J
Job314
Guest
Well you can say that it’s immoral to lie, but if a gang of thugs chases your mother into your house and you say “she’s not here” I’m pretty sure most people would say that’s a good choice.
- Status
H
Horton
Guest
It is immoral to lie even if you believe you have a good reason to do so.
K
kimg901
Guest
It is immoral. Check your commandments. Thou shall not bear false witness!!!
J
Job314
Guest
So let’s take that exact situation. Someone asks where someone you love is so they can harm or possibly kill them, you tell them exactly where they’re hiding?
R
RebeccaJ
Guest
You say nothing.
Withholding information to protect someone, is not lying. catholic.com/quickquestions/is-lying-a-sin-if-done-to-protect-someone-from-death
But this has nothing to do with Adam and Eve.
I think until Mormonism can formulate an objective morality, that discussion is pointless.
Z
zaffiroborant
Guest
I don’t see that they can formulate objective morality, after all Joseph Smith said:
“That which is wrong under one circumstance, may be, and often is, right under another” that to me rules out any sort of objective morality.
R
RebeccaJ
Guest
I see their view of the Fall as reflecting what Joseph Smith taught. It goes like this: Disobeying a commandment of God is a sin, except when it isn’t.
J
Janderich
Guest
Follow the spirit of the Lord and you will be lead right. This truth is taught in the New Testament over and over again, how is it that you have missed it?
Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster. (Gal 3:24-25)
But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law. (Gal 5:18)
There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. (Romans 8:1)
For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did; by the which we draw nigh unto God. (Heb 7:19)
R
RebeccaJ
Guest
I’m highly dubious of your claim that Mormonism does not teach the Ten Commandments as the basis for morality.
The OT law, found mainly in Leviticus, is fulfilled. Jesus taught the beatitudes, which is a positive expression of the Ten Commandments. The fruit of the virtues of honesty, love, charity, are the beatitudes. We aren’t following the Levitical law, we aren’t Jews or aspiring Jews. We follow a Person, Jesus Christ.
So while you may read the Bible, you obviously don’t understand what you read. Particularly if you believe the Spirit is going to direct in conflict to moral right and prompt an immoral act! Recognizing the fruit of a truth claim is sometimes made easy, such as teaching that the Spirit of truth will prompt immoral acts.
H
Horton
Guest
Well Ok then. I guess the LDS have a different definition of the word “law” in the bible too.
Do you not get the meaning of the old and new testaments in the bible? In the old testament God gave the Israelites His law to follow, in the new He gave His son, Jesus. The “law” spoken of in the new testament is Jesus Christ, old covenant in the OT, new covenant in the NT.
This is basic bible knowledge. Anyone reading the bible can see this clearly.
Z
zaffiroborant
Guest
I’m even more dubious that LDS are encouraged to follow the spirit if what they receive from the spirit is not what their prophet says.
Follow the prophet, follow the prophet,
Follow the prophet; don’t go astray.
Follow the prophet, follow the prophet,
Follow the prophet he knows the way.
R
RebeccaJ
Guest
They have a hierarchy to those things.
J
Janderich
Guest
I did not say the Mosaic Law should be ignored, as I believe you well know. But there is a higher law which fulfills all the requirements of the lower, as Christ himself taught. Would you have us still be bound by the law of Moses?
Follow the spirit which whispers truth and you will not be lead astray. No prophet, no king, no follower of Christ, can ever say otherwise.
F
fhansen
Guest
I don’t know much about Mormonism but it hasn’t sounded like objective morality has been denied by Mormons on this thread. We *are *still bound to obey the ten commandments in any case-the difference between the old and new covenants being a difference in how they’re to be obeyed, not whether they’re to be obeyed.
It sounds to me that Job 314 is saying that Adam & Eve had no consciences, no natural law inscribed in their hearts-they were totally oblivious to right and wrong before they sinned. IOW objective morality had no purpose or effect in their lives regardless of whether or not it existed. This is off the mark and not aligned with the faith, however. Man was always a morally responsible being; the choice they were faced with in Eden demonstrates that responsibility right from the beginning. They may not have sufficiently trusted God for whatever reason or reasons, but they knew what He wanted.
L
lax16
Guest
How can one be oblivious to right and wrong when it is clearly spelled out by God?
God commanded Adam and Eve not to eat of the fruit. They disobeyed his command(ment).
Is disobeying God’s command(ment)s a sin or not?
K
kimg901
Guest
Well that’s where we differ. Ill die before someone hurts my family. I would rather die and face my Lord knowing I didn’t sin!!!
L
lax16
Guest
What about Mormons that claim to have followed the Holy Spirit only to have it not turn out well? If this were true, would there ever be a temple marriage that ends in divorce?
J
Job314
Guest
Wow, there’s been a let of activity on this thread since I’ve been able to post, thanks everyone for contributing to the discussion.
I think ultimately it comes down to the fact that I believe that God (in effect) didn’t say “thou shalt not eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil”. In my understanding of the events, God said (in effect) “this is your choice, eat the fruit and become mortal with everything that comes with it, or don’t eat it, and stay here, but you wot progress beyond this state”
We’ve gone round and round, but because we view that part differently, there won’t be mutual understanding.
The other thing is that it was only after they ate the fruit that God said "now man…know(s) good from evil. I understand what others have said on this thread about experiential knowing vs. logically knowing, but the fact remains, God said that eating the fruit made them "like unto (Him), knowing good from evil. The lie Satan told was not this. It was that they wouldn’t die.
Again, I respect that we have different views on this.
To bring things back to the start of this thread, if the fall never occurred, there would be no misery, no sickness, no sin,no death, no trials, no suffering, and so, comprehending happiness and health, righteousness, joy and wellbeing would be impossible. That’s generally what Mormons mean when they say that sin is needed in order for there to be happiness. We cannot comprehend things without opposites. Light/dark, heavy/light, happy/sad etc.
I think ultimately it comes down to the fact that I believe that God (in effect) didn’t say “thou shalt not eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil”. In my understanding of the events, God said (in effect) “this is your choice, eat the fruit and become mortal with everything that comes with it, or don’t eat it, and stay here, but you wot progress beyond this state”
We’ve gone round and round, but because we view that part differently, there won’t be mutual understanding.
The other thing is that it was only after they ate the fruit that God said "now man…know(s) good from evil. I understand what others have said on this thread about experiential knowing vs. logically knowing, but the fact remains, God said that eating the fruit made them "like unto (Him), knowing good from evil. The lie Satan told was not this. It was that they wouldn’t die.
Again, I respect that we have different views on this.
To bring things back to the start of this thread, if the fall never occurred, there would be no misery, no sickness, no sin,no death, no trials, no suffering, and so, comprehending happiness and health, righteousness, joy and wellbeing would be impossible. That’s generally what Mormons mean when they say that sin is needed in order for there to be happiness. We cannot comprehend things without opposites. Light/dark, heavy/light, happy/sad etc.
F
fhansen
Guest
Ok, I understand your position. I do think A & E knew joy and happiness, however. It’s just that they didn’t yet know how to* appreciate* what they already had. Had they trusted God, they would’ve had more yet. They probably know better by now, presumably having learned who’s Boss-and why He deserves the title. Misery, sickness, suffering, sin, death, trials, and suffering may serve a purpose-to show us what *happens *when God isn’t believed, so that we’ll turn back to Him like prodigals from the pigsty, but they were never meant to exist eternally.
R
RebeccaJ
Guest
We’ve gone round and round because you change scripture, without any explanation other than, that is what you think scripture should say.
Well, Satan tells enough of a truth to make the lies sound plausible. It doesn’t matter, though, as going against a commandment of God is a sin. “The end justifies the means.”, does not make an sin, good.
What we disagree on, at its root, is your assertion that Adam and Eve wouldn’t receive all the Good that God had prepared for them, without defying God. Sin, being rewarded by God, is not the message of truth found in any of our scriptures.
Don’t know why you think God created us in an impossibly hopeless state that required sin, in order to fulfill a hope for all the Good that God has to give to us, By this logic, an innocent baby who has known nothing but love, wellbeing and goodness, has no happiness or joy. Or conversely, a child born to poverty and hunger, and who dies before their second birthday, is happier than anyone else on earth.
- Status