Vort
-
Posts
26392 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
594
Posts posted by Vort
-
-
I have every respect in your position, but I think it unfortunate to imply that a homosexual only care about sex.
Forgive me for my poor wording choice, De Wallen. I certainly do not believe that all homosexuals "only care about sex", and I apologize for sounding like I did.
But consider: If someone publicly defines himself/herself by his/her sexuality, what does that say? Obviously our sexuality is a central part of who and what we are; but saying "I am a homosexual" is like saying "I am a porn masturbator" or "I am someone who has sex with goats". It is a definition of self based on who or what one wants to stimulate one's genitals. Should not such things be kept private?
I live in an area that recently had a scandal when a newspaper reported that a man died of a perforated bowel from having sex with a horse. Can you imagine if all the people who liked having sex with horses started saying, "We're LOUD and we're PROUD! Horse sex is BEAUTIFUL! We demand societal recognition of our sacred horse sex relationships! We demand all legal marital rights!"
If you find the "bestiality marriage" idea overly offensive, substitute in marriage to five-year-olds, or marriage to parents, or marriage between siblings. These things are illegal because they are not conducive to a stable society; rather, they are destructive to it.
Not all hetero marriages may have children for various complications, so should an infirtile be denied marriage?
Perhaps I'm misremembering something, or perhaps you are. I don't remember saying anything about fertility or childbearing, so I do not understand the genesis of this argument.
They could adopt, but a homo couple may also adopt and rescue a child from government care and give it a happy home.
Yes, and I am sure that in some ways a homosexual couple would be far preferable to no family at all. But a homosexual couple cannot model a true nuclear family, because they are not a true nuclear family. This is the case, regardless of whether the government has granted their relationship the status of "marriage".
Also, why not then make divorce illegal, or adultry as these are truly destructive of a "nuclear" family.
I could not agree more. If our society were capable of living by such standards, I would heartily endorse them. Adultery should be legally punishable, and divorces much, much more difficult to obtain. Unfortunately, our society is so morally lax and filled with grown-up children instead of adults that we are incapable of living to such a standard. Since a society can't function with 60% of its people incarcerated, we cannot (yet) live to that standard. But I agree, it would be much better.
Nice conversing with you, De Wallen.
-
Does the LDS Church believe that God the Father was once a man? I know that various prophets have spoken on this issue, and President Hinckley kind of left it in a vague area during an interview. Also, Joseph Smith said in the King Follett discourse that God the Father was once as we are, and is an exalted man. How should I interpret this? I know that LDS believe that God will always be our God, and Jesus always our Savior, even through our own exaltation. However, how do you interpret these statements about the Heavenly Father being once a man? What is the basis for this belief, and do we find this among the early Christians? Out of all the believes about the Godhead, this is probably the most difficult to accept, as I have found much evidence historically for the LDS views on the nature of God, and prayer has helped. Thanks!
Bytor's link will contain all the following information, but to summarize:
Shortly before he was murdered, Joseph Smith plainly taught that "God himself was once as we are now". Some years later, Lorenzo Snow (another president of the Church) coined the couplet, "As man is, God once was; as God is, man may become." While the scriptures are not quite so plain as this, they ultimately teach the same doctrine (e.g. Matthew 5:48 "Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect").*
Latter-day Saints take this idea very seriously and very literally. However, there is not a consensus as to what this actually means. In what sense was God once "as we are"? What does it mean to "become as God is"? These points are not agreed on within Mormonism and are often debated in forums such as this. What pretty much all Latter-day Saints will agree on, though, is that the teachings are literally true.
*I remember a religious historian I once read to have written that the brilliance of Judaism above any other ancient religion was that the Jewish god Yahweh embodied HUMAN virtue, and that Yahweh's followers were expected to adopt those virtues as their own and actually become like their god. This was unlike any other ancient religion, whose gods were quasi-human or completely inhuman figures that desired pacification to grant blessings, not parents of sons and daughters who were expected to embody the very virtues that made their deity a god.
-
Thank you Maxel. I am afraid that I must not agree with this position as I am a homosexual woman, and do no feel that I make the degeneration of civilized society as you say, but I am glad to hear your thoughts and have respect for them.
Civilization is built around the family, which consists of a (male) father, a (female) mother, and any children they might produce or adopt. To this "nuclear" family might be added "extended" family, such as grandparents/grandchildren, cousins, etc. But the nuclear family is the core of society. Homosexual "marriage" is a mockery of this nuclear family and disestablishes the entire basis of our civilization.
If a man can "marry" a man and a woman can "marry" a woman, then:
- Why shouldn't a man be able to marry his brother, or a woman her sister?
- Why shouldn't a man be able to marry his mother? Their sexual relations are THEIR business, after all.
- Why shouldn't I be able to marry you? I want to marry you; the fact that you don't wish to marry me is irrelevant. You don't have to marry me, but I want to marry you. Who are you to deny me my right to be happy in the manner I see fit?
- Maybe you want to legally marry your pet hound. Who's to say that's wrong?
- My sister wants to legally marry the planet Mars. Well, why not?
Because marriage is sacred, that's why not. If you expand the definition of "marriage" to include any relationship with any person or inanimate object you enjoy having some form of sex with, then marriage becomes meaningless. Marriage is not about self-gratification, or ultimately even about sex; it is the very basis of civilization.
The fact that your country has existed all of eight years while still permitting homosexual "marriage" is not an indication of the success of such "marriage". Rather, it is an indication that the established structure is strong enough to withstand such a destructive idea for, well, at least eight years. But you cannot show me a civilization that embraced homosexual "marriage" and lasted a thousand years, or a hundred, or even two or three generations. No civilization of which I am aware has ever, throughout recorded history, sanctioned "marriage" between members of the same sex. Even the ancient Egyptians, who had a penchant for marrying their siblings, did not recognize a legal marital union between same-sex partners. Even the ancient Greeks, famously randy and sexually perverted though they were, limited the legal concept of marriage to a man and a woman. There is a reason for this, and it doesn't have anything to do with hating homosexuals.
This is just difficult for me to understand this line of thinking, because in my thought, many places where people like me can marry, such as my country, Canada, Spain, Norway, and others...they are quite civil and clean, with order and low crime. Truly, they tend to be the cleanest, safest, most civil countries in the world.
Did homosexual "marriage" make them clean and civil? Or were they that way to begin with?
When your country has successfully lived through two or three generations of homosexual "marriage", I will be forced to rethink some of my foundational arguments. Until then, I am appalled that we as a society are willing to risk our stability that has taken hundreds if not thousands of years to achieve just so we can try out a new idea of "marriage" based on sexual perversion. Really, it's unbelievable to me.
-
Under U.S. Intellectual Property Laws, copyrights can only be obtained for original works of authorship that are fixed in a tangible form of expression. Generally a ceremony with participants would not fall under this category. The video portion would fall under I.P. laws, but we don't really know what will be included in the television show.
Any lawsuit would be questionable at best, probably resulting in years of litigation, which would exacerbate and prolong an issue that will otherwise probably blow over in less than a month.
The performance is not copyrightable because of its ceremonial nature. But the endowment presentation is written down, and that written form has the same default copyright as any other written work. But as you point out, defending that copyright would be problematic and, even if successful, would create many more problems than it would resolve.
PS I'm speaking according to my own understanding. I am not a lawyer, nor do I play one on lds.net.
-
missingsomething brings up an excellent point: This is not about you, it's about your husband. Believe it or not, he is not looking at porn because he doesn't think you're pretty enough, or because he wants to have sex with the whores in the pictures; he probably thinks you're beautiful and likely would never seriously consider committing adultery (physically). He is scratching a childish, voyeuristic itch. It's ugly, it's shameful, it's demeaning and humiliating for all involved, but it is most definitely not about you. If you can remember this, and really believe it (because it is true), it may help you in getting through this.
-
PS: When you put a sentence in quote marks, you are indicating the sentence is verbatim. Since Olson did not write: "Jewish history is replete with examples of assaults on its leaders, so she empathized with my plight." you should not have put it in quote marks. E.
By context, it was obvious (I thought) that I was creating a substitute phrase. This is why I used the first person, even though I was not the one actually saying it. In other words, I was writing, "Here is an equivalent phrase that would have meant the same thing that he was saying." As I already said, I thought that was pretty obvious from context. Had I not used quotation marks, as you suggest, the sentence would have appeared to have been coming from me -- but my plight was not the plight with which the Jewish woman was empathizing.
And I'm pretty sure that is what the author meant. Since you freely admit you don't understand the author, and since my explanation makes sense, I would think you might be a bit more receptive to the possibility that it's right, rather than immediately dismiss it.
PS Note in my first paragraph above, I wrote, "I was writing, 'Here is...' " But I was not directly quoting myself in doing so, despite the presence of quotation marks; rather, I was creating a substitute phrase.
-
I am very scared right now. My husband and I were married in the Salt Lake temple just five months ago. About two months ago I came home early and caught my husband looking at Internet pornography. He felt terrible and promised not to do it again. I knew he'd had a problem with it in his youth, but he told me this problem was as recent as five months before we married. know the nature of addiction and I know that relapsing was inevitable, so we started going to a sex addiction group therapy course taught by an old mission president that I trust very much.
Anyway, last night he confessed to me that he'd looked again at the pornography several more times since the first time I caught him. He volunteered the information which is a big step forward, but my reaction was still to break down and cry. I am 7 weeks pregnant with our first child and I feel so trapped right now. I love him with all my heart, but I refuse to be in a marriage with a porn-addicted husband the rest of my life. I feel terrible for wishing I wasn't pregnant right now, but I do. It would have been better for us to fix this problem first before starting a family. I don't know how to cope with this right now. I put a password on the computer today, so I hope that helps take the temptation away for awhile. But I don't know how to trust him again. I feel cheated on. I know his addiction is not about me, but it doesn't take the heartbreak away. I want to have a family where the Spirit can dwell and he can lead us as a righteous priesthood holder, but those dreams have been crushed right now.
Is there ANYONE out there with some success story???? Has anyone beat this problem????
Don't be discouraged. This is a very common problem, not even recognized as a problem in the world at large. Many thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands, of LDS men have struggled with and overcome this problem. YOUR HUSBAND IS NOT DAMAGED GOODS. Don't start thinking that he is; your marriage is of infinite worth, even if your husband is imperfect and has participated in this vile activity.
Consider that men are often exposed to pornography in their childhood, sometimes as early as two or three years old, before they have any recognition that it's "bad" or any defenses against it. That doesn't make it okay for them, but it should make it a bit easier to understand. The male mind is designed to be stimulated by images of naked women, and if a boy is exposed to that (as many or perhaps most are), he's at a great disadvantage. But God loves his sons as much as his daughters, and doesn't leave them to wallow in their miserable sin if they wish to find a way out.
However, your husband may not understand what is going on. He may not see this problem as a violation of his temple covenants. But it is a violation of this covenant of chastity. Until he really understands and accepts that he has violated his temple covenants, he will be unable to repent of this sin. Once he accepts that and works from there, he can get control over his own mind and his own will, until at some point he considers pornography nothing more than an ugly and childish sin that he overcame, like masturbation or swearing or picking cats up by the tail and swinging them around.
I understand your feelings of betrayal. I mourn with you. But all is not lost. Your marriage can still be everything you believed it could, and much more. Don't lose hope!
-
A random thought that popped into my head today while thinking about this whole "Big Love" scandal...
Is the Temple ceremony copyrighted? I'm pretty sure the Book of Mormon is, right? Would the church also seek to copyright the Temple ceremony, and might that be one way which they could address this whole Big Love thing? (copyright infringement).
Just wondering.
The copyright on the original Book of Mormon text ran out long ago. The LDS Church does hold the copyright on the 1981 edition, including footnotes and chapter headings.
All literary works can be considered copyrighted to their authors, but as others have pointed out, you would have to defend your copyright. The Church appears unwilling to go to court to defend the copyright for the endowment, so it might legally become public domain. As others have pointed out, it's really irrelevant; the endowment is meaningful only for those who actually participate in receiving it. Sex is sacred, too, regardless of its profane portrayal in popular media. Sacred things don't magically become non-sacred just because wicked and carnal people try to make them common.
-
Seriously, does anyone wear pajamas after age 10? I don't think I wore pajamas after I turned seven.
-
If I offend you by breaking your jaw, I sincerely apologize in advance. My fist to your face is not meant in an unfriendly way. I hope you can be mature enough to recognize that I mean no harm.
-
You don't need to believe in a deity to recognize how miraculous our ability to emphasize is.
I assume you meant "empathize" rather than "emphasize". Since I don't understand what the term "miraculous" can mean to an atheist, I'm having difficulty understanding your point.
Changing gears, I have a question: Olson wrote: Does anyone know what he meant by this? Other than the issue with proxy baptism, which I can't imagine is what Olson is referring to, I am not aware of Jewish history containing assaults on LDS leaders. Anyone?
I.e. "Jewish history is replete with examples of assaults on its leaders, so she empathized with my plight."
-
How about just telling them, "I sleep in the nude"?
Hey, it would have been true for me.
-
My daughter attends a school here in the UK where, like most schools they wear a uniform.
My daughter is 14.
Yesterday was 'World Book Day' and instead of having lessons they could read all day in the school library.
For this privilege they had to pay £3.00.
They were also required to wear their pyjamas.
Bizarre. If they did that in the US, someone would get sued -- ESPECIALLY if they denied someone entrance because they were "overdressed".
Sometimes, the lawsuit-happy US system actually makes sense.
I wish you had instructed your daughter to tell them that she WAS dressed in her "pyjamas", that that's how she sleeps. Then she could look around with a confused expression and ask, "Why are all these people dressed so strangely?"
What are they going to do, tell her, "No, you don't dress like that to sleep"?
-
I wonder when my Daughter was called as the Teacher of her Sunday School class while she was a Senior in High School if members thought I was showing nepotism????
No, only if it were your nephew.
</geekylinguisticjoke>
-
While we're on this "prove it from the scriptures" kick, can you (or anyone else) prove that Agency as used in the scriptures is in fact, "the ability and opportunity to choose one's actions and/or thoughts"? I don't think I could prove it, can you?
"Justice" didn't ask for a proof; he asked for my definition. I gave it to him.
-
Vort: (Just trying to understand where you're coming from)
Those who think he had a plan can't prove it from the minimal information in the scriptures.
Those who think he did not have a plan cannot prove that either. So we're all screwed. (That's why I'm been asking for opinions. I take it yours is that he had no plan; he only offered lies to try to get God's power.)
I have no firm opinion on the matter, except that it is false doctrine to claim that Satan had "a plan" in opposition to "Jesus' plan". Whether or not it's true, it is not LDS doctrine as far as I have ever been able to find.
Before 1978, you could have talked with any number of decent, righteous LDS Priesthood holders (and leaders) who would have confidently assured you that no man of black African ancestry would ever hold the Priesthood of God until every other man had already had that opportunity. If you had asked them why, they would have told you all about lack of premortal valiancy and such. But it's all stuff and nonsense, and any of those good men still alive today must surely feel quite silly and ashamed of their foolish beliefs at the time.
Well, we all believe untrue, silly, and foolish things, so there is no great shame in that. But that doesn't mean we ought to just accept and embrace such drivel. We have scriptures, and we have brains. We ought to use both. And I know of no scripture teaching that Satan had "a plan" that counteracted "Jesus' plan".
By the way, saying that the scriptures don't mention that Satan DIDN'T have a plan, and therefore we can't know that he didn't, is illogical. I could just as easily say that the scriptures don't mention that God doesn't have twelve arms, so therefore maybe he does.
-
This is clearly false, based on the present circumstance of Satan and his minions. They freely chose against God's will. They are damned.
There is a principle that says it's not good to get something for free. To appreciate something you have to do at least some little thing to earn it.
That's a strange principle. My very existence is, as far as I have been taught, free. I did not earn it; I simply am. The scriptures clearly teach that salvation is free, if we will but accept it. No earning involved.
I'm going to show you Alma 12 again, and you are going to have to read, study, and ponder about it.
Of course, I have read and pondered Alma 12 literally dozens of times, very probably more than you have. I suspect what you're really saying is that I should ponder your interpretation of the meaning of Alma 12.
I realize you believe you have stumbled onto some great and deep truth, and hey, maybe you have. But you have no authority to go telling people to pray and ponder about your teachings. If indeed you have received revelation and teachings about this topic, you have no authority to share them. You may discuss them as your opinion, but when you start telling people to ponder and pray about your ideas, you have vastly overstepped your authoritative bounds.
What is the difference between:
1. The consequences of Adam and Eve partaking of the tree of life immediately after partaking of the first fruit
2. The consequences of a man wasting his mortal probation and choosing against Christ, and never repenting
Effectively, no difference.
The consequences are the same. However, in the first case, man would not have his agency to choose damnation.
Of course he did, when he knowingly disobeyed God and partook of the FORBIDDEN fruit. But it's a moot point, since God did not allow that to take place.
17 Then is the time when their torments shall be as a lake of fire and brimstone, whose flame ascendeth up forever and ever; and then is the time that they shall be chained down to an everlasting destruction, according to the power and captivity of Satan, he having subjected them according to his will.
According to his will, desire, or plan. He tried to remove man's agency and bind them to choose his will.
Yes, we've already established that we agree on this.
23 And now behold, I say unto you that if it had been possible for Adam to have partaken of the fruit of the tree of life at that time, there would have been no death, and the word would have been void, making God a liar, for he said: If thou eat thou shalt surely die.
Physical death was God's PLAN to allow man to "freely use his agency" and have the opportunity to choose against God's will, so that man could see God's plan is the only way. Choosing against God's will in His presence meant there could be no redemption.
An interesting and even reasonable idea, but not logically necessary from your prequoted verses. Please demonstrate this from scripture.
Read those verses slowly until it sinks in.
I suspect what you really mean is, "Read those verses slowly until you agree with me." Your gloss of the verses you quote is by no means the only reasonable interpretation.
Through mortality He could provide means to be redeemed from choosing against Him, which all were "prone" to do once they were "given their agency to use freely, which includes opposition." We needed a space, place, or time to do that outside of God's presence, because if we did it in His presence, no unclean thing can dwell with Him.
D&C 93:38 Every spirit of man was innocent in the beginning; and God having redeemed man from the fall, men became again, in their infant state, innocent before God.
According to D&C 93:38, we are redeemed from the fall, and thus become again innocent before God in our infant state. But according to your doctrine, we must have also been innocent before our infant state, because we were unable to choose against God's will (i.e. sin, or become not innocent) premortally.
How do you rectify your doctrine with D&C 93:38?
26 And now behold, if it were possible that our first parents could have gone forth and partaken of the tree of life they would have been forever miserable, having no preparatory state; and thus the plan of redemption would have been frustrated, and the word of God would have been void, taking none effect.
Do you see how Satan tried to remove the mortal probation period so man could NOT exercise his agency freely? All Satan had to do was have Eve eat the tree of life after she ate the first fruit, then all men would have been subject to Satan, because there could not have been a mortal probation, and there could have been no redemption.
What makes you think this would have affected anyone other than Adam and Eve? We have no evidence that (1) they would have been able to have children, or (2) if they could, that their children would have been immortal and thus denied the mortal probation. These are both speculative points on your part.
Satan's plan, to destroy the agency of man, or the mortal probation period, was thwarted. Satan hasn't given up, though. Since he did not succeed in making all men subject to him, he is now trying to bind as many as he can, and feels he will do as much damage to God's plan as possible. It is true that many are lost while on earth, but he is also succeeding in making the reward of the righteous just.
This is an interesting and worthy idea for discussion, but you weaken your own position when you urge people to "ponder and pray" about your ideas. Such language is an immediate tip-off to run far away. You would do better, I believe, just to say, "Hey, here is an interesting idea I came up with. What do you think?"
-
Then you missed it in this scripture:In mortality, yes. This doesn't say anything about premortality, though we know that we had agency premortally.
D&C 29:
36 And it came to pass that Adam, being tempted of the devil—for, behold, the devil was before Adam, for he rebelled against me, saying, Give me thine honor, which is my power; and also a third part of the hosts of heaven turned he away from me because of their agency;
Exactly what is it that you think I "missed"?
A third part of heaven (which I'm not necessarily agreeing that this is speaking about the fraction 1/3) fell from heaven because of their agency.
Whoever it was that fell (I believe it was those that were like us, children of God) that chose against him because of their agency in the pre-mortal existence.
As I said: We had agency premortally. This is obvious. I take it you agree with me.
The supposed contradiction I was referring to was that one scripture says "God gave man his agency in the Garden of Eden," and the other says that "some fell in the pre-mortal existence, before man was in the Garden, because of their agency."
But this is no contradiction, unless you believe that the first scripture somehow negates the possibility of premortal agency. I believe no such thing, so I feel no great urgency to reconcile the scriptures you mention.
I was attempting to explain what I think God meant by "giving man his agency in the Garden of Eden" since man did have his agency in the pre-mortal existence, according to scripture.
There is a distinct difference, and I believe if you read my explanation very slowly, and perhaps prayerfully, you will see I present very good evidence for my case.
I prayerfully consider the scriptures I read and the doctrine that is taught to me from authorized teachers of the word of God. I rarely or never prayerfully consider ideas taught to me from other sources, such as from anonymous people on internet discussion lists. So, no offense intended, but unless you are an apostle or other authorized teacher and definer of LDS doctrine, I have not the least intention of praying about your personal opinions and scriptural exegeses.
-
Verchoo,
Onner, and
Riting
Talant
EDIT: My avatar is self-explanatory.
-
"He was lying"
About what?
About being able to save all, "that one soul shall not be lost."
"But those who wished to believe him did so. . ."
Believe him about what? His plan?
No, about being able to save all, "that one soul shall not be lost."
He had to propose something.
Sure. He proposed that he be the chosen Savior, and that if chosen, he would see to it "that one soul shall not be lost", and therefore the glory would be his, not the Father's.
He had to lay out some grandiose design to entice.
What was it.
It was the promise "that one soul shall not be lost."
Three or four sentences?
How about one sentence, repeated three or four times?
-
I think I understand your question. You are saying that just because Satan planned to usurp God's glory for himself is not proof he had a plan to oppose God's plan.
Yes, I am saying that. But I am saying more. LDS mythology (as opposed to LDS doctrine) goes more or less like this:
- Jesus had a plan; he would be our Savior.
- Lucifer had a plan; he would force us all to do what was right.
- We all voted on the plan. Jesus won.
- Satan and those who agreed with him all got kicked out of heaven.
This is what I was taught as a child, and I suspect what many here were taught. I did not realize until I reached adulthood that I had been misled. (I was going to say "I had been lied to", but that would be too harsh; I'm sure my teachers were not intentionally teaching false doctrine. But intentionally or not, they did teach me false doctrine.)
The facts of the above mythology are these:
- Jesus had a plan; he would be our Savior. FALSE: The plan was the Father's, and Jesus volunteered (or more likely was called) to be the Savior.
- Lucifer had a plan; he would force us all to do what was right. (We'll come back to this one.)
- We all voted on the plan. Jesus won. FALSE: There was no "vote". The Father said, "I will send the first".
- Satan and those who agreed with him all got kicked out of heaven. FALSE: Well, not utterly false, but Satan and his minions were cast out for open rebellion against God, not merely for believing or even teaching some "alternate plan".
When I discovered through scripture and doctrinal study as a young adult (missionary) that #1, #3, and #4 above are false -- and I assume you won't argue that they are, in fact, false and even apostate doctrines -- I began to wonder about #2. I searched diligently through the scriptures, and found nothing to indicate that #2 was true. That was over 25 years ago, and in that time I've read the Book of Mormon dozens of times and the other standard works several times through, and have never found that elusive passage that speaks of Lucifer's "plan".
I dislike being deceived, even unintentionally. I was taught falsehoods as a child. I will not continue to promulgate those falsehoods as an adult. If you believe that Satan had formulated some grand plan to replace the Father's, all I ask is that you prove it from scripture.
D&C 29:
36 And it came to pass that Adam, being tempted of the devil—for, behold, the devil was before Adam, for he rebelled against me, saying, Give me thine honor, which is my power; and also a third part of the hosts of heaven turned he away from me because of their agency;
1. Satan rebelled against God
2. Satan sought God's honor
3. God's honor is His power
4. Satan turned away 1/3 of the hosts of heaven, because of their agency
What is this scripture saying? What is agency? Who gave man his agency?
- It appears to me that the scripture is saying that Satan wanted the Father's glory [honor, power], rebelled against God, and turned away the hearts (or whatever the spiritual equivalent of "hearts" is) of "a third part" (which may or may not mean 33.3%) of the armies of heaven.
- "Agency" is the ability and opportunity to choose one's actions and/or thoughts.
- God gave man his agency, so far as we know, though I acknowledge the distinct possibility that agency is an inherent attribute of human intelligence.
Moses 7:
32 The Lord said unto Enoch: Behold these thy brethren; they are the workmanship of mine own hands, and I gave unto them their knowledge, in the day I created them; and in the Garden of Eden, gave I unto man his agency;
1. God gave man his agency in the garden of Eden.
In mortality, yes. This doesn't say anything about premortality, though we know that we had agency premortally.
Ok, here is the seeming contradiction.
1. Satan turned 1/3 of the hosts of heaven away from Him because of their God-given agency.
2. God gave man his agency in the Garden of Eden.
It's only a contradiction if you assume that #2 means man did not have agency before it was bestowed in the garden of Eden. I see no reason to make that assumption.
If God gave man his agency in the Garden of Eden, how was it man chose against God in the pre-mortal existence (which was before the Garden of Eden)?
God breathed into Adam's nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living soul. So therefore, man did not live before then. Oh, wait, but we did in fact live before then, just not as "a living soul", i.e. body and spirit.
Clearly, we had agency premortally. Otherwise, there would have been no way to choose to follow the Father and the Son or to follow Lucifer.
Answer: Man has inherent agency to act for himself, which God will not take away. This is true from the moment he is "created" by God. What God gave man in the Garden of Eden was a place (earth) with opposites (multiply and replenish the earth, yet do not eat of the tree of that knowledge) that he may freely exercise his agency and be redeemed for choosing against God's will. This abilty to freely exercise his agency to choose against God's will was not given to man in the pre-mortal existence.
This is clearly false, based on the present circumstance of Satan and his minions. They freely chose against God's will. They are damned.
Moses 4:
3 Wherefore, because that Satan rebelled against me, and sought to destroy the agency of man, which I, the Lord God, had given him, and also, that I should give unto him mine own power; by the power of mine Only Begotten, I caused that he should be cast down;
Satan sought.
Satan planned.
Satan sought to destroy man's agency which God had given him in the Garden of Eden.
Satan wanted that which was oppostie of what God wanted, or he opposed His plan.
Satan planned to take away man's agency on earth.
Which I acknowledged from the very beginning. But this is not "the plan of Lucifer" referred to in #2 above; you know, the plan that we had to "vote on" premortally. As I have said several times in this thread, Satan's "plan", insofar as he has a plan, is:
- To usurp God's glory
- To destroy man's agency
Satan planned to take away what God had predetermined to give them.
Giving man his agency was essential to his salvation. God's work and glory is to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man. Giving man his agency was the power God possessed that Satan wanted.
Interesting theory, but you have no way of establishing this from scripture. This is conjecture on your part. Even understanding it, much less establishing it, would require a deeper understanding of the nature and mechanics of agency than we have been given.
D&C 29:
36 And it came to pass that Adam, being tempted of the devil—for, behold, the devil was before Adam, for he rebelled against me, saying, Give me thine honor, which is my power; and also a third part of the hosts of heaven turned he away from me because of their agency;
Satan is saying, "Give me the ability to reatin or give to man his agency. Let me take away his agency and I'll show you how we can save them all. I'm going to change your plan. I have my own plan."
That's not at all what Satan said. I agree it is your personal belief of what Satan said, but it's not what the scriptures record. You are perfectly welcome to your own personal interpretation. As far as I'm concerned, you are even perfectly welcome to tell everyone what your personal interpretation is. But you have no authority to establish that interpretation as LDS doctrine, which it clearly is not.
Again, if you can simply show me scripture that unambiguously talks about Satan's "plan" that we supposedly "voted" on, please just show it to me. I'd love to read it.
-
I'd like to see them, your arguments, up until the first "does everyone agree" marker.
Okay, Justice, I will go through your post, though I expect you and I are the only ones who will bother to read this.
I'll tell you now, you're going to have to read this post slowly, but I can promise you if you do it will help you understand Satan's purpose more clearly, even if you disagree with my final conclusion.Unfortunately, your promise was not realized.
Why did Satan tempt Eve to eat the fruit?There are only 4 possibilities.
Not the case at all. There are innumerable possibilities. For example:
5. He wanted some third party's plan, not his own or God's, to succeed/fail.
6. He wanted to cause havoc, irregardless of whose plan succeeded/failed.
7. It was all just an honest misunderstanding; Lucifer was simply trying to help Adam and Eve get some good eats, having misunderstood God's injunction as a musical injunction against the "forbidden flute".
Absurd, you say? Perhaps, but certainly no moreso than claiming that Lucifer actually believed he could outthink and outplan the Almighty.
We are left with:1. He wanted to destroy God's plan.
2. He wanted to help God's plan succeed.
4. He wanted to help his own plan succeed.
1 is obvious. Yes, he wanted to destroy God's plan.
But, had that been his ONLY purpose, he would simply NOT TEMPT EVE. Had Eve not ate the fruit, then the agency of man would have been destroyed, and Satan would have accomplished his purpose, which #1 says to destroy God's plan
Illogical. You are assuming that, had he personally not deceived Eve into disobeying God, she never would have eaten of the fruit. This is neither logical nor true; the endowment presentation demonstrates this to be false.
From this, I suppose there was more to him tempting Eve, than to simply destroy God's plan.And you are free so to suppose, but that's not a logical argument.
To temp Eve to eat the fruit, he MUST have been after either 2 or 4 in combination with 1.Your conclusion is based on a faulty premise.
I mean, we can safely eliminate #2 as a stand alone possibility because we KNOW his whole purpose was to destroy God's plan.But didn't you just get through saying that destroying God's plan WASN'T his whole purpose, but that he had another Satanic plan he wanted to implement instead? Your argument is not self-consistent.
1. He wanted to destroy God's plan.4. He wanted to help his own plan succeed.
So, logically, he tempted Eve to either destroy God's plan, which we already established that if that was his ONLY purpose, tempting Eve was the more dangerous way to go about it, because it put God's plan one step closer to fruition.
We established no such thing. Your conclusion was based on faulty logic; you simply stated the above to be the case, then said you had demonstrated it. Asserting a thing is not the same as demonstrating it.
So, I can safely conclude that by tempting Eve, he was trying to bring about his own plan.Indeed, you may safely conclude anything you wish. That doesn't make it logical, or even true.
Tempting Eve wasn't his "back up plan" when God:1) Gave man opposing commandments, or opposition... or law.
This is illogical. God is just. Giving "opposing commandments" and forcing a being to choose to be disobedient to one or the other, then punishing that being for disobedience, is unjust.
Since Satan tempted Eve (which would have destroyed God's plan not to)I disagree.
we can safely assume this was all part of what Satan wanted so far.Again, you may safely assume anything you wish. No one will blow your head off for so doing. But you would still be wrong.
So, I believe Satan's plan included giving the opposing commandments, and to give man his agency to eat of the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil.You may believe whatever you wish, but you have established none of this -- not even the most basic point you claim, that Satan had a well-defined plan for humanity beyond usurping God's glory and, later, seeking to destroy the agency of man.
Back up to the pre-mortal existence. We knew we needed 2 things to be like our Father in Heaven, or to be like God.1. We needed a physical body.
2. We needed the knowledge of good and evil.
Untrue. We need a lot more than these two things; otherwise, I am like God right now.
If Satan's aleration of Father's plan did not include these essentials, then there's no way 1/3 of the hosts of heaven would have chosen his plan.Please logically demonstrate this. You are already claiming that "the third part" (which may or may not mean 1/3, as you erroneously imply) followed a being in open rebellion against the Almighty, merely on the strength of his supposed "plan". If we are going to accept such an outrageous proposition, why would we balk at thinking that maybe he convinced them that such things weren't necessary, as the Almighty had said? After all, they already disbelieved that God's plan was better than Satan's supposed "plan", so why not believe the other, as well?
Satan wouldn't have even proposed such a plan because he was trying to be exalted, too.What makes you think so? You haven't established this.
Based on this, and other things that have been revealed to me which I am not at liberty to discloseSo we're supposed to give you extra credence because you have some secret revelations that we aren't privvy to and that you can't share, but that make you wiser than the rest of us?
Uh-huh.
Sorry, Justice, but that doesn't wash.
I propose tempting Eve was part of Satan's plan. I propose the 1 thing Satan wanted to change in Father's plan had to be AFTER Eve ate the fruit.You may propose whatever you wish. Unfortunately, you haven't established any of this yet.
All the scriptures and logic point to that.So far, you have demonstrated neither scriptures nor logic pointing to your conclusion.
Does anyone disagree so far?<Vort raises hand>
Ok. So, what could Satan do after tempting Eve to "destroy the agency of man?"[...]
I propose Satan wanted Eve to partake of the tree of life AFTER partaking of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
How is this Satan's grand premortal plan? "None shall be lost", because -- what? Eve partakes of the tree of knowledge of good and evil and then of the tree of life, so therefore no one shall be lost?
This would have accomplished all of Satan's designs, AND it would have been a way all mankind could have been redeemed, because all born to Eve at that point would have been immortal, because she would have been immortal after eathing the fruit. Plus, all points of Father's plan were in place.But, as surely even the premortal Lucifer fully realized, immortality != redemption. So your idea above is not internally cohesive. Getting Eve to do as you suggest would not result in her redemption, much less that of her children. It's a complete non sequitur. It's like saying, "Satan wanted Eve to eat of the fruit because that way all of her sons would have long black beards and be rich."
My opinion is that Satan's plan was to have Eve eat the tree of life afterward, and he confirms this by say she wouldn't die... which she wouldn't have IF she ate the tree of life. Satan loves those half-truths.Of course, the other possibility to consider is that Satan was lying. That idea works for me.
-
Apparently not too simple. :)
Again, just because someone makes a plan to dethrone God, that does not make God all un-powerful. You admit that such a plan can not be, because it is impossible. However, again, Satan's plan did not work; ergo, it could not work. That does not mean he did not have a plan.
But, Justice, here's the point: YOU are making a claim, so YOU must establish that claim.
Your claim: Satan had a plan in opposition to God's plan. Not merely a "plan" to usurp God's glory for himself, or a "plan" to destroy the agency of man, but a plan specifically in opposition to God's plan.
Please demonstrate this claim from scripture. I say it is not there, though I'm perfectly willing to be proven wrong. It won't be the first time.
-
This is bad logic, and insufficient data to draw that conclusion with.He had no "plan" to do such a thing, because it could not be done.
Not at all. There is plenty of evidence for this. For example, if such a thing could be done, then God is not all-powerful, since he's not doing it. I assume you reject the premise that God is not all-powerful; ergo, it cannot be done.
Simple logic.
There have been lots of plans thoughout history that could not work, that doesn't mean there was no plan.
True enough. So show me in scripture where Satan's "plan" is discussed.
They designed and built the Titanic to be an "unsinkalbe ship."
No, "they" didn't. That was marketing hype. "They" did design the Titanic with features that were supposed to lessen the probability of its sinking. This is much different from your claim, though.
Also, just because you are unaware of something does not automatically mean it does not exist.
True enough. So I've been asking for someone to demonstrate the claim that Satan had some great "plan" that would supersede God's plan -- that is, a "plan" beyond simply usurping God's glory, as the scriptures state. Please provide the relevant scriptures.
As has been stated, Satan's plan was an altered version of God's plan.
Again: Please provide scriptures illustrating this "altered version of God's plan". The scriptures say only two things on this matter:
- Satan wished to usurp God's glory, and
- Satan promised that "not one soul shall be lost".
Beyond this, I have never noticed the least implication of a premortal Satanic "plan" of any sort. I eagerly await your elucidation.
If you do not believe the Book of Mormon is scripture, and you look just in the Bible, this plan is not duscussed in an detail. The Book of Mormon prophets discuss this plan in detail.
Excellent. Please show me where.
You obviously did not read my last, long post, that gave good logic, quoted scripture, and almost irrefutable evidence of Satan's plan.
I did indeed read your last post. It was far from irrefutable. I felt it not worthwhile to respond laboriously, point by point, to what seemed to be rather obvious deficiencies in your arguments.
Sort of a silly question about the Big Love thing...
in General Discussion
Posted
The FLDS have temple ceremonies? I thought I remembered hearing that many polygamists hid their affiliation and pretended to be LDS in good standing so that they could go through the (LDS) temples and receive the ordinances. Is this incorrect? (I hope so.)