Conversion to Mormonism?

[NextElement]

One thing that has always made me think that the Catholic Church is true versus the Mormons (putting aside scriptural and theological differences): The Catholic Church seems to more represent the way the early disciples and apostles lived. All of the Mormons I know are fairly wealthy and successful, with big families and big houses. To me, it’s not exactly “Give up everything and follow me” like Christ commanded. Catholics, on the other hand, seem to follow that more: Priests devote their entire lives to Christ, religious orders take vows of poverty, and we are by far the largest charity in the world.

I mean heck, look at Saint Francis. That guy wasn’t in a suit and a tie with a nice house. He was dirt poor and wore a brown habit!

 

[FabiusMaximus]

Ancient texts have much to say about the appearance of God, but very little to suggest that he was once mortal. The first account to suggest that there is a tie between men and God is the biblical story of the fall, in which the serpent tempts Eve to eat the fruit of the tree by telling her that “God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil” (Genesis 3:5). That this part of the serpent’s speech was the truth is clear from Genesis 3:22, where the Lord himself says, “Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil.” Two medieval Armenian texts suggest that the serpent said a bit more than what is recorded in the Genesis story. The first of these texts is an account of the fall:

When Adam departed and was walking around in the garden, the serpent spoke to Eve and said, “Why do you taste of all the trees, but from this one tree which is beautiful in appearance you do not taste?” Eve said, “Because God said, ‘When you eat of that tree, you shall die.’” But the serpent said, “God has deceived you, for formerly God was man like you. When he ate of that fruit, he attained this great glory. That is why he told you not to eat, lest eating you would become equal to God.”

Another translator of this text rendered the serpent’s words, “God was a man like you. When he ate of the fruit of this tree he became God of all.” A second Armenian text records:

The serpent said to Eve, “Why do you eat of the fruit from every tree, but you do not eat of this beautiful fruit?” Eve said, “Because the Lord God commanded not to eat of that fruit. He said, ‘When you eat it, you will die.’” The serpent said, “God wants to deceive you, for God was like you, because he had not eaten of that fruit. When he ate it, he attained the glory of divinity. That is why he told you not to eat of that fruit, because you would become equal, sharing the glory and throne of God.”

fairmormon.org/perspectives/fair-conferences/2004-fair-conference/2004-the-king-follett-discourse-in-the-light-of-ancient-and-medieval-jewish-and-christian-beliefs

There are something that I don’t understand that I hope you could clarify, since you are obviously knowledge about the Mormon faith.

1. Is the fall of man considered good or bad? The Genesis account, whether we accept the new additions you claim, indicates that the fall of man is a tragedy, because we lost the communion with God that existed in the Garden of Eden. But with Mormonism, it seems that it is almost a positive development, because it allows humanity to achieve exaltation and become divine. If that’s the case, then why did God curse humanity after the fall? Why not want humanity to become “like us”?
2. Regarding the Armenian texts, how can we know they are reliable? All the other texts do not have that additional commentary by the serpent. I haven’t even read a biblical commentary that suggests those are possible additions. In fact, it’s the first time I’ve ever heard of “Armenian texts” for the Old Testament. Are you implying that they have something that the others lost? If so, then why those specific ones?
3. As a side note - I’m unclear from the debate on this thread but - is the Adam-God doctrine officially denied now by the LDS Church, or can a pious LDS continue to affirm it while it not being official teaching? Further, I’m unclear on who “Jehovah” is. Is that the pre-incarnate Jesus?

 

[iepuras]

There are something that I don’t understand that I hope you could clarify, since you are obviously knowledge about the Mormon faith.

1. Is the fall of man considered good or bad? The Genesis account, whether we accept the new additions you claim, indicates that the fall of man is a tragedy, because we lost the communion with God that existed in the Garden of Eden. But with Mormonism, it seems that it is almost a positive development, because it allows humanity to achieve exaltation and become divine. If that’s the case, then why did God curse humanity after the fall? Why not want humanity to become “like us”?

The LDS teach that the fall of man was a good thing. It is considered a “fall forward” and Eve is hailed as a hero, especially to the women. (They completely ignore Mary). The LDS do not believe in Original Sin. They believe that Adam and Eve could not have children in their state in the garden, so in order to obey that commandment, they had to fall. Basically, Adam and Eve were in a bind. They could not obey both commandments that God gave to them so they chose to partake of the fruit and fall so they could have children and start the process of becoming gods themselves.

1. Regarding the Armenian texts, how can we know they are reliable? All the other texts do not have that additional commentary by the serpent. I haven’t even read a biblical commentary that suggests those are possible additions. In fact, it’s the first time I’ve ever heard of “Armenian texts” for the Old Testament. Are you implying that they have something that the others lost? If so, then why those specific ones?
2. As a side note - I’m unclear from the debate on this thread but - is the Adam-God doctrine officially denied now by the LDS Church, or can a pious LDS continue to affirm it while it not being official teaching? Further, I’m unclear on who “Jehovah” is. Is that the pre-incarnate Jesus?

I have never heard of the Armenian texts before either. I’d like to see some documentation that these texts with this language even exist. And like I said in a previous post, why should we assume that Satan is even telling Adam and Eve the truth when he told them God had once been man? He is the father of lies after all.

The Adam-god theory was renounced and declared to not be official doctrine. Jehovah is Jesus before he received his physical body and is the God of the Old Testament. Elohim delegated god duties to Jehovah after the fall.

 

[TexanKnight]

The LDS teach that the fall of man was a good thing. It is considered a “fall forward” and Eve is hailed as a hero, especially to the women. (They completely ignore Mary). The LDS do not believe in Original Sin. They believe that Adam and Eve could not have children in their state in the garden, so in order to obey that commandment, they had to fall. Basically, Adam and Eve were in a bind. They could not obey both commandments that God gave to them so they chose to partake of the fruit and fall so they could have children and start the process of becoming gods themselves.

True

The Adam-god theory was renounced and declared to not be official doctrine. Jehovah is Jesus before he received his physical body and is the God of the Old Testament. Elohim delegated god duties to Jehovah after the fall.

And this is a major issue. A prophet declared it was doctrine. So…either he lied, he is not a prophet, God tricked him, or later prophets are in apostasy for ignoring valid doctrine.

 

[FabiusMaximus]

The LDS teach that the fall of man was a good thing. It is considered a “fall forward” and Eve is hailed as a hero, especially to the women. (They completely ignore Mary). The LDS do not believe in Original Sin. They believe that Adam and Eve could not have children in their state in the garden, so in order to obey that commandment, they had to fall. Basically, Adam and Eve were in a bind. They could not obey both commandments that God gave to them so they chose to partake of the fruit and fall so they could have children and start the process of becoming gods themselves.

The implication to me here is that either God is imperfect with his commandments, or that there is some other problem here. If God is all-knowing, all-powerful, and virtuous and merciful, then rebelling against him is wrong. But considering the fall of Adam and Eve to be a good thing*** to me*** seems to indicate that God is none of those attributes I just mentioned. Perhaps you or a faithful LDS like Evanfaust can clear that up for me but I don’t really understand it.

I have never heard of the Armenian texts before either. I’d like to see some documentation that these texts with this language even exist. And like I said in a previous post, why should we assume that Satan is even telling Adam and Eve the truth when he told them God had once been man? He is the father of lies after all.

The Adam-god theory was renounced and declared to not be official doctrine. Jehovah is Jesus before he received his physical body and is the God of the Old Testament. Elohim delegated god duties to Jehovah after the fall.

That is an interesting argument. After all, we all know that he lied about the* “you shall surely not die!”* part, why wouldn’t he lie about everything else? That is his way, after all.

But although the Adam-God theory was renounced, does that mean that it is considered heretical for an LDS member to believe in it? Or can a person believe it regardless, kind of like as Christians we can have liberties to believe certain things that are not official doctrine in our respective churches?

 

[Marie5890]

The implication to me here is that either God is imperfect with his commandments, or that there is some other problem here. If God is all-knowing, all-powerful, and virtuous and merciful, then rebelling against him is wrong. But considering the fall of Adam and Eve to be a good thing*** to me*** seems to indicate that God is none of those attributes I just mentioned. Perhaps you or a faithful LDS like Evanfaust can clear that up for me but I don’t really understand it.

When I was LDS, I always thought the idea of the “fall” being a “good thing” made God out to be a God of mind games…

They were commanded NOT to eat, but yet they had to eat to further God’s plan etc etc…Who would want to worship a god who was into that kind of mixed message/mind game playing?

 

[iepuras]

When I was LDS, I always thought the idea of the “fall” being a “good thing” made God out to be a God of mind games…

They were commanded NOT to eat, but yet they had to eat to further God’s plan etc etc…Who would want to worship a god who was into that kind of mixed message/mind game playing?

Exactly! The god of Mormonism is not virtuous and merciful, even though they say he is. He put Adam and Eve in a bind. The LDS acknowledge there is a Heavenly Mother, yet Heavenly Father won’t allow us (their spirit children) to pray to our mother and know about her. What kind of father does that? A cruel one.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Thank you for your response,
Does this also include the ‘lamanites’ as per the BOM?

The Mormon Church taught, until recently, that the Lamanites were cursed with dark skin for their unrighteousness. Teaching that the ancestors of the Lamanites are all Native Americans and Pacific Islanders.

This curse differs from the curse of Cain, in that the Mormon Church taught a prophecy that the Lamanites would once again become righteous, and the curse would be removed, meaning, the people’s skin would become white.

This curse also did not bar “Lamanites” from being ordained to the Mormon priesthood, or bar them from “higher ordinances”.

The Mormon Church has since distanced itself from both teachings, and now says that these teachings about dark-skin curses were speculation on the part of their prophets and apostles.

 

[TexanKnight]

The Mormon Church taught, until recently, that the Lamanites were cursed with dark skin for their unrighteousness. Teaching that the ancestors of the Lamanites are all Native Americans and Pacific Islanders.

This curse differs from the curse of Cain, in that the Mormon Church taught a prophecy that the Lamanites would once again become righteous, and the curse would be removed, meaning, the people’s skin would become white.

This curse also did not bar “Lamanites” from being ordained to the Mormon priesthood, or bar them from “higher ordinances”.

The Mormon Church has since distanced itself from both teachings, and now says that these teachings about dark-skin curses were speculation on the part of their prophets and apostles.

lol…yes! LDS “prophets” claimed blacks who accepted the lds church would become white. The B of M even said so.

When it became clear it was not happening, they changed the verse in the B of M “The most perfect book” and claimed they never taught it.

You gotta love it!

 

[LivingWaters7]

***The day of the Lamanites is nigh. For years they have been growing delightsome, and they are now becoming white and delightsome, as they were promised (2 Ne. 30:6). In this picture of the twenty Lamanite missionaries, fifteen of the twenty were as light as Anglos; five were darker but equally delightsome. The children in the home placement program in Utah are often lighter than their brothers and sisters in the hogans on the reservation.

At one meeting a father and mother and their sixteen-year-old daughter were present, the little member girl—sixteen—sitting between the dark father and mother, and it was evident she was several shades lighter than her parents—on the same reservation, in the same hogan, subject to the same sun and wind and weather. There was the doctor in a Utah city who for two years had had an Indian boy in his home who stated that he was some shades lighter than the younger brother just coming into the program from the reservation. These young members of the Church are changing to whiteness and to delightsomeness. One white elder jokingly said that he and his companion were donating blood regularly to the hospital in the hope that the process might be accelerated. ***
-Spencer W. Kimball, Conference Report October 1960, pp. 32-37
scriptures.byu.edu/gettalk.php?ID=1091&era=yes

Could you imagine sitting in General Conference listening to this? They wouldn’t dare say this today.

 

[Stephen168]

*Since an apostle is a witness of Christ and Christ’s resurrection from the dead, how can Latter-day men qualify as apostles? Have they seen Christ? If so why don’t they say so?
*

Many of our Christian brothers and sisters use this supposed requirement to eliminate the LDS apostles as real apostles, and they attempt to use the Bible as the basis for their rejection. How do we respond? Let us take a look at what the Bible says regarding the matter. Most of the critics will use Acts 1:21-26:

Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection. And they appointed two, Joseph called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias. And they prayed, and said, Thou, Lord, which knowest the hearts of all men, shew whether of these two thou hast chosen, That he may take part of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place. And they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.

The problem here is Acts 1 does not lay down this criterion for all future apostles. Paul, of course, would not meet this requirement, yet I’ve never met a Christian that didn’t view Paul as an apostle.
…

Suffice it to say, there were several other Apostles, in addition to the original 12. And while the original 11 (minus Judas) were chosen from men who had been with Christ throughout His ministry, this was never declared a universal requirement and we have numerous examples of apostles who don’t meet that requirement.

Apostles are special witnesses of Christ, chosen by God to testify, to lead and teach His children and to manage the affairs of His Church. Whether it be 2000 years ago when they wore robes and sandals, or today when they wear suits and ties, apostles are special witnesses of Christ and we are blessed to have them on the Earth today.

Interesting except Apostles are NOT witnesses to the resurrection. The Twelve were; they are the foundation of the Church (Rev 21:14). Because of Judas’ apostasy (Acts 1:25), the Twelve needed to be restored. The eleven chose Matthias. The word Apostles means one who is sent and they were men sent by Christ and the Twelve. After Christ and the Twelve died they was none with
The requirements of Acts limit the council membership to the first century. After all the men that walked with the twelve, while the Lord walked the earth, died; no one else qualified. The Twelve was never meant to be on going. This was the only time eleven selected a twelfth; one apostasy, one replacement. Just as there was no need to replace Christ as the head of Church after the crucifixion, or replace The Twelve as the foundation after their deaths; the Twelve were not replaced after their deaths. If Apostle was only an office to be filled, they could have easily been replaced; just like Bishops have been replaced for almost 2000 years.

Mormon Apostles were first sent by Joseph Smith as missionaries. They were not leaders of the Mormon Church. Which is it seems Joseph Smith felt like he could excommunicate them at will. Brigham Young and the Apostles took the Mormon Church from Ridgon upon the death of Joseph Smith.

 

[Stephen168]

Wrong! Mormons did not originated from a protest against the Catholic Church…It was originated from Celestial visitors from Heaven. That is why Mormons are not in the same category as Protestants. Restoration and not protestation.

I never said Mormons were Protestants. I said they are based in anti-Catholicism. Mormons are not Protestant because they are not Christian.

They are not the same church…very little resemblance between Catholic Church and the Early Church of Christ. The Catholic church actually inherited the Bible from the early Christian church.

The Catholic Church was started by Jesus Christ. It was Catholics who wrote the New Testament; and Catholic Bishops in the 3rd century who decided which writings were going to be included in it. The first known list of all the writings was made by the Bishop of Alexandria in his Easter letter of 367. Those writings were then translated into latin, which was the common language of the people, by Jerome, by the authority of the Bishop of Rome. This traditional list was finalized at the Council of Trent.

In 1909 James E. Talmage wrote The Great Apostasy, in which he gathered New Testament passages that Latter-day Saints have cited to show that a great apostasy was predicted by Jesus Christ, Paul, and other apostles and prophets (esp. Matt. 24:4-13, 23-26; Acts 20:29-30; Gal. 1; 2 Thes. 2:7-8; 1 Tim. 4:1-3; 2 Tim. 3:1-6;4:1-4; Jude 1:3-4; Rev. 13:4-9;14:6-7; and in the Old Testament, Amos 8:11-12).

Talmage also chronicled the persecution of early Christians that hastened the Apostasy and described the primitive Church as changing internally in several respects.

He argued that the simple principles of the gospel were mixed with the pagan philosophical systems of the day (Trinitarianism, resulting in the Nicene Creed; false opposition of body and spirit, creating excessive asceticism); that rituals were changed and added to in unauthorized ways (simple early Christian rites were replaced by complex pagan-influenced ceremonies; baptism by immersion was lost; the baptism of infants was introduced; communion was changed); and that church organization was altered (the apostles and prophets, the necessary foundation of the church of Christ, were martyred, leaving a void that could not be filled.

To summarize Talmage: Joseph Smith made up stuff contrary to Christianity. Joseph Smith is right, so there had to be an apostasy. Warnings are not predictions. A few people leaving the Church is not a Great Apostasy. Talmage could not give the date of a Great Apostasy or evidence of a bunch of Former-Day-Saints.

The same guys that said the Book of Mormon was about the source of ALL the American Indians also invented:
exaltation,
polygamy,
Melchizedek Priesthood,
excommunicating Apostles,
prophets leading the church,
blood atonement, and
water baptism on behalf of the dead.

None of these have ever been Christian practices or teachings. Mormonism is an invention of Joseph Smith not a restoration.

 

[RebeccaJ]

***The day of the Lamanites is nigh. For years they have been growing delightsome, and they are now becoming white and delightsome, as they were promised (2 Ne. 30:6). In this picture of the twenty Lamanite missionaries, fifteen of the twenty were as light as Anglos; five were darker but equally delightsome. The children in the home placement program in Utah are often lighter than their brothers and sisters in the hogans on the reservation.

At one meeting a father and mother and their sixteen-year-old daughter were present, the little member girl—sixteen—sitting between the dark father and mother, and it was evident she was several shades lighter than her parents—on the same reservation, in the same hogan, subject to the same sun and wind and weather. There was the doctor in a Utah city who for two years had had an Indian boy in his home who stated that he was some shades lighter than the younger brother just coming into the program from the reservation. These young members of the Church are changing to whiteness and to delightsomeness. One white elder jokingly said that he and his companion were donating blood regularly to the hospital in the hope that the process might be accelerated. ***
-Spencer W. Kimball, Conference Report October 1960, pp. 32-37
scriptures.byu.edu/gettalk.php?ID=1091&era=yes

Could you imagine sitting in General Conference listening to this? They wouldn’t dare say this today.

This quote made the rounds in my various religious classes in the Mormon church for 20 years or so following 1960.

Then one day at school (elementary) the teacher taught us about melanin and its relationship to evolution. That was the first time I remember feeling the shock of, “Something isn’t right here!”

 

[Marie5890]

***The day of the Lamanites is nigh. For years they have been growing delightsome, and they are now becoming white and delightsome, as they were promised (2 Ne. 30:6). In this picture of the twenty Lamanite missionaries, fifteen of the twenty were as light as Anglos; five were darker but equally delightsome. The children in the home placement program in Utah are often lighter than their brothers and sisters in the hogans on the reservation.

At one meeting a father and mother and their sixteen-year-old daughter were present, the little member girl—sixteen—sitting between the dark father and mother, and it was evident she was several shades lighter than her parents—on the same reservation, in the same hogan, subject to the same sun and wind and weather. There was the doctor in a Utah city who for two years had had an Indian boy in his home who stated that he was some shades lighter than the younger brother just coming into the program from the reservation. These young members of the Church are changing to whiteness and to delightsomeness. One white elder jokingly said that he and his companion were donating blood regularly to the hospital in the hope that the process might be accelerated. ***
-Spencer W. Kimball, Conference Report October 1960, pp. 32-37
scriptures.byu.edu/gettalk.php?ID=1091&era=yes

Could you imagine sitting in General Conference listening to this? They wouldn’t dare say this today.

WOW! First time I have ever seen this quote.

And note, it’s from Kimball (though he wasnt prophet then) during Conference. I was taught that whatever was said in Conference was basically to be considered as scripture, though not officially part of the “standard works”

 

[debbie_h]

lol…yes! LDS “prophets” claimed blacks who accepted the lds church would become white. The B of M even said so.

When it became clear it was not happening, they changed the verse in the B of M “The most perfect book” and claimed they never taught it.

You gotta love it!

This is just laughable. As I’ve stated somewhere in another thread, I have a children’s picture BOM & video tape that clearly teaches about the lamenites dark skin punishment (from the 90s) the more righteousness the more white their skin became, the more disobedient, the darker the became, Also reminds me that in primary, youth & YSA, we were taught about this however it was never mentioned who the descendants of Cain or the lamenites are today (we have a very large islander membership here, talk about awkward)
It also makes me question as to why would God make dark skin as a curse to Cain & his descendants, as well as the Lamenites & their descendants (putting aside the matter of the priesthood) to say that this is why these people have dark skin. What about all other races who have dark skin? What must their ancestors have done to also recieve this ‘curse’?

 

[debbie_h]

***The day of the Lamanites is nigh. For years they have been growing delightsome, and they are now becoming white and delightsome, as they were promised (2 Ne. 30:6). In this picture of the twenty Lamanite missionaries, fifteen of the twenty were as light as Anglos; five were darker but equally delightsome. The children in the home placement program in Utah are often lighter than their brothers and sisters in the hogans on the reservation.

At one meeting a father and mother and their sixteen-year-old daughter were present, the little member girl—sixteen—sitting between the dark father and mother, and it was evident she was several shades lighter than her parents—on the same reservation, in the same hogan, subject to the same sun and wind and weather. There was the doctor in a Utah city who for two years had had an Indian boy in his home who stated that he was some shades lighter than the younger brother just coming into the program from the reservation. These young members of the Church are changing to whiteness and to delightsomeness. One white elder jokingly said that he and his companion were donating blood regularly to the hospital in the hope that the process might be accelerated. ***
-Spencer W. Kimball, Conference Report October 1960, pp. 32-37
scriptures.byu.edu/gettalk.php?ID=1091&era=yes

Could you imagine sitting in General Conference listening to this? They wouldn’t dare say this today.

Wow… Just wow… :I almost choked on my breakfast!!!

 

[debbie_h]

This quote made the rounds in my various religious classes in the Mormon church for 20 years or so following 1960.

Then one day at school (elementary) the teacher taught us about melanin and its relationship to evolution. That was the first time I remember feeling the shock of, “Something isn’t right here!”

This also makes me laugh. Regardless of race, everyone’s skin colour naturally darkens & lightens a few shades throughout the year according to seasonal activity. (If I was alive during that era) a day at the beach or a driving tan on my arm would have indicated I was unrighteousness?

 

[evanfaust]

The implication to me here is that either God is imperfect with his commandments, or that there is some other problem here. If God is all-knowing, all-powerful, and virtuous and merciful, then rebelling against him is wrong. But considering the fall of Adam and Eve to be a good thing*** to me*** seems to indicate that God is none of those attributes I just mentioned. Perhaps you or a faithful LDS like Evanfaust can clear that up for me but I don’t really understand it.

Fabius,

This is the Mormons understanding of the fall…

Did God know in advance that Adam and Even would eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil and become mortal? Of course! God is all knowing and it would diminish his power to say he did not. In fact, according to Mormon theology, that was part of God’s plan.

The Lord gave Adam and Eve commandments in the Garden of Eden, two of which were to multiply and replenish the earth (see Gen. 1:28) and to not partake of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil (see Gen. 2:17). These two commandments were designed to place Adam and Eve in a position where they had to make a choice. President Smith taught: “The Lord said to Adam that if he wished to remain as he was in the garden, then he was not to eat the fruit, but if he desired to eat it and partake of death he was at liberty to do so.” Faced with this dilemma, Adam and Eve chose death—both physical and spiritual—which opened the door for themselves and their posterity to gain knowledge and experience and to participate in the Father’s plan of happiness leading to eternal life.

Look what the Book of Mormon says on the matter:

*“If Adam had not transgressed, he would not have fallen, but he would have remained in the garden of Eden. …

“And they would have had no children; wherefore they would have remained in a state of innocence, having no joy, for they knew no misery; doing no good, for they knew no sin.

“But behold, all things have been done in the wisdom of him who knoweth all things.

“Adam fell that men might be; and men are, that they might have joy” (2 Ne. 2:22–25).*

Mormons do not see the disobedience of Adam and Even as “sin”, but as a transgression that caused them to become mortal after eating of the fruit and thus fulfilling the designs of God.

lds.org/ensign/2006/06/the-fulness-of-the-gospel-the-fall-of-adam-and-eve?lang=eng

That is an interesting argument. After all, we all know that he lied about the* “you shall surely not die!”* part, why wouldn’t he lie about everything else? That is his way, after all.

Did God allow Satan to tempt Adam and Eve?…He certainly did because it happened. But he did it with a purpose.

Yes, Satan lied when he said: “You will not certainly die,” but he told the truth when he said: “For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” Gen 3:4-5

When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it. Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves. Gen 3:6-7

 

[Z_Ninja]

Fabius,

This is the Mormons understanding of the fall…

Did God know in advance that Adam and Even would eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil and become mortal? Of course! God is all knowing and it would diminish his power to say he did not. In fact, according to Mormon theology, that was part of God’s plan.

The Lord gave Adam and Eve commandments in the Garden of Eden, two of which were to multiply and replenish the earth (see Gen. 1:28) and to not partake of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil (see Gen. 2:17). These two commandments were designed to place Adam and Eve in a position where they had to make a choice. President Smith taught: “The Lord said to Adam that if he wished to remain as he was in the garden, then he was not to eat the fruit, but if he desired to eat it and partake of death he was at liberty to do so.” Faced with this dilemma, Adam and Eve chose death—both physical and spiritual—which opened the door for themselves and their posterity to gain knowledge and experience and to participate in the Father’s plan of happiness leading to eternal life.

Look what the Book of Mormon says on the matter:

*“If Adam had not transgressed, he would not have fallen, but he would have remained in the garden of Eden. …

“And they would have had no children; wherefore they would have remained in a state of innocence, having no joy, for they knew no misery; doing no good, for they knew no sin.

“But behold, all things have been done in the wisdom of him who knoweth all things.

“Adam fell that men might be; and men are, that they might have joy” (2 Ne. 2:22–25).*

Mormons do not see the disobedience of Adam and Even as “sin”, but as a transgression that caused them to become mortal after eating of the fruit and thus fulfilling the designs of God.

lds.org/ensign/2006/06/the-fulness-of-the-gospel-the-fall-of-adam-and-eve?lang=eng

Whether God knew if they would eat the fruit or not, they still disobeyed his commandment to not eat of the fruit. And to say it wasn’t sin but transgression? Sin=transgression… Also, If they did not eat the fruit, would God not have given further instruction on how they were to multiply? Should they have trusted in God and not listened to the serpent?

 

[Porknpie]

They are not the same church…very little resemblance between Catholic Church and the Early Church of Christ.** The Catholic church actually inherited the Bible from the early Christian church**.

Well that early Christian Church was full of Catholic Bishops and had a continuous line of Popes beginning with St Peter. It was the Catholic Church.

These same Bishops gathered in Rome in 382 and determined what books were scripture. They did so without error as Christ promised to lead his Church to all truth and to be with it until the end of time. Here’s what those Catholic Bishops said, speaking through Pope Damasus:

“The order of the Old Testament begins here: Genesis, one book; Exodus, one book; Leviticus, one book; Numbers, one book; Deuteronomy, one book; Joshua [Son of] Nave, one book; Judges, one book; Ruth, one book; Kings, four books [ie., 1 and 2 Samuel and 1 and 2 Kings]; Paralipomenon [Chronicles], two books; Psalms, one book; Solomon, three books: Proverbs, one book; Ecclesiastes, one book; Canticle of Canticles, one book; likewise Wisdom, one book; Ecclesiasticus [Sirach], one book. Likewise the order of the Prophets. Isaias one book, Jeremias one book,…lamentations, Ezechiel one book, Daniel one book, Osee … Nahum … Habacuc … Sophonias … Aggeus … Zacharias … Malachias … Likewise the order of the historical [books]: Job, one book; Tobit, one book; Esdras, two books [Ezra and Nehemiah]; Esther, one book; Judith, one book; Maccabees, two books.” Council of Rome, Decree of Pope Damasus (A.D. 382).

A few years later, another meeting of Catholic Bishops in Hippo, affirmed what was said in Rome.

“That nothing be read in church besides the Canonical Scripture. Item, that besides the Canonical Scriptures nothing be read in church under the name of divine Scripture. But the Canonical Scriptures are as follows: Genesis. Exodus. Leviticus. Numbers. Deuteronomy. Joshua the Son of Nun. The Judges. Ruth. The Kings, four books. The Chronicles, two books. Job. The Psalter. The Five books of Solomon. The Twelve Books of the Prophets. Isaiah. Jeremiah. Ezechiel. Daniel. Tobit. Judith. Esther. Ezra, two books. Macchabees, two books.” Council of Hippo, Canon 36 (A.D. 393).

And just four years later another gathering of Catholic Bishops in Carthage affirmed the same listing of books:

“[It has been decided] that nothing except the canonical Scriptures should be read in the Church under the name of the divine Scriptures. But the canonical Scriptures are: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, Paralipomenon, two books, Job, the Psalter of David, five books of Solomon [Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Wisdom, Sirach], twelve books of the Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, two books of Esdras, two books of the Maccabees.” Council of Carthage III, Canon 397 (A.D. 397).

What’s is interesting here is that these early Christians, Catholic Christians, affirmed that there were 73 books in the bible and not 66. This included 46 NT books out of several hundred Christian writings. They also, everyone of them, wanted a universal set of readings to be used in Catholic Churches throughout the world where The Church celebrated the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

So it’s the LDS Church that does not resemble this early Church. No belief in the Real Presence and you have only 66 books in your bible. (But at least you trust that the Catholic Church got those right).

Ultimately, you trust that the the Holy Spirit led The Church to all truth in deciding what books should be in the bible…but the same Holy Spirit let the Church fall into apostasy (when and where who knows). That’s a very inconsistent theology to hold.

PnP