The Goal Of Our Faith

[Snow]

Red,

Red,

You seems like a reasonably capable and educated poster on LDS matters so when I read your last post I had to go back and read some of your other posts to see if I missed a point you think you already established. I did and found nothing that indicates what you think you have established. You maintain that Mormons hold that 1. the exalted (or righteous) will become Gods, 2. get their own planet, 3. produce countless offspring, 4. set up a system that relies on sin and death and 5.. ultimately results in no lasting joy.

Right?

To that end you showed, correctly that Mormons think that the righteous can be exalted (deified) - that’s #1.

You’ve provided absolutely no evidence to support you contention #2. - so that’s a goose egg.

You also showed that Mormons think that the exalted will have an endless continuation of their seed. You interpret that to mean that they will have endless babies or spirit babies or something. That’s a fairly reasonable interpretation. It may be correct or maybe not - not enough is known to be specific ‘the how and what’ of continuation of seeds forever and ever. - so that’s like half of #3.

Your 4th contention is probably true but so what. The system that exists for us now - that you agree was created by God - relies on sin and death the exact way that you maintain the Mormon system would. Since you undoubtedly agree that God is “all-good” his system must be good and if this system is good then the Mormon system is good. So although you’re probably right about #4, it would tend to weigh against your argument, not for it - so you don’t get any credit for that (unless you can say why it’s an issue).

Your 5th contention is that such a system would result in no joy. First, it the same system God has now and we Mormons think that there is lasting joy to be had in God’s creation. Second. Your contention is a purely a matter of dogmatic opinion - there is no fact or logic to argue. Third, Mormons disagree with your dogmatic opinion about joy. We hold that MAN IS THAT HE MIGHT HAVE JOY, and that GOD’S WORK AND GLORY IS TO BRING TO PASS THE IMMORTALITY AND ETERNAL LIFE OF MAN. So we don’t really care much if you think there isn’t joy, we think there is joy; it’s foundational to our beliefs - so you get no credit on #5.

So Red,

Out of a possible of 5 points or propositions - I can only see that you hit about 1 and 1/2.

Next, I think it is silly that you believe your conjecture superior to mine when you have very little to support your conjecture. My position however, while not extending past what can be supported by our canon, is in fact supported by our official doctrine (the canon). If you were LDS, you would know that this topic, the specifics of exaltation and what that means and how it will work and what it will be like, is not a big part at all of our lessons and our conferences and our official publications - precisely because beyond a vague and general view, not much is known, so not much is taught. Now Mormons like to dream and speculate as much as anyone but flights of dreamy fantasy do not make up our belief system.

Next, I think that is is intellectually dishonest to say that the Bible is explicit on the topics such as faith/works or the nature of God. I do not doubt that you can find plenty of support for your position and you may feel that a preponderance of the support comes down in your favor, but to deny that ambiguity in Bible exists is hardly a legitimate position.

I find it pathetic, frankly, for you to imply that the reason some people disagree with your particular interpretation of the scriptures is because they are influenced by Satan. Maybe some people think that salvation is by faith and works because the Bible says stuff like, “What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and not works? can his faith save him?” or dozens and dozens of other similar scriptures --- ya think?

Finally, I have never heard anyone say that disunity was a good sign. I think it is a bogus argument but you get bonus points for creativity.

[Red]

Huh, guess we're not done, cool.

...I think it is silly that you believe your conjecture superior to mine when you have very little to support your conjecture.

←

Well, its plenty more support than yours (which you only made a few posts ago). And I only said mine was better than yours because you seemed to think so: "I guess you could be right..." and my favorite, "So, your conjecture could be better than my conjecture..."

But, oh well.

Red,

Red,

You seems like a reasonably capable and educated poster on LDS matters so when I read your last post I had to go back and read some of your other posts to see if I missed a point you think you already established. I did and found nothing that indicates what you think you have established. You maintain that Mormons hold that 1. the exalted (or righteous) will become Gods, 2. get their own planet, 3. produce countless offspring, 4. set up a system that relies on sin and death and 5.. ultimately results in no lasting joy.

Right?

←

Right! That is essentially my positon, except for two minor details...obviously Mormons do not "hold to" all these five points. You my friend are living proof! And the kink with your understanding of #2 I'll explain later.

To that end you showed, correctly that Mormons think that the righteous can be exalted (deified) - that’s #1. [1. the exalted (or righteous) will become Gods]

←

I feel the love. gimme a hug!

You’ve provided absolutely no evidence to support you contention #2. - so that’s a goose egg. [2. get their own planet,]

←

Hold your horses buddy, this one is a result of #3...

You also showed that Mormons think that the exalted will have an endless continuation of their seed. You interpret that to mean that they will have endless babies or spirit babies or something. That’s a fairly reasonable interpretation. It may be correct or maybe not - not enough is known to be specific ‘the how and what’ of continuation of seeds forever and ever. - so that’s like half of #3. [3. produce countless offspring]

←

"...for they [the virgins] are given unto him [a mormon man] to multiply and replenish the earth...and to fulfil the promise given by my Father [Jesus speaking]...and for their exaltation in the eternal worlds, that they may may bear the souls of men..." (D/C 132:63).

It's O so horrendously vague! You're so right Snow, my liege, how can we ever make heads or tails of any of this!? Woe is ignorant little me...

I joke with you as a friend, but seriously dude, this "endless seed" thing is not a vague doctrine in your church. They are not "something like" spirit babies, they are in fact "the souls of men." How much more specific do you need it to be?

So perhaps you'll excuse me if I take a full point for this one. That's 2 points now.

Back to #2 [get their own planet]. Now, my argument does not say that a mormon may "get" his own planet to rule, that is somewhat irrelevant to me, at least for this argument. Instead, #2 ought to be stated that those continuous seeds, those souls of men will need to live on an earth one day.

Don't you think these "souls of men" being born in the eternal worlds (i.e. heaven) need to eventually go somewhere? Doesn't your church teach that one can only progress so far in the pre-mortal life, and that a mortal life is needed for progression into godhood?

I have a copy of GOSPEL PRINCIPLES and I read it. The LDS missionary who gave it to me told me was the basic "textbook" throughout all LDS churches, and seems to be geared for new converts.

In Chapter 1, page 9, it teaches that we can "become like him--a god." Then in Chapter 2 it says "Since we could not progress further in heaven...[God made a plan where] we would become heavenly parents and have spirit children just as he does (D/C 132:19)" (p.14).

Again, these passages never say what I'm thinking explicitly, but you have to ask yourself: 1) "If I am to become a god what will I actually be like?" The answer is found throughout the chapter, and certainly includes being a creator of a world, "He is the Creator, Ruler, and Preserver of all things" (p.9).

And 2) "If I could not progress further as a spirit child in heaven, and if I had to go to earth to do so, what will happen to my spirit children?" I would have to answer "they would need to live on an earth also."

If #2 is a goose egg, it's golden. Up to 3 points now, if you don't mind.

Your 4th contention is probably true but so what.

←

So a lot.

The system that exists for us now - that you agree was created by God - relies on sin and death the exact way that you maintain the Mormon system would.

←

Not at all.

Since you undoubtedly agree that God is “all-good” his system must be good and if this system is good then the Mormon system is good. So although you’re probably right about #4, it would tend to weigh against your argument, not for it - so you don’t get any credit for that (unless you can say why it’s an issue). [4. set up a system that relies on sin and death]

←

The Mormon God is not "all-good." If the system of men becoming gods requires that sin be in a world, then the system is evil and the God who was a result of it (being once a man, but now exalted) and participates in it (having seed and making sin a necessity for exaltation) is not good.

This issue of the Mormon God being not all-good (i.e. false) and the Traditional Christan God being truly good (e.i. the true and only one) needs it own its own topic thread I think. So I'll start one.

But for now, the real question is: will Mormonism solve the problem of evil? No, it will only re-occure on more worlds which means that the Mormon Jesus died for more death. However, in Christianity all sin and death--all evil in all the universe--will be done away with, and not even remembered in the New Heaven and New Earth. Christianity solves the problem, Mormonism only garrantees it will continue.

In Christianity, this present darkness is the result of the Curse of the Fall. God gave us responsibility and we abused it, and continue to do so. The Curse was a Just punishment given by a perfectly Just God--there are consequences for our actions and He will enforce them. Yet at the same time He provides us with an undeseved way out--Jesus. Did the world have to be this horrible? No, Adam and Eve could have obeyed God and learned the difference between good and evil--the mere act of obedience and the resulting reward would have shown that! And day to day, the sins people commit, myself included, make the world a worse place--all the blood is on our hands.

But in Mormonism, "Their [Adam and Eve's] part in our Father's plan was to bring mortality into the world" (p.31) "Some people believe Adam and Eve committed a serious sin when they ate of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. However latter-day scriptures help us understand that their fall was a necessary step in the plan of life and a great blessing to all of us" (p.33, GOSPEL PRINCIPLES).

Snow, how was the little girl you mentioned "blessed" by being raped and murdered?

The argument does not weigh against me, 1 point. 4 points now.

Your 5th contention is that such a system would result in no joy. First, it the same system God has now and we Mormons think that there is lasting joy to be had in God’s creation. [5.. ultimately results in no lasting joy]

←

There is no lasting joy in the present state of creation, it is fallen and cursed:

"For we know the whole creatrion groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now. And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body" (Romans 8:22-23, KJV).

This creation was made perfect but subjected to futility/vanity by God (v20) as a consequence of sin so that we would return to Him, seeing the pointlessness of an existence without Him. Don't try to trap me and make it look like I'm saying God made the creation without joy, when in fact Mormonism teaches such:

"And now, behold, if Adam had not transgressed he would not have fallen...And they would have had no children; wherefore they would have remained in a state of innocence, having no joy, for they knew no misery: doing no good for they knew no sin" (2 Nephi 2:22-23).

According to Mormon scripture: Mankind would not know joy if the creation were not subjected to a fallen state. This is an evil thought.

This creation will pass away (Revelation 21:1), therefore there cannot be any lasting joy in it. It will pass away like an old garment as Psalms says. Read Ecclesiastes, joy in this this life always fades, all we have really is God, if we choose Him.

Second. Your contention is a purely a matter of dogmatic opinion - there is no fact or logic to argue.

←

No Fact? Try suffering in the world, try the futility of life without God (Ecclesiates). No Logic to argue? Try suffering = bad, try futility = bad! Woe is me in my "dogmania."

Third, Mormons disagree with your dogmatic opinion about joy. We hold that MAN IS THAT HE MIGHT HAVE JOY, and that GOD’S WORK AND GLORY IS TO BRING TO PASS THE IMMORTALITY AND ETERNAL LIFE OF MAN. So we don’t really care much if you think there isn’t joy, we think there is joy; it’s foundational to our beliefs - so you get no credit on #5.

←

Chistians hold that the two greatest commandments are: LOVE GOD, AND LOVE EACH OTHER. I am not here to have joy, but to love God. God's sole purpose is not to benfit me, neither does He get more glory for saving me (but revaels more, that which He always had). God is glorious with or without me, He does not even depend on me to show His glory, He can show it any way He wants. Instead, I depend on Him. Christianity is God centered, Mormonism is self-centered.

I know you guys think there is joy in your faith, and there is some, family is an amazing joy. But PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE listen to me when I say there is something far greater! There is a love, a security and a contentment that you do not know; that can never come from man, man's faith or any joy on this earth but from God alone. It is a free just waiting for you. Forget your prophets and take it, I plead with you.

Full credit, + 1.

So Red,

Out of a possible of 5 points or propositions - I can only see that you hit about 1 and 1/2.

←

Sorry, but I count 5 for 5, the position being in my own words:

1. Exalted or righteous Mormons become Gods.

2. Mormon couples (maried in the temple) who become Gods, give birth to the souls of men.

3. Those souls of men will require a probation, i.e. a world to live on.

4. The system relies on the continued presence of sin and death in order to continue.

5. As a result there will be no lasting joy.

(Notice 2 and 3 are flipped as mentioned earlier, and 4 is elaborated on in that the diefied mormon continues the system he came from, not necessarily originates it.)

But hey, since we're having so much fun throwing points around, and "tis the season"...100 points for everybody!!! You too Snow!!! YEEEEEAAAHHHHH!!!!!

Happy (belated) Thanksgiving!!! Merry Christmas (say it while its legal)!!! And a Happy New Year!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Red]

Originally posted by Snow@Nov 23 2005, 10:29 PM

Next, I think that is is intellectually dishonest to say that the Bible is explicit on the topics such as faith/works or the nature of God.... but to deny that ambiguity in Bible exists is hardly a legitimate position.

←

I do not deny ambiguity in the Bible. Of course there are areas that gloss over a subject and plenty of those that make me scratch my head without a lot of study. We probably won't know how to interpret a lot of prophecy until it happens.

BUT taken as a whole the Bible is explicit in its teachings, especially about salvation and the nature of God. It is a revelation from Him is it not? Revelations are meant to reveal, to bring clarity, not to give us "suggestions" about the most vital subjects in the universe. God's purpose was to teach us all we needed to know about Himself.

But then you believe God's word has been corrupted to the point of no longer showing the true God or gospel, while also knowing full well that the purposes of God cannot be twarted. Does this seem right to you? Would any Mormon like to make a case for this? (with hard facts please)

Originally posted by Snow@Nov 23 2005, 10:29 PM

I find it pathetic, frankly, for you to imply that the reason some people disagree with your particular interpretation of the scriptures is because they are influenced by Satan...

←

"Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils" (1 Timothy 4:1).

Call me narrow minded, bigotted and superstitious but if Paul believed in this sort of thing happening in the church (the true church) then so do I. Division is one of Satan's weapons (often caused by gossip, slander and deceit, including decietful doctrine) so it makes sense that he would use it against the real threat: God's people.

Originally posted by Snow+Nov 23 2005, 10:29 PM-->

Maybe some people think that salvation is by faith and works because the Bible says stuff like, “What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and not works? can his faith save him?” or dozens and dozens of other similar scriptures --- ya think?

←

They think so out of missinterpretation through many factors. If you like we can slug this one out for a while. It's up to you.

<!--QuoteBegin-Snow

@Nov 23 2005, 10:29 PM

Finally, I have never heard anyone say that disunity was a good sign. I think it is a bogus argument but you get bonus points for creativity.

←

Actually, I will have to concede my bonus points here. It wasn't very creative at all. I got the idea from other LDS members in the past! They would say that their church is persecuted, pointing at me for challenging them in the first place, and all the anti-mormon literature out there, and all the violence in the past. The point seemed to be that persecution was a sign that they were true.

First of all, mormons today are not persecuted. Ask the Chistians in the Sudan, Rowanda, China or in any muslim nation and they'll tell you all about real persecution. But nontheless, Satan will persecute the church, it says he "wages war against the saints."

Now Satan loves to kill us off for fun, but there's no real victory for him in that, often the story of a martyr leads to more believers. So a much more effective method is to infiltrate and cause division over any stupid or serious thing. Throughout the NT there is constant division and "false teachers" galore. I would expect to to see the same thing in the true church today and I do all too much.

[Snow]

Red,

The last post was hard to follow so let me clean it up a bit. Here are your claims:

1. the exalted (or righteous) will become Gods,

2. get their own planet,

3. produce countless offspring,

4. set up a system that relies on sin and death and

5.. ultimately results in no lasting joy.

1. We agree that you are correct on One.

3. I don’t like the vagueness in the way you look at number Three but agree that you are on the right track so okay to that one.

2. What I don’t like about your responses to Two (and this is part of my problem with your position on Three) is that you assume that exalted saints will separate from God and go onto to become Gods in their own right apart from God - ie of their own planets. For this you have provided no evidence while my contrary conjecture is supported by our canon - that we will become one with God as Christ is one with God. So where ever that is and however exalted saint create endless progeny, it could be as some giant unified godhead - like a gigantic trinity but with thousands or millions of deified children or God all operating under his direction and control.

Since your point was that Mormons get their own planet but there is nothing in the plan that requires Mormons to go off on their own to their own planet nor any reason why it is probably that way, I cannot agree that you have a point.

4. You are not even addressing my argument. In the system that exists not - there is evil. Yet you say that if the Mormon system of exaltation there was also necessary evil, then the Mormon God and the Mormon plan would be evil. Yet this system is good and the Mormon system bad. Both have evil so how does that figure?

In your idea of how the system work God is the creator, ex nihilio, or all thing. He is either the explicit author of evil or the de facto author of evil. Without him, it could not and would not exist.

In the LDS view of the universe, God is the creator, but not ex nihilo and man’s essence, what we call ‘intelligence’ is co-eternal with God and God need not have created either evil nor the situations from which evil must inevitably flow.

Besides which, I reject entirely that just because our idea of what we call the Plan of Salvation - that involved good and bad, joy and pain, in short - opposition in all things - is evil. We believe that there musts needs be opposition in all things. You say that is bad - so what. That’s pure dogmatic opinion. When I last challenged you on this your response was to repeat that such a plan is evil. If you can’t show why or how it is evil - then you have no point.

5. Again, when challenged you just repeat your opinion, “According to Mormon scripture: Mankind would not know joy if the creation were not subjected to a fallen state. This is an evil thought.” Again - so what? Unless you can show the how or the why, you have no point, only opinion. You go on to offer your “logic” on the matter, saying “No Fact? Try suffering in the world, try the futility of life without God (Ecclesiates). No Logic to argue? Try suffering = bad, try futility = bad! Woe is me in my "dogmania."

Sorry but that doesn’t even mean anything. No one is talking about life without God and our opinion is that without woe, one cannot appreciate joy.

At best you have 2 out of 5 points.

I hear what you are saying about what you think is your purpose - to love God and that God’s sole purpose is not to benefit you. It is a standard view. God is so great and man is so insignificant, but when you tell me that there is such joy and contentment that I do not know (but you do) and you plead with me to leave behind my beliefs and take what you have --- I just have to laugh. You really have no idea what joy or contentment I have, no more than I know what you have... but having known a good many Christians like you, I do know that they don’t have anything that makes me think I am missing out on anything. I don’t find them to be any happier, any healthier, any more blessed, any more insightful, and more content, or any more loving than a regular Mormon - they seem quite ordinary.

In our view, God and man are intimately involved. His work and glory is to benefit us. We are his children, we are of the same species. Through his plan of salvation we become like him and receive, along with Christ, all that he has. Next to what I believe about God - your idea of us existing to worship God rings hollow and shallow.

Happy Thanksgiving. I am sure you have much to be thankful for. All of us do.

[Red]

Originally posted by Snow@Nov 26 2005, 02:31 AM

3. I don’t like the vagueness in the way you look at number Three but agree that you are on the right track so okay to that one.

2. What I don’t like about your responses to Two (and this is part of my problem with your position on Three) is that you assume that exalted saints will separate from God and go onto to become Gods in their own right apart from God - ie of their own planets. For this you have provided no evidence while my contrary conjecture is supported by our canon - that we will become one with God as Christ is one with God. So where ever that is and however exalted saint create endless progeny, it could be as some giant unified godhead - like a gigantic trinity but with thousands or millions of deified children or God all operating under his direction and control.

Since your point was that Mormons get their own planet but there is nothing in the plan that requires Mormons to go off on their own to their own planet nor any reason why it is probably that way, I cannot agree that you have a point.

←

I'm sorry for the screw up with quoting things in the last big post, still getting the hang of this. I'm sure it didn't help you at all, and if you like, I I can copy/paste and re-post it with the quotations more clearly marked (though I'm sure that by "vagueness" you don't just mean structure )

I never said that your church taught that the exalted Mormon would separate from his heavenly Father. I'm sorry if I implied that, but really I know that exaltation in the Celestial kingdom includes being with God for all eternity in some form of oneness.

(On a side note, you don't seem to have the same idea of oneness that other LDS I've talked to seem to have. In the past they have said that the "oneness" between Father and Son was of the mind, because, they said, how could all believers be "one." Yours almost sounds more Christian, in the sense that my dead spirit was raised and made one with God. Anyhoo...)

Back to the point, realize that my contention with LDS teaching here is not necessarily whether or not a mormon gets to rule a world (though it seems like every LDS thing I read talks about an infinite number of worlds out there, that's even in the Book of Moses isn't it?), but ask yourself where do those souls of men go? It doesn't matter to me who rules what world, but logically these spirit children are going to need some place to live out their probation in order follow in their parent's footsteps. Is there any reason to suppose that these children will be denied the same opportunities as you?

Originally posted by Snow@Nov 26 2005, 02:31 AM

4. You are not even addressing my argument. In the system that exists not - there is evil.  Yet you say that if the Mormon system of exaltation there was also necessary evil, then the Mormon God and the Mormon plan would be evil. Yet this system is good and the Mormon system bad. Both have evil so how does that figure?

←

Yes both have evil (persay). The difference is that one is subjected to sin/death as a consequence of man's sin, without God at fault--but this will not continue forever, evil will cease to exist one day because it should never have been in the first place. But in Mormonism the sin was not a consequence but a necessary vehicle for exaltation; there is also no end in sight, sin/death will happen again because exaltation must continue--this is a self/man centered religion.

By "this system" I take you to mean the present situation we see all around us? My cheif concern for you is that Mormonism offers no solution to the evil we do see. Because probation is necessary for exaltation there will be more evil in the future. The present situation is bad, yet mormonism seems to call it good, or at least just the way things are and always will be. There is no hope here, just repetition.

Now the "goodness" of the Christian system vs. the LDS is not in the present existence of evil, but the attitude toward its absence in the past. Mormonism finds the world before the Fall to be essentially unacceptable; sure it was paradise but Adam and Eve would never have had children or progressed and there would have been no joy.

But the Christian system finds nothing wrong with Eden before the Fall--it was perfect! Adam and Eve could have surely had childen, as many as they ever wanted and without pain! Their friendship with God, being able to converse with Him face to face, themselves being made righteous and holy, would would have continued and blossomed. I know this simply by my relationship with my parents--I never had to disobey to learn how much they loved me (i.e. by their forgiveness). Instead, when I obeyed they thanked me and there was harmony in the home.

We know there is a great joy in forgiveness, "Amazing grace how sweet the sound..." That we can see throughout the scriptures as well.

But consider Psalm 19:13

"Keep back thy servant from presumptuous sins; let them not have dominion over me: then I shall be upright, and I shall be innocent from the great transgression."

So there is something better than being forgiven: NOT HAVING TO BE FORGIVEN! Sin is not necessary, that's part of what makes it so bad, and then it leads to death.

Consider Romans 3:5-8 and 6:1-2

"But if our unrighteousness commend the righteousness of God, what shall we say? Is God unrighteous who taketh vengeance? (I speak as a man) God forbid: for then how shall God judge the world? For if the truth of God hath more abounded through my lie unto his glory; why yet am I also judged as a sinner?

And not rather, (as we be slanderously reported, and as some affirm that we say,) Let us do evil, that good may come? whose damnation is just."

"What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin live any longer therein?"

Here we find that that our sins were never meant to show God as good, He doesn't need sin for that, if He did he would have no right to Judge us. Yet Mormonism holds that the exaltation is God's work and glory--exaltation only being made possible by Adam and Eve's sin. It teaches that they sinned so that good may come (Moses 5:11)--that is the exact mentality that we are warned against! So then on what basis can God condemn any sinner? the LDS/God has no basis even to drive out Adam and Eve if their sin was meant to bring blessing.

Also, we learn that those who are dead to sin ought not sin at all. Adam and Eve where certainly dead to sin, it was non-existent in the world. Aside from God's clear command, they should never have sinned so that God may bless them all the more--"God forbid" says Paul.

Originally posted by Snow@Nov 26 2005, 02:31 AM

In your idea of how the system work God is the creator, ex nihilio, or all thing. He is either the explicit author of evil or the de facto author of evil. Without him, it could not and would not exist.

←

I have heard that argument from atheists. It is invalid because it fails to recognize our free will and more importantly our responsibilty to not sin. God gave us freedom and we abuse it every day. He gave Adam and Eve the same freedom and they abused it. Same story with Satan.

For example, my parents taught me how to speak. There is nothing wrong with language in and of itself. But then someone invented cuss words. Now, when I learned those words at school or some place and then used them I was the one who sinned. It wasn't the kid who taught me the bad word, I didn't have to use it. And even though my parents showed me how to speak, my swearing was not their fault--I abused the privilege/responsibility that they gave me. My parents did not explicitly teach me to cuss, nor are they the de facto authors of my dirty mouth. That gave me a gift and I misused it.

Same with God, he gave us free will, a perfectly good thing which allows us to love and do want's right, but we abuse it by hating and doing wrong. The Fall was man's fault not God's--He punished us and had every right to destroy us but decided to give us Jesus instead.

To try and pin evil on God is if it were His fault is to deny responsibility for your actions.

"Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth. Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?" (Romans 9:18-20, KJV)

Originally posted by Snow+Nov 26 2005, 02:31 AM-->

In the LDS view of the universe, God is the creator, but not ex nihilo and man’s essence, what we call ‘intelligence’ is co-eternal with God and God need not have created either evil nor the situations from which evil must inevitably flow.

←

This also makes Him powerless to ever stop evil. Why even worship such a weak God? The system is supreme, not God. The LDS God is subject to evil: he can't solve it, he came from a system that relies on it, and he will assure it will continue in the future by the act of giving his son, if the souls of men are to continue to go through probations. This God is both powerless and consenting to murder if indeed sin does lead to death.

<!--QuoteBegin-Snow

@Nov 26 2005, 02:31 AM

Besides which, I reject entirely that just because our idea of what we call the Plan of Salvation - that involved good and bad, joy and pain, in short - opposition in all things - is evil. We believe that there musts needs be opposition in all things. You say that is bad - so what. That’s pure dogmatic opinion. When I last challenged you on this your response was to repeat that such a plan is evil. If you can’t show why or how it is evil - then you have no point.

←

I hope all the above has helped to answer this. In short, the idea of "opposition in all things" is a pagan dogma. I read it all the time in pagan/occultic liturature. Aside from that, the idea is not Biblical by any stretch. When "opposition in all things" means that you must know sin in order to know good (2 Nephi 2:23) then yes it is evil because sin leads to death.

Originally posted by Snow@Nov 26 2005, 02:31 AM

5. Again, when challenged you just repeat your opinion, “According to Mormon scripture: Mankind would not know joy if the creation were not subjected to a fallen state. This is an evil thought.” Again - so what? Unless you can show the how or the why, you have no point, only opinion. You go on to offer your  “logic” on the matter, saying “No Fact? Try suffering in the world, try the futility of life without God (Ecclesiates). No Logic to argue? Try suffering = bad, try futility = bad! Woe is me in my "dogmania."

Sorry but that doesn’t even mean anything. No one is talking about life without God and our opinion is that without woe, one cannot appreciate joy.

←

Again, the idea of "oppositon" leads to death. It is not Biblical. It makes joy a tainted thing, still remembering the woe past or the woe to come. It perverts forgiveness as simply a matter of course, not the undeserved miracle gift from God that it is.

Originally posted by Snow@Nov 26 2005, 02:31 AM

At best you have 2 out of 5 points.

I hear what you are saying about what you think is your purpose - to love God and that God’s sole purpose is not to benefit you. It is a standard view. God is so great and man is so insignificant, but when you tell me that there is such joy and contentment that I do not know (but you do) and you plead with me to leave behind my beliefs and take what you have --- I just have to laugh. You really have no idea what joy or contentment I have, no more than I know what you have...

←

Snow, I know what you don't have. You do not have the security of knowing that you will be with your god for the rest of eternity. Sure you might have a real good shot at Terrestrial glory, and you may have a temple marriage giving you an even better shot at the Celestial. But you can fail at this. Every Mormon I talk to knows that they can fail and spend eternity apart from their Heavenly Father. You are no different, you might not live with your god if you fail.

But here is what I have: I have no fear. I have God's friendship forever, not because I'm special but because Christ suffered. The gift was offered and I received it. Now I will be with my Abba forever. No religion I have studied can offer anything like that! You do not know this joy Snow!! It's there, take it!!!

[Snow]

Red,

Yes, I know that you didn’t say that exalted man ever had to be separated from God - and I don’t mean to misstate your argument - it’s just that you presented the same simplistic picture that all the critics do, you sum up as a complex issue as their is in theology in a few sentences and think you have captured it accurately. That’s what bothers me the most, not that there are or aren’t planet or endless progeny, but that people think they can adequately describe LDS doctrine where even today’s leadership and scholars in the Church doesn’t seem to know much about it - because very little about it has been revealed so far.

Yes both have evil (persay). The difference is that one is subjected to sin/death as a consequence of man's sin, without God at fault--but this will not continue forever, evil will cease to exist one day because it should never have been in the first place

Huh? What do you mean it shouldn’t have been there? Didn’t God create the universe and all in it? Didn’t God create what he intended to create? In your model God is the author of evil and fully responsible for every bit of it.

And, in your idea of how things work, evil is never eliminated. just subjugated. It still exists - just constrained to hell.

But in Mormonism the sin was not a consequence but a necessary vehicle for exaltation; there is also no end in sight, sin/death will happen again because exaltation must continue

Again - so what? We believe that there is opposition in all things. That you don’t like it matters not one iota. You said such a system is evil and when challenge to support your idea all you do is repeat that you think it is evil. Stop dancing around - can you show that it is evil or not?

And while you are at it, stop dancing around the issue I have posed three times now - that in your system - God is the author of evil.

--this is a self/man centered religion

And your sister probably dates drunken sailors but I usually try not to say silly things that don’t make sense.

But the Christian system finds nothing wrong with Eden before the Fall--it was perfect! Adam and Eve could have surely had childen, as many as they ever wanted and without pain! Their friendship with God, being able to converse with Him face to face, themselves being made righteous and holy, would would have continued and blossomed. I know this simply by my relationship with my parents

What possible evidence do you have (besides your relationship with your parents) that Adam and Eve could surely have had children?

So there is something better than being forgiven: NOT HAVING TO BE FORGIVEN! Sin is not necessary, that's part of what makes it so bad, and then it leads to death.

I don’t know that sin is “necessary” either but it is certainly unavoidable. There is no man, save Christ, who is or was free from sin, so I don’t understand your point.

I have heard that argument from atheists. It is invalid because it fails to recognize our free will and more importantly our responsibilty to not sin. God gave us freedom and we abuse it every day. He gave Adam and Eve the same freedom and they abused it. Same story with Satan.

It’s not an atheist argument. It is a classical theological and philosophical dilemma. It’s called theodicy and has been debated unsuccessfully by the religion’s best and brightest minds and remains (outside of Mormonism) unsolved as far as I know.

It doesn’t just apply to moral evil, but to all evil which philosophically also includes pain and suffering, natural disasters, accidents, etc. The dilemma is this: How can an omnipotent, omni-benevolent and omniscient deity permit so much evil.

Theodicy deals with the problem of evil. Usually it is an attempt to show that it is possible to affirm the omnipotence of God, the love of God, and the reality of evil without contradiction. The skeptic's argument generally is that given the reality of evil, we must sacrifice either the power (omnipotence) or the love (goodness) of God. A dilemma arises. If we give up the omnipotence of God, it appears that God cannot prevent or overcome evil. If we forego the goodness of God, it seems that God will not prevent or overcome evil. Most theodicies attempt to show that this dilemma is only apparent and that it is possible to affirm both that God is all-powerful and perfectly loving, despite the presence of real evil in the world. - K. Cauthen

The book of Job deals with theodicy and the problem of evil but doesn’t solve it. It is said that this is probably the biggest single reason that people leave religion... because the explanation to the problem of evil offered by Christianity do not ring true with people and match what their experience tells them - that the standard explanations turn out to be pious frauds.

What you just offered as a solution - that people exercise free will - is only one of many explanations but only explains evil to a small degree. After all, it is God who created free agency, created the minds and personalities of those who exercise it, or at least created the conditions and dynamics that would shape those personalities, created temptation or at least created the tempters and created everything that exists without which nothing that is exists would exist.

You can’t say that yes, I left the pornography out on the coffee table but I can’t be blamed that the kids came by and looked at it.

Same with God, he gave us free will, a perfectly good thing which allows us to love and do want's right, but we abuse it by hating and doing wrong. The Fall was man's fault not God's--He punished us and had every right to destroy us but decided to give us Jesus instead.

Sure - god created Adam, Eve and all their flaws, created the serpent, created the forbidden fruit and set up the dynamics whereby Adam and Even would inevitably sin, just as God knew they would when he created them and the tempter and the temptation. Then, after they did exactly what he knew they would (this according to your belief system) he not only held them guilty and punished them, but also every single man, woman and child that came after them --- yeah, as if my daughter had anything to do with Adam and Eve’s sin that she should be punished for it.

To try and pin evil on God is if it were His fault is to deny responsibility for your actions.

Don’t misstate my position. The Mormon position is that man is responsible for his own transgressions. It is your position that you, Red, are held responsible for Adams transgression.

This also makes Him powerless to ever stop evil. Why even worship such a weak God? The system is supreme, not God. The LDS God is subject to evil: he can't solve it, he came from a system that relies on it,

This is just more of your dogmatic nonsense. Who says that God is powerful or can’t halt evil? That’s not my position. That’s not the LDS position.

It is little fun arguing with you if you make up a Mormon position and then attack your made up idea.

I hope all the above has helped to answer this. In short, the idea of "opposition in all things" is a pagan dogma. I read it all the time in pagan/occultic liturature.

Just as I read all the time in devil worshipping magazines that your mother sells Amway. But I am trying not to make silly statements.

Again, the idea of "oppositon" leads to death. It is not Biblical. It makes joy a tainted thing, still remembering the woe past or the woe to come. It perverts forgiveness as simply a matter of course, not the undeserved miracle gift from God that it is.

blah, blah blah. If you have something to offer in terms of reason, facts, scripture that support your ideas then by all means, serve it up, but can we dispense with the endless sermonizing - please?

Snow, I know what you don't have. You do not have the security of knowing that you will be with your god for the rest of eternity. Sure you might have a real good shot at Terrestrial glory, and you may have a temple marriage giving you an even better shot at the Celestial. But you can fail at this. Every Mormon I talk to knows that they can fail and spend eternity apart from their Heavenly Father. You are no different, you might not live with your god if you fail.

But here is what I have: I have no fear. I have God's friendship forever, not because I'm special but because Christ suffered. The gift was offered and I received it. Now I will be with my Abba forever. No religion I have studied can offer anything like that! You do not know this joy Snow!! It's there, take it!!!

I think it fine and dandy that you’ve found religion Red. I am happy that you think it’s special. I even thank you for your testimony - but I find your vision of religion too shallow and uninspired for my tastes.

[Red]

Originally posted by Snow@Nov 26 2005, 05:41 PM

Red,

Yes, I know that you didn’t say that exalted man ever had to be separated from God - and I don’t mean to misstate your argument - it’s just that you presented the same simplistic picture that all the critics do, you sum up as a complex issue as their is in theology in a few sentences and think you have captured it accurately. That’s what bothers me the most, not that there are or aren’t planet or endless progeny, but that people think they can adequately describe LDS doctrine where even today’s leadership and scholars in the Church doesn’t seem to know much about it - because very little about it has been revealed so far. 

←

Or they won’t own up to it, knowing that in the end it only glorifies man. Perhaps in the same way that you as a Mormon can’t seem to trust everything your prophets have said, you know that some things they have taught lead to very bad places. What you are doing here is copping out. If there is no LDS Scripture warning against my conclusions as if they were heresies, then you have a problem. And these conclusions are NOT my “interpretations” or my “conjecture.” I’m a college boy, we are both well aware that I am no genius, so do you really think that I would tell someone to their face that their religion is false, that they are presently doomed to hell, and that the only one who can save them is the Jesus I know—all based on an opinion of mine?

No. I see a deadly implication in your church’s teachings. An implication is not a matter of personal interpretation, it is something that is expressed in the words whether we like it or not. For example, when Joseph Smith teaches (as a prophet) that 1) God was not always God, 2) God had a father who had a father who had a father… 3) that you are to follow in the footsteps of all those (gods) who have gone before you… …what do you think the implication is?

Or when the D/C teaches that women in the celestial kingdom will bear the souls of men, and remember that 1) your church also teaches that you have a heavenly mother, 2) you had a pre-mortal life, 3) and that you had to come to earth for a probation… … what is the implication there?

You see, when you say “it’s too complex, we just don’t know” you are copping out and then accusing me of being ignorant. Snow, you are either misinformed or misleading yourself along with others.

[Red]

Originally posted by Snow@Nov 26 2005, 05:41 PM

Yes both have evil (persay). The difference is that one is subjected to sin/death as a consequence of man's sin, without God at fault--but this will not continue forever, evil will cease to exist one day because it should never have been in the first place

Huh? What do you mean it shouldn’t have been there? Didn’t God create the universe and all in it? Didn’t God create what he intended to create? In your model God is the author of evil and fully responsible for every bit of it.

And, in your idea of how things work, evil is never eliminated. just subjugated. It still exists - just constrained to hell.

←

Actually, evil will cease to exist. But first, are we all responsible for our own sins or not? We are, and so God is perfectly justified in condemning us to hell (or outer darkness or anywhere unpleasant). But if we insult God by making Him out to be the author of evil (including sin) then we blame Him for our sins. You say that Grace and Works go together (and I agree) but remember that with Free Agency comes Responsibility. You don’t even have to read the Bible for that one, what did Peter Parker’s uncle say? “With great power comes great responsibility.” And not to forget that Paul said, “brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another.” (Galatians 5:13, KJV). Do not blaspheme by calling God the author of evil (though I understand your real position, which is actually worse).

Oh but wait! Look-look! Here it is—God is the author of evil, says it right here: “Out of the mouth of the most High proceedeth not evil and good?” (Lamentations 3:38, KJV). But then read the next verses: “Wherefore doth a living man complain, a man for the punishment of his sins? Let us search and try our ways, and turn again to the LORD.” Yes, God is not afraid to give us a taste of our own medicine. Evil in the world is a result of our own rebellion, not God’s plan. But didn’t He see it coming? Of course, He’ll use it against us, we chose it, we deserve every drop of it.

Now back to Evil ceasing to exist someday. Let’s define it clearly: Biblically speaking evil sums up SIN, DEATH, and SUFFERING. And Biblically speaking, all these things will cease.

Here is a glimpse of the Hope I have: “And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea. And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God. And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away. And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new” (Revelation 21:1-5).

No more death, and no more suffering, period. Did Joseph Smith alter this at all in the JST? No. And at this point with everyone having been “raised incorruptible,” there is no more sin either.

Death is completely gone, even the people in the lake of fire will be immortal, able to endure every moment. They won’t be sinning either, not enough time amidst their punishment…. “Oh but there’s still suffering! See, evil will not always be gone, only subjugated!” Wrong. Suffering is something that happens to the innocent, it is an injustice, however the anguish that the wicked will experience will be their Just punishment. So even the problem of suffering is solved, because when those who sow evil finally reap suffering, there is no problem.

In short, God is not the author of Evil (sin, death, suffering) because He gave us the capacity to love Him, i.e. Free Will. More to come…

[Red]

Originally posted by Snow@Nov 26 2005, 05:41 PM

But in Mormonism the sin was not a consequence but a necessary vehicle for exaltation; there is also no end in sight, sin/death will happen again because exaltation must continue

Again - so what? We believe that there is opposition in all things. That you don’t like it matters not one iota. You said such a system is evil and when challenge to support your idea all you do is repeat that you think it is evil. Stop dancing around - can you show that it is evil or not?

←

Well let’s see…Again, to blame God for evil is to refuse responsibility for our own sins (whether Adam’s or ours). If you say that sin and death are just part of salvation, i.e. that there must always be opposition, then you are still refusing accountability for your own sins, blaming the system. Yes, I know you like to say that “men are condemned for their own sins and not Adam’s,” but that is a high-handed deceptive half truth. Instead, God condemned us all in Adam so that He could raise us all in Christ, not just to be an ogre.

You said earlier:

“In the LDS view of the universe, God is the creator, but not ex nihilo and man’s essence, what we call ‘intelligence’ is co-eternal with God and God need not have created either evil nor the situations from which evil must inevitably flow.”

To which I say again that such a god would be powerless to solve the problem of evil; i.e. he will never be able to, let alone even try to solve the problem. It will simply occur again and again. Also, evil or sin does NOT inevitably flow from ANY situation because we have free will; not to mention this little gem: “God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it” (1 Corinthians 10:13). So God always provides a way out, whether He knows we’ll give in or not. If this is true, then Adam and Eve had the same opportunity to not sin. They could have refused Satan like Joseph refused Potiphar’s wife and/or chosen the Tree of Life like Jesus had chosen to die for us.

Now you call “opposition in all things” essentially good, and I call it evil…let’s look at 2 Nephi 2:22-23—

“…if Adam [and Eve] had not transgressed he [they] would not have fallen…doing no good, for they knew no sin.”

To Christian ears this is blasphemy. Think about it, Jesus never sinned yet He performed the most pure and good act ever done in the history of the universe. We know that, “he hath made him [Christ] to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him” (2 Corinthians 5:21). Also, “we have not a high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin” (Hebrew 4:15).

If we are of “the same species” as Jesus and God, as you said before, and if “those who know no sin cannot do good” (paraphrase); then Jesus is subject to this law, and so He must have sinned sometime in the past, otherwise he would not have known how do good, let alone sacrifice himself for us.

Now of course that is Biblically false, and you certainly won’t find it written in any LDS literature, but instead I am showing you a deadly implication of what your church does teach. So there is one reason why the idea that “there must always be opposition; we must know sin to do good” is evil. It makes Jesus out to be a sinner.

Otherwise, I have stated before that sin leads to death, and if any system relies on sin for salvation of any kind then that system is not of God, and is evil. You say “so what.” I say prove that “opposition” is any good at all, just because you believe it or your church says so does not make it good.

Also, you seem unsatisfied with the answer to suffering/evil in the book of Job. First of all, “where were you when…” and as Paul said, “who are you O man…” But you forget one very important detail: God restored Job, and at the end of everything evil will be destroyed, God will be victorious and we will reign with Him.

But in your system this probation cycle will simply continue on another world (or anywhere) and another, offering no lasting victory. That is a far worse answer to evil than your understanding of Job.

[Red]

Originally posted by Snow@Nov 26 2005, 05:41 PM

--this is a self/man centered religion

And your sister probably dates drunken sailors but I usually try not to say silly things that don’t make sense.

←

Wow. According to Snow my family is sure messed up. Next week we’ll be on Springer, I’ve been practicing my chair throw.

But anyway, prove that it is not self centered, because from where I’m standing it seems that 1) the whole point of Mormonism is to get to the greatest glory possible. And not only that, but 2) you have subjected God to this purpose as well, putting words in His mouth like, “it is my [God’s] work and glory to bring about the exaltation of mankind” (reference? D/C? I was unable to track it down). The first point doesn’t sound any different than any other worldly religion like Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism or even Catholicism. And the second irks me in that it acts as if God owed us something, when He really owes us nothing—we are traitors and unworthy servants, and very fortunate that He decided against vaporizing us.

But most of all, it seems to me that if you attain Celestial Glory, become the father of the souls of men and send them to a world for probation—if you become “a god”—then you, not God, will be worshipped as God. Again, as a Christian I hear that and think, “isn’t this whole ‘becoming gods’ thing exactly the same old trick Satan tried in the garden?” Really, if you think about it, every sin comes from the desire to be God or a god, i.e. prideful rebellion.

[Red]

Originally posted by Snow@Nov 26 2005, 05:41 PM

But the Christian system finds nothing wrong with Eden before the Fall--it was perfect! Adam and Eve could have surely had childen, as many as they ever wanted and without pain! Their friendship with God, being able to converse with Him face to face, themselves being made righteous and holy, would would have continued and blossomed. I know this simply by my relationship with my parents

What possible evidence do you have (besides your relationship with your parents) that Adam and Eve could surely have had children?

←

To clarify, the idea that the relationship between God and man would only have blossomed without the Fall is proven by my relationship with my parents. Essentially, disobeying them never brought us any closer, but obeying them instilled more and trust and laid the foundation for a richer adult to adult relationship. The same would have occurred between God and Adam, their father/son-like relationship would have only grown over time without any disobedience on Adam’s part. And don’t you think that when Adam was ready that God would have gladly explained the difference between good and evil, if only Adam had asked? Don’t you think that the mere act of obedience would clearly show the difference without actually sinning? You mentioned you were a father, you would know about these father/child things better than me, but I am sure of one thing: that you do not want your children to sin in any way; you don’t want them to repeat your mistakes.

Now I challenge you: what possible evidence would you ever provide to show that Adam and Eve COULDN’T have had children without sinning first?

I’ll make my case here, that they were very capable of having children before the fall:

The first observation I would make is in Genesis 1:22 when God blesses the sea creatures and the birds saying: “Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.” Now the point is that Mankind received the same command, but the birds did not have to disobey God in order to have offspring—they couldn’t possibly disobey, they’re animals! So we see that it is not necessary for a “nephesh” to fall before being allowed to have offspring. “Nephesh” by the way can refer to animals or humans, it means “a breathing creature” or a “soul” (Strong's H5315; NASB Hebrew-Greek Dictionary). God breathed into Adam the breath of life and Adam became a “nephesh” (Genesis 2:7). Granted humans and animals are different in many obvious respects, but I find it inconsistent to think that God blessed the animals with reproduction without sin or any condition whatever, but then in your church’s thinking He desired man to have the same privilege but only on the condition that we fall.

In verse 28 it says, “God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish [or “fill” as NASB renders it] the earth.” Ask yourself, does this command imply any waiting? Or in other words, does this command imply that Adam and Eve were presently unable to carry out the command? Does God imply that they should wait for any other time to begin multiplying than the immediate present? I answer no to all three. This is common sense, when God tells you to do something that implies two things, 1) that you are fully capable of doing so, and 2) don’t wait around and delay your obedience. For example, Abraham had the means of travel and later the ram, Noah had all the wood he needed, and Gideon had the troops. So when God commands that Adam and Eve are to multiply the human race it would be very illogical to interject the idea that they couldn’t do so when God had just told them to do it.

In verse 31 it reads: “God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good.” Now if all creation was “very good” it was not deficient in any way—Adam and Eve’s inability to reproduce while all the other animals could, would certainly be a deficiency. We must conclude the two were fully functioning human beings.

“Oh but God was intending to provide a way, even though they couldn’t actually multiply right then” you might say. Aside from the above point that a command from God means you can and should carry it out as soon as possible, you should also ask yourself: was God kidding around when He said, “of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die” (Genesis 2:17). No, God was not kidding, He was dead serious. He said “do not eat of that tree,” there was no two ways about it. So the point is that the means with which to multiply could not be found in eating from that tree—if anything, they would expect to be stricken impotent and barren for their sin, but God was gracious and so here we are. The most logical conclusion from this point is that they were already able to have children.

Now in Genesis 2:24 we read, “Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.” Now why do men leave their homes and become one flesh with their wives? Because Adam did with Eve. We have right here the first marriage, and I personally would even suggest that they consummated at this point as well. Moses writes in the next verse that, “they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.” Notice that Eve is called his “wife.” I am no scholar of Jewish marriage law, but as far as I understand it, the marriage is not official until the act of consummation. So when Moses says that Eve is now Adam’s wife, the original Israelite hearers would know that they had indeed consummated. Also in 3:6 Adam is called Eve’s husband, so this is clear evidence that the normal husband/wife relationship was going on, even up to the point of the Fall.

In 3:16 God tells Eve, “I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children...” This curse implies two things: 1) Eve understood what “herayon” was (conception/pregnancy; Strong’s H2032), and 2) she was already capable of becoming pregnant but now would bear children in suffering whereas she would not have before. In order for your church’s position to be correct, the wording would need to be more like, “I God, will now grant you the ability to have offspring, but with it I will bring upon you much suffering.” Fortunately it does not say anything like that. God’s curse implies that pregnancy was already a possibility for Eve (she might even have already been pregnant for all we know), and that instead of being a pure joy, it would now be mixed with misery. The bottom line was that she was a fully functioning woman, being familiar with pregnancy and so capable of it, even before the Fall.

Lastly in Genesis 4:1 it reads, “And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived…” Now if you were to say, “See, the Bible only mentions them having relations and conceiving until after the Fall; therefore they must not have been able to do so beforehand,” you would be wrong. First of all, just because this is the first clear mention of the two actually conceiving a child does not eliminate the possibility that they may have been able to do so before. The statement does not imply that they were exercising a new ability, but that this is merely the first time she conceived. The same scenario would be true for many other newly weds. Now we can’t say that God was allowing them to have relations but preventing Eve from getting pregnant; that would be very contradictory to His clear directive of “be fruitful and multiply” and would also amount to God punishing her for obeying (not eating the fruit) and then waiting till she disobeyed to bless her. The true God does not act this way, Isaiah 1:19-20: He rewards obedience and punishes disobedience, not the other way around.

So based on a study of Genesis 1-4, there is no logical reason to assume that Adam and Eve could not have had children until they fell into sin. They were just like us, and such a thing as childbearing is a natural part of being human, or any “nephesh” for that matter; fallen or not.

So your prophets and your scriptures say that Adam and Eve could not bear children before the Fall. That claim would certainly rest on their credibility wouldn’t it?

[Red]

Originally posted by Snow@Nov 26 2005, 05:41 PM

So there is something better than being forgiven: NOT HAVING TO BE FORGIVEN! Sin is not necessary, that's part of what makes it so bad, and then it leads to death.

I don’t know that sin is “necessary” either but it is certainly unavoidable. There is no man, save Christ, who is or was free from sin, so I don’t understand your point.

←

Again, sin is not unavoidable; God always provides a way out. If you say that sin is unavoidable then you are excusing yourself (or anyone) from it, which would lead you to blame God for your own (or even Adam’s) sin. Also, as mentioned before, your church does teach that sin is actually necessary for exaltation (i.e. the opposition law, the ability to do good comes from knowing sin). This law would also have to apply to Jesus if true, and if he is also human, which would mean that he did sin at least once in order to understand good, and therefore be a willing sacrifice. This of course is a terrible heresy, and would render His sacrifice useless.

So my point is that sin only harms our relationship with God. It separates us from God, it does not set us on a road to some exaltation which will lead us back to him, but sends us in the opposite direction. Instead, a good relationship with God is best experienced when we obey Him, just as with our own parents. Therefore, sin should not be in the equation anywhere, but we put it there don’t we? So Christ died and rose to redeem us from sin, another testimony to sin’s pointlessness. The point is that there is no point to sin, yet your church insists that there is.

[Red]

Originally posted by Snow@Nov 26 2005, 05:41 PM

I have heard that argument from atheists. It is invalid because it fails to recognize our free will and more importantly our responsibilty to not sin. God gave us freedom and we abuse it every day. He gave Adam and Eve the same freedom and they abused it. Same story with Satan.

It’s not an atheist argument. It is a classical theological and philosophical dilemma. It’s called theodicy and has been debated unsuccessfully by the religion’s best and brightest minds and remains (outside of Mormonism) unsolved as far as I know.

←

And would you like to propose exactly how the problem is solved in Mormonism? (I’m sure the atheists I knew would love to hear it).

[Red]

Originally posted by Snow@Nov 26 2005, 05:41 PM

You can’t say that yes, I left the pornography out on the coffee table but I can’t be blamed that the kids came by and looked at it.

←

You forget that children are also sinful, at least by 8 yrs old by your church’s standard. By this time little boys are naturally inclined to investigate that sort of thing (I remember being that age). You are right in blaming yourself for causing them to stumble, because they are inclined to do so.

However, Adam and Eve were not naturally inclined to disobey; all was “very good,” including them, therefore being naturally inclined to obey. So the tree was not a temptation to them—imagine being able say, “Yeah, I know God put that tree there, but I’ll obey him and not eat from it and love Him instead; that tree only shows me that He loves me enough to let me love Him by choice.” Add in God’s prohibition against it and the providence of every other tree, and Adam had no excuse for what he did.

[Red]

Originally posted by Snow@Nov 26 2005, 05:41 PM

Same with God, he gave us free will, a perfectly good thing which allows us to love and do want's right, but we abuse it by hating and doing wrong. The Fall was man's fault not God's--He punished us and had every right to destroy us but decided to give us Jesus instead.

Sure - god created Adam, Eve and all their flaws, created the serpent, created the forbidden fruit and set up the dynamics whereby Adam and Even would inevitably sin, just as God knew they would when he created them and the tempter and the temptation. Then, after they did exactly what he knew they would (this according to your belief system) he not only held them guilty and punished them, but also every single man, woman and child that came after them --- yeah, as if my daughter had anything to do with Adam and Eve’s sin that she should be punished for it.

←

No, Adam and Eve were not made by God with flaws but were perfect just like Satan was perfect (Ezekiel 28:15). No, Adam and Eve were not doomed to sin because God provided a way out. Yes, both you and your daughter are both sinners as a result of Adam’s sin—you are both “dead” and naturally inclined to sin because of him. Why would God allow this or inflict this on the rest of the race? He condemns us collectively in order to redeem us collectively, as you will find throughout the letter to the Romans.

[Red]

Originally posted by Snow@Nov 26 2005, 05:41 PM

To try and pin evil on God is if it were His fault is to deny responsibility for your actions.

Don’t misstate my position. The Mormon position is that man is responsible for his own transgressions. It is your position that you, Red, are held responsible for Adams transgression.

←

Ok. Then if I am right then you are still between a rock and a hard place. Biblically speaking we are “dead” because of Adam, condemned for unbelief, and punished for our own sins. So that is my position.

[Red]

Originally posted by Snow@Nov 26 2005, 05:41 PM

This also makes Him powerless to ever stop evil. Why even worship such a weak God? The system is supreme, not God. The LDS God is subject to evil: he can't solve it, he came from a system that relies on it,

This is just more of your dogmatic nonsense. Who says that God is powerful or can’t halt evil? That’s not my position. That’s not the LDS position.

It is little fun arguing with you if you make up a Mormon position and then attack your made up idea.

←

Funny how that works huh? Of course no Mormon in their right mind would say that God can’t or won’t solve evil. Instead I’m pointing out a deadly implication of your church’s teachings, specifically your statement (I’ll quote you again): “God is the creator, but not ex nihilo and man’s essence, what we call ‘intelligence’ is co-eternal with God and God need not have created either evil nor the situations from which evil must inevitably flow.” If evil must inevitably come from creating “non-ex-nilhilo” then God has no control over it. Also, if god was once a man who needed a probation for exaltation then he is subject to evil. Snow, please reject the god you think you know, and give the living God a chance.

[Red]

Originally posted by Snow@Nov 26 2005, 05:41 PM

I hope all the above has helped to answer this. In short, the idea of "opposition in all things" is a pagan dogma. I read it all the time in pagan/occultic liturature.

Just as I read all the time in devil worshipping magazines that your mother sells Amway. But I am trying not to make silly statements.

←

Nope, she ain’t done no sellin nothing since I back-handed her with da lawn furniture!

But really, all I’m saying is that I see this “opposition” idea in pagan myths I have read, or at least fantasy stories/movies.

[Red]

Originally posted by Snow@Nov 26 2005, 05:41 PM

Again, the idea of "oppositon" leads to death. It is not Biblical. It makes joy a tainted thing, still remembering the woe past or the woe to come. It perverts forgiveness as simply a matter of course, not the undeserved miracle gift from God that it is.

blah, blah blah. If you have something to offer in terms of reason, facts, scripture that support your ideas then by all means, serve it up, but can we dispense with the endless sermonizing - please?

←

The best response you had right then was “blah blah blah…”? And it wouldn’t be the first time. Then you tell me to stop sermonizing. Wow.

But anyway, the purpose of the “sermons” is try to get the main ideas out there, let you or anyone raise there objections, and then proceed, knowing better which questions to answer.

[Red]

Originally posted by Snow@Nov 26 2005, 05:41 PM

I think it fine and dandy that you’ve found religion Red. I am happy that you think it’s special. I even thank you for your testimony - but I find your vision of religion too shallow and uninspired for my tastes.

←

If the Bible is not inspired then neither is my faith. No, I have not found a religion. To hell with religion, it is a dead thing. Instead, God calls me His friend, I call Him Lord, and that’s all there really is to it.

But this last paragraph you wrote shows the key difference between us: you can think it is “fine” that I “found religion” and go about your day, but I cannot. For you, religion is a personal thing, “to each his own” perhaps, but I cannot accept that. So many religions take that stance: Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Wicca, and philosophies like Agnosticism, Humanism. All these will say in one way or another that all of us will get to heaven somehow, eventually. This is easier to digest but this mentality will only divide mankind and keep us all spinning our wheels till we die, just like Satan would like. You see Snow, I cannot say “hey buddy, glad you found Mormonism! Have a nice life!” or “thank-you for your testimony that’s so great for you.” No, I cannot let the idea that millions of people are rejecting God and going to hell forever, just role of my back. Combined with the knowledge that God can and will use me to change peoples’ hearts and minds, and save them from death row, I am driven to witness and debate, to hopefully open eyes and leave you with no excuse.

So maybe I could say it like this: you can let people be non-Mormons, thinking that they’ll be “ok.” But I cannot let people reject Jesus, knowing that they will not be ok if they do. You’re thinking goes right in step with every other worldly religion, yet I find Christian evangelical types to be alone in the idea that there is no salvation of any kind apart from Jesus; no consolation prizes. In this case I would rather be alone and right than one of many but wrong. Because you see, even if I am wrong and all others are right, I’ll be ok. But if I am right, then all others, included you have a problem. Is it worth it to believe that all (or mostly all) paths lead to heaven? No.

[Red]

P.S.

This last thought didn't flow to well with all the above, but I'll post it here for what it's worth:

The book of Moses in the PGP would like to portray it [God's prohibition against the tree] differently: “of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it, nevertheless, thou mayest choose for thyself, for it is given unto thee; but remember that I forbid it, for in the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die” (Moses 3:17). That simply is not the true God talking. I’m sorry but this god is a push-over. I am hard pressed to actually fear him, let alone would I take his “command” seriously if I were Adam.

[Setheus]

Red, it took you HOW MANY POSTS to say absolutly nothing of importance or value?

[Snow]

Originally posted by Red@Dec 18 2005, 03:31 PM

In short, God is not the author of Evil (sin, death, suffering) because He gave us the capacity to love Him, i.e. Free Will.  More to come…

←

I don't even know what you're talking about anymore.

What I do know is that is a universe where God created EVERYTHING, EVERYTHING that exists was created by that god. If evil exists, it had a creator, the creator of everything.

[Red]

Originally posted by Snow+Dec 18 2005, 08:42 PM-->

<!--QuoteBegin-Red@Dec 18 2005, 03:31 PM

In short, God is not the author of Evil (sin, death, suffering) because He gave us the capacity to love Him, i.e. Free Will.  More to come…

←

I don't even know what you're talking about anymore.

What I do know is that is a universe where God created EVERYTHING, EVERYTHING that exists was created by that god. If evil exists, it had a creator, the creator of everything.

←

Here's what all that posting amounts to: God did NOT create evil, He made everything and he made it all "GOOD" (the Bible says so). Evil was NOT part of the original creation. Instead, Evil (sin, death and suffering) results from the abuse of our free-will, NOT an inevitable result of situations. In this system evil is subject to be terminated by God.

But in the LDS system evil was inevitable, meaning has no real control over it, and evil is necesarry for exaltion, implicated God as a participant in a system which relies on evil. Since evil (probation) is necesarry for exaltation, evil will continue to dominate on more worlds for the rest of eternity. Add this up and the LDS/God cannot or will not solve evil.

Snow, your ststement that "If evil exists, it had a creator, the creator of everything" is fallacious, and based on your own reasoning (it is not Biblical). It has one major hole: that when God made everything He made it good, therefore God is not the creator of evil. If you don't understand this then I don't think you've read your bible very much (or trusted it like you should).

Now seriously, if anyone has anything thoughtful to say then please do.

[Red]

Originally posted by Red@Dec 18 2005, 07:14 PM

P.S.

This last thought didn't flow to well with all the above, but I'll post it here for what it's worth:

The book of Moses in the PGP would like to portray it [God's prohibition against the tree] differently: “of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it, nevertheless, thou mayest choose for thyself, for it is given unto thee; but remember that I forbid it, for in the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die” (Moses 3:17).  That simply is not the true God talking.  I’m sorry but this god is a push-over.  I am hard pressed to actually fear him, let alone would I take his “command” seriously if I were Adam.

←

this post was actually meant for the Good God/Bad God topic. got mixed up witrh all my copying and pasting (I wrote all this out on a word document first), oh well