continuing revelation and the great apostasy

[fatima]

It is my understanding that the LDS teaching of a Great Apostasy is basically based on teachings going astray after such-and-such a time (death of Christ?  Last apostle? I'm not sure) 

A question came to mind: if LDS doctrine teachings continuing revelation, how can you know that what was being taught was indeed erroneous, as opposed to continued revelation?  

For instance, the doctrine that Christ is True God and True Man in a hypostatic union.  LDS doctrine established with Joseph Smith that Jesus was a separate person (details escape me). To my mind it doesn't follow logically to say that there is continuing revelation (and further that Christ presumably would have established that in the first place with the priesthood keys, etc.)  but that when something was 'revealed' in the 400's, you don't accept it.

Christ had established the priesthood, given the proper authority to his apostles, and promised the protection from error, correct?

Another thread about polyandry was posted, and while I didn't read the whole thing, most respondents agreed that they would submit to the church's teaching if that ever happened.  When you study church history, why do those same people not submit to what was taught through the early church, even if they don't quite understand it?

 

[Sunday21]

The simplest answer to this question is that Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ appeared and spoke to Joseph Smith. In this vision Joseph Smith was told none of the existing churches had divine authority. 

[zil]

The following may help to clarify what we believe about the apostasy which happened after the resurrection of Christ & deaths of the apostles.  The second set, on dispensations helps to point out that this is a repeating pattern.

https://www.lds.org/topics/apostasy?lang=eng   and   https://www.lds.org/topics/church-organization/the-church-of-jesus-christ?lang=eng&old=true

https://www.lds.org/topics/dispensations?lang=eng   and   https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bd/dispensations

[CV75]

2 hours ago, fatima said:

It is my understanding that the LDS teaching of a Great Apostasy is basically based on teachings going astray after such-and-such a time (death of Christ?  Last apostle? I'm not sure) 

A question came to mind: if LDS doctrine teachings continuing revelation, how can you know that what was being taught was indeed erroneous, as opposed to continued revelation?  

For instance, the doctrine that Christ is True God and True Man in a hypostatic union.  LDS doctrine established with Joseph Smith that Jesus was a separate person (details escape me). To my mind it doesn't follow logically to say that there is continuing revelation (and further that Christ presumably would have established that in the first place with the priesthood keys, etc.)  but that when something was 'revealed' in the 400's, you don't accept it.

Christ had established the priesthood, given the proper authority to his apostles, and promised the protection from error, correct?

Another thread about polyandry was posted, and while I didn't read the whole thing, most respondents agreed that they would submit to the church's teaching if that ever happened.  When you study church history, why do those same people not submit to what was taught through the early church, even if they don't quite understand it?

 

This is a good description of the principle: https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2014/10/continuing-revelation?lang=eng

“We all know that human judgment and logical thinking will not be enough to get answers to the questions that matter most in life. We need revelation from God. And we will need not just one revelation in a time of stress, but we need a constantly renewed stream. We need not just one flash of light and comfort, but we need the continuing blessing of communication with God.”

Continuing revelation can stop, as it did in the Great Apostasy, and it can be restored, as it is in the Restoration.

Jesus did not promise protection from willful error, and that is what crept into the Church to cause the Great Apostasy. Some, even many, teachings that were preserved in the early church were and still are right, but the most essential things, the keys, were lost. How do we know this? Faith and personal revelation, after hearing the correct word.

[Jane_Doe]

3 hours ago, fatima said:

It is my understanding that the LDS teaching of a Great Apostasy is basically based on teachings going astray after such-and-such a time (death of Christ?  Last apostle? I'm not sure) 

Somewhere between the death of the last apostle and the writing of the Nicene Creed.  This lost of Truth and Priesthood authority was like flicking off a light switch (all here one second, gone the next), but more like a fire gradually smoldering down.  

3 hours ago, fatima said:

A question came to mind: if LDS doctrine teachings continuing revelation, how can you know that what was being taught was indeed erroneous, as opposed to continued revelation?  

If you really want to know what is True, beyond a shadow of a doubt, ask God.  He will tell you.

It's not a matter of debating history dates, word translation games, etc-- those are relying on man.  Just ask God.

3 hours ago, fatima said:

For instance, the doctrine that Christ is True God and True Man in a hypostatic union.  LDS doctrine established with Joseph Smith that Jesus was a separate person (details escape me). 

Both Trinitiarians and LDS believe that the Father, Son, and Spirit are three separate persons in ONE God.  The difference between the two ideas is *how* these 3 are 1.  LDS point to unity, as beautifully illustrated by the Intercessory Prayer.  Trinitarians point to a shared substance (hypostatic union) as described in the Creeds.

3 hours ago, fatima said:

To my mind it doesn't follow logically to say that there is continuing revelation (and further that Christ presumably would have established that in the first place with the priesthood keys, etc.)  but that when something was 'revealed' in the 400's, you don't accept it.

Christ had established the priesthood, given the proper authority to his apostles, and promised the protection from error, correct?

The "rock" described in scripture is not a person, but God's revelation.  God never fails.  A person (such as Peter) is still a fallible human.  Infallibility comes when the Spirit testifies of God's Truth and man listen to it.  If a man- any man- chooses not to listen, then they will make mistakes and will sin.  

3 hours ago, fatima said:

Another thread about polyandry was posted, and while I didn't read the whole thing, most respondents agreed that they would submit to the church's teaching if that ever happened.  

Clarifying here: LDS do not believe blind acceptance of "you said so I say ok".  But rather any whenever Church leaderships presents something, we each go pray about it, and each receive revelation ourselves from God confirming the Truthfulness of it.

[anatess2]

@fatima, the Catholic Church stands against apostasy as the Catholic Church believes it has Apostolic Authority.

The LDS Church do not believe that the Apostolic Authority of Peter and the rest of the Apostles are held by the Bishops, and more specifically to Linus, the Bishop of Rome after Peter and the Catholic's claim to the Apostolic Authority succession.  Note that in the New Testament, the church was organized into apostles, bishops, priests, teachers, deacons, etc.  When they lost Judas Iscariot, the remaining apostles ordained Matthias to be an Apostle.  Several other apostles are mentioned in the Pauline letters even as there's no account of how they became apostles.  These Apostles were sent to the Christian Churches to establish or correct a practice instituted by the Bishops.

Therefore, the faith question in this Great Apostasy is this:  If the Bishops received Apostolic authority after the death of John (the last living Apostle recognized by the Catholic Church), then the Great Apostasy never happened as the Catholic succession of Bishops is well recorded (even as we allow for the Apostolic Authority to have been passed to the Greek Bishops as opposed to the Romans).

The LDS Church do not believe Apostolic Authority is passed to Bishops.  Therefore, after the death of John, that authority was absent from mortal existence until the ordination of Apostolic Authority to Joseph Smith, Jr.

Edited August 25, 2017 by anatess2

[Blueskye2]

4 hours ago, fatima said:

It is my understanding that the LDS teaching of a Great Apostasy is basically based on teachings going astray after such-and-such a time (death of Christ?  Last apostle? I'm not sure) 

A question came to mind: if LDS doctrine teachings continuing revelation, how can you know that what was being taught was indeed erroneous, as opposed to continued revelation?  

For instance, the doctrine that Christ is True God and True Man in a hypostatic union.  LDS doctrine established with Joseph Smith that Jesus was a separate person (details escape me). To my mind it doesn't follow logically to say that there is continuing revelation (and further that Christ presumably would have established that in the first place with the priesthood keys, etc.)  but that when something was 'revealed' in the 400's, you don't accept it.

Christ had established the priesthood, given the proper authority to his apostles, and promised the protection from error, correct?

Another thread about polyandry was posted, and while I didn't read the whole thing, most respondents agreed that they would submit to the church's teaching if that ever happened.  When you study church history, why do those same people not submit to what was taught through the early church, even if they don't quite understand it?

 

The difference, boiled down, is that Catholics have faith in a Church that is protected by its founder, Jesus. 

LDS have faith that it failed and  faith in a do-over.  There is no reason for a person to follow what they view as a failure. 

[Jane_Doe]

2 minutes ago, Blueskye2 said:

The difference, boiled down, is that Catholics have faith in a Church that is protected by its founder, Jesus. 

LDS have faith that it failed and  faith in a do-over.  There is no reason for a person to follow what they view as a failure. 

This is a completely false characterization of LDS beliefs.   LDS do not view Christ as a failure at all.  The fact that *men* fail does not mean Christ fails. 

[Blueskye2]

Just now, Jane_Doe said:

This is a completely false characterization of LDS beliefs.   LDS do not view Christ as a failure at all.  The fact that *men* fail does not mean Christ fails. 

That isn't what I said. 

[Jane_Doe]

4 minutes ago, Blueskye2 said:

That isn't what I said. 

It is how your words read to me.  If that's not right, perhaps you could rephrase?

[Blueskye2]

LDS believe their own Church is protected from apostasy, right?

Catholics believe the same about the Catholic Church. Individuals fail, the Church can't. 

LDS believe the Catholic Church was not protected and the failure of individuals could cause the Church to fail  

As to Apostolic authority...we have faith that Jesus didn't set up a Church with no plan for the future. In this, yes, I could agree with your conclusion that a Catholic would view this as saying Jesus was a failure  Lax even,  uncaring and rather a deist POV, of God set something in motion then steps away  

 

[anatess2]

2 hours ago, Blueskye2 said:

LDS believe their own Church is protected from apostasy, right?

No.

The LDS simply believes in the prophecy that the restoration of the gospel by Joseph Smith, Jr. is the last dispensation.

 

2 hours ago, Blueskye2 said:

Catholics believe the same about the Catholic Church. Individuals fail, the Church can't.

LDS believe the Catholic Church was not protected and the failure of individuals could cause the Church to fail  

Catholics believe the Catholic Church can't fail because it is the true church.  They, of course, believes, other churches fail all the time because they're not the true Church.  So, this Church inability to fail is rooted in the faith of Catholics that the Catholic Church is the true Church.

LDS believe that the Catholic Church is not the true Church.  Simple as that, really.

 

2 hours ago, Blueskye2 said:

As to Apostolic authority...we have faith that Jesus didn't set up a Church with no plan for the future. In this, yes, I could agree with your conclusion that a Catholic would view this as saying Jesus was a failure  Lax even,  uncaring and rather a deist POV, of God set something in motion then steps away  

 

This, of course, is rooted in the belief that Jesus' work and glory started in Jerusalem (or Bethlehem).

The true Church has, of course, gone through many dispensations all throughout Church History - from the time of Adam to Jesus' time and beyond.  That is, the dispensation of the true gospel is present on earth and an apostasy occurs to end that dispensation such that a new dispensation has to occur to restore it.  So, in the dispensation of the gospel to Moses, did God fail because the Jews apostatized?

 

Edited August 25, 2017 by anatess2

[Vort]

2 hours ago, Blueskye2 said:

LDS believe their own Church is protected from apostasy, right?

Catholics believe the same about the Catholic Church. Individuals fail, the Church can't. 

LDS believe the Catholic Church was not protected and the failure of individuals could cause the Church to fail

To be more precise, LDS believe that the Catholic Church (Roman, Eastern Orthodox, whatever) is not and never was the true Church of Christ. The success or failure of the Catholic Church is no part of LDS doctrine one way or the other -- except perhaps the rather obvious observation that insofar as the Catholic Church and the doctrines it propounds are false, they are bound eventually to fail. (Which could also be said about LDS beliefs.)

Churches can fall away. It happened to Jesus' Church, and he was God. But we do have prophetic assurance that (1) no prophet, however fallible, will be allowed to lead the Church into apostasy, and (2) the kingdom of God will not leave the earth until Christ comes again. So this is not exactly the same as Catholic beliefs about their church; I would argue that it is subtly but importantly different. But in effect, it's pretty much the same.

2 hours ago, Blueskye2 said:

As to Apostolic authority...we have faith that Jesus didn't set up a Church with no plan for the future.

Of course, Latter-day Saints believe no such thing, either.

[Vort]

7 hours ago, fatima said:

A question came to mind: if LDS doctrine teachings continuing revelation, how can you know that what was being taught was indeed erroneous, as opposed to continued revelation?

Because it was revealed that the early Church fell into apostasy.

[Blueskye2]

29 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

No.

The LDS simply believes in the prophecy that the restoration of the gospel by Joseph Smith, Jr. is the last dispensation.

 

Catholics believe the Catholic Church can't fail because it is the true church.  They, of course, believes, other churches fail all the time because they're not the true Church.  So, this Church inability to fail is rooted in the faith of Catholics that the Catholic Church is the true Church.

LDS believe that the Catholic Church is not the true Church.  Simple as that, really.

 

This, of course, is rooted in the belief that Jesus' work and glory started in Jerusalem (or Bethlehem).

 

 

Sort of kind of, the Catholic view (teaching). "True Church" is not really a Catholic term that I hear much, at all. 'Church' is more broadly defined in Catholicism. I don't know of an equivalent teaching in Mormonism in order to make a comparison. Catholics talk more about Christian churches vs. non-Christian churches, and where the fullness of truth is found.

Dispensationalism is a newish (relative) idea that doesn't exist in Catholicism. Jesus establishing His Church on the Twelve Apostles and breathing into it the Holy Spirit at Pentecost (the Church's birthday, so to speak).

 

Edited August 25, 2017 by Blueskye2

[fatima]

I think this dove-tails with another thread on free will/polyandry.

 

LDS posters say that they don't understand why we believe a loving father would create us with free will, knowing some would end up in Hell.  But they do understand/believe that God established a church He (presumably) knew would fail and lead souls into apostasy?

 

 

[Vort]

1 hour ago, fatima said:

LDS posters say that they don't understand why we believe a loving father would create us with free will, knowing some would end up in Hell.  But they do understand/believe that God established a church He (presumably) knew would fail and lead souls into apostasy?

I don't see the problem. Christ created a Church that was designed to be continuing; note that after Jesus' death and resurrection, Judas Iscariot was replaced and Matthias numbered with the Twelve. But the people rejected the gospel, and so it was taken from them. How is this anything at all, in any tiny detail, like the idea that God creates a man from nothing while knowing full well, before he ever created that man, that the man would end up in the eternal torments of hell?

[zil]

I do NOT comprehend why the logic is so difficult for some people.  Choose not to believe it, fine, but the logic is sound.

A) Let us say we have an omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent being.  We'll use "X" to represent this being.

How omniscient is omniscient?

B-1) If you believe X's omniscience does not include 100% of the future, then stop here, as whether this being created mankind from preexisting sentient beings or from nothing (and either way, gave them "free will" (whatever that means)), it doesn't matter.  X doesn't know everything that will ensue and therefore cannot be blamed for what these sentient creatures do with their free will.  [Stop here.  The remainder of this post is irrelevant if this is the belief.]

B-2) If you believe, however, that X's omniscience includes 100% of the future (i.e. X knows every variable, every possibility, every future, just plain everything - nothing can or will happen without him already having known it eternally), then continue on to (C).

Creation of man

Let us say that X creates mortal man. From what I can understand, there are two basic ideas presented in the recent discussions on the forum...

C-1)  Man was created by giving a spirit and then a mortal body to a preexisting intelligence (which we'll assume to be a sentient being).  This type of being is far less than X in every way, but is capable of learning and growing.  So X helps this type of being to progress.  But this type of being is sentient and able to decide for themselves what to do, so they are responsible for their own choices.  X is helping them, giving them opportunity and guidance.  If this type of being chooses hell, no problem, it was their choice, they were taught how to get to the various possible eternal destinations and they chose hell.  Just as can be.  Fair as can be.

C-2) There are no preexisting sentient beings.  X is the only thing in existence.  X knows all the possible ways to create beings, all the things each possible being would do given all the possible combinations of beings (and other matter, like rocks, rivers, and thunderstorms).  X knows it all.  He's the one who will decide (already decided back before eternity started, apparently because X has always existed and always known what we're just getting around to describing).

X knows that if he creates a being with attributes [ABC], it will behave in a particular way.  But if X creates gives the being attributes [BCD] instead, it will behave in a different way.  X knows all the possible attribute combinations that can go into a being, as well as all the ways the beings can be combined within space and time.

Now here's where the logic fails (that is, where the idea that the created being is what chose its path and it's not X's fault fails)...  X creates being[ABC] instead of being[BCD].  X gives being[ABC] something we'll call "free will", but X already knows everything being[ABC] is going to do with said free will, and X knows how that would be different if it had been [BCD] instead of [ABC].  What's more, X knows exactly what will happen when being[ABC] runs into being[JKL], which X knows will happen (when, where, why, and how), cuz X is omniscient.

X is making all the choices.  X knows all the outcomes.  Therefore, X chooses the outcome.  X created being[ABC], not being[BCD].  being[ABC] can have all the free will in the world, but it won't enable him to do anything other than what X has designed into being[ABC] - cuz he's being[ABC], not being[BCD].  X knew full well that if he created being[ABC] it would choose hell, but if he created being[BCD], it would have chosen heaven, and in full knowledge of this fact (for X is omniscient and it cannot be any other way), X hauls off and creates being[ABC], thus dooming that being to (choose) hell.

The notion that somehow X, the omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent is somehow not responsible for deciding to make this being[ABC] instead of making it being[BCD] is so far beyond any rational comprehension that I have no words for it.  X creates this thing knowing full well it will end up in hell and then, through some irrational logic, says, "Not my fault, you did it, not me.  I just made you as the sort of being who would do it, but I didn't actually do it, so it's not my fault."

HUH!?

Yes, I know, someone will tell me I've got something wrong with what the Catholics or Evangelicals or whoever believe, but everything I've read in these recent posts on this topic says above is the "logic" being presented, only, there ain't no logic in C-2.

Now, I would have immense respect for someone who says, "Yeah, C-2 is pretty much what we believe, and we don't understand how it's fair or just, but we trust that God is fair and just so it must be, even though it makes no sense."  That's a choice to accept the belief while acknowledging the lack of sense in it.  But if someone thinks C-2 makes sense, well, all I can do is shake my head.

[Jane_Doe]

2 hours ago, fatima said:

LDS posters say that they don't understand why we believe a loving father would create us with free will, knowing some would end up in Hell.  But they do understand/believe that God established a church He (presumably) knew would fail and lead souls into apostasy?

God gives us free will.  He knows very well each of individually use this free will to fall, and some will refuse to accept Christ.  God, being ever loving, will not force anything upon us and individuals.  A collective group of people is just a bunch of individuals: they each can choose. God, being ever loving, cannot/willnot force anything upon a group of individuals either.

[Blueskye2]

27 minutes ago, zil said:

I do NOT comprehend why the logic is so difficult for some people.  Choose not to believe it, fine, but the logic is sound.

A) Let us say we have an omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent being.  We'll use "X" to represent this being.

How omniscient is omniscient?

B-1) If you believe X's omniscience does not include 100% of the future, then stop here, as whether this being created mankind from preexisting sentient beings or from nothing (and either way, gave them "free will" (whatever that means)), it doesn't matter.  X doesn't know everything that will ensue and therefore cannot be blamed for what these sentient creatures do with their free will.  [Stop here.  The remainder of this post is irrelevant if this is the belief.]

B-2) If you believe, however, that X's omniscience includes 100% of the future (i.e. X knows every variable, every possibility, every future, just plain everything - nothing can or will happen without him already having known it eternally), then continue on to (C).

Creation of man

Let us say that X creates mortal man. From what I can understand, there are two basic ideas presented in the recent discussions on the forum...

C-1)  Man was created by giving a spirit and then a mortal body to a preexisting intelligence (which we'll assume to be a sentient being).  This type of being is far less than X in every way, but is capable of learning and growing.  So X helps this type of being to progress.  But this type of being is sentient and able to decide for themselves what to do, so they are responsible for their own choices.  X is helping them, giving them opportunity and guidance.  If this type of being chooses hell, no problem, it was their choice, they were taught how to get to the various possible eternal destinations and they chose hell.  Just as can be.  Fair as can be.

C-2) There are no preexisting sentient beings.  X is the only thing in existence.  X knows all the possible ways to create beings, all the things each possible being would do given all the possible combinations of beings (and other matter, like rocks, rivers, and thunderstorms).  X knows it all.  He's the one who will decide (already decided back before eternity started, apparently because X has always existed and always known what we're just getting around to describing).

X knows that if he creates a being with attributes [ABC], it will behave in a particular way.  But if X creates gives the being attributes [BCD] instead, it will behave in a different way.  X knows all the possible attribute combinations that can go into a being, as well as all the ways the beings can be combined within space and time.

Now here's where the logic fails (that is, where the idea that the created being is what chose its path and it's not X's fault fails)...  X creates being[ABC] instead of being[BCD].  X gives being[ABC] something we'll call "free will", but X already knows everything being[ABC] is going to do with said free will, and X knows how that would be different if it had been [BCD] instead of [ABC].  What's more, X knows exactly what will happen when being[ABC] runs into being[JKL], which X knows will happen (when, where, why, and how), cuz X is omniscient.

X is making all the choices.  X knows all the outcomes.  Therefore, X chooses the outcome.  X created being[ABC], not being[BCD].  being[ABC] can have all the free will in the world, but it won't enable him to do anything other than what X has designed into being[ABC] - cuz he's being[ABC], not being[BCD].  X knew full well that if he created being[ABC] it would choose hell, but if he created being[BCD], it would have chosen heaven, and in full knowledge of this fact (for X is omniscient and it cannot be any other way), X hauls off and creates being[ABC], thus dooming that being to (choose) hell.

The notion that somehow X, the omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent is somehow not responsible for deciding to make this being[ABC] instead of making it being[BCD] is so far beyond any rational comprehension that I have no words for it.  X creates this thing knowing full well it will end up in hell and then, through some irrational logic, says, "Not my fault, you did it, not me.  I just made you as the sort of being who would do it, but I didn't actually do it, so it's not my fault."

HUH!?

Yes, I know, someone will tell me I've got something wrong with what the Catholics or Evangelicals or whoever believe, but everything I've read in these recent posts on this topic says above is the "logic" being presented, only, there ain't no logic in C-2.

Now, I would have immense respect for someone who says, "Yeah, C-2 is pretty much what we believe, and we don't understand how it's fair or just, but we trust that God is fair and just so it must be, even though it makes no sense."  That's a choice to accept the belief while acknowledging the lack of sense in it.  But if someone thinks C-2 makes sense, well, all I can do is shake my head.

phew, that was something.  Evangelicals may have a different view, but from this Catholic:

First: "being[ABC] can have all the free will in the world, but it won't enable him to do anything other than what X has designed into being[ABC]" ...

God created us for Himself, out of love. Our response to God *should* be love. While my understanding of LDS teaching on free will is=the freedom to do whatever, whenever, from which life lessons are accrued...is not the Catholic POV. God created us with the express purpose (ABC) to love Him in return. Love cannot be forced. Creating us as (BCD), that is, as beings that are forced to love God, is the illogical thing, as forced love is no love at all...it is enslavement. Created as we are, as rational creatures with free will, we are to love God with all our heart, might, mind and strength. God is our destiny, the reason we were created. When we choose to not love God (sin), then we are exercising an abuse of free will.

Second: This line of "logic" always and forever leaves out the most important Good News: Jesus Christ. Foreordained before the world was created, for our Salvation. This was not for God, but for us.  He is the means, The Way, by which ALL are redeemed from sin (lack of loving God). I can understand atheists who make this argument leaving this out, but it always kind of floors me when I see a Christian use the atheist's argument without modification.

Third: Fated and free...deep philosophy for a Mormon.  I recommend this little lecture by Dr. Peter Kreeft. Intro here: http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics-more/freewill-predestination.htm, and then follow the link for "Fated and Free".

Edited August 25, 2017 by Blueskye2

[zil]

7 minutes ago, Blueskye2 said:

Created as we are, as rational creatures with free will, we are to love God with all our heart, might, mind and strength. God is our destiny, the reason we were created. When we choose to not love God (sin), then we are exercising an abuse of free will.

Second: This line of "logic" always and forever leaves out the most important Good News: Jesus Christ. Foreordained before the world was created, for our Salvation. This was not for God, but for us.  He is the means, The Way, by which ALL are redeemed from sin (lack of loving God). I can understand atheists who make this argument leaving this out, but it always kind of floors me when I see a Christian use the atheist's argument without modification.

No one's debating the above, and if you can't see that it's actually irrelevant to the logic question (and I'm talking about the "logic" of blaming being[ABC] for doing exactly what X created it to do, and nothing else), then I can't help you.  I'm not asking for the beliefs of any given faith - they've been repeated umpteen times in these threads.  I'm asking either for an acknowledgement that "yeah, we don't understand how that could work, we just believe it does",

5 minutes ago, Blueskye2 said:

God created us with the express purpose (ABC) to love Him in return. Love cannot be forced. Creating us as (BCD), that is, as beings that are forced to love God, is the illogical thing, as forced love is no love at all...it is enslavement.

First of all, apparently you missed it:  being[ABC] was explicitly, knowingly created with the exact combination of attributes (and placed into the exact time & space) that would cause it to choose hell.  being[ABC] was not created to love X and X knew that when X created it.

If X created being[ABC] to do task1, but created being[ABC] in such a way that it isn't capable of doing task1 (because it has attributes [ABC]), then X is deluded, sadistic, confused, irrational, or whatever.  If X knows all, then X knows that if created, being[ABC] will not do task1 (100% guaranteed, because it's how being[ABC] was designed).  X knows being[ABC] will do task2 instead (cuz that's how it was designed).

We should probably just agree to shake our heads now.  Multiple people have explained this same thing (in the other thread) and it hasn't been understood there either.

[Blueskye2]

11 minutes ago, zil said:

 

If X created being[ABC] to do task1, but created being[ABC] in such a way that it isn't capable of doing task1 (because it has attributes [ABC]), then X is deluded, sadistic, confused, irrational, or whatever.  If X knows all, then X knows that if created, being[ABC] will not do task1 (100% guaranteed, because it's how being[ABC] was designed).  X knows being[ABC] will do task2 instead (cuz that's how it was designed).

 

 

Such hardline predestination is a Calvinist thing.

God did not design us for hell, God destined us for Heaven. That a person makes the CHOICE, is absolutely not God's fault. It's like saying, you send your kid to school and you know they're going to get an F, because they won't do the work, won't try at all, so why would you send them to school...and then their failing is your fault because you sent them to school (you sadistic jerk)?

I find no logic in this.

 

Edited August 25, 2017 by Blueskye2

[zil]

If you want to understand what I wrote, remove "God" and religion from the equation and look at it as a fictional story about another universe, and re-read it.

I already know you don't believe the conclusion.  I'm not trying to discuss what you do don't believe.

PS: Yeah, if I actually omnisciently designed my kid so that his combination of attributes were such that he had to get an F, then yeah, I'd be to blame for the F.

[Blueskye2]

10 minutes ago, zil said:

If you want to understand what I wrote, remove "God" and religion from the equation and look at it as a fictional story about another universe, and re-read it.

I already know you don't believe the conclusion.  I'm not trying to discuss what you do don't believe.

PS: Yeah, if I actually omnisciently designed my kid so that his combination of attributes were such that he had to get an F, then yeah, I'd be to blame for the F.

Well, your fictional being isn't anything that has anything to do with me...so I'll leave it to you. 

I will add... that this modern idea, that the solution to suffering is to remove existence, just really bums me out. 

Edited August 25, 2017 by Blueskye2

[Jane_Doe]

7 minutes ago, Blueskye2 said:

Well, your fictional being isn't anything that has anything to do with me...so I'll leave it to you. 

One of the things I have learned during my journey studying other faiths is that if I want to understand "Bob"'s beliefs, is that I need to look through Bob's eyes.  What Jane thinks is completely irrelevant to understanding what Bob's thinks.  What Jane believes doesn't matter when the goal is to understand what Bob believe.  Likewise: what I think/believe as an LDS person doesn't matter when trying to understand Catholic beliefs- Catholic beliefs are the only ones that matter when studying Catholic theology.  The reverse is also true.

Edited August 25, 2017 by Jane_Doe