Evangelicals and Mormons

[pendragon]

PrisonChaplain: I have a question for you. In an earlier post you made reference to your denomination as Assemblies of God and referenced it as a holiness church. I have met and talked with many AOG people and must admit that I cannot recollect them using that term to describe themselves. I must confess that your picture with the collar made me assume that perhaps you were part of a mainstream church, maybe Lutheran, so AOG surprises me somewhat. I do, myself attend a holines church but consider that issues such as when sanctification takes place as purely peripheral and I think they lend support to the LDS notion that the various Christian churches are at each other's throats. I don't care particularly when sanctification takes place as long as it does. But I ramble...the question: I do support the Wesleyan idea of willfulness and would like to know how you would define sin.

[prisonchaplain]

PrisonChaplain: I have a question for you. In an earlier post you made reference to your denomination as Assemblies of God and referenced it as a holiness church. I have met and talked with many AOG people and must admit that I cannot recollect them using that term to describe themselves.

If I used that term, I mispoke. Holiness churches tend to believe in "entire sanctification" as a post-conversion spiritual experience. The Assemblies of God does not agree with that. We believe in progressive sanctification (spiritual maturing that takes place with discipline, over time).

Sanctification & Holiness

I must confess that your picture with the collar made me assume that perhaps you were part of a mainstream church, maybe Lutheran, so AOG surprises me somewhat.

I'm a jail chaplain, and our facility has a high turnover. So, to quickly identify myself as the in-house pastor, the clergy collar works well. It is not common in the Assemblies of God, though I understand that some African-American Pentecostal clergy do use them.

Here's one African-American pastor's viewpoint (he's much stronger on this view than I am): Why Clergy Should Wear Clericals

I do, myself attend a holines church but consider that issues such as when sanctification takes place as purely peripheral and I think they lend support to the LDS notion that the various Christian churches are at each other's throats. I don't care particularly when sanctification takes place as long as it does. But I ramble...the question: I do support the Wesleyan idea of willfulness and would like to know how you would define sin.

Sin, whether that of commission or omission, is disobeying God. I'm probably the most divided with LDS on this particular point--I see it as rebellion against God. For example, Adam & Eve's sin in the Garden was not curiosity, nor an honorable disobedience premeditated in the premortal existence. Instead, it was blatant rebellion. When the Serpent promised them them they could know good and evil, and thus be like God, they understood that to be like God was to no longer need God. They took the fruit, expecting to be independent from God--to make their own choices. This was willful rebellion against their Creator and Provider.

So many sins today--even lust--are our choices to get what we want independent from the will of God. Sometimes we ministers are guilty, when we choose the good over God's best.

I'm not sure if I've gotten at what you intended with your question or not.

BTW...You are so right about missionary work. You either believe in your faith and your church or not--and if you do, you want converts. There is no shame in that.

Edited February 13, 2012 by prisonchaplain

[bytor2112]

For example, Adam & Eve's sin in the Garden was not curiosity, nor an honorable disobedience premeditated in the premortal existence. Instead, it was blatant rebellion. When the Serpent promised them them they could know good and evil, and thus be like God, they understood that to be like God was to no longer need God. They took the fruit, expecting to be independent from God--to make their own choices. This was willful rebellion against their Creator and Provider.

PC....just curious to hear your answers to these questions: (Pendragon too :) )

So, did God intend for Adam and Eve to remain in the Garden?

If God is all-knowing....how did Satan get one over on him so easily?

Why didn't God just destroy Adam and Eve and start over? (Like he basically did with the flood.)

Why did God continue to create people after the fall....just so he could punish them for Adam's transgression/sin? I mean if we didn't exist before we were born, why do it? If he intended for us to live in sinless innocence in the Garden, why continue to create people?

How are those that lived prior to Christ...say during the flood....how are they redeemed?

How do they accept Christ?

What about the billions that have never heard of nor never will hear of Christ? Lost?

What about those who accept Christ, but never read the Bible and only believed what someone else told them and they believe something different than the Bible? Saved?

Thanks- Bytor

Edited February 14, 2012 by bytor2112

[prisonchaplain]

PC....just curious to hear your answers to these questions: (Pendragon too :) )

So, did God intend for Adam and Eve to remain in the Garden?

If God is all-knowing....how did Satan get one over on him so easily?

Does God intend that we sin? Ever? I'd suggest not. Yet, he makes allowances, and despite his foreknowledge, it's our responsibility to trust and obey.

Why didn't God just destroy Adam and Eve and start over? (Like he basically did with the flood.)

He'd already determined how he would make a way for us to return to him...we believe the declaration that an offsrping of Eve would be bruised by Satan in the heel, but that he would crush Satan's head is the first messianic promise.

How are those that lived prior to Christ...say during the flood....how are they redeemed?

How do they accept Christ?

Thanks- Bytor

Those before Christ were looking to his coming (Heb. 11).

[pendragon]

PrisonChaplain: I had no real intent. I supposed my question was prompted by my misunderstanding, or imagining, of you using the term holiness for AOG. As I said, I do like the Wesleyan idea of a willful disobedience to God's law and I think that would be encompassed in your use of the word blatant.

[pendragon]

Christians are saved by Christ's righteousness imputed to them through faith in him...when we stand before God we will be clothed in a righteousness that rightfully belongs to Jesus but which he freely gives us through his grace and by our faith. Without it we stand before god in nothing but the "filthy rags" of our works. In the same way righteousness was accounted to people such as Abraham by their faith.

I know the reference Mormons use to support a premortal life but that idea is not accepted in orthodoxy. I do not think Adam disobeyed God out of some desire to further God's plan but through his freedom of choice given by God he allowed Satan to beguile him and wilfully made the choice to disobey. It is interesting that one major "prophet" of Mormonism taught for many years that God himself was actually Adam. Do you not find that disconcerting?

[Blackmarch]

Christians are saved by Christ's righteousness imputed to them through faith in him...when we stand before God we will be clothed in a righteousness that rightfully belongs to Jesus but which he freely gives us through his grace and by our faith. Without it we stand before god in nothing but the "filthy rags" of our works. In the same way righteousness was accounted to people such as Abraham by their faith.

I know the reference Mormons use to support a premortal life but that idea is not accepted in orthodoxy. I do not think Adam disobeyed God out of some desire to further God's plan but through his freedom of choice given by God he allowed Satan to beguile him and wilfully made the choice to disobey. It is interesting that one major "prophet" of Mormonism taught for many years that God himself was actually Adam. Do you not find that disconcerting?

No more disconcerting than how god commanded his followers to slaughter innocent children. Or chose to mass kill everyone but a few on the planet. Or any more disconcerting than finding out that there really are gods and demons.

And no Brigham young didnt believe that adam was god the father... Considering how little of it that brigham young said really doesnt support " years".. Neither do does what he preach match up to the exact claim of beliefs that adam = god the father.

[Just_A_Guy]

Just-a-guy: You raise many points but none confirm from a scriptural basis any kind of complete failure of Christ's church...especially the one under discussion. There is no other reading of the Thessalonians passage that suggests any other time than that period shortly before the revelation of the "anti-Christ'.

Your repeating that ad infinitum does not make it true. Verses 1-2 and verse 7 are very, very inconvenient for your interpretation.

The two events are clearly linked together in those verses and the whole point of the chapter is relative to the time of Christ's second coming and what will take place prior to it happening.

If that is all a future event many thousands of years in the future, then you will need to explain a) why Paul warns of it in an epistle sent to his contemporaries warning them specifically not to be shaken; b) why Paul immediately contrasts the deceived (thousands of years in the future?) with his brethren (contemporaries) - see verses 12-13 et seq; and c) why Paul says that this falling away ("mystery of iniquity", in KJV parlance) is already happening as he writes.

Paul wrote often in his letters of problems within the church as people from various nations, cultures and religious traditions came together in Christ.

Agreed.

IMV to assume that such problems were evidence that everything he and others were working for was about to collapse is simply absurd . . .

Your line of argument would seem to box you in somewhat. If "the church" is an institution and it never collapsed, then it follows that there was never a need for a reformation and you should be a Catholic. If "the church" is merely a generic term for the body of people who generally believe in Jesus, and it remained pure even when the Catholics were pretty much running anything, then there is no logical reason for you (and the rest of us) to be anything other than a Catholic. So, either way, Catholicism seems the natural result of your logic.

Moreover, the idea of a total falling away from an institutional, divinely-sanctioned Church does not lead one to the idea that "everything [Paul] and others were working for was about to collapse". Paul was working (there's a loaded term!) for the salvation of souls. People receiving the faith and keeping it it to the end of their lives is never a waste, regardless of the failings of the next generation. Sixty-six books of largely intact, revealed scripture are not a waste, regardless of whatever ambiguities the learned may find in them over the next two millennia.

. . . and is not supported by virtually any religious or historical scholarship outside Mormonism.

As has just been established, no organized Christian religion except Catholicism (well, and Eastern Orthodoxy, I suppose) has a credible raison d'etre without some notion of a falling away that was at least universal enough to co-opt the dominant Christian authorities at the time of the individual religion's own founding. Quite honestly, I'm not particularly concerned as to whether the students and clerics of orthodox protestantism are sufficiently self-aware to acknowledge that.

Edited February 14, 2012 by Just_A_Guy

[Just_A_Guy]

And no Brigham young didnt believe that adam was god the father... Considering how little of it that brigham young said really doesnt support " years".. Neither do does what he preach match up to the exact claim of beliefs that adam = god the father.

Well, he taught something like that. But it's all so muddled and self-contradictory, that no one can be really sure exactly what Young believed.

And no, it doesn't bug me. To the extent that I understand it, Adam-God seems primarily to attempt to define Adam, not God.

By the way, Pendragon, 1 Timothy 2:14 seems to assert rather boldly that Adam was not deceived.

Edited February 14, 2012 by Just_A_Guy

[bytor2112]

Does God intend that we sin? Ever? I'd suggest not. Yet, he makes allowances, and despite his foreknowledge, it's our responsibility to trust and obey.

He'd already determined how he would make a way for us to return to him...we believe the declaration that an offsrping of Eve would be bruised by Satan in the heel, but that he would crush Satan's head is the first messianic promise.

Those before Christ were looking to his coming (Heb. 11).

Okay...you really, really didn't answer my questions. Vague...non specific....and leaving many more questions than answers. I asked these very question most of my life before I became LDS.....and the answers were always vague and frankly didn't address the questions.

So, did Heavenly Father KNOW before hand that Satan would come calling and Eve would fall victim to him? If not ....why? If Adam and Eve were just creations....didn't exist prior to....then why not wipe the slate clean and start over? WHEN did he determine how he would make a way for us to return to him? Why not start over....like the flood? Obviously, he must surely know that all would not return.

So, are you saying by faith those who looked to Christ beforehand are saved? What of those who didn't look or care? And why should salvation come to those who did, differently than to those have lived since?

[bytor2112]

Christians are saved by Christ's righteousness imputed to them through faith in him...when we stand before God we will be clothed in a righteousness that rightfully belongs to Jesus but which he freely gives us through his grace and by our faith. Without it we stand before god in nothing but the "filthy rags" of our works. In the same way righteousness was accounted to people such as Abraham by their faith.

I know the reference Mormons use to support a premortal life but that idea is not accepted in orthodoxy. I do not think Adam disobeyed God out of some desire to further God's plan but through his freedom of choice given by God he allowed Satan to beguile him and wilfully made the choice to disobey. It is interesting that one major "prophet" of Mormonism taught for many years that God himself was actually Adam. Do you not find that disconcerting?

Faith is an action word...kind of resembles works. So, righteousness (good works)....saves Abraham? Does faith require righteous acts? If we have faith in Christ, but don't "keep the commandments"....do we have faith and do we merit HIS grace? What did Christ DO that made HIM righteous?

Oh and if you can, answer each of my questions specifically from my previous post?

Edited February 14, 2012 by bytor2112

[prisonchaplain]

Okay...you really, really didn't answer my questions. Vague...non specific....and leaving many more questions than answers. I asked these very question most of my life before I became LDS.....and the answers were always vague and frankly didn't address the questions.

I probably did not understand the question, then...that is an important key to any examination--really understanding the intent of the question.

So, did Heavenly Father KNOW before hand that Satan would come calling and Eve would fall victim to him?

Yes. God is all-knowing. We call this foreknowledge, to distinguish from those who believe God not only knows all but predestines all. God may know what we will do, but we still are the ones who do it.

If Adam and Eve were just creations....didn't exist prior to....then why not wipe the slate clean and start over? WHEN did he determine how he would make a way for us to return to him? Why not start over....like the flood? Obviously, he must surely know that all would not return.

He knew Adam and Eve would take the fruit before creation. Always. We know that God's response was to promise a messiah...a Savior. Armenian theologians suggest that God did this so that humanity could have free will, and choose to follow God or rebel.

As for why God allowed for this choice with Adam and Eve, and why he flooded the world generations later, I would suggest that those drowned made their choice. Also, he did preserve humanity, and keep that promise made to Adam & Eve--that a Savior would come.

So, are you saying by faith those who looked to Christ beforehand are saved?

Yes. The writer of Hebrews seems to say this very thing.

What of those who didn't look or care? And why should salvation come to those who did, differently than to those have lived since?

We are told in Romans 1 that humanity is without excuse. We apparently know enough to respond to God. God will judge us all justly and rightly. Those who follow God will receive eternity with him. Those who do not will be judged according to their works.

I'm not sure I understand the last part of your question. In a sense every single soul has different circumstances under which s/he can respond to God. We each have different life experiences. Some are "cradle Christians," born into a loving Christian family, raised in the church, and exposed to multiple compelling calls to Christian faith and service. Still others grow up with horrific abuse, disaster, deprivation. God knows all, sees all, and judges all, with perfect, divine justice and mercy. I have full confidence that come the Day of Judgment there will be no objections raised.

Edited February 14, 2012 by prisonchaplain

[Vort]

Yes. God is all-knowing. We call this foreknowledge, to distinguish from those who believe God not only knows all but predestines all. God may know what we will do, but we still are the ones who do it.

My question along these lines is somewhat different: If God knew before he ever created Adam and Eve that they would choose to do things a certain way, why didn't he just create them differently? Why didn't he create them so that they would use their free will to obey and glorify him?

In my view, saying "God gave Adam and Eve the choice" ultimately doesn't remove the responsibility from God, since it was God himself who created their decision-making capacity. I would love for a non-Latter-day-Saint to explain the fault in this reasoning.

[bytor2112]

He knew Adam and Eve would take the fruit before creation. Always. We know that God's response was to promise a messiah...a Savior. Armenian theologians suggest that God did this so that humanity could have free will, and choose to follow God or rebel.

Sounds like it was part of.....the plan. Sounds a tad like what we Latter Day Saints believe, no? The Fall is part of the plan of salvation. He knew they would fall and he would provide a means for their return...a Savior. Free will (agency) is to "prove them" to see if they will keep the commandments (follow God or rebel).

As for why God allowed for this choice with Adam and Eve, and why he flooded the world generations later, I would suggest that those drowned made their choice. Also, he did preserve humanity, and keep that promise made to Adam & Eve--that a Savior would come.

So, the small children made their choice? Still, PC, why would he create man just to fall, if man is but a creation and not something more? And I don't think Hebrews 11 details how humankind, say those that died in the flood and everyone else, can receive salvation.

[prisonchaplain]

My question along these lines is somewhat different: If God knew before he ever created Adam and Eve that they would choose to do things a certain way, why didn't he just create them differently? Why didn't he create them so that they would use their free will to obey and glorify him?

In my view, saying "God gave Adam and Eve the choice" ultimately doesn't remove the responsibility from God, since it was God himself who created their decision-making capacity. I would love for a non-Latter-day-Saint to explain the fault in this reasoning.

I had a philosophy professor make this very charge. He was not a Christian, however. In retrospect, you question seems to imply that because God knows what we will do, He must have rigged our free choice--that it was not really free. So, therein lies the fault. The argument assumes that if God knows what's going to happen, then it is his responsibility, and free will is a lie.

The answer is that free will is real. God made us so that we have the capacity to embrace or rebel against his love for us.

[prisonchaplain]

Sounds like it was part of.....the plan. Sounds a tad like what we Latter Day Saints believe, no? The Fall is part of the plan of salvation. He knew they would fall and he would provide a means for their return...a Savior. Free will (agency) is to "prove them" to see if they will keep the commandments (follow God or rebel).

Armenians agree with much of the LDS plan of salvation. A couple of differences are that I really want to stress that Adam & Eve could have obeyed God, and that for them to do so would have been the superior plan. In other words, they were not in on the preparations for what would happen. Their's really was an act of disobedience and rebellion. The credit for making a way for our salvation goes totally to God...it really was an incredible mercy and grace He extended to us.

So, the small children made their choice? Still, PC, why would he create man just to fall, if man is but a creation and not something more? And I don't think Hebrews 11 details how humankind, say those that died in the flood and everyone else, can receive salvation.

God did not create man TO fall. He created us, having the foreknowledge that we would. Thus, he did have a plan of salvation for us.

Hebrews 11 specifically addresses the knowing faith of Israelite heroes, along with a few Gentiles that came into direct contact with them (I'm thinking mainly of Rahab).

My thought is that Romans 1 hints at the more general state of those who do not have a strong presentation of the gospel--they have enough for God to judge them on. I admit that my view here is controversial. There is a heated debate about whether "general revelation" (the witness of creation, the good that is found in non-Christian religions and societies, etc.) is enough so that one who has never heard of Jesus could be saved by his/her response to such vague callings. This is why we remain fervent in our missionary and evangelistic effortss. However, I do side with those who believe general revelation will be enough for God to judge a soul on. I disagree with Calvinists, who say that God simply did not choose the ones who did not hear.

[rameumptom]

Where the problem (as many philosophers see it) regarding God's omniscience and free will is that they are not compatible.

If God already knows in advance what we are going to do, then are we really free? If we are, then it is God's hands that are tied, as he cannot change the future that he has already foreseen.

So, either we do not have real free will, or God has no power to really cause change for us.

There are those who believe in compatibilism, that meets free will and God's omniscience half way.

[Vort]

I had a philosophy professor make this very charge. He was not a Christian, however. In retrospect, you question seems to imply that because God knows what we will do, He must have rigged our free choice--that it was not really free. So, therein lies the fault. The argument assumes that if God knows what's going to happen, then it is his responsibility, and free will is a lie.

Not at all. I grant that God has created us with the capacity to choose freely. That does not negate the fact that God created us, and that before the moment of our creation, God already knew what we would choose.

Are you saying that God had no choice or ability but to create us as he did? Or are you saying that God freely chose to create us as beings that would misuse our capacity for choice to embrace evil?

The argument is not that I (pretending for the moment that I'm an irrevocably evil being) don't have choice. The argument is that God created me, along with my choice-making ability, and that he could have created me differently had he so chosen. From what I can tell, you must either grant that God:

• could not have created me any differently than he did, and therefore is not all-powerful; or,
• did not know that I would choose as I do, and therefore is not all-knowing; or,
• knew full well that I would choose badly and disgrace his name and yet chose to create me anyway, and therefore is responsible for his own choice to create such a wretched being.

Which of these do you accept as truth? Or is there a fourth choice I'm missing?

[prisonchaplain]

Where the problem (as many philosophers see it) regarding God's omniscience and free will is that they are not compatible.

If God already knows in advance what we are going to do, then are we really free? If we are, then it is God's hands that are tied, as he cannot change the future that he has already foreseen.

So, either we do not have real free will, or God has no power to really cause change for us.

There are those who believe in compatibilism, that meets free will and God's omniscience half way.

I would argue that since God created us for free will, He has tied his own hands, by choosing not to intervene. Is that really a challenge to his omnipotence, or a demonstration and revelation of it?

[prisonchaplain]

The argument is not that I (pretending for the moment that I'm an irrevocably evil being) don't have choice. The argument is that God created me, along with my choice-making ability, and that he could have created me differently had he so chosen. From what I can tell, you must either grant that God:

• could not have created me any differently than he did, and therefore is not all-powerful; or,
• did not know that I would choose as I do, and therefore is not all-knowing; or,
• knew full well that I would choose badly and disgrace his name and yet chose to create me anyway, and therefore is responsible for his own choice to create such a wretched being.

Which of these do you accept as truth? Or is there a fourth choice I'm missing?

Somehow all of this still presumes that God rigged us to accept or reject him. The argument here is that God could have created us so that we all freely chose him. Since he knows what we will do, he is at fault.

If we are truly free to make our choice then how could he have created us different...other than by taking away the choice we made...and implanting the choice to obey...which would then not be a choice.

This is circular reasoning. If we are truly free, it only makes sense that some will embrace God and others will rebel. I would be suspect of free will if we all made the same choice.

[Vort]

Somehow all of this still presumes that God rigged us to accept or reject him. The argument here is that God could have created us so that we all freely chose him. Since he knows what we will do, he is at fault.

If we are truly free to make our choice then how could he have created us different...other than by taking away the choice we made...and implanting the choice to obey...which would then not be a choice.

This is circular reasoning. If we are truly free, it only makes sense that some will embrace God and others will rebel. I would be suspect of free will if we all made the same choice.

Then you are saying that God willingly created beings who He knew would reject Him so that those others who did not reject him wouldn't be suspicious?

This is a fairly straightforward logical argument. If you accept the following premises:

• God created us out of nothing (ex nihilo)
• God freely chose to create us exactly as he did
• God is all-knowing; that is, he knows every possible piece of information past, present, and future
• God is all-powerful; that is, he can do any meaningful thing that he chooses to do

then you must confront the paradox I mentioned. Waving your hands and saying, "You're trying to say that God rigged things!" doesn't answer the paradox.

By Lemma 1, God is completely responsible for our initial existence and form.

By Lemma 2, God is intentionally responsible for our created form, so we can't just say that God made an error.

By Lemma 3, God knowingly created our past, present, and future at the very moment he created us. Talk of "free will" is irrelevant; the point is, God knew what we would do before we existed.

By Lemma 4, God could have created us differently had he chosen so to do. He was not bound into creating us in the form he did.

To put it in other terms, consider the following conversation:

If God is not responsible for our choices, who or what is?

"We are."

Well, yes, obviously. But what element of our being is it that is responsible for our choices?

"It is our decision-making ability."

Exactly. Did we create our decision-making ability?

"Yes, through our previous decisions."

Right. But at the moment we were created, we had made no decisions. Who was responsible for our decision-making ability at that moment?

"Well...God was."

Exactly. God created our decision-making ability in the first instance.

The argument of whether free will is real or illusory is irrelevant. If God is all those things listed in the numbered list above, then he created our choice-making ability -- the very ability that is ultimately responsible for our choices. A perfect choice-making ability would always make perfect choices -- obviously, by definition.

So did God intentionally create us with defective choice-making ability? Or was God unable to create us with a perfect ability to make choices?

For the record, "I don't know" is an acceptable, though not a useful, answer to the paradox, but in order to answer that way, you have to accept the paradox at face value and invoke knowledge not revealed to us -- which people are loath to do, and with good reason: It's the ultimate dodge. You can justify literally any belief you wish to in that way. So it's acceptable but useless, much like answering any other given question with, "Because that's how God made things."

Edited February 14, 2012 by Vort

[pendragon]

Blackmarch: Without wanting to get into a debate about Brigham Young's teaching on Adam-God, it is semantics to argue about what constitutes "a little". Such teaching, accompanied by hymns, is heresy whether or not it's a little or much. The extent of the teaching is out there to be found should you wish to search but I suspect that you will prefer LDS sanitized sources.

[pendragon]

Just-a-guy: From my perspective you appear to be adding 1 and 1 and coming up with five. No matter how you want to interpret the passage you cannot change what is says and the premise of the chapter, clearly stated ("Concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered to him. we ask you brothers, not to become easily unsettled or alarmed by some prophecy, report or letter supposed to have come from us, saying that the day of the Lord has already come") is what must happen prior to the second coming of Jesus and prior when "the man of lawlessness", the full demonstration of the state of fallen man, is revealed. The anti-Christ is the symbol of that. As I said earlier, to argue that differences of opinion and problems within the Thessalonian church are signs of a complete collapse and failure of the Gospel carries no more weight than me trying to suggest that the large number of people leaving the Mormon Church is evidence of its imminent total collapse. I wish it were true...but wishing doesn't make it so.

[pendragon]

Just a thought and an opinion: I believe that the Mormon Church insistence on use of the KJV exclusively in any official situation is that it was the Bible used by Joseph Smith when he came up with Mormon theology. To use any other translation, no matter there are those with better scholarship, that might in any way change the nuance or understanding of any passage that seemingly supports LDS interpretation would create a problem. The KJV, as good as it is, uses archaic English and words with archaic meaning not in common usage today. Even the Book of Mormon is written in 16th century English...who knew that "reformed Egyptian" would translate nicely into archaic English But then again, at the risk of sounding sarcastic, there's always the get out of jail free card of "as far as it is translated correctly". I wonder, too, why the LDS Church does not dump all versions of the Bible except the one that Jospeh Smith "translated" and declared complete and finished.

[prisonchaplain]

So did God intentionally create us with defective choice-making ability? Or was God unable to create us with a perfect ability to make choices?

I think I finally have the nugget, or crux, of your paradox. We would agree that choosing God is the correct, perfect, sound, reasonable, intelligent and non-defective choice. And yet, if God made us, who's fault is it that we make other choices? This goes beyond following Jesus or not. Why do Jesus' followers get divorces, watch porn, rape, murder, steal, gossip, etc.?

My answer is that a non-defective will is not a free one. Perhaps God, in order to make us free, did indeed grant us "defective" wills. Only through the struggle, through grappling with defect could we truly choose to love him.