Is God just?

[Dr T]

That's a great question Snow. I have not read up or thought too much about original sin but I believe that through one man came sin into the world so I see that being through Adam. The mechanics of how it works I cannot say but that's where I come down on that Snow. I see children as needing to be molded and shaped and thought from the very beginning how to behave. I do not think that we are sinless unless Jesus presents us that way to the Father.

[Snow]

That's a great question Snow. I have not read up or thought too much about original sin but I believe that through one man came sin into the world so I see that being through Adam. The mechanics of how it works I cannot say but that's where I come down on that Snow. I see children as needing to be molded and shaped and thought from the very beginning how to behave. I do not think that we are sinless unless Jesus presents us that way to the Father.

Can you explain how a deity so unjust that he would not only blame innocent people for the actions of someone else thousands of year ago, but then kill them because they deserved it on account of the actions that they did not commit... is worthy of worship?

[prisonchaplain]

One God PC. God asked Himself, regardless of the number hypostases. And obviously it wasn't at the time that the Son was mortal... unless you think it was just decided on the fly.

God, omnipotent, omniscient God, choosing to lay down his own life to save mankind is so far removed from killing innocent babies because Pharaoh has a hard heart that I just can't fathom what trying to get at.

You can focus on the unity of God, but there is no denying that the FATHER asked the SON to become a human sacrifice. So, despite an omnipotence that was latent, he willingly become a little lower than the angels...the crucifixion really did hurt. And the memory of it will remain for eternity. You imply that the Father literally felt everything the Son did. That's a neat philosophical position, but not one held by trinitarians.

Think of the differences: Voluntary vs non-volutary.

Yes, and victims of rape don't choose to be rape. Crack babies don't choose to be born that way. Fetal Alcohol Syndrom babies don't choose to be born that way. Yet, God permits all of these. And, in so many of the cases, it is indeed the sins of the parents that fall upon the children. All wars are that way. And, if God is omniscient, perhaps he knows of the guilt those little ones would have earned?

Supreme Being vs mortal babies.

Jesus was fully human. He felt everything on every level. Worse for him, his memory doesn't fade.

In order to redeem mankind vs being mad at Pharaoh.

So, you condemn all biblical incidents of God bringing judgment upon whole societies?

[prisonchaplain]

Did you even read that?

The arguments are:

1. They were all evil so they deserved to be killed (which doesn't quite explain how it was okay to take the virgins as booty and steal their cows).

It would explain why God ordered them killed though. And yes, I skimmed the article before I posted it. After all, I also make sure the site has no ANTI material on it.

2. If you think killing Israel's enemies was bad, just wait until God kills billions of people in the future.

You may recall that most Protestants and Catholics believe in an eternal hellfire that may well contain billions of souls.

3. The babies were sinners and deserved what they got.

If I'm not mistaken, the argument was actually that the youngsters are often trained from a very early age to hate God's people. It's a very reasonable assumption that the children of Jew-haters will also hate Jews.

4. Even though the babies deserved to be killed, killing them was a favor.

Two sides of the same argument. By killing the future enemies of Israel, they may also have spared their souls.

Are you sure that website wasn't written by a bunch of atheists trying to make Christians look like dangerous nuts?

:::in deadpan tone::: Yeah...I'm sure.

[Justice]

... I believe that through one man came sin into the world so I see that being through Adam.

Yes, sin came into the world through Adam. But, don't misinterpret what that means. Adam did nothing to force any man to sin, he brought the possibility for all people to choose between good and evil. You make your own choices.

He brough sin into the world, meaning it is now possible for you to sin. You are accountable for your own actions, and Adam for his.

It's like a beer party with no beer. Adam brought the beer, but doesn't make you drink. In fact, that Adam made it possible for us to choose is a good thing. Now we can be rewarded for not partaking of the evil. There is no reward for not partaking of something where you didn't have the choice. Think of justice and mercy where you and your kids are concerned. Same thing.

Better yet, let's choose to help others and spread God's message to the world instead of partaking of the evil. Let's be productive for God. It is a choice.

[Dr T]

Thanks Justice. Saying that Adam sinned and that only means that now you can too doesn't quite follow for me. That explanation doesn't account for his own free will to sin at all. I don't think that's all it allows. That is different about his decision to put something over God than any of our own sins? Like I said above, I have not thought too much about it yet but still your explanation does not do it for me. Thank you for sharing that idea with me though. :)

[Moksha]

Jesus was sent to become a human sacrifice. The Father asked him to come and do this. Heavenly Father's signature is on the Atonement. My point is that He's no more blameable for that than for the executions of wicked nations and peoples.

There must be some difference between a fulling consented to ritualistic killing for vicarious purposes and mass executions and rapes of men, women and children. The element of consent and scale alone would suggest the difference, not to mention that any of these items would get you locked up in Sanpete County, Utah.

When murder is committed in the name of God, should we ignore the man behind the curtain?

[prisonchaplain]

When murder is committed in the name of God, should we ignore the man behind the curtain?

So...were Moses and/or Joshua false prophets?

[martybess]

Again, how is it okay that the Father asked his Son to go and become a human sacrifice?

Christ wanted to come and be murdered knowing what it would accomplish. Could HF stop this agency? Wickedness killed Christ not HF. You may say well HF made the plan of redemption and so it was his will to have Christ murdered. Did he make the plan or was it the way it's always been. From the beginning, that is.

-Marty

[Seminarysnoozer]

I agree with what some people are saying here. When God removes people from this existence it is not "killing." He is just stopping something He has started. When we try to unjustly take Gods power in our hands without His authority, then it is "killing." I think there are many times God is being benevolent by removing people from this existence, lest they damn themselves further.

Kind of like, if you were administering a test and you saw one of the students marking "a" for every answer you might say, Okay that's enough, the test is over. Or if you looked over the shoulder of a student who was getting every answer right, you might say, okay you don't have to finish the rest. Or if a student was making so much noise, nobody else in the room was able to take the test, you would remove that student. With the knowledge that this life on earth is such a tiny part of our existence, I don't see anything wrong with God deciding who stays and who doesn't.

[Justice]

Thanks Justice. Saying that Adam sinned and that only means that now you can too doesn't quite follow for me. That explanation doesn't account for his own free will to sin at all. I don't think that's all it allows. That is different about his decision to put something over God than any of our own sins? Like I said above, I have not thought too much about it yet but still your explanation does not do it for me. Thank you for sharing that idea with me though. :)

Perhaps I chose a far too simplistic explantion. Truthfully, I have to do that for myself, not for others. I tend to understand things better when I exaggerate to extremes in both directions. That one was perhaps a bit too over-simplistic.

You know, through modern revelation (I hope that doesn't turn you off) we learn that Adam and Eve were presented conflicting commandments, one of omission and one of commission, that they had to choose between. This is hard for many to understand until they give it deep pondering and prayer, but they really couldn't break either commandment because they had an unlimited time in which to break or not break those 2 commandments.

They were immortal. So, at what point did the break the commandment not to replenish the earth? In a day? A wwek? A million years? They were immortal in the Garden and therefore had forever to follow that commandment.

The conflicting commandment was not to partake of the forbidden fruit (the tree of the knowledge of good and evil). Before I get into how it conflicted with the 1st commandment, let me ask the same question of this commandment... when wouold God know they kept the commandment? When they didn't partake of it after a day? A week? A million years? Again, the fact that they were immortal had everything to do with how they could keep or break the commandment.

They needed a time limit in order to show God they would keep the commandment.

So, here we are, they have one commandment to multiply and replensh the earth with seed after their kind (children). Incidentally, God used the fruit trees to teach them about seed and offspring of a kind. Anyway, they have a second commandment to not eat of the fruit. One a commandment of commission and the other a commandment of omission. By doing nothing they would keep one but not the other. By doing the other they could keep the first.

It was a choice between 2 commandments. Hence, it was a transgression, not a sin. But, a law was broken, and as a result man fell. Adam broke the second commandment so that he could keep the first. I believe the knowledge of how to keep the first (the knowledge of good and evil) was in partaking in the second commandment. Also, this brought time or mortality into the picture for all who would be born of Eve. They gave us the ability to die, they didn't die for us. That was Jesus CHrist who died for us.

Why was their a transgression and not a sin? Well, first we need to understand the difference.

Dictionary and Thesaurus - Merriam-Webster Online

Main Entry: trans·gres·sion

: an act, process, or instance of transgressing: as a : infringement or violation of a law, command, or duty

Main Entry: sin

1 a : an offense against religious or moral law

Do you see the difference? Transgressing is a violation of a law. It speaks nothing of the moral implications. However, a sin speaks directly against moral implication and becomes an offense against the law, because it is a choice made with knowledge and understanding. Transgression is that a law was broken, like the man who couldn't read the French sign that said "No Swimming," verse the man who could and decided to go swimming anyway. One acted without knowing while the other acted with full knowledge of the law.

Adam and Eve did not understand right and wrong, or the consequences of breaking a law (death) until after they partok of the fruit. This is why it was symbolically named the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. They gained the knowledge of good and evil afterward, unlike you and I who know good and evil and choose evil sometimes. We were given this knowledge of god and evil through their action of partaking the fruit. It doesn't mean we are forced to sin.

Also, a significant part of the story, and substantial evidence to support my interpretation, is that Adam and Eve did not have children while in the Garden, even being commanded to, and they did not know they were naked until after they partook of the fruit.

Maybe understanding how i see the difference between transgression and sin might help you to better understand my point of view. If not, I'll keep trying because I like you. :)

Edited October 27, 2009 by Justice

[Vort]

You know, through modern revelation (I hope that doesn't turn you off) we learn that Adam and Eve were presented conflicting commandments, one of omission and one of commission, that they had to choose between.

This is false. There is no modern revelation that states this.

Why was their a transgression and not a sin? Well, first we need to understand the difference.

The scriptures make no such distinction:

Alma 9:23-24

And now behold I say unto you, that if this people, who have received so many blessings from the hand of the Lord, should transgress contrary to the light and knowledge which they do have, I say unto you that if this be the case, that if they should fall into transgression, it would be far more tolerable for the Lamanites than for them. For behold, the promises of the Lord are extended to the Lamanites, but they are not unto you if ye transgress; for has not the Lord expressly promised and firmly decreed, that if ye will rebel against him that ye shall utterly be destroyed from off the face of the earth?

D&C 109:34

O Jehovah, have mercy upon this people, and as all men sin forgive the transgressions of thy people, and let them be blotted out forever.

Mosiah 2:33

For behold, there is a wo pronounced upon him who listeth to obey that spirit; for if he listeth to obey him, and remaineth and dieth in his sins, the same drinketh damnation to his own soul; for he receiveth for his wages an everlasting punishment, having transgressed the law of God contrary to his own knowledge.

D&C 104:9

Inasmuch as ye are cut off for transgression, ye cannot escape the buffetings of Satan until the day of redemption.

2 Nephi 9:46

Prepare your souls for that glorious day when justice shall be administered unto the righteous, even the day of judgment, that ye may not shrink with awful fear; that ye may not remember your awful guilt in perfectness, and be constrained to exclaim: Holy, holy are thy judgments, O Lord God Almighty—but I know my guilt; I transgressed thy law, and my transgressions are mine; and the devil hath obtained me, that I am a prey to his awful misery.

1 John 3:4

Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

[Moksha]

So...were Moses and/or Joshua false prophets?

This question is one of those darned if you do, darned if you don't type of questions. Let's just say that Moses gets a pass due to the timing of the tablets.

[prisonchaplain]

Christ wanted to come and be murdered knowing what it would accomplish. Could HF stop this agency? Wickedness killed Christ not HF. You may say well HF made the plan of redemption and so it was his will to have Christ murdered. Did he make the plan or was it the way it's always been. From the beginning, that is.

-Marty

Jesus did not want to be crucified. He pleaded with Heavenly Father, "If possible, take this cup from me. Nevertheless, not my will, but thine be done." Jesus submitted to becoming a human sacrifice because Heavenly Father asked him to. As for the beginning--what beginning? Father and Son are eternal.

[Justice]

This is false. There is no modern revelation that states this.

Modern revealtion is replete with good commentaries of the Fall. Here is this from Elder Oaks:

When Adam and Eve received the first commandment, they were in a transitional state, no longer in the spirit world but with physical bodies not yet subject to death and not yet capable of procreation. They could not fulfill the Father’s first commandment without transgressing the barrier between the bliss of the Garden of Eden and the terrible trials and wonderful opportunities of mortal life.

For reasons that have not been revealed, this transition, or “fall,” could not happen without a transgression—an exercise of moral agency amounting to a willful breaking of a law (see Moses 6:59). This would be a planned offense, a formality to serve an eternal purpose. The Prophet Lehi explained that “if Adam had not transgressed he would not have fallen” (2 Ne. 2:22), but would have remained in the same state in which he was created.

“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 Ne. 2:23).

But the Fall was planned, Lehi concludes, because “all things have been done in the wisdom of him who knoweth all things” (2 Ne. 2:24).

It was Eve who first transgressed the limits of Eden in order to initiate the conditions of mortality. Her act, whatever its nature, was formally a transgression but eternally a glorious necessity to open the doorway toward eternal life. Adam showed his wisdom by doing the same. And thus Eve and “Adam fell that men might be” (2 Ne. 2:25).

Some Christians condemn Eve for her act, concluding that she and her daughters are somehow flawed by it. Not the Latter-day Saints! Informed by revelation, we celebrate Eve’s act and honor her wisdom and courage in the great episode called the Fall (see Bruce R. McConkie, “Eve and the Fall,” Woman, Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1979, pp. 67–68). Joseph Smith taught that it was not a “sin,” because God had decreed it (see The Words of Joseph Smith, ed. Andrew F. Ehat and Lyndon W. Cook, Provo, Utah: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, 1980, p. 63). Brigham Young declared, “We should never blame Mother Eve, not the least” (in Journal of Discourses, 13:145). Elder Joseph Fielding Smith said: “I never speak of the part Eve took in this fall as a sin, nor do I accuse Adam of a sin. … This was a transgression of the law, but not a sin … for it was something that Adam and Eve had to do!” (Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, comp. Bruce R. McConkie, 3 vols., Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1954–56, 1:114–15).

This suggested contrast between a sin and a transgression reminds us of the careful wording in the second article of faith: “We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression” (emphasis added). It also echoes a familiar distinction in the law. Some acts, like murder, are crimes because they are inherently wrong. Other acts, like operating without a license, are crimes only because they are legally prohibited. Under these distinctions, the act that produced the Fall was not a sin—inherently wrong—but a transgression—wrong because it was formally prohibited. These words are not always used to denote something different, but this distinction seems meaningful in the circumstances of the Fall.

Entire article: LDS.org - Ensign Article - “The Great Plan of Happinessâ€

Think about it logically, Vort.

"Multiply and replenish the earth" requires them to do something in order to keep the commandment.

"Thou shalt not eat" requires that they do nothing in order to keep the commandment.

One is omission and the other commission.

[Vort]

Modern revealtion is replete with good commentaries of the Fall. Here is this from Elder Oaks:

A General Conference address does not constitute revealed doctrine. You are avoiding my point.

Think about it logically, Vort.

I have done so. But you still have not responded to my points.

"Multiply and replenish the earth" requires them to do something in order to keep the commandment.

"Thou shalt not eat" requires that they do nothing in order to keep the commandment.

One is omission and the other commission.

So what? The scriptures make it perfectly clear that Satan deceived Eve, and they were punished for their sin by being cut off from God's presence -- exactly as we are cut off for our sins.

Sure, I freely acknowledge the likelihood that there was plenty going on that we are not privy to, and that the Garden of Eden story we have is a highly stylized representation of a historical event that does not go into great detail about the specifics. Nevertheless, your analysis is shallow and scripturally unsound.

[Justice]

Well, it comes from years and years of study, ponder, and prayer over the creation, fall, and atonement. Perhaps you think it is shallow merely because you do not understand, or at least disagree?

Satan did deceive Eve, but over what? Alma 12 gives the clearest answer in scripture once understood.

As Elder Oaks pointed out, scripture (Bible and Book of Mormon) are not always clear on their distinction of sin and transgression. The terms can mean the same things. But, there is also a distinction between the two; a distinction that is made obvious by the conditions surrounding the choice Adam and Eve made to fall.

[Vort]

Well, it comes from years and years of study, ponder, and prayer over the creation, fall, and atonement. Perhaps you think it is shallow merely because you do not understand, or at least disagree?

Sure, that's entirely possible. I'm no prophet for the Church; my exegesis is not the final word.

But then, neither is yours.

Satan did deceive Eve, but over what? Alma 12 gives the clearest answer in scripture once understood.

According to your exegesis -- which is not the final word.

As Elder Oaks pointed out, scripture (Bible and Book of Mormon) are not always clear on their distinction of sin and transgression. The terms can mean the same things. But, there is also a distinction between the two; a distinction that is made obvious by the conditions surrounding the choice Adam and Eve made to fall.

On the contrary, it is not at all obvious.

[Justice]

Let me know if you'd like to discuss Alma 12 in private messages.

[Snow]

Jesus did not want to be crucified. He pleaded with Heavenly Father, "If possible, take this cup from me. Nevertheless, not my will, but thine be done." Jesus submitted to becoming a human sacrifice because Heavenly Father asked him to. As for the beginning--what beginning? Father and Son are eternal.

One God PC - a single ontological entity. You are claiming that God didn't want to be sacrificed and pleaded with God to avoid it.

[rameumptom]

Completely separate issue.

In the other cases you mentioned God, supposedly was actively involved in the evil. In the case of Christ, He ALLOWED it to happen but didn't cause it or order it... besides which, The Son, God, freely chose to sacrifice Himself. God choosing to give up His life is quite different than God killing innocent people.

But you miss an important issue here, Snow. If God does it, is it evil? Is it evil for Nephi to slay a disabled Laban, simply because God commanded it? Is it evil that God allows Hitler and others to terrorize millions? I mean, if God has all power, then he can just wink his eye and make everyone sing, "Kumbaya" together. Right?

This all misses the point. God lives by rules, just as we do. Otherwise, he wouldn't be God. Whether those rules are self-imposed or imposed by nature, is immaterial.

Does the destructions that God commands mean God is unjust or evil? Or is it that such fits into his divine plan? If there was only this life, then such actions by God would definitely seem chimerical and rash. However, given the concept of Spirit World and all getting a fair shake at salvation, then how is it unjust?

Doesn't Revelation tell us that Christ will wipe away all the tears and pain?

If we narrowly focus on each instance, rather than on God's entire plan, we can easily feel that such proves God to be unjust, or that the scriptures are unreliable. I reject those concepts as too narrowly defined.

God can, in the short term, be an angry and jealous God. However, in the long term he can be loving, forgiving, and ever ready to bring us back into his fold. That is an apparent pattern in the Bible, the Book of Mormon, and the D&C. Why would we disbelieve such a pattern, simply because we cannot look past the bridge of our nose?

[Gatorman]

Okay, I may be missing it, but, are there any examples from the new testament or the BoM AFTER Christ's atonement of these innocents being done evilly too at HFs command? If not, then I believe we have one part of the answer. There is no such thing as an innocent until the atonement. It was by the atonement that original sin was answered. Until then, man was required to perform their own sacrifices, because, they were sinners, even if they had never sinned. Children were born sinners, because, Adam's sin had not been answered. That is why Christ had to atone for those past sins as well. So, those women and children were not innocent in God's eyes. Maybe in our eyes today, as we believe sins have been answered for. However, at the time these events occured, there were no innocents. Christ was the first to take that mantle and then he sacrificed himself to give it to us all.

[rameumptom]

There were innocents before the atonement. The Book of Moses teaches that at least since the days of Enoch the concept of original sin was done away in Christ's atonement.

In Joseph Smith's day, the Lord chastised his people on many occasions, not because God is evil, but because they needed chastising in order to be saved/exalted in the last day.

[Gatorman]

And, if God is so just, why were the people at Huan's Mill allowed to die? Was he in collusion with the devil? God allowed Satan to tempt Job, because, God had faith in Job. Faith that Job could handle it. Faith that Job could prove to Satan that Satan was not as great as he thought. And, what do WE get out of the lesson? That, we can handle anything. That Satan is not powerful. So, by allowing Satan to tempt and curse Job, for so long, Job was blessed and we are blessed today. What an evil, colluding person HF is, clearly.

[prisonchaplain]

One God PC - a single ontological entity. You are claiming that God didn't want to be sacrificed and pleaded with God to avoid it.

You know the drill Snow...one God, three distinct persons. And yes, the fully human Jesus pleaded with his Father to be spared the crucifixion. You know this is true--it's in your canon, too.