romans8

The Fall - Blessings or Punishments?

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Jonah said:

Have you made a covenant with God to disobey Him in any situation?

I believe so - I made a covenant with G-d to become a fallen person and experience evil - which is death.  My covenant was to experience the fall and death which is the knowledge of evil.  My covenant was also to be saved by the Messiah that would redeem my sins which is the knowledge of good.

I realize that you are of a different opinion so I would ask you - With whom did you make a covenant to experience a fall and death?  Especially if it was not G-d?  And if you do not believe you had any choice in the matter of being born  to suffer death - Why do you think G-d is just or merciful?  And another question - why do you worship a G-d that hatches a plan that fails and is out smarted by Satan before the plan hardly even gets underway?  If things do not happen according to G-d's plan and pleasure - Then who has the power to force G-d to change his plan?

Quote

What do you mean by symbolic?  Are you saying the trees in the garden were not literal
trees that were pleasant to the sight of man and good for food (Genesis 2:9)?

The use of symbolism is very common method of Jesus - who I believe was the word that was instrumental in the creation - See the Gospel of John Chapter 1.  The symbolism of a tree and its fruit is an common and often used symbolism in the teachings of Jesus.  Jesus even tells his disciples why he teaches with symbolism - I will leave that reason to you to research.  The symbolism of a tree and its fruits points to the results of choices and actions - choices and actions far beyond having a tasty snack.  The tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil and it fruits is all about choices and results.  And my final question - What kind of G-d forbids knowledge?  Especially knowledge to discern good from evil?

 

The Traveler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/7/2020 at 3:13 PM, Jonah said:

Have you made a covenant with God to disobey Him in any situation?

What do you mean by symbolic?  Are you saying the trees in the garden were not literal
trees that were pleasant to the sight of man and good for food (Genesis 2:9)?

All the covenants we make with God, which are made by His invitation, are to obey Him. Knowing that we are not perfect as He is, He prepared the Atonement of His Son from before the foundation of the world and we rely upon His Atonement as we grow from grace to grace and our capacity to keep those covenants. In the pre-mortal life, we were enticed or invited by Him to come into mortality and we made a faithful choice to do so, knowing we would require the Lord's strength, forgiveness, mercy and grace, etc. as we make imperfect attempts to follow His light.

I think things can be both symbolic/figurative and actual/literal, including the trees in the Garden of Eden and the actions of eating their fruit. The choices, results, meaning and significance are the same, and either belief supports keeping the covenants to be best of one's ability, good faith and reliance upon the grace of God.

I will assert that the Atonement of Jesus Christ is actual and literal, as described in the scriptures to the extent that is possible. If that is so, I don't see why the Creation, Garden, Fall, Death, Sin, The Lord's Ministry, His Second Coming, our Resurrection and Judgement, etc. are not just as actual and literal, though perhaps incompletely described in scripture.

Edited by CV75

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/7/2020 at 5:40 PM, Traveler said:

I believe so - I made a covenant with G-d to become a fallen person and experience evil - which is death.  My covenant was to experience the fall and death which is the knowledge of evil.  My covenant was also to be saved by the Messiah that would redeem my sins which is the knowledge of good.

I realize that you are of a different opinion so I would ask you - With whom did you make a covenant to experience a fall and death?  Especially if it was not G-d?  And if you do not believe you had any choice in the matter of being born  to suffer death - Why do you think G-d is just or merciful?  And another question - why do you worship a G-d that hatches a plan that fails and is out smarted by Satan before the plan hardly even gets underway?  If things do not happen according to G-d's plan and pleasure - Then who has the power to force G-d to change his plan?

The use of symbolism is very common method of Jesus - who I believe was the word that was instrumental in the creation - See the Gospel of John Chapter 1.  The symbolism of a tree and its fruit is an common and often used symbolism in the teachings of Jesus.  Jesus even tells his disciples why he teaches with symbolism - I will leave that reason to you to research.  The symbolism of a tree and its fruits points to the results of choices and actions - choices and actions far beyond having a tasty snack.  The tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil and it fruits is all about choices and results.  And my final question - What kind of G-d forbids knowledge?  Especially knowledge to discern good from evil?

 

The Traveler

People, when they sin, do not make a covenant with Satan to disobey God.  It is because they
fall to his temptation and are driven away by their own lust (as James writes). Likewise, when 
Adam sinned (as explained in a church manual), he did not plan beforehand to enter into a
covenant with Satan to disobey God.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/bc/content/shared/content/english/pdf/language-materials/10734_bookmarked-eng.pdf

Page 439 - Elder Dallin H. Oaks:

"Jesus Christ is the Only Begotten Son of God the Eternal Father. He is our Creator. He is our 
Teacher. He is our Savior. His atonement paid for the sin of Adam and won victory over death, 
assuring resurrection and immortality for all men
".


As James writes:

"But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. Then when lust 
hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death
".

Adam and Eve were already created with knowledge (intelligence) before the Fall.  God commanded
them not to eat from the forbidden tree because of all the negative consequences which would
ensue.  He knew it would
happen but it was His permitted will; not His desired will.  One of these punishments was that
all of mankind is separated from God because of this original (first) sin.

It seems you don't believe the trees in the garden were literal.  Does that mean you don't
believe in a literal garden either?

God's plan is that the need for an Atonement is the effect, the Fall is the cause. You seem to 
believe that Adam and Eve had to fall otherwise the plan of the Atonement would be frustrated -
which I don't believe.  

I do not believe Adam and Eve's obedience in the garden was spoiling or frustrating anything
for God.  God did not foreordain the Atonement first so that he could later rely on Adam and Eve to
disobey Him so the plan would not be frustrated.  The need for the Atonement is the result (the
effect) of the Fall (the cause).

You seem to have the cause and effect reversed - that the Fall was required so the need for the 
Atonement would not be frustrated.

I believe God is just and merciful.  He provided a way for mankind to be saved from the effects of
sin.  He cared for Adam and Eve in that He pre-warned them what would happen if they
disobeyed Him. But I don't believe He is just and merciful in that He wanted them to disobey Him by
eating from the forbidden tree so they would not frustrate His plans to save them.

From my reading of the Gospel Principles guide (if I read it correctly), Adam and Eve were given 
blessings for what they did. I don't see any mention of the word 'punished' in that context.

As for myself, I have never been blessed for disobeying God.  But I have been punished for falling
into the devil's temptations.  Some don't like to use the word 'punishment' but rather use the
term 'negative effects'.  But I see many times in the scripture where God punished His people for
their disobedience.

Do you see blessings and punishments in the scriptures or is it all *effects* or *results* for you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Jonah said:

People, when they sin, do not make a covenant with Satan to disobey God...

< snip >

Do you see blessings and punishments in the scriptures or is it all *effects* or *results* for you?

Excellent! This is what I'm talking about.  If we had more of that, I'd really value your contributions to this board.

BTW, you make some excellent points (many of which I agree with).  But for now I'm just enjoying the show between you and Traveler (whom I disagree with on many points).

Edited by Carborendum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Jonah, having sworn off reading any more of your contributions, I'm glad that I nevertheless decided to do so in this case. This appears to be the most honest and considered post you have ever written on this forum that I can remember. You bring up topics worth discussing, and then forward them in a respectful and non-confrontational manner, in a way that invites further consideration. Well done.

I was going to start quoting and responding to you, but after reading Carb's response to you, I think I'll follow suit and let the conversation between you and Traveler play out first.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/3/2020 at 3:38 PM, Carborendum said:

Have you ever heard of a "blessing in disguise"?

Yes. It occured to me once. I lost an opportunity to get job A and ended up getting a better job B.
I was not disobedient in losing job A though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/4/2020 at 6:39 PM, Fether said:

It was merciful that he put Adam and Eve next to the tree of knowledge of good and evil

I find no indication that God placed Adam and Eve in a specific place in the garden; unless
the garden was very tiny and could only accommodate a few trees.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/5/2020 at 2:07 PM, Traveler said:

2. According to scripture; Eve (the first to partake of the fruit) said that she was beguiled.  If this is accurate then her partaking of the fruit was NOT!!! a matter of will or agency expression by Eve.  Rather it is a matter of being unprepared to make a choice of will and agency - Whose fault is that????

I see from the scriptures that both Adam and Eve failed to take responsibility for their actions and instead
blamed someone else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, romans8 said:

I find no indication that God placed Adam and Eve in a specific place in the garden; unless
the garden was very tiny and could only accommodate a few trees.

Your right, this was a matter of moot wording on my part.

I should have said:

It was merciful that he put Adam and Eve in a place where the tree of knowledge of good and evil Was accessible

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/10/2020 at 9:16 AM, romans8 said:

Yes. It occured to me once. I lost an opportunity to get job A and ended up getting a better job B.
I was not disobedient in losing job A though.

The figurative "losing job A" (through disobedience) was not what you asked about.  You asked about whether the consequences of their actions were "blessings or punishments" (see the title of this thread).  So, I addressed your question about the consequences.  In fact, in your OP you never even asked about their actions being right or wrong, or deserving of blessing or punishment.  So, I had not addressed that.

In my opinion and interpretation of LDS theology, their actions were both right and wrong.  And the results were also blessings and punishments.

Edited by Carborendum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, romans8 said:

Yes. It occured to me once. I lost an opportunity to get job A and ended up getting a better job B.
I was not disobedient in losing job A though.

Until judgment day when the wicked are cast off any punishment that comes from God is corrective in nature. It is as the scriptures say "for our sake." One of the purposes of this life experience is to be tempted and to learn to choose the good. This learning is a process. Sin is merely the manifestation of either the lack of understanding of what God expects of us or a lack of faithfulness to what we know God expects of us. Either way greater spiritual development is required on our part and experiencing the negative consequences of sin can aid us in that process. Adam and Eve were not perfect beings. Only Christ had claim to that. God knew they would eventually falter and then the true learning would begin. It is the same for all of us. Fortunately God is perfectly merciful and prepared a way through the atonement of Jesus Christ by which, as one of our general authorities stated, we could learn from our experiences without being condemned by them. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/10/2020 at 12:52 PM, Carborendum said:

In my opinion and interpretation of LDS theology, their actions were both right and wrong.  And the results were also blessings and punishments.

Where does Gospel Principles ever refer to what occurred to Adam and Eve when they ate
from the tree as punishment?  If you believe they were punished, then how so?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, romans8 said:

Where does Gospel Principles ever refer to what occurred to Adam and Eve when they ate
from the tree as punishment?  If you believe they were punished, then how so?

I'm not sure where you got the idea that an idea MUST be spelled out explicitly in Gospel Principles in order for it to be valid doctrine.  Why are you so fixated on the idea that it has to be spelled out in Gospel Principles?  We have a HUGE library of works, speeches, and centuries of discussion of various topics which explain a whole lot more than "one small beginner's summary."

What exactly do you believe "punishment" from God actually means anyway? -- I really need to know where you're coming from here to properly answer your question about Adam and Eve being punished.

Edited by Carborendum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Carborendum said:

I'm not sure where you got the idea that an idea MUST be spelled out explicitly in Gospel Principles in order for it to be valid doctrine.  Why are you so fixated on the idea that it has to be spelled out in Gospel Principles?  We have a HUGE library of works, speeches, and centuries of discussion of various topics which explain a whole lot more than "one small beginner's summary."

Amen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/5/2020 at 2:32 PM, prisonchaplain said:

Eve was tricked or deceived into eating the fruit. How do we take this claim of Eve's? God told her not to eat the fruit or she would die. Eve understood this. The serpent said that God lied, that she would not die. Who should she believe--the God she walked with daily, or this serpent? Who should our adolescents believe, the parents who raised them or their very cool peers? Ah, but they are young--they are not equipped to fully understand the follies of youthful excess. Still, we ground them, punish them, call them guilty. Is it necessary to remove all blame from Adam & Eve in order to accept the Plan of Salvation? 

One of the difficulties Latter-day Saints have in this sort of discussion is that we have more information than what is in the scripture record—but it comes from the temple endowment liturgy and thus we generally don’t talk about it, even with each other.  There have also been statements by Church leaders that seek to “fill in the gaps” and excuse Adam and/or Eve to some degree, but many of those statements don’t perfectly align with either our scripture or our liturgy (for example, the idea that God wasn’t really *forbidding* them from taking the fruit, but just giving them a choice and earning them they’d have to deal with the consequences, sounds lovely—but it just isn’t what the scriptures say). 

Without talking about why I believe what I believe, I will simply offer my interpretation of the combined sources and some inferences based thereon—which are mine alone, and certainly not church doctrine; but which may be useful as giving an idea about how one Mormon interprets all of this:

—God left Adam and Eve in the garden with a fruit He always intended for them to take eventually—but also with instructions to not take the fruit at that time, as well as a promise that He would return to provide further instruction.  I rather suspect that, given enough time and instruction, God would have removed His prohibition on their partaking the fruit and at least left the matter to their discretion, if not instructing them outright to go ahead and partake.  

—Adam and Eve were given a pattern for marriage in the garden that represented companionship, equality, mutual aid, and mutual respect.  It was made clear to them that neither was supposed to be alone.

—In this tale, Satan is making a play for Adam’s and Eve’s allegiance in the garden; ingratiating himself with them by offering them power and knowledge that their Father had been (unfairly, as Satan would flatteringly imply!) denying them.  Adam resisted, but Eve fell for it—hook, line, and sinker.  Her pro forma objection that “God told me not to!” evaporated when she concluded that taking the fruit could put her on par with God Himself.

—Adam and Eve had initially failed to live up to the companionate model of marriage that they had been given.  Adam, knowing the serpent was loose in the garden, left Eve to face it alone without giving her any kind of warning.  For her part, Eve immediately and unilaterally made a choice that had deep ramifications for her marriage.  Adam disengaged; Eve over-engaged.  Eve then went back to Adam (per Satan’s instruction) and presented the “choice“ as a done deal, exploiting the fact that she had Adam over a barrel:  Adam knew Eve would have to leave; but he also knew the two of them had been commanded to stay together, and (I surmise) he understood that his own neglect of his wife had fed into the current situation.  Eve had been deceived when she took the fruit and was (briefly) in real risk of throwing her lot in with the serpent; but Adam never was (2 Tim 2:24)—his partaking the fruit was a deliberate choice to honor God and atone for his own mistake by staying with the partner God had given him, even though it meant leaving paradise.

—The precise verbiage of the covenants we make/made in the endowment and in the sealing, to some degree are in memorial of these stories and principles.  Children of God have an obligation to be perfectly obedient, and show patience with divine commandments whose rationales we don’t always understand.  Adam and his sons are given a special commission—a priesthood, one may call it—to watch over their loved ones and provide them with the knowledge, support, and warnings necessary so that they don’t fall into sin through ignorance.  Eve and her daughters covenant to avoid unilateral actions that would bind their spouses into servitude against those spouses’ wishes.  Adam’s covenant leads him to engage and serve more than he was naturally inclined to do; Eve’s covenant helps her resist her natural urge to do everything herself and, instead, give the relationship enough space for a true partnership to develop.  Acting together, the endowment and sealing ceremony give both marital partners a charge to be supportive, communicative, deferential, empathetic, and physically and emotionally available towards their spouses.

Edited by Just_A_Guy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/5/2020 at 5:56 PM, prisonchaplain said:

I'm gaining the impression that Adam & Eve's innocence in taking the forbidden fruit is official church doctrine (or perhaps insight offered by a church prophet). Is this so?

"Innocence" is an interesting concept.  And it is difficult to fit it into the entire parable of Adam and Eve, until...

We can look at it as a story with multiple layers.  The thing about layered stories is that one layer does not necessarily have to abide by the same rules as the next layer. Not all details will fit into each layer, only the overall storyline need fit.

  • We read the overall story and we note the symbolism towards a particular interpretation (Level 1).
  • By virtue of that interpretation, we learn new things and determine that the symbols meant something different.
  • We create the next layer of interpretation (Layer 2) using the overall storyline and apply new meanings to the symbols.
  • Repeat.

Notice that we can consider Layer 1 to be "invalid" once we are enlightened to Layer 2 and so on.  But we never would have gotten to the second layer unless we had explored Layer 1 to begin with.  So, was it really an error?  Yes and no. A ladder's rung has nothing to do with the rung below it.  It supports weight all on its own.  The rung below it does nothing to support the rung above. 

The overall story can be likened to the stringers of the ladder.  That is necessary to keep all the rungs in order and in place.  It is the structural support upon which all the interpretations must stand.  The rungs are the details.  And without them all together, the stringers would not have the structural capacity to hold the weight it does.

The concept of innocence in the Garden is one such idea that will be affected by this methodology.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have learned a good deal from this string. Hopefully, my thoughts, based mostly on the limitations of the Genesis account, shed some light on the traditional Christian understanding of the Fall. FWIW, most Protestants do not hold as rigid an understanding of "original sin" as Catholics do. We either trust in Jesus to atone for our own sins, or we will stand before God on our own merits. Still, Romans 3:10 and 3:23 make it clear that no one in humanity is righteous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Adam and Eve had initially failed to live up to the companionate model of marriage that they had been given

How?

Quote

Adam, knowing the serpent was loose in the garden, left Eve to face it alone without giving her any kind of warning.

What gives you the impression Adam met the serpent first or had any concern about
him?  And what kind of warning could he have given her?

Edited by Jonah

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Jonah said:

What gives you the impression Adam met the serpent first or had any concern about
him? 

This is one of the advantages we have over other sects.  You can accept the fact that you only have one book of scripture and claim it is all you need.  And that is your choice.

But when we read more scriptures we find rich treasures of knowledge that you would reject.  And we know it is from the Lord because the Holy Spirit tells us it is so.

Edited by Carborendum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

One of the difficulties Latter-day Saints have in this sort of discussion is that we have more information than what is in the scripture record—but it comes from the temple endowment liturgy and thus we generally don’t talk about it, even with each other.

I would opine that, for the purposes of this particular discussion, there is little or nothing presented in the endowment that we do not have written out plainly in scripture, especially in the Book of Moses and, to some extent, the Book of Abraham.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

This is one of the advantages we have over other sects.  You can accept the fact that you only have one book of scripture and claim it is all you need.  And that is your choice.

But when we read more scriptures we find rich treasures of knowledge that you would reject.  And we know it is from the Lord because the Holy Spirit tells us it is so.

Perhaps a little slack for us traditionalists is in order? I'll be the first to admit that the "anyone who adds to this book" attack that Antis use against LDS is weak. The verse, from the Book of Revelation, refers specifically to that book. Still, given that nothing new was added for close to 1,800 years, it is not so unreasonable for us to believe that the canon of written scripture was closed. Further, it does not seem that the gift of discerning spirits was employed to verify whether writings would be included in scripture or not, historically. Then there is James admonition to pray for wisdom, when one is uncertain. Again, this does not appear to have been the historic Christian method for sustaining scripture itself. None of this is meant to debate the LDS position, but rather to show that the more traditional approach is no unreasoned--is not a mere choice not to receive more. FWIW, the LDS inclination to seek the guidance of the Holy Spirit is most matters--especially weighty spiritual ones--is something we traditionalists can learn from. :idea:

Edited by prisonchaplain

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, prisonchaplain said:

Perhaps a little slack for us traditionalists is in order? I'll be the first to admit that the "anyone who adds to this book" attack that Antis use against LDS is weak. The verse, from the Book of Revelation, refers specifically to that book. Still, given that nothing new was added for close to 1,800 years, it is not so unreasonable for us to believe that the canon of written scripture was closed. Further, it does not seem that the gift of discerning spirits was employed to verify whether writings would be included in scripture or not, historically. Then there is James admonition to pray for wisdom, when one is uncertain. Again, this does not appear to have been the historic Christian method for sustaining scripture itself. None of this is meant to debate the LDS position, but rather to show that the more traditional approach is no unreasoned--is not a mere choice not to receive more. FWIW, the LDS inclination to seek the guidance of the Holy Spirit is most matters--especially weighty spiritual ones--is something we traditionalists can learn from. :idea:

I am impressed that you can admit the "adding to this book" argument is weak.  And I can also appreciate the 1800 year condition.  But I respectfully disagree with it. 

I have taken some time to consider that if I were born in a Creedal Christian home, I might also feel the similar desire to believe whatever I was raised in.  So no criticisms there.  What I do want to do is point out that we do have a counter argument for the 1800 year argument.  Forgive me if you've heard all this before.  But for the benefit of others...

You, of course, recognize our position that the Lord had to wait that long before the world was prepared to accept the Gospel without killing all the apostles again.

The world was so evil, they crucified the one perfect man who ever lived.  Then they hunted down all the leaders (apostles) and any Christian who would openly declare it so, sentencing them to death.  The world didn't all-of-a-sudden change to righteousness because of Emperor Constantine.  But I'm beginning to wonder if the condition of "Christian" is what is causing the gulf between us.  Here's what I mean here:

To the sectarians, one need only profess belief in Christ and one is saved.  If that is all we have to do, then you're right.  All we needed was Emperor Constantine.  Package that up and put a bow on it.

But to us, simple admission of a belief is not enough for salvation.  Not only is it an entire change of heart that is required, but covenants must be made with the binding power that Jesus said would bind in heaven as well as bind on earth.  Ordinances and authority needed to be restored.  So, you can imagine the lens through which we see the early persecution of our people. 

It took 300 years before we had Constantine to just allow the profession of Christianity without a death sentence.  Then another 1500 years later, power and authority was restored.  Once again that which was bound on earth would be bound in heaven.  And the world conspired again to snuff it out -- even with the promise of a government whose first freedom was the freedom of religion.  And they continued to do so for about 80 more years.  We barely survived as it was.

The Lord didn't save the Apostles back in the Ancient Church.  If He had restored it any earlier than he did, the world would not have accepted it, and it would not have survived.  My personal theory is that the Lord did try to restore it earlier.  But they got killed completely without any record.  Such was the nature of the world.

It simply could not have come any earlier.

Edited by Carborendum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, prisonchaplain said:

Perhaps a little slack for us traditionalists is in order? I'll be the first to admit that the "anyone who adds to this book" attack that Antis use against LDS is weak. The verse, from the Book of Revelation, refers specifically to that book. Still, given that nothing new was added for close to 1,800 years, it is not so unreasonable for us to believe that the canon of written scripture was closed. Further, it does not seem that the gift of discerning spirits was employed to verify whether writings would be included in scripture or not, historically. Then there is James admonition to pray for wisdom, when one is uncertain. Again, this does not appear to have been the historic Christian method for sustaining scripture itself. None of this is meant to debate the LDS position, but rather to show that the more traditional approach is no unreasoned--is not a mere choice not to receive more. FWIW, the LDS inclination to seek the guidance of the Holy Spirit is most matters--especially weighty spiritual ones--is something we traditionalists can learn from. :idea:

The argument of a closed canon is not just weak it is historically inaccurate upon many points but I will cover just three.  First - the Book of Revelation was not the last Book of the New Testament to be completed - according to tradition.  Second - to assume that if a period of time passes without additional scripture that a pause is proof that scripture has completed and is closed - would negate the entire New Testament.   Third - the idea of canon is from the pagan Greeks (not anywhere in scripture).  There is no Bilabial scripture that indicates what is scripture or how scripture is to be determined.  The creation of a Bible was not foretold or revealed in any Bible scripture. 

The canon scripture was man made - not by divine command.  Traditionalists claim that the men that created the Bible were inspired to do so - but to create a canon is an addition or change to what is given by revelation if such did not already exist.  The oldest New Testament collection was discovered hidden (similar to the Dead Sea Scrolls) in the 1800's but even the books included was considered to be too controversial to be made public and has remained hidden from the public for over 150 year.   I would also point out the with the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls that argument for excluding a number of ancient scriptures from the Bible have been proven to be completely false and without a single correct assumption.   This includes the Testament of the Patriarchs and the Book of Enoch (quoted by name as scripture in the Biblical book of Jude).   Also the Book of Enoch is the most quoted scripture by Christ and by his Apostles that is included in the New Testament. 

In short the arguments concerning modern revelation are in essence the same arguments used by the Pharisees and Scribes against Jesus and the Apostles after him.  We would all like to say that if we had lived at the time of Jesus and his Apostles - we would have accepted his teachings - even if such teaching were contrary to the "Traditional" understanding of scripture.  The Book of Mormon - specifically Moroni Chapter 10 suggest that it is by the power of the Holy Ghost that truth is understood - more so than by interpretation of scripture.   I do not intend to discount scripture except to say that scripture did not convince the Pharisees and Scribes that Jesus was the Christ.  When I sought to know the truth of the Book of Mormon through prayer and fasting and by the power of the Holy Ghost - the understanding I was given was not what Traditional Christians have interpreted from scripture.  I was given to understand that the Book of Mormon was of divine origin with such power that I dare not state otherwise. 

 

The Traveler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

 What I do want to do is point out that we do have a counter argument for the 1800 year argument.  Forgive me if you've heard all this before.  But for the benefit of others...

I had not heard this POV before. Thank you. You take the general idea of "God's time is not our time," and offer some historic referencing and interpretation. This does help  me understand better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now