As man is, god once was...

[ruthiechan]

And if he didn't notice the mismeasured table leg until after the accident happened? Such "honest mistakes" are brought to a jury all the time.

Ah, then it wouldn't get to a jury since he wouldn't need to be forced to do the right thing and pay for damages and making a new table for them. However, a mismeasured table leg going without notice is minute and would likely not cause an accident to happen.

[Vort]

Ah, then it wouldn't get to a jury since he wouldn't need to be forced to do the right thing and pay for damages and making a new table for them. However, a mismeasured table leg going without notice is minute and would likely not cause an accident to happen.

The "right thing" would have been for Jesus not to mismeasure the table leg, and thus spare the innocent child from injury or death. How much "moral stain" is there when we, through our "innocent" neglect, injure another person? I do not know the answer to that question, but it certainly seems there is at least some. But if Christ was morally spotless, as I believe him to have been, then there can be no case where he was guilty of such benign neglect.

[ruthiechan]

The "right thing" would have been for Jesus not to mismeasure the table leg, and thus spare the innocent child from injury or death. How much "moral stain" is there when we, through our "innocent" neglect, injure another person? I do not know the answer to that question, but it certainly seems there is at least some. But if Christ was morally spotless, as I believe him to have been, then there can be no case where he was guilty of such benign neglect.

Ah, so in your view it is a sin to spill milk, or to run too fast and slip, or to play the wrong note in a performance, or to not get the ratio of red and blue correct for a painting. I do not view these things as sinful. What you do AFTERWARD can be sinful, however.

[Vort]

Ah, so in your view it is a sin to spill milk, or to run too fast and slip, or to play the wrong note in a performance, or to not get the ratio of red and blue correct for a painting. I do not view these things as sinful. What you do AFTERWARD can be sinful, however.

No, that is incorrect. A mistake is not a sin, per se. But harming another person through your own negligence is a sin of some sort. There is moral turpitude involved when another is injured because we neglected to do what it was our duty to do.

Of course, we fail to live up perfectly to our full duty a hundred times per day. That is part of the human condition, and it almost never results in harm coming to another person. But sometimes it does. And when it does, we are liable -- both legally and morally.

If you posit that Jesus was burdened with like weaknesses, then it follows that at some point, he was guilty of a moral stain (to some small degree) when his negligence caused injury to another, however slight. (Unless you want to argue that the Father had angels hovering around Jesus all the time to make sure that none of his "innocent" errors ever caused harm to another -- but in that case, Jesus had "special protection" not available to the rest of us, which significantly lessens the idea that his life was like ours.)

[ruthiechan]

No, that is incorrect. A mistake is not a sin, per se. But harming another person through your own negligence is a sin of some sort. There is moral turpitude involved when another is injured because we neglected to do what it was our duty to do.

Of course, we fail to live up perfectly to our full duty a hundred times per day. That is part of the human condition, and it almost never results in harm coming to another person. But sometimes it does. And when it does, we are liable -- both legally and morally.

If you posit that Jesus was burdened with like weaknesses, then it follows that at some point, he was guilty of a moral stain (to some small degree) when his negligence caused injury to another, however slight. (Unless you want to argue that the Father had angels hovering around Jesus all the time to make sure that none of his "innocent" errors ever caused harm to another -- but in that case, Jesus had "special protection" not available to the rest of us, which significantly lessens the idea that his life was like ours.)

Negligence and mistakes are two different things.

Getting the ratio of two paint colors wrong for a painting does not hurt anyone. It's merely inconvenient and Christ's life was anything but convenient.

Typos, misspelled words, slip ups in grammar, those are other examples of mistakes that don't hurt anyone.

Also, during his ministry he walked with grace (no tripping over his robes for him), but before his ministry? Oh yeah, he tripped, he dropped stuff, after the age of eight because practical growing and learning needed to be done. He just did not break commandments during that time either.

[Vort]

Negligence and mistakes are two different things.

This is my point. The two are not easily and cleanly separable.

Typos, misspelled words, slip ups in grammar, those are other examples of mistakes that don't hurt anyone.

Except that we could find situations where such mistakes do indeed hurt people.

Also, during his ministry he walked with grace (no tripping over his robes for him), but before his ministry? Oh yeah, he tripped, he dropped stuff, after the age of eight because practical growing and learning needed to be done. He just did not break commandments during that time either.

Based on our current ideas of "sin" and "culpability" and "imperfection", I don't believe such a statement makes sense.

[ruthiechan]

Based on our current ideas of "sin" and "culpability" and "imperfection", I don't believe such a statement makes sense.

Do you believe he could have done such things under the age of 8?

[Vort]

My understanding is that children under the age of accountability are saved because of the atonement of Christ. Without that atonement, all mankind would be lost, including little children. I am forced to conclude that Christ committed no wrongdoing of any sort, even in infancy.

But not really. What I really conclude is that we don't understand what constitutes sin, what makes us unfit before God, what the atonement really is, why it's really necessary, and how it works. These are mysteries of Godliness that are revealed only through much study and prayer, and for many of us, probably not in this lifetime.

[ruthiechan]

My understanding is that children under the age of accountability are saved because of the atonement of Christ. Without that atonement, all mankind would be lost, including little children. I am forced to conclude that Christ committed no wrongdoing of any sort, even in infancy.

But not really. What I really conclude is that we don't understand what constitutes sin, what makes us unfit before God, what the atonement really is, why it's really necessary, and how it works. These are mysteries of Godliness that are revealed only through much study and prayer, and for many of us, probably not in this lifetime.

Fair enough, but I must say, a child learning to walk and not falling down a couple times seems odd to me. I don't think it's sinful for a child to fall down when trying to figure out how to stand up or walk, or to cry in the middle of the night.

[Zerossoul]

Personally, I think he wouldn't have made a mistake, even in infancy. I think he would have had the knowledge he needed to, as you said, create a stable leg. Not only that, but a perfect leg.

[mordorbund]

I like to remind infants that "little Lord Jesus no crying he makes", but they don't seem to want to follow his example.

Regarding the table leg, the Infancy Gospel of Thomas records a time Joseph was supposed to cut two beams of equal length but failed to do so. Jesus asked what the matter was, and then stretched one to the same length as the other.

For what it's worth, I find that story suspicious.

[Dram4in]

Great information!

[apexviper13]

Hi, I've recently had a discussion with someone who had an issue with this statement. The statement is,

'As man is, God once was. As God is, Man may become.'

I personally know very little about this statement, only that it was recorded words form the Prophet Joseph Smith.

Her problem with this is that, "God is God because he is perfect. How can something, like us who is not perfect, become perfect?"

What many people don't know is the "As man is..." is not new. It's a Christian concept. In fact, all Christians that aren't members of the church should have no problem agreeing with the "As man is God once was. As God is man may become." They teach Jesus is the one true God. He became "as man is" by getting a body of flesh and bones. "As God (the Father) is" Jesus became when the Father glorified him. The fact that Jesus said the Father is the only true God isn't the point. The point is they in fact do believe in this quote in one form.

Also, she has heard that in our faith, 'Jesus and Satan are Brothers', which is of course causing a lot of skepticism. Is this true? In a way, I think yes. We are all Spirit children of the same God, but what is different about Christ? he being the 'only begotten son'. What is the difference between being 'the only begotten son' and being 'spirit children'? Would it be saying the same thing if I said 'we are Christ's brother'? (not that I ever would).

I've done some research into these questions, but am unable to produce time to do enough research. regardless, I am praying and reading scriptures. perhaps posting this thread will speed up the proccess.

This one comes from simple Bible basics and a little common sense thrown into it. God the Father is God of all, including Jesus as well as angels. Jesus points this out when he appears to Mary at the tomb and says he hasn't went to Mary's God and his God. Satan was once Lucifer the angel which makes God the Father the spiritual father of Satan/Lucifer. Since Satan and Jesus both have the same spiritual father then yes, that would make them spiritual brothers just as we're all spiritual brothers and sisters.

Edited June 9, 2011 by apexviper13

[rameumptom]

St Augustine noted that "God became man, so that man may become god". Given he is the anchor for modern Christian faith (especially Catholic), I'd say that something akin to what LDS believe is similar to what he taught.

[Seminarysnoozer]

If you posit that Jesus was burdened with like weaknesses, then it follows that at some point, he was guilty of a moral stain (to some small degree) when his negligence caused injury to another, however slight. (Unless you want to argue that the Father had angels hovering around Jesus all the time to make sure that none of his "innocent" errors ever caused harm to another -- but in that case, Jesus had "special protection" not available to the rest of us, which significantly lessens the idea that his life was like ours.)

I don't think Jesus was burdened with 'like weaknesses' but not because angels were hovering around him but because he was the Only Begotten Son. I can't tell you to what degree that changes things but I think even being partly Begotten is so far out of the reach of our current understanding that trivial mistakes also were not possible for Him. Yes, He suffered mortal temptations but they were easily overcome. Jesus fasted for 40 days and still wasn't hardly bothered by Satan's direct temptations, I can't even imagine such a challenge. I don't think He just overcame this world at the end, I think He overcame the world, as far as the earthly temptations and corruption (i.e.- mortal mistakes) a long time before His ministry began ... probably before the age of accountability, as when it says He grew in stature before man and God. .... in my opinion.

[Traveler]

But once we obtain the knowledge it IS our own. That is the difference between knowledge and stuff. If I own a car, you can't own the same car and use it at the same time. That God gives us knowledge through a variety of means simply means we can use that knowledge to perfect ourselves, if we so choose to do so.

Yes, 1 + 1 = 2 is correct in standard math. That others suggested imaginary numbers or base2 does not negate the point I was making. They were just distractions. It just means I have to clarify a little bit more the rules upon which the statement is made- Given base10 and the set of real numbers: 1 + 1 = 2

Unless someone else has another meaningless distractor to toss in, it should be a perfect solution.

The point is: we can be perfect in many things now. And given time, knowledge, ability and desire, we can become fully perfect in all things.

Part of the problem with mathematics boils down to understand of what math is and the "restrictions" that result from applying the constructs of different number systems. The binary operation of addition is defined by the number theory being used. The complete (perfect) representation would be expressed as follows:

1 <= 1 + 1 <= 2

I could offer other examples other than complex numbers to which this applies. The point I would like to make is that partial knowledge is sometimes more dangerous than ignorance because partial knowledge leaves “gaps” and opportunities for disastrous error whereas someone that realizes their ignorance is more likely to be open and accepting to learning.

However, understanding principle is one thing but applying knowledge adds another dimension to the discussion. Thus with the above statement a person can become aware that they did not know as much as they thought but at the same time realize that what they are learning makes what they already knew a foundation to learning more and awaken us to greater possibilities form what we thought we knew.

Just because we know something does not mean that we can use it and apply it - there is a difference between knowledge and wisdom.

The Traveler

[Traveler]

OK...here's the math that traditionalists are accustomed to, when it comes to perfection.

God is perfection, which might be represented by infinity. We might say we are progressing towards perfection, or godhood. However, let us say that we are making good strides, and every time period (whatever length it is) we get halfway closer to infinity. You will quickly see that we never arrive. This is how we perceive humanity's attempt to reach godhood.

We are satisfied to attain the glory He has for us, knowing we shall become the judges of angels, that we shall reign with him, that yes, we shall see as he sees. Yet, we never expect to become what He is. It seems like hubris for us.

And yet, I have come to appreciate the LDS suggestions that God wants this for us, that the concept of "child of God" would seem to lead to this, and that being made in God's image may mean much more than we thought.

So, it's quite a mind-blower to understand both perspectives, and to see beauty in each. Alas, only one is right however. :-)

Please do not take this as personal criticism but I would like to point out a very important point. The function to which you are making reference is known as a bounded function - In essence this means that there the function is not only bounded by a “point” but that the point in question is not defined by the function. Religiously this has very strong implications. The religious term that defines a soul that is bounded and limited is a damned soul.

The Traveler

[ruthiechan]

I like to remind infants that "little Lord Jesus no crying he makes", but they don't seem to want to follow his example.

I disagree with this. Infants cry when they have a need. If Baby Jesus' mother was in another room and Baby Jesus needed his mother for some reason he would cry to get her attention.

[ruthiechan]

Part of the problem with mathematics boils down to understand of what math is and the "restrictions" that result from applying the constructs of different number systems. The binary operation of addition is defined by the number theory being used. The complete (perfect) representation would be expressed as follows:

1 <= 1 + 1 <= 2

I could offer other examples other than complex numbers to which this applies. The point I would like to make is that partial knowledge is sometimes more dangerous than ignorance because partial knowledge leaves “gaps” and opportunities for disastrous error whereas someone that realizes their ignorance is more likely to be open and accepting to learning.

However, understanding principle is one thing but applying knowledge adds another dimension to the discussion. Thus with the above statement a person can become aware that they did not know as much as they thought but at the same time realize that what they are learning makes what they already knew a foundation to learning more and awaken us to greater possibilities form what we thought we knew.

Just because we know something does not mean that we can use it and apply it - there is a difference between knowledge and wisdom.

The Traveler

10= ten in base ten.

10= two in base two (binary).

10= sixteen in base sixteen (hexadecimal).

One plus one equals two. In base two that looks like a base ten number ten, but it is not. It is two.

This is just place value and playing with the base being operated in. The base tells you when to pick up the individual pieces and move them over to make it easier to count.

[prisonchaplain]

Please do not take this as personal criticism but I would like to point out a very important point. The function to which you are making reference is known as a bounded function - In essence this means that there the function is not only bounded by a “point” but that the point in question is not defined by the function. Religiously this has very strong implications. The religious term that defines a soul that is bounded and limited is a damned soul.

The Traveler

Traveler, you always stretch me with your posts, but on this one I admit to not grasping your key point. Ruthie obviously does, so if either (or both) of you could break this down for me. I'm guessing it is profound, but I'm not getting it.

[mordorbund]

I disagree with this. Infants cry when they have a need. If Baby Jesus' mother was in another room and Baby Jesus needed his mother for some reason he would cry to get her attention.

The popular hymn seems to disagree with you.

[ruthiechan]

From the Gospel Principles manual: Gospel Principles Chapter 19: Repentance

"What is sin? James said, “To him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin” (James 4:17). John described sin as “all unrighteousness” (1 John 5:17) and “the transgression of the law” (1 John 3:4)."

Somehow I don't think every little tiny imperfection is sinful.

If perfection means to be complete as some have stated, then God the Father will never be complete because not all of his children chose to follow him. Yet, he is also complete in righteousness.

The popular hymn seems to disagree with you.

No it doesn't. Haven't you ever heard of babies waking up happy?

[Zerossoul]

No it doesn't. Haven't you ever heard of babies waking up happy?

This isn't 'any baby' we're talking about. This is Jesus, who was(and is) not just perfect, but a perfect example. While it may not be sinful to make mistakes, it does mean he is(was) not a perfect example if he makes mistakes, which is why I can't agree with that statement (assuming crying is a mistake).

whether or not he actually cried as a baby, or whether that is considered a mistake, I know not. However, I do know that he 'wept' many times for many reasons. (John 11:35 And Jesus Wept.)

...or perhaps crying as a baby goes against 'honoring thy mother and father'. Anyway, these are my thoughts on the matter.

[Blackmarch]

Umm crying is not wrong. Babies are supposed to cry, its to let someone know they need or want attention in some manner or another.

QUite frankly it'd be weird to have a baby that never cried. I"d imagine a perfect baby would cry at some point. How much compared to other infants tho, I have no idea.

Edited June 10, 2011 by Blackmarch

[Universeman]

Luke 2:

48And when they saw him, they were amazed: and his mother said unto him, Son, why hast thou thus dealt with us? behold, thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing.

“What many people call sin is not sin" History of the Church, 4:445-446 BYU Studies?History of the Church