctrines of Salvation, 1:77)
“Since it was by the creation of blood that mortality came, it is by the sacrifice of blood that the redemption from death was accomplished, and all creatures freed from Satan’s grasp. In no other way could the sacrifice for redemption of the world from death be accomplished. Blood being the agent of mortality, it had to be returned to Satan and to death, whence it came… Jesus obtained his blood from his mother Mary; he obtained his power over death from his Father. Therefore he could and did voluntarily surrender himself to his enemies who crucified him by the shedding of his blood. When he arose from the tomb, he was free from blood, and his body had become subject to eternal law henceforth and forever.” (Answers to Gospel Questions, 3:109)
Mormon Apostle Bruce R. McConkie supported Joseph Fielding Smith in this doctrine, as he included the teaching in several of his own books. For example, in Mormon Doctrine, he wrote,
“Adam, our first parent (1 Ne. 5:11), a ‘son of God’ (Moses 6:22), was first placed on earth as an immortal being. His coming was the crowning event of the creation; and as with him, so with every department of creation — immortality reigned supreme. (2 Ne. 2:22.) There was no death, no mortality, no corruption, no procreation. Blood did not flow in Adam’s veins, for he was not yet mortal, and blood is an element that pertains exclusively to mortality…
“In conformity with the will of the Lord, Adam fell both spiritually and temporally. Spiritual death entered the world,… Temporal death also entered the world, meaning that man and all created things became mortal, and blood became the life preserving element in the natural body.” (“Fall of Adam,” 268-269)
Mormon Apostle Alvin R. Dyer also jumped on this doctrinal bandwagon. In his book, Who Am I?, he wrote,
“By their own act of transgression, Adam and Eve brought mortality upon themselves. This imposed conditions causing blood to flow in their natural bodies. But it also rendered them capable to fulfill the greater commandment they had received from God to ‘multiply and replenish the earth.’” (247-248)
That blood formed in the bodies of Adam and Eve at the time that they became mortal seems like a pretty solid doctrine in Mormonism. Perhaps it remains so, but the new edition of the Bible Dictionary contains no reference to it. The new entry states (in part),
“Before the Fall, there were no sin, no death, and no children. With the eating of the ‘forbidden fruit,’ Adam and Eve became mortal, sin entered, and death became a part of life. Adam became the ‘first flesh’ upon the earth (Moses 3:7), meaning that he and Eve were the first to become mortal.” (Bible Dictionary, “Fall of Adam and Eve,” new online edition)
Interestingly, a similar change was made in the Bible Dictionary entry titled “Resurrection.” Compare the previous edition and the new edition:
“Others had been brought back from death, but were restored to mortality (Mark 5: 22-43; Luke 7: 11-17; John 11: 1-45), whereas a resurrection means to become immortal, without blood, yet with a body of flesh and bone.” (Bible Dictionary, “Resurrection,” 761, emphasis added to aid comparison.)
“Others had been brought back from death but were restored to mortality (Mark 5:22–43; Luke 7:11–17; John 11:1–45), whereas a resurrection means to become immortal, with a body of flesh and bone.” (Bible Dictionary, “Resurrection,” new online edition)
The Mormon Church explains that the Bible Dictionary “is not intended as an official statement of Church doctrine” though it is “based primarily on the biblical text, supplemented by information from the other standard works” and “the work of Bible scholars.” Nevertheless, the Church says the Dictionary is “subject to reevaluation as new research or revelation comes to light.” I wonder whether it was research or revelation that precipitated the changes to the Bible Dictionary that I’ve discussed here. Either way, one usually thinks that research or revelation will add information, rather than having it taken away.
So the question for me here isn’t the validity of the information contained in the dictionary, but rather why do things change in Mormonism? Things, meaning any doctrine or historical facts.
Here’s what the president of the Community of Christ-Mormon sect had to say about Mormon history:
“Because of my exploration of various credible works, and probing discussions with historians, some of my previously held notions have been challenged and adjusted in the face of additional knowledge. The “apologetic” approach to church history—presenting our story in as favorable a light as possible—is not sufficient for the journey ahead. That approach does not evidence the integrity that must be fundamental to our witness and ministry.”
I thought this was interesting because I find the CofC much more forth-coming regarding issues regarding the Mormon experience. Interestingly enough, this particular Mormon sect, along with the Church of Christ-Temple Lot, bear little resemblance to the SLC Mormon sect and the FLDS. There is a big discrepancy regarding the “restoration” beliefs of these various groups. The differences are significant.
So when the SLC group suddenly gets another batch of cookies out of their revelatory oven, it’s generally because of some sort of pressure. It’s not because they’ve suddenly gotten “more light”.
This group is constantly playing catch-up and back-filling the holes in their program because folks have blown the whistle on them. Trying to chase down the members who are leaving by (the LDS church) proclaiming “new revelation” isn’t going to cut it.
Amazing, so then would it be fair to say the LDS church views blood as a consequence of sin? It seems as if their former Bible Dictionary definition suggested blood was part of the curse. That would create some interesting complications to Christ’s blood being shed for our salvation.
So my question is this….Satan was one of gods greatest creation…he was found to be perfect and blameless untilwickedness was found within him…god cannot create evil but god is the creator of all so where did the wickedness come from?
cattyjane,
Satan was Lucifer and he is said to have had great pride. That’s what caused him to lead a rebellion against God. I think it all has to do with the third law of thermodynamics that everything is in the process of decay. That’s a joke!
I’ve often felt that there is a parallel between the LDS contention that men can become gods and Lucifer’s need to exalt himself. It’s all based on pride. Mormons say that they don’t want to exalt themselves over their own man/god but they do believe in eternal progression. There god is always progressing. So if he doesn’t keep up with his progression maybe it’s possible that he could be equaled and/or surpassed.
Falcon,
So did Lucifers sin orginate from his free will? I guess im not getting the purpose of all this. God created everything…except sin which now sounds like Satan had the ability to create through his free will. I still havent been able to find out what kind of being he is.
Also…if god is all knowing than he knew this would happen. It seems like some sort of test or something. It just doesnt make any sense to me. The only way it makes sense is if he didnt know the outcome of all of his creations because only then does it not seem cruel.
“The only way it makes sense is if he didnt know the outcome of all of his creations because only then does it not seem cruel.” Just because God knows that Y is going to happen if He does X does not necessitate that he would “stack the deck” so to speak to to prevent Y from happening. If I willingly harm my fellow man that does not make God cruel that makes me cruel.
cattyjane,
You might like this site. Here’s a portion of what’s written:
In Ezekiel a picture of the highest of Gods creatures, perfect in wisdom, beautiful beyond description, a musician and on top of all that, he was given this high, exalted position. But this creation, with all of these wonderful attributes also had a free will. One day, God says to this marvelous creature, “Iniquity was found in you.”
He said he would exalt his throne above the stars of God. The word “stars” here does not refer to what we see in the night sky. It refers to the angels of God. In other words, “I will take over heaven, I will be God.” That is Lucifer/Satan’s sin and that is the iniquity that was found in him. He does not want to be Gods servant. He does not want to do what he was created to do. He wants to be served and there are millions who have chosen to do just that serve him. They have listened to his lies and chosen to follow him. Eve believed the lie that she would be like God. The reason Lucifer/Satan tempted her with that was because it is the very thing that he wants to be God.
http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message1875504/pg1
BTW I did answer your question regarding how I knew I was saved. It’s on that other thread prior to the Emma one.
cattyjane,
The lie that Eve believed was that somehow God was not good because Eve did not understand everything about why he did what he did. What God asked Adam and Eve to do was to simply trust that he knew more than they did. He asks us to do the same today.
I don’t why God choose to allow Satin to do what he did and He has not seen fit to share it with us as of yet but I know if was for my good and for his glory.
That is enough for me
here is a link to an article that might help you to trust him in this.
http://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/mystery-iniquity/
from the article
quote,
one thing is certain: since God is both omnipotent and good, we must conclude that in His omnipotence and goodness there must be a place for the existence of evil. We know that God Himself never does that which is evil. Nevertheless, He also ordains whatsoever comes to pass. Though He does not do evil and does not create evil, He does ordain that evil exists. If it does exist, and if God is sovereign, then obviously He must have been able to prevent its existence. If He allowed evil to enter into this universe, it could only be by His sovereign decision. Since His sovereign decisions always follow the perfection of His being, we must conclude that His decision to allow evil to exist is a good decision.
end quote,
peace
Cattyjane,
Consider this. Would it seem cruel to not create a being just because it would reject you? My mother is heartbroken that all her children left the Mormon Church. She is depressed because of it. She thinks we are the source of her pain. She has said a few times, “My children cause me so much pain, sometimes, I wish I never had children.” This may not be what she meant but it has been interpreted by “the children” as if she could have seen into the future, she would not of had us. This to me was very cruel. Because I am not the carbon copy of my mother, she has sometimes wished away my existence. It’s important to remember that Satan chose the life he has. God isn’t inflicting punishment on him, Satan did that himself by turning away from God. We know that no matter what, we will all live forever. How we live is really up to us. Choose God, goodness, truth, light and that is what you get, joy and happiness. Choose selfishness, pride, and darkness, than you chose misery. Free will is a beautiful gift. But as said on Indiana Jones, “You must choose, but choose wisely.” I probably should have quoted scripture or something but the Last Crusade quote randomly popped in my head.
Cattyjane
The way I see it is that we are left to decide what is Good and what is Evil. Is a peanut butter cookie good? Only if you like them and are not allergic to them. We are given this knowledge of good and evil to make these decisions. Along the pathway of life we make mistakes and errors and have to decide what to do with the choices we make. If there were no choices to make we would not learn. God has given us a free rein and we have to make our own decisions.
The part that I think is cruel, if god knew the outcome, is creating people who he knew would deny him and then send to…whatever it is hell, outer darkness, pluto, whatever…eternal seperation from the Father, damnation etc.
Im wondering if when he allowed free will he gave up knowledge of the outcome? Because he often changes his mind about stuff in the old test…like destroying people but because of someone asking him not to he changes his mind. He started out with the ten commandments and then realized hmm that doesnt work and sent the messiah. So whats happening here…does he or does he not know the outcome of peoples choices?
Jaxi,
I love Indiana Jones! I own all of them! Im going to have to watch that one tomorrow just cuz you quoted that!
Clyde6070,
I dont think we choose what is evil and what isnt. Man did not create the 10 commandments..god did. We might try to guage what is worse than the other and that would work if I was my own judge but im not. God is my judge under his law and his idea of what is good and evil. The day that I decide what is good and evil is the day I decide I am my own god.
“He started out with the ten commandments and then realized hmm that doesnt work and sent the messiah.” With all due respect God did not send the Messiah after he realized that fallen man was unable to uphold the Law. He knew in the Garden that man would be unable to uphold the Law and therefore the Messiah would have to enter the world to save fallen mankind. The Messiah was not a plan B after God observed the history of man’s interaction with the Law.
Cattyjane,
What you have to realize is that Satan isn’t upset that he can’t be with God. Hes upet that he can’t be God. He turned away. There is no true happiness outside of God. God isn’t sending people away to torment them. They removed themselves. There is no alternative. There is darkness and there is light. The light is with God. Some hate the light and have to go to the only other option, which is darkness. Hell is life without God. Heaven is with God because everything that is good in this world comes from God. If one rejects goodness, they reject God. I can’t speak for Satan. I really don’t know what goes on in his mind. But I don’t think Satan wishes he doesn’t exist. I think he likes existing. I think he likes the darkness. His envy is not for the goodness of God but for power. I would be skeptical of a God that only creates beings that would love and serve him. It seems manipulative and controlling, selfish, self obsessed even. I think it shows tremendous love to create beings that have the free will to chose Him or reject Him. I think it shows great love of freedom to allow these evil beings to exist. The important thing to remember also is that these evil beings have no power over God. And as long as we are united to God, they have no power over us.
I also don’t think God showing mercy on people in the Bible that he originally was going to destroy shows that he is fickle or changing. I think it demonstrates that God hears our prayers. Mistaken Testimony is also correct. Christ wasn’t a plan B for mankind. I think the law was used to prepare us for the Savior. It also teaches us the impossibility of our situation. We can’t do it alone. We need the Savior. We need God. And God is so loving He was willing to empty himself into flesh. He humbled himself to our human form. He took upon himself sin for our sake and He demonstrated the greatest love of all, sacrificial love.
Catty,
I would argue that it would be more cruel not to have created us knowing there was a possibility that we might go bad. Think about it. Is it more cruel not to have children simply because they may one day do something wrong? All of us do something wrong, and we disappoint our parents. Sometimes, as parents, we have to punish our children, even severely.
And the amazing thing is, even when we have to punish them severely, we love them. No matter what they do, they are still our little boys and girls.
clyde,
You wrote:
“The way I see it is that we are left to decide what is Good and what is Evil.”
So we all decide what is good and what is evil? That’s interesting. So it’s called “situational ethics or morality”. There is, therefore, no absolute moral imperative.
Slavery was not evil in the context of the southern states at the time it existed there. The Nazi regimes killing of the Jews was situational. If you, for example, had been a Nazi it would have been morally acceptable for you to kill Jews.
So Adam and Eve should have argued with God, right? Who’s He to decide what is good and evil anyway?
My favorite example of Mormonism’s situational ethics:
Book of Moses 5:11
“And Eve, his wife, heard all these things and was glad, saying: Were it not for our transgression we never should have had aseed, and never should have known good and evil, and the joy of our redemption, and the eternal life which God giveth unto all the obedient.”
Eve, joyous in her transgression and disobedience.
Her disobedience has given her and everyone the opportunity for “eternal life which God giveth to all the obedient?” Strange logic if you ask me.
Jaxi
Real Question
If Eve had Never eaten the fruit then what?
Let me try it this way.
I bet on a fine horse. It took ten other horses to beat him.
What time is it when an elephant sits on your fence? Time to get a new fence.
When you put on your shoes and socks don’t put them on in that order.
Some of the greatest jokes in the world.
If Eve had not taken a bite of fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil then there would have been no contrast. We would not have known what is funny or sad.
According to some we weren’t suppose to leave the Garden.
They would still be with God. What more could you want? Thing is, Mormonism teaches that it was necessary to sin to fulfill their “design”. What if it wasn’t? What if God would have rewarded them with the knowledge of good and evil AFTER they had proved that they could keep the commandments He had already given? Ever think of that? Sin may never have entered the world. Man would not have been separated from God.
Isn’t that separation important so we will know that what we have taught our children is embraced by them?
We must remember that God’s ways are not our ways.
Clyde,
The whole Mormon explanation on these events doesn’t make sense, especially when we tie in the pre existence to it. In the war in heaven that Mormonism talks about, two thirds chose Gods plan. The other third chose Satans. But how could they make that choice if they didnt know good from evil? How could God cast the third out of heaven if they didnt really understand what they were doing? They either understood or they didn’t. So Mormon God pronounces eternal judgement on those that have no understanding of good and evil (sounds harsh). Or when intelligences get bodies they get dumber. Momorn God took away their knowledge of good and evil so that he could give them an impossible situation so they would have to disobey in order to find the path of eternal life, which is through obedience? “Gods ways are higher than our ways.” That is a very popular Mormon line. I used to hear it all they time. I used to use it on myself quite often to help comfort me when my Mormon faith made no sense. The problem with the line is that it is being used out of context in Mormonism.
…”7Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts: and let him return to the LORD, and he will have mercy on him; and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon. 8For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, said the LORD. 9For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts. …”
This is not talking about “when God makes no sense, its okay, remember he doesn’t have to make sense because his ways are higher. ” This is talking about the unrighteous and how they should give up their lower ways and come unto The Lord. Read the whole chapter in isiah 55. it’s about turning to God. It’s not about God being confusing.
“Isn’t that separation important so we will know that what we have taught our children is embraced by them?”
God did leave them to make their own choices. Adam and Eve were given the opportunity to demonstate whether or not they embraced God’s teachings. The real question is was sin an essential experience? I would argue no.
Jarron,
“If Eve had Never eaten the fruit then what?”
Grindael answered this but I think it is important to understand that the plan of salvation in Mormonism is different than the plan of salvation in Christianity. It’s important to realize this. In Chrsitianity, if eve didnt eat the fruit she would have continued in perfect life with God. The goal of Christian life is union with God. If Eve didnt eat the fruit in Mormonism than, there would be lots of premortal spirits sad that they could never get bodies. So in Mormonism, sin and a fallen state is part of God’s plan.
Here is a Christian explanation on the plan of salvation:
“Man failed God and failed himself through his revolt against God. However, God did not abandon him. God kept following man with His loving care and providence. God prepared man’s salvation in the same eternal Logos of God, through whom we are created, so that even after our fall we may return to immortality (St. Athanasios).
The plan of God for man’s salvation is called the plan of “divine economy,” i.e. divine dispensation. God the Father conceives the plan, the Son executes it, the Holy Spirit fulfills it and leads it to perfection and finalization.
God the Father acts out of love for man, in sending His own Son for the salvation of the world (John 3:16). When the time was ripe, after a series of purifications throughout the Old Testament that led to the Virgin Mary who could respond to God, accepting man’s salvation on behalf of humankind, God sent forth His only-begotten Son, “born of woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption to sonship” (Gal. 4: 4-5).”
The Plan of Salvation in Christianity is Christ.
Now Mormonism’s plan:
“The plan of salvation is the fulness of the gospel. It includes the Creation, the Fall, the Atonement of Jesus Christ, and all the laws, ordinances, and doctrines of the gospel. ”
Notice how the Fall (mankind sining) is part of the Mormon plan of salvation. The Fall is helping to save mankind from something. What is the Fall helping to save them from? Is it their state of being “intelligences?”
The real plan of Salvation is Christ. The Plan of Salvation is needed because of the Fall. The Fall, laws and ordinances are not what save us, but all those things are included in the Mormon plan of Salvation.
Cattyjane,
I remember having those same questions…
They are important and can really be a stumbling block on our way to God.
Here’s a few things to remember, All good things come from God. All of them.
Also, Do you remember when God destroyed Saddam and Gomorra? Lot asked God how many good people it would take for him to spare the city. God seeing their hearts said if there was even one person who was good he would spare the city. God is good and loving but God is also just and righteous.
I think the OT does not show us a bipolar God, It shows us a God teaching us and preparing the way for the messiah. When I read the OT I read it through the lens of Christ and suddenly I see what God has done with us. God shows us what it would take to come to him on our own, show us the depth of our sin and the wickedness of our hearts. Then he says, it is impossibly hard but I love you so much I will pay your fine for you. God knows our hearts before they are formed. He knows what we will do. But he doesn’t condemn us based on what he knows we will do, he always allows the opportunity to repent and return to him. He doesn’t create us to be wicked, we choose to become wicked. We chose to walk away from God, to ignore our conscious. God provided everything we need to know him and went as far as to become man and pay the penelty for OUR sin. When people go to Hell it’s because they refuse the gift God gave to us. They chose to go their own way and since the source of all good is God, when separate ourselves from him what is left?
God cannot deny himself, God cannot force himself upon us. He wants us to willingly to come to Him, He doesn’t create us as robots and he always provides a way to those who want to seek him.
When Joshua took Jericho, God spared the prostate who saved them as well as her family because she believed in him.
I still don’t fully understand it, but through the lens of Christ the OT makes more sense.
Clyde,
You said:
“The whole Mormon explanation on these events doesn’t make sense, especially when we tie in the pre existence to it. In the war in heaven that Mormonism talks about, two thirds chose Gods plan. The other third chose Satans. But how could they make that choice if they didnt know good from evil? How could God cast the third out of heaven if they didnt really understand what they were doing? They either understood or they didn’t. So Mormon God pronounces eternal judgement on those that have no understanding of good and evil (sounds harsh). Or when intelligences get bodies they get dumber. Momorn God took away their knowledge of good and evil so that he could give them an impossible situation so they would have to disobey in order to find the path of eternal life, which is through obedience?”
This statement is simply incorrect. You are arguing that Adam and Eve had “no understanding of good and evil.” Then how could they have sinned? They couldn’t.
It is a matter of degree. Adam and Eve had a basic understanding of good and evil. Partaking of the fruit opened their eyes so they recognized to a greater degree the difference between good and evil. And it placed them in an environment in which they could learn through life’s experience a greater perspective of good vs. evil.
The same thing is true of those in the pre-mortal existence- they did have some degree of understanding of good vs. evil. And it is upon that basis that they decided whom to follow- God or Lucifer.
The process of a baby growing up is analogous. Does a 3 year-old know anything about good and bad? Yes. Of course. But not as much as a 40 year old.
So If Eve did not eat the fruit she would still be perfect in the garden with God. But we would not be here at all.
Its interesting to note the Mormon response to Eve’s eating of the apple as a possible good thing. It was not. It separated us from God, and the distinction between what is good and what is evil is irrelevant. We were then separated from God. What could be worse?
The Mormons are really blind and dont have a clue. If we did not sin and fall, then no one would die and go to eternal damnation. As a result of a fall, people will be eternally damned. Add to that, the Bible says, It is NOT GODS WILL that any man should perish. Yet people will eternally perish. So if that is not Gods will, then He did not want us to fall.
Also God said, Do not eat of this tree, lest you die. So the Bible says, God Cannot Lie. Yet if God said to Adam and Eve, do not eat of this tree, but in reality He wanted them to, then thats makes Him both a liar, and shows God using Manipulation to achieve His will. I would like the Mormons to back this up from the Bible, you cannot do it.
I guess it’s time to pull out my favorite Mormon prophet to provide some background information on the revelation he received regarding Adam. I say “revelation” because that’s what a Mormon prophet does. So knowing this perhaps we can have some context to what Mormonism, at least the SLC sect, has taught and believed.
“……….Young proclaimed that Adam was Michael the Archangel, and that he was also the Ancient of Days. Young went on to conclude that Adam was, in fact, “our Father and our God, and the only God with whom we have to do.” In this message, Mormonism’s second president explained that Eve was only one of Adam’s wives and that Jesus Christ “was not begotten by the Holy Ghost.” Instead, Young said, He “was begotten in the flesh by the same character that was in the garden of Eden, and who is our Father in Heaven.”
“It would be difficult for the Mormon to prove Young was only theorizing by the simple fact that Young, in this sermon, clearly claims his teachings to be “doctrine.” In his conference address on April 9th, Young closed this topic with the following warning, “Now, let all who may hear these doctrines, pause before they make light of them, or treat them with indifference, for they will prove their salvation or damnation.” A fair question to ask would be, “Since Joseph Fielding Smith and Spencer W. Kimball did not believe what Young had to say on this matter, does that mean Smith and Kimball are damned?” If Young was truly a prophet of God, would this mean all Latter-day Saints who reject the Adam-God teaching are also damned?”
Mormonism is such a mess. If they can’t trust what Brigham Young said than why could they ever trust what Joseph Smith said about anything. Obviously they can’t because the LDS authorities beat a hasty retreat on polygamy one of the core doctrines and practices of the LDS church.
http://www.mrm.org/adam-god
You didn’t read what I said Jarron. I said that perhaps if the had obeyed God he eventually would have let them eat of the tree of knowledge. They would not then have sinned and would not have been separated from God. Why did they have to sin to become mortal as Mormons teach?
Both the fall and the atonement had to be the result of agency and choice, without any degree of compulsion or pressure.
Why did the Father withdraw His Spirit from Christ while Christ suffered so terribly on the cross? Probably multiple reasons. But one was almost certainly so the the atonement would be 100% the result of Christ’s achievements. And His choice. Having individually achieved that unimaginable feat, the credit for our salvation lies with Christ. It had to be so. The Savior is the Savior because He did it all of His own choice and agency.
The same is true of the fall. It had to be the result of the choice of those falling. If God had suggested it or directed Adam and Eve to partake of the fruit, God would have been partially responsible for our suffering in this life. I don’t think God wanted to be blamed for our trials and difficulties here. Adam and Eve had to enter mortality on their own by their own choice, 100%.
Adam and Eve partook of the fruit against the command of God. As a result, mortality was absolutely a result of agency. And agency is supremely important in the great plan of God. That is the reason God allows rape, murder, and all the other evils to exist in the world. He will not force goodness upon His children. The fall came by personal choice and agency. And so did the atonement.
I do believe that the fruit could have possibly been offered through a different mechanism and by another being than they way it was offered by Lucifer. But it is pure speculation for any of us to claim to understand those theoretical possibilities.
I do find it interesting that critics of the church say that LDS believe God did not have enough power to prevent the apostasy. But the same logic could be applied here to the position of the critics. Was God not powerful enough to prevent Lucifer from supposedly thwarting His plan? Of course not. Same thing with the apostasy. God allows these types of perceived failures to occur.
@faithoffathers
1. Can you show from Biblical Scripture that the Spirit was withdrawn when Christ was on the cross?
2. Can you also tell me if Jesus’ kingdom was removed from the earth?
If it is true that a mentally challenged person is only here to just gain a body (the church teaches this I believe) then I wonder how much comprehension Adam and Eve had in the garden. See they were naked and didn’t know they were or were not concern about it.
I think it is wonderful that God gave us the ability to make choices because it can be a great learning curve.
FOF said,
But the same logic could be applied here to the position of the critics. Was God not powerful enough to prevent Lucifer from supposedly thwarting His plan? Of course not. Same thing with the apostasy. God allows these types of perceived failures to occur.
I say,
Are you saying that the supposed apostasy was part of God’s plan?
I’m just trying to understand you.
Did Jesus want his Bride the Church to wither and perish from the earth?
peace
I suppose we don’t really want to go there, but I was intrigued by this idea of the Spirit leaving Jesus when He was on the cross. I did a little search and found various answers but I thought this one was pretty interesting.
If we take this further does it mean that the “Trinity” ceased to exist if the Spirit were removed from Jesus. Here’s a couple of excerpts:
“God is a trinity of persons: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The Father is not the same person as the Son; the Son is not the same person as the Holy Spirit; and the Holy Spirit is not the same person as Father. They are not three gods and not three beings. They are three distinct persons; yet, they are all the one God. Each has a will, can speak, can love, etc., and these are demonstrations of personhood. They are in absolute perfect harmony consisting of one substance. They are coeternal, coequal, and copowerful. If any one of the three were removed, there would be no God.”
Unfortunately, this person fails to understand the doctrine of the incarnation. Jesus has two natures: divine and human. The Bible teaches that Jesus Christ is the word (which was God) and became flesh and dwelt among us (John 1:1,14). This is why it says in Colossians 2:9 that in Jesus dwells all the fullness of deity in bodily form. Therefore, we can see that in the one person of Christ are two distinct natures. We do not say that there are two persons, nor do we say that the two natures are mixed up, formed a new third thing, or are not related in the single person known as Jesus.
“When Jesus died on the cross, his human nature died. The divine nature did not die. Therefore, we see that the Trinity never ceased to exist and this critic’s question becomes irrelevant since he demonstrates he does not understand what has he is criticizing and is, basically, attacking a false concept of what the Trinity is.”
http://carm.org/what-happened-trinity-when-jesus-died
So how much of the Prophet Young’s revelation regarding Adam and Eve has survived in Mormon doctrine today? I’m just wondering, if Brigham Young, being the Mormon prophet was wrong about this, what else was he wrong about. And if Brigham Young, as prophet was pronounced as being in error by future LDS leadership, what else in Mormonism is wrong? Can these prophets, especially Joseph Smith be trusted?
I want to know what form of Mormonism is this? We know it is the form being practiced today by the various sects that come under the label of the FLDS. If I were a Mormon I’d begin to wonder what I’ve gotten myself into.
“When our father Adam came into the garden of Eden, he came into it with a celestial body, and brought Eve, one of his wives, with him. He helped to make and organize this world. . . . the seed was brought from another sphere, and planted in this earth. . . . When Adam and Eve had eaten of the forbidden fruit, their bodies became mortal from its effects, and therefore their offspring were mortal” (Journal of Discourses 1:50, emphasis in original).”
“What we have are three creation Gods, Eloheim, Yahovah [spelled that way in the Endowment House records] and Michael. They are not the Father, Son and Holy Ghost (Holy Spirit) but a different trinity. They are like a LDS priesthood presidency of three (Elder’s Quorum, High Priest Quorum, First Presidency, Mission Presidency, Temple Presidency). But there are now two trinities, the regular Father, Son and Holy Ghost and the creation Gods Eloheim, Yahovah (Jehovah) and Michael. Brigham Young taught that in order to create a world a man would have received his exaltation as a God. At a Special Conference held on 28 August 1852 he explained it as an important key to understanding:”
“After men have got their exaltations and their crowns–have become Gods, even the sons of God–are made Kings of kings and Lord of lords, they have the power then of propagating their species in spirit; and that is the first of their operations with regard to organizing a world. Power is then given to them to organize the elements, and then commence the organization of tabernacles. How can they do it? Have they to go to that earth? Yes, an Adam will have to go there, and he cannot do without Eve; he must have Eve to commence the work of generation, and they will go into the garden, and continue to eat and drink of the fruits of the corporeal world, until this grosser matter is diffused sufficiently through their celestial bodies to enable them, according to the established laws, to produce mortal tabernacles for their spiritual children. This is a key for you” (Journal of Discourses 6:275).”
Elohim = Father of Yahovah
Yahovah = Son of Elohim
Michael = Grandson of Elohim = Adam = God the Father
Jesus would be the only begotten son of Michael/Adam. This may explain the words of President Young made in 1862:
The Father frequently came to visit his son Adam, and talked and walked with him; and the children of Adam were more or less acquainted with their Grandfather, and their children were more or less acquainted with their Great-Grandfather . . .” (Journal of Discourses 9:148, 12 Jan. 1862).
RikkiJ,
“And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” Matt 27:46
This is not the only synoptic gospel that contains this statement about the cross.
Other interpretations of this passage are certainly possible. But I think that, by far, the most obvious interpretation is that God had withdrawn His Spirit from Christ. And in response, Christ asked the question above.
In response to your second question, I think you probably know we believe the church of Christ was taken from the earth- or it was corrupted and destroyed.
Why is such a think so unthinkable? It falls right in line with the pattern of God’s purposes seemingly failing from the perspective of the world. From the fall of Adam and Eve to the wickedness of men resulting in the great flood to the repeated apostasy of Israel to the crucifixion of Christ to the apostasy of the church, each of these events certainly seemed like failure from the world’s perspective.
fifth monarchy man,
I don’t necessarily think God planned the apostasy- as in doing anything that contributed to the apostasy. But He certainly knows the beginning from the end and is prepared to overcome these perceived failures. He values the agency of man so enormously that He allows man to reject Him over and over. But He can take any set of circumstances, no matter how terrible it seems to us, and generate something amazing and beautiful. Every time, His response to man’s apostasy and rejection of Him is something incredible.
And I do not believe Jesus desired His church to “wither” away. Just like I am sure He did not want people to reject Him. But in the end, that rejection set the stage for His atonement and overcoming death and sin. So- this pattern is seen everywhere in history. What seems like failure from our perspective is ultimately used to set the stage for something better.
Psalm 22, from which the cry, “Why have you forsaken me?” comes from:
My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?
Why are you so far from saving me,
so far from my cries of anguish?
2 My God, I cry out by day, but you do not answer,
by night, but I find no rest.[b]
3 Yet you are enthroned as the Holy One;
you are the one Israel praises.[c]
4 In you our ancestors put their trust;
they trusted and you delivered them.
5 To you they cried out and were saved;
in you they trusted and were not put to shame.
6 But I am a worm and not a man,
scorned by everyone, despised by the people.
7 All who see me mock me;
they hurl insults, shaking their heads.
8 “He trusts in the Lord,” they say,
“let the Lord rescue him.
Let him deliver him,
since he delights in him.”
9 Yet you brought me out of the womb;
you made me trust in you, even at my mother’s breast.
10 From birth I was cast on you;
from my mother’s womb you have been my God.
11 Do not be far from me,
for trouble is near
and there is no one to help.
12 Many bulls surround me;
strong bulls of Bashan encircle me.
13 Roaring lions that tear their prey
open their mouths wide against me.
14 I am poured out like water,
and all my bones are out of joint.
My heart has turned to wax;
it has melted within me.
15 My mouth[d] is dried up like a potsherd,
and my tongue sticks to the roof of my mouth;
you lay me in the dust of death.
16 Dogs surround me,
a pack of villains encircles me;
they pierce[e] my hands and my feet.
17 All my bones are on display;
people stare and gloat over me.
18 They divide my clothes among them
and cast lots for my garment.
19 But you, Lord, do not be far from me.
You are my strength; come quickly to help me.
20 Deliver me from the sword,
my precious life from the power of the dogs.
21 Rescue me from the mouth of the lions;
save me from the horns of the wild oxen.
22 I will declare your name to my people;
in the assembly I will praise you.
23 You who fear the Lord, praise him!
All you descendants of Jacob, honor him!
Revere him, all you descendants of Israel!
24 For he has not despised or scorned
the suffering of the afflicted one;
he has not hidden his face from him
but has listened to his cry for help.
25 From you comes the theme of my praise in the great assembly;
before those who fear you[f] I will fulfill my vows.
26 The poor will eat and be satisfied;
those who seek the Lord will praise him—
may your hearts live forever!
27 All the ends of the earth
will remember and turn to the Lord,
and all the families of the nations
will bow down before him,
28 for dominion belongs to the Lord
and he rules over the nations.
29 All the rich of the earth will feast and worship;
all who go down to the dust will kneel before him—
those who cannot keep themselves alive.
30 Posterity will serve him;
future generations will be told about the Lord.
31 They will proclaim his righteousness,
declaring to a people yet unborn:
He has done it!
In Mormonism the fall is a preplanned event that takes place on every world. It is something that MUST be done to people that world with the “spirit children” of each Mormon god. Since the fall is preordained so is an atonement. That means there is a probability that one or more of those saviors failed.
Conversely, Brigham Young taught,
Young states that Adam’s fall was “necessary”, that Adam was already a god when he came here, and that because of the eternal “law of sacrifice” there was a “promise of a Savior”, who was the “first fruits of the earth”. Jesus is no more than the firstfruit sacrifice for this earth.
How can one say that this is all the result of agency when this is the Mormon Plan of Salvation for all eternity? That all of this was preplanned before Adam was “placed” in the Garden as an immortal god who would then fall and have one of his own spiritual children brutally murdered to fulfill some divine “law of sacrifice”?
Good for you. Perhaps this should have been Brigham Young’s approach with the whole thing, instead of claiming he had a “revelation” that Adam was God.
There is one problem with your logic here. God said to Adam & Eve, don’t eat of that tree. Satan came and tempted them. They ate. They sinned. On the other hand, God said the Gates of Hell would NOT prevail against his church, that he would always be with the saints, and that the Comforter would always be with them. God would then have to break his word, for a COMPLETE and TOTAL apostasy to take place as Jo Smith taught. God did not break his word with Adam, But he did if Jo’s scenario is what happened.
Grindael,
I recognize the passage in Psalms in common with the statement of Christ on the cross.
But what does it mean- that is, what does Christ’s statement on the cross mean? I believe it came when the Spirit of God was withdrawn from Christ, and Christ was left alone. I do not believe He was randomly quoting one of the Psalms.
Yes, according to our doctrine, mortality is a necessary step in our eternal development. But there are reasons to believe that the process of changing the paradisiacal environement of the garden into one of mortality can occur in more than just one way. That is all I will say about that- it didn’t have to happen the way it did, IMO. But there had to be a mortal experience for God’s children.
But it is a mute point anyway as it applies to it being Adam and Eve’s personal choice to partake fo the fruit. Adam and Eve did not have memories of any previous existence- they had already experienced the veil. And God had told them not to partake of the fruit. Therefore, the context in which they partook of the fruit was one of personal choice and agency without an understanding of outside influence. In fact, that act was in opposition to God’s command. Therefore, it was indeed fully their act and their decision.
I do not see how you conclude that it necessary from our doctrine to conclude that some number of Saviors failed. Where do you get that idea?
The Adam God topic is a red herring. It really does not apply to what we are discussing, especially since it is not what we believe or teach.
As far as the apostasy, a person must understand the meaning of Christ’s statement that the “gates of hell (Hades) would not prevail against the church. He was not using the phrase in the typical slang context with which it is used today. It was a literal statement regarding a literal place- Hades- or the place of rest of the spirits of the dead. It is another topic altogether, but He was not stating that nothing could threaten the church. He was saying that because of His atonement, the church and keys bestowed upon Peter would overcome the boundaries of that place where the spirits of the dead rest. In other words, the atonement of Christ and the work for the dead would overcome the prison walls keeping souls in Hades.
Christ never said in a general way that “He would always be with the saints.” He told His apostles that He would be with them “alway, unto the end of the world.” I see no reason we should extrapolate His promise to the entire church. It was a personal promise which He kept.
Same thing with the promise of the Comforter. He promised the Comforter would attend the apostles ministry and teach them “all things.” The idea that the Comforter would always accompany a group of people seems really odd and unrealistic. Is the companionship of the Spirit not dependent upon the faithfulness of a people? Look at Israel. Did the Spirit always accompany them? No, not when they reject the Lord and drifted astray.
2 Cor. 5:21 says, “He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.” It is possible that at some moment on the cross, when Jesus became sin on our behalf, that God the Father, in a sense, turned His back upon the Son. It says in Hab. 1:13 that God is too pure to look upon evil. Therefore, it is possible that when Jesus bore our sins in His body on the cross (1 Pet. 2:24), that the Father, spiritually, turned away. At that time, the Son may have cried out. One thing is for sure. We have no capacity to appreciate the utterly horrific experience of having the sins of the world put upon the Lord Jesus as He hung, in excruciating pain, from that cross. The physical pain was immense. The spiritual one must have been even greater. That shows us clearly how much God loves us. CARM
And that is Mormon Pseudepigrapha at work. There is nothing in the Bible which says that the fall was “necessary” and that sin was somehow “winked at” by God. In Mormonism, this is all part of a preplanned prearraged Plan of Salvation that happens over and over again.
Again, Brigham Young taught at General Conference on October 8, 1854:
Brigham Young tells the “saints” that he is “going to make a little scripture”, then he lays out the whole Mormon Plan of Salvation and states unequivocally that Adam was God. YOU may not believe it, but Young taught it as “scripture”, and he was an ordained “prophet, seer, & revelator” the “oracle” of God, and there is nothing you can do to change this fact. Whether the church teaches it or not, makes no difference at all. This was ‘revealed’ by one of your own “prophets”.
From Brigham Young who taught it:
You say,
It does apply, because it was taught as a REVELATION by one of your prophets, and answers the questions about Adam.
LOL. Mormon jargon. There are many other places where Christ SPECIFICALLY declared that he would NEVER leave us alone. Look them up, they are too numerous to mention.
Ok, then what about this one,
“For where two or three gather in my name, there am I with them.” Matthew 18:20
Is Jesus lying here?
Where did Christians “reject the Lord” and “drift away”. Please tell us the time, date, event, all of that. If you can’t. You are wrong. Peter actually said,
For all, you, and your children and those “far off”. There is nothing in the Bible about a “great and total” apostasy. Nothing. This again, is simply Mormon Pseudepigrapha.
Is this discussion about the Adam God theory? If so, I have little interest.
Or do you want to discuss our doctrines and beliefs? If so, fine.
I entered this conversation when one of our critics how it was possible that Adam and Eve could have acted through agency to partake of the fruit because they didn’t know the difference between good and evil.
That, and the claim made that our doctrine asserts indirectly that Adam and Eve were somehow forced into partaking of the fruit.
And a few comments about the apostasy.
You’ll have to find another person to discuss the Adam God theory with. I really have no interest.
As far as your reference to the passage about Christ being in the midst of “two or three,” look again at the context. Christ is instructing them on church leadership and discipline. He outlines the policy of having two or three witnesses, reminds them that what they seal on earth will be sealed in heaven, and says that He will attend a group of two or three of those disciples as they make decisions about the church. This is certainly an open ended promise to attend any gathering of two or more persons conducted in His name. If it was, then you would have to concede that He attends our LDS meetings as we meet in His name. Are you willing to concede that point?
Thanks.
No, because the Mormon Jesus is not the same Jesus as the one in the Bible. And it doesn’t surprise me that you would “pass” on the Adam God REVELATION (it was called a “theory” later by Charles Penrose out of desperation, because the true Adam God REVELATION was, as Joseph F. Smith stated “Too precious a pearl to be cast before swine). No Mormon I have ever met can adequately explain that “revelation,” without coming to the conclusion that Young was a false prophet. And it has EVERYTHING to do with the topic at hand, because it is integral to how Adam is explained in Mormonism.
This may be of interest Sharon. As late as 1908 there was a question submitted to the Liahona, The Elders Journal which read:
The answer given by Samuel O. Bennion, (who would later be called as a President of the Seventies) was straight from Young’s teachings on Adam-god:
Here, we see Bennion expounding on a question never asked of Brigham Young. He replies that Adam and Eve, since they were resurrected personages when they entered the Garden, IF they had procreated, would have had children with spirit bodies only, because they were not mortal yet. This also answers the question of exactly HOW these ‘spirit’ children are created – the same way that ‘mortal’ children are created, and that resurrected beings have ‘spirit’ children only. The fall (eating of the materials of this earth) is what caused them to become mortal, and thus have mortal children of flesh and blood. This is a direct connection with Young’s Adam-god “revelation”.
“This is certainly an open ended promise to attend any gathering of two or more persons conducted in His name.”
Exactly. And, quoting the context of that scripture, we see:
15 “If your brother or sister[b] sins,[c] go and point out their fault, just between the two of you. If they listen to you, you have won them over. 16 But if they will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’[d] 17 If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector.
18 “Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be[e] bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be[f] loosed in heaven.
19 “Again, truly I tell you that if two of you on earth agree about anything they ask for, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. 20 For where two or three gather in my name, there am I with them.”
The verse in question, 20, seems pretty straight forward to me. It seems to say clearly that when two or three gather in Christ’s name, he will be there. Surely you agree that the best way to interpret something is through using the plain meaning rule, that is that when interpreting something, the best way to get to its meaning is to first look to the plain, open meaning of the words.
We can add context to it, but the context here does not seem to change the meaning at all, unless you WANT it to be changed.
As to conceding to the LDS that Christ is with them, that’s a bit foolish of an argument, don’t you think? Especially when you are jumping on others for wanting to discuss something you find silly. Conceding that Christ is with you absolutely begs the question of who is Christ, which is the very issue at the heart of the differences between our faiths.
concerning the supposed apostasy FOF said,
What seems like failure from our perspective is ultimately used to set the stage for something better.
I say,
Wow
So you If I understand you correctly you are saying that the religious movement founded by Joseph smith is “better” than the church founded by Jesus Christ?
That explains a lot. Of course you know that no follower of Jesus Christ would ever agree with such a statement as that.
The rejection of Jesus lead to the New Covenant, the Church, The Gift of the Holy Spirit and reconciliation with God.
I can’t think of any thing that could possibly be “better” than that.
peace
The point of adam-god in regard to our current discussion is that Mormon prophets and their agents can’t be trusted. So the article at the beginning of this thread deals with the topic of “change”.
I can understand why a Mormon wouldn’t be interested in Brigham Young’s view of Adam and Eve and the Mormon god. It’s embarrassing and let’s be frank, stupid. That’s why Mormons with an intellectual bent have to invent their own form of Mormonism. I wonder how many of these types would have followed Brigham Young?
As I’ve pointed out before, Mormonism is a mess. In order to stay within the sect, the more intellectually oriented Mormon has to push the past aside and not even deal with it. The FLDS sticks with the old time Mormon religion. They are the true blue believers. The Salt Lake City LDS bunch have to form their own version that can survive within the structure of what’s available to them. None-the-less we’ll keep holding them accountable for attempting to make Mormonism into something that it never was.
It seems reasonable to be skeptical of embracing what Mormon leaders have believed about
Adam, his fall etc., If refusal to publically declare Brigham Young’s doctrinal revealments
about Adam to be false teachings does that not raise a legitimate question as to why we should
trust Mormon leaders today in what they teach about Adam , God , Jesus , to be correct ?
Apostasy ? You mean like the Mormon theory of a complete/ universal apostasy from Christian
doctrine / the gospel of Christ , and of the Christian church , so that a total falling away from the
faith once delivered to the Saints ( Jude 3 ? ) happened thus resulting in salvation not being
available again to mankind until 1830 ? Sorry, but that is the stuff that conspiracy theories
are made of . The long awaited Messiah appeared , He died to reconcile man to God , He rose
from the dead , then He directed chosen men to go and preach the truths necessary for man to
know God and receive eternal life in heaven , this message , these truths is the gospel that saves
( Jn 17:3;Rom1:16) . It never disappeared or became unavailable to mankind for 1700 yrs
until Joseph Smith arrived . Jesus promised to be with those who gather in His name for church
affairs or evangelism ( Matt 18:20 ) . Him and His Father have been actively blessing their
worshippers in personal ways ever since that time —Rom 1:7 ; Gal. 1:3 ; 2Tim 4:17-18 ; 1Pt5:10.
Thankfully there are those who care to warn the Mormon people in how they’ve been detoured
into following men who have sought to mimic Jesus’ true apostles and so have misled them with
an imitation gospel —Gal 1:8 . Jesus counseled ALL of us to beware of such men who would arise
in these latter days —Matt 24:11.
I need to learn how to edit a post after the fact. I omitted a word that changed the meaning of a sentence.
I intended to state: “This is NOT certainly an open ended promise to attend any gathering of two or more persons conducted in His name. ”
This was in reference to Christ’s statement that:
“Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven.
For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.” Matt 18:20
This statement is to the apostles and is not an open statement to the world. He was instructing them on leading the church- He gave them the keys- which he refers to in the passage. He instructs them on discipline in the church and how to settle questions in the church. He promises to guide them as they do these things. And when any two or three of them are gathered in His name, He will attend them.
It is not the open statement people have traditionally understood. Sorry if that offends, but that is what the context leads to.
MJP- as to your question about getting the “right Christ,” do you think it is significant that Christ uses the simply qualification about His name? I do. But of course, I believe this passage applies to the apostles and leadership in the church. So of course His apostles are going to be getting that correct anyway.
Fifth monarchy man- yes. But it is not Joseph Smith who restored the church. Christ restored His church. And He did it through Joseph Smith. The significant difference is that this dispensation is the only dispensation that will not ultimately end in apostasy. In other words, this dipsensation wherein the restored gospel is established and taught will continue until the Head of the church, Christ Himself, returns to the earth.
As far as the rejection of Jesus leading to the atonement and New Covenant- yes, I was the one who pointed that out that that perceived failure lead to the greatest triumph in the history of the universe- the atonement of Christ. But the establishment of the church anciently is not the same thing as the atonement. You are conflating those two things. And that ancient church ultimately fell into apostasy as a whole.
MikeR- I would agree that Christ has been involved in the affairs of mankind throughout our history. But the church He established 2,000 years ago fell into apostasy. This is not some far out “conspiracy theory” as you call it. If anything, given human nature, it would have been an aberation to have survived this long. Consider man’s history throughout time- he will always fall away. The great flood, the apostasy of Israel over and over. It is man’s unfortunate propensity to reject God and His authority and His servants. And that nature did not change 2,000 years ago.
God values man’s agency supremely. And He allows mankind to fall away as they choose. And they did it 2,000 years ago just they had so many times before.
And that is why the theme of apostasy and corruption was so prevalent among the letters to the saints in the early church and among Christ’s statements.
Of course you think it is not important that Christ delineated anything other than his name. It allows you to believe something different. And it would allows someone to name the giant spaghetti monster in the sky “Jesus Christ” to be included, as well. It allows someone to do all sorts of things if they only attach the name to it. Its an absurd position.
Another way to view it is to remember the commercial where a “Micheal Jordan” had made all of these reservations, and everyone was excited that “Michael Jordan” was coming to their establishment. However, this “Michael Jordan” was a bald, short, ugly white guy, not the basketball star. Surely, not every “Michael Jordan” conjures interest or power. Just the same, not everyone who calls on a “Jesus Christ” conjures power.
Matthew 18:20. NIV: 20 For where two or three gather in my name, there am I with them.
KJV: For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.
Where is the “you” or other modifier that suggests that it is two or three disciples that must be present? I don’t see it. It is a blanket statement.
Heck, even considering the rest of the passage, which I posted above, I see nothing stated it is limited to disciples. The only place you could possible get that is the beginning of the chapter, wherein it states the disciples asked him a question about who is the greatest. What did Jesus do? He took a child to him, which suggests there were more people there, so Jesus was talking to other people, too. And nothing, absolutely nothing in the rest of the chapter shows that Jesus said, “Disciples, this is just for you.” In verse six, you see Jesus admonish that if anyone causes a little one to stumble has done great harm. See vs. 7, too, where it says “…woe to the person…” who does this, not “woe to the disciple”.
It is clear Christ is not just talking to the disciples. And even if he was, how or why should we exclude this admonition to the rest of us? How much does that take us out of responsibility? And do you really want to suggest that where two or three gather in Christ’s name that he is not there with them? (Assuming they consider the real Jesus.)