LDS Question - How did the first church fail?

[RebeccaJ]

No, they would not be baptized by proxy because in the first place, the Sadducees were presenting a hypothetical situation–not a real one; and in the second place, the Jews already had the practice of baptism among them, so baptism for the dead would not apply to them.

Jesus was answering the question about men who had hypothetically gone to the spirit world, but were Sadducees and therefore had the tradition of rejecting the resurrection, which is clearly taught in the Old Testament and thus they were rejecting light and truth that was available to them. They would qualify to be “as the angels”, but not to inherit the “joint throne” promised to those who are faithful to the testimony of Jesus and seek sanctification through the Holy Spirit.

The Sadducees to whom Jesus was responding, could obviously repent, change, and begin to believe in Him and thus not have the consequences from unbelief that those “brothers” from their hypothetical example would receive, since their hypothetical “life” on earth as mortals was already over.

sad ParkerD, the lengths you have to go to, assumptions, when what Jesus is saying is very clear…there is no marriage in heaven.

ParkerD, I was also thinking this morning. You are reading into the text something that is not there. A universal assumption that marriage exists in heaven. Yet, there is nothing that indicates this, only what you imagine. You dismiss the words of Jesus as not applicable to yourself, for the reason that you don’t want to believe them. I would be concerned about this if I were you.

 

[peary]

That is what I cannot understand though, the protestant reformation is when luther split from the Catholic Church. The CC stayed exactly the same. How they can think that a Catholic Monk leaving the RCC could make the RCC no longer does not make sense. Now if Luther left the RCC and the RCC was no longer, yes I could see the point. But it never happened. Luther left the RCC not the Holy Spirit. The RCC was never ran by Luther in the first place it is and always has been run by the HS. Where did Jesus ever say that the Church would be led by any Priest anyway. He said the Holy Spirit would lead the Pope not the Pope lead the HS for goodness sakes. I cannot believe that Mormons buy this!

**As P.T. Barnum used to say, “There’s a sucker born every minute.”

The other thing is, if Mormons believe this, then why didn’t they point to the Schism of the Eastern/Western churches as a time where the Catholic Church ceased to exist? Because the early Mormons were ignorant of history and had no clue about the schism, that’s why! Even today, speaking with some Mormons personally, they thought that the eastern orthodox was a totally different church and was never associated with the Catholic church in any way.**

By the way, if when Luther left, the RCC was no more, then someone needed to tell the Bishops and Popes etc of that time. And lets not forget the HS. Because from the day of Pentecost to the present we still believe and the HS still believes that he is running the show!

How do they explain away the Council of Trent??

 

[ParkerD]

ParkerD, I was also thinking this morning. You are reading into the text something that is not there. A universal assumption that marriage exists in heaven. Yet, there is nothing that indicates this, only what you imagine. You dismiss the words of Jesus as not applicable to yourself, for the reason that you don’t want to believe them. I would be concerned about this if I were you.

RebeccaJ,
Thanks kindly for thinking about me as to my needing to be concerned. I’ll be OK.

I love the words of the Lord–all of them. When He said, “Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.”

Then I think He meant exactly that.

When He said of the hypothetical Sadducees brothers, “For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.”

Then I think He meant exactly that. He said what He meant, with clarity and precision.(However, sometimes the English translation can loose a little bit of the clarity, especially with a word like “they”.)

But have a good day, and may we all be peace-bringers this coming year.

 

[RebeccaJ]

But have a good day, and may we all be peace-bringers this coming year.

Peace be with you.

 

[Xavierlives]

PART 1 -

Answers,
So since it is a “straightforward verse”, are you saying that you believe God was “formed”?

I’m not sure what it is you are saying. Xavierlives can believe whatever he wants, and it impacts me -0-.

Have a good day.

Well I am fortunate. I work for my father but sometimes he requires me to work. I am working today.

So, with that said, I had to catch up with the posts.

Parker,

I am glad you also enjoy Isaiah’s teaching. I find it speaks volumes for the Alpha and Omega. I find a comforting consistency in his book as I find the same consistency throughout God’s Word.

I will not reiterate all things said by Answersplease, but do find merit in the post. The main point I do want to cover is, the core of Christianity does not view the inheritance as a godhead reward. This would, on face, imply polytheism. I’ve heard your words, or the words of your brethren, and the answers have varied: 1. There is but one “God-creator” and many gods; 2. There is one Father God, which naturally produces god-like children; 3. Only God was formed, we are not formed (which is yours). Now considering the width and breadth of the scripture, we see things as simple as Exodus 20
1And God spake all these words, saying,

2I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.

3Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

4Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.

5Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;

Now some would take this to mean other gods exist and God is acknowledging them. Others take this to mean, “little g” gods are not a diety, it are nothing but a pronoun, the antecedant being anything in which mankind worships. But Isaiah 44 (just a chapter from our last quote from the book) says:
[/INDENT]1Yet now hear, O Jacob my servant; and Israel, whom I have chosen:

2Thus saith the LORD that made thee, and formed thee from the womb, which will help thee; Fear not, O Jacob, my servant; and thou, Jesurun, whom I have chosen.

3For I will pour water upon him that is thirsty, and floods upon the dry ground: I will pour my spirit upon thy seed, and my blessing upon thine offspring:

4And they shall spring up as among the grass, as willows by the water courses.

5One shall say, I am the LORD’s; and another shall call himself by the name of Jacob; and another shall subscribe with his hand unto the LORD, and surname himself by the name of Israel.

6Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.

7And who, as I, shall call, and shall declare it, and set it in order for me, since I appointed the ancient people? and the things that are coming, and shall come, let them shew unto them.

8Fear ye not, neither be afraid: have not I told thee from that time, and have declared it? ye are even my witnesses. Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any.

9They that make a graven image are all of them vanity; and their delectable things shall not profit; and they are their own witnesses; they see not, nor know; that they may be ashamed.[/INDENT]

 

[Xavierlives]

PART 2 -

I’ve said on a couple of threads (which maybe you were a part, I am not sure), but we can look to Jewish law and determine the concept of “witness.” Since Jesus explains it in John 5, I always revert to this book.
31If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true.

32There is another that beareth witness of me; and I know that the witness which he witnesseth of me is true.

33Ye sent unto John, and he bare witness unto the truth.

34But I receive not testimony from man: but these things I say, that ye might be saved.

35He was a burning and a shining light: and ye were willing for a season to rejoice in his light.

36But I have greater witness than that of John: for the works which the Father hath given me to finish, the same works that I do, bear witness of me, that the Father hath sent me.

37And the Father himself, which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape.

38And ye have not his word abiding in you: for whom he hath sent, him ye believe not.

39Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.

40And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life.

41I receive not honour from men.

42But I know you, that ye have not the love of God in you.

43I am come in my Father’s name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive.

44How can ye believe, which receive honour one of another, and seek not the honour that cometh from God only?

45Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father: there is one that accuseth you, even Moses, in whom ye trust.

46For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me; for he wrote of me.

47But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?

If we are to consider Joseph Smith, we should expect the same standard of witness to fall clearly on his shoulders. So, in sincerity, we can expect, an earthly witness. The earthly witness Jesus provides is John the Baptist. Someone, during his time, which was independent of Jesus’s ministry pronouncing it. I’m not that well versed with Mormon history, so I do not know if a worldly witness exists. regardless, this witness is actually discounted by Jesus. Jesus throws down the trump card and says, but wait! I have more! He then shows God as a witness, the scripture as a witness.

I can expect no less from Joseph Smith. If he wants to change the scripture, than it must have these as a witness. This is where everything starts to unravel. Because, we look at things like Isaiah 43 & 44 and then Mormonism has to “explain.” The truth is already established.

My last point. If a truth exists, it does not need further exploration as to its validity. Point being, JS and BoA. We cannot create Egyptologist to validate. We cannot change interpretation, or language, or definitions to suit the truth we want to see.

Time to take a break. Happy New Year.

 

[ParkerD]

PART 1 -

Well I am fortunate. I work for my father but sometimes he requires me to work. I am working today.

So, with that said, I had to catch up with the posts.

Parker,

I am glad you also enjoy Isaiah’s teaching. I find it speaks volumes for the Alpha and Omega. I find a comforting consistency in his book as I find the same consistency throughout God’s Word.

I will not reiterate all things said by Answersplease, but do find merit in the post. The main point I do want to cover is, the core of Christianity does not view the inheritance as a godhead reward. This would, on face, imply polytheism. I’ve heard your words, or the words of your brethren, and the answers have varied: 1. There is but one “God-creator” and many gods; 2. There is one Father God, which naturally produces god-like children; 3. Only God was formed, we are not formed (which is yours). Now considering the width and breadth of the scripture, we see things as simple as Exodus 20
1And God spake all these words, saying,

2I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.

3Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

4Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.

5Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;

Now some would take this to mean other gods exist and God is acknowledging them. Others take this to mean, “little g” gods are not a diety, it are nothing but a pronoun, the antecedant being anything in which mankind worships. But Isaiah 44 (just a chapter from our last quote from the book) says:
[/INDENT]1Yet now hear, O Jacob my servant; and Israel, whom I have chosen:

2Thus saith the LORD that made thee, and formed thee from the womb, which will help thee; Fear not, O Jacob, my servant; and thou, Jesurun, whom I have chosen.

3For I will pour water upon him that is thirsty, and floods upon the dry ground: I will pour my spirit upon thy seed, and my blessing upon thine offspring:

4And they shall spring up as among the grass, as willows by the water courses.

5One shall say, I am the LORD’s; and another shall call himself by the name of Jacob; and another shall subscribe with his hand unto the LORD, and surname himself by the name of Israel.

6Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.

7And who, as I, shall call, and shall declare it, and set it in order for me, since I appointed the ancient people? and the things that are coming, and shall come, let them shew unto them.

8Fear ye not, neither be afraid: have not I told thee from that time, and have declared it? ye are even my witnesses. Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any.

9They that make a graven image are all of them vanity; and their delectable things shall not profit; and they are their own witnesses; they see not, nor know; that they may be ashamed.[/INDENT]

Hi, Xavierlives,
I enjoyed reading your posts, and hope you are having a good day.

To clarify, I wasn’t meaning to say I think God was “formed”. He is a self-existent Being.

I think that “Thou shalt have no other gods before me” is consistent with the Isaiah passages in expressing that the will of God is that we should love the Lord our God with all our heart, might, mind, and strength, and that this love includes love for the Savior (who is unique and is God the Son) and love for the Father.

The Holy One of Israel is the Savior, so Isaiah’s passages are always identifying the Savior as God and as the Redeemer of Israel, Israel’s King. This is why Jesus told the Jews “I AM” meaning He was telling them He was Jehovah and was before Abraham.

Fashioned gods or other objects of men’s worship, devotion, trust, or love in the sense that God should be loved–whatever those objects or goals might be–should not become an object of worship or devotion at all, ever.

Here is an important verse that may confuse some, but is consistent with the concept that there is a Separate Person who is God the Father and a Separate Person who is God the Son, and that They counseled together:

Genesis 3:22

“And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:”

P.S.
In response to your later post, I’ll note that the “earthly witness” (besides the many who associated with JS) is the Book of Mormon, and there it is–plain as day. It can be read, or it can be ignored or spurned, but there it is–plain as day.

Just as important a witness is the Savior’s expression that one will know the doctrine who lives by the teachings. One cannot have a witness without living by the teachings, or it would be an imperfect and incomplete witness. The Savior lived by the teachings, so He was a perfect witness.

 

[Xavierlives]

Hi, Xavierlives,
I enjoyed reading your posts, and hope you are having a good day.

To clarify, I wasn’t meaning to say I think God was “formed”. He is a self-existent Being.

I think that “Thou shalt have no other gods before me” is consistent with the Isaiah passages in expressing that the will of God is that we should love the Lord our God with all our heart, might, mind, and strength, and that this love includes love for the Savior (who is unique and is God the Son) and love for the Father.

The Holy One of Israel is the Savior, so Isaiah’s passages are always identifying the Savior as God and as the Redeemer of Israel, Israel’s King. This is why Jesus told the Jews “I AM” meaning He was telling them He was Jehovah and was before Abraham.

Fashioned gods or other objects of men’s worship, devotion, trust, or love in the sense that God should be loved–whatever those objects or goals might be–should not become an object of worship or devotion at all, ever.

Here is an important verse that may confuse some, but is consistent with the concept that there is a Separate Person who is God the Father and a Separate Person who is God the Son, and that They counseled together:

Genesis 3:22

“And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:”

P.S.
In response to your later post, I’ll note that the “earthly witness” (besides the many who associated with JS) is the Book of Mormon, and there it is–plain as day. It can be read, or it can be ignored or spurned, but there it is–plain as day.

Just as important a witness is the Savior’s expression that one will know the doctrine who lives by the teachings. One cannot have a witness without living by the teachings, or it would be an imperfect and incomplete witness. The Savior lived by the teachings, so He was a perfect witness.

Yes. And plural form of God, Elohim appears something like 2,500 times in the Bible. Genesis 1:26 is used my Trinitarians as proof of the Trinity, “And God said, Let us make man in our image.”

But a better argument for you would really be 1 Samuel 28:13. In this verse the spirit of Samuel appears and the witch describes him as gods, or Elohim.

 

[ricko]

RebeccaJ,
Thanks kindly for thinking about me as to my needing to be concerned. I’ll be OK.

When He said of the hypothetical Sadducees brothers, “For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.”

QUOTE]

And what do the Mormons believe is the status of the angels in heaven? According to your belief they must be married?

 

[ParkerD]

ParkerD;6116374:

RebeccaJ,
Thanks kindly for thinking about me as to my needing to be concerned. I’ll be OK.

When He said of the hypothetical Sadducees brothers, "For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven

."

QUOTE]

And what do the Mormons believe is the status of the angels in heaven? According to your belief they must be married?

Hi, Ricko,
No, there is a resurrection of people like the Sadducees, who had rejected Christ’s message, to a condition “as the angels of God in heaven”–and thus in the resurrection they are involved in bringing about worthwhile actions that give glory to God, but they are single and will never marry and if married on earth their marriage will be ended at their mortal death–because they rejected the opportunity of eternal marriage and the idea of inheriting a joint throne through the merits of Jesus Christ.

Happy New Year to you and all.

 

[soren1]

Hi, Ricko,
No, there is a resurrection of people like the Sadducees, who had rejected Christ’s message, to a condition “as the angels of God in heaven”–and thus in the resurrection they are involved in bringing about worthwhile actions that give glory to God, but they are single and will never marry and if married on earth their marriage will be ended at their mortal death–because they rejected the opportunity of eternal marriage and the idea of inheriting a joint throne through the merits of Jesus Christ.

Happy New Year to you and all.

I have already provided, with no response from you, a refutation of the claim that Jesus’ explanation of marriage is specific to the Sadducees. Here is part of what I wrote:

*While you rightly note that the specific case that the Sadducees mention to Jesus involves a woman of their own, the Sadducees are using this example to insinuate a *universal *argument against the Resurrection of the dead. Their argument has the form of a reduction to the absurd: they want to show that Resurrection would result in polyandry or at least in a hopeless muddle of Hebrew marriage laws. Because the same absurdities would result from the resurrection of any woman in the same state as the one they mention, this argument is applicable universally.

Accordingly, Jesus’ answer is universal in scope, because only a universal answer can respond to the implicit argument posed by the Sadducees. Otherwise, Jesus would have failed to refute the Sadducees’ arugment, and they could retort by citing another case, real or hypothetical, involving one of Jesus’ followers. Your interpretation of the text, therefore, makes Jesus into a very poor debater, and a question-dodger, even though his answer confounds the Sadducees, and he always answers questions by addressing them head-on.*

If you don’t have a ready answer to this argument or if you missed the post, that is fine with me. But you should not just repeat your original argument again without interacting to what has already been said in response to it.

 

[soren1]

The words “before me there was no God formed” would need to be carefully understood from the original Hebrew. I don’t think God has ever been “formed”, nor that a righteous god will ever be “formed”. But I do think John knew what he was saying when He said that He saw the promise of inheritance of being a “joint heir” with Christ. That would not be by a process of being “formed.”

It is difficult to see the coherence in this line of reasoning, not because your reading of “formed” is illogical in itself, but because you have yet to explain how this interpretation fits into the context, which you yourself copied out at length. At this point, Yahweh is calling on Israel to stand as witness to him, and so the statement “Before me there was no god formed…” defines the content of Israel’s testimony. Why would a statement that gods become gods by another way than forming amount to a personal testimony of Yahweh?

If read in the way you suggest, the verse reduces to a claim about the mechanics of how divinity is (or is not) acquired, but that bit of information says nothing about the special identity of Yahweh himself, as so the words provide no testimony of him. This can be seen from the fact that *any other god could make the same statement. *At a minimum, God the Father could make the same claim, and exalted humans will be able to make the same claim as well. That doesn’t make for a powerful or even meaningful testimony of Yahweh as an individual, as the context of the verse demands that it be.

 

[ParkerD]

I have already provided, with no response from you, a refutation of the claim that Jesus’ explanation of marriage is specific to the Sadducees. Here is part of what I wrote:

*While you rightly note that the specific case that the Sadducees mention to Jesus involves a woman of their own, the Sadducees are using this example to insinuate a *universal **argument against the Resurrection of the dead. Their argument has the form of a reduction to the absurd: they want to show that Resurrection would result in polyandry or at least in a hopeless muddle of Hebrew marriage laws. Because the same absurdities would result from the resurrection of any woman in the same state as the one they mention, this argument is applicable universally.

Accordingly, Jesus’ answer is universal in scope, because only a universal answer can respond to the implicit argument posed by the Sadducees. Otherwise, Jesus would have failed to refute the Sadducees’ arugment, and they could retort by citing another case, real or hypothetical, involving one of Jesus’ followers. Your interpretation of the text, therefore, makes Jesus into a very poor debater, and a question-dodger, even though his answer confounds the Sadducees, and he always answers questions by addressing them head-on.

If you don’t have a ready answer to this argument or if you missed the post, that is fine with me. But you should not just repeat your original argument again without interacting to what has already been said in response to it.

Soren1,
Good day to you. I don’t really think Jesus was a “debater” at all, but I do see your line of reasoning and that it has valid merit, and one could wish the Sadducees had asked another question so that we could see for sure if your line of reasoning applies.

What I have a problem with is that by using the word “they,” the translator into English looked at the verb for “marry” in the original language which would have included the understood pronoun as a part of the conjugation of that verb, and rendered the translation as “they”. If the translator had thought that Jesus was changing the subject (which was clearly stated as the “seven brethren” who were hypothetical brethren of the Sadducees), then the translator would have been obliged to render a different translation than using “they” since the subject had already been brought out in the entire discussion.

If Jesus had wanted to give a very important new teaching about there being absolutely no marriage condition in heaven, He would not have used the language He was speaking in a way such as you suggested, because that would imply He does not use language very well by changing a subject while using a verb that had an understood subject. He would have changed the subject and taught the concept about everyone, not just the seven hypothetical Sadducees and the hypothetical woman.

Moreover, clearly the Sadducees were using a belief that was had among the Jews, which belief would be that marriage continues after death, or they would not have asked the question in the first place. The belief forms part of the foundation for their question, and Jesus did not refute the belief when He answered by referring to their specific hypothetical case they had posed. He would have used different, specific language about the belief itself if He was refuting the entire belief about marriage continuing after death.

All of the listeners would have been familiar that He had already taught against the concept of Jewish divorce by quoting the words about Adam and Eve and then saying “What God hath joined together, let not man put asunder” which is His fundamental teaching about marriage in general.

 

[ParkerD]

It is difficult to see the coherence in this line of reasoning, not because your reading of “formed” is illogical in itself, but because you have yet to explain how this interpretation fits into the context, which you yourself copied out at length. At this point, Yahweh is calling on Israel to stand as witness to him, and so the statement “Before me there was no god formed…” defines the content of Israel’s testimony. Why would a statement that gods become gods by another way than forming amount to a personal testimony of Yahweh?

If read in the way you suggest, the verse reduces to a claim about the mechanics of how divinity is (or is not) acquired, but that bit of information says nothing about the special identity of Yahweh himself, as so the words provide no testimony of him. This can be seen from the fact that *any other god could make the same statement. *At a minimum, God the Father could make the same claim, and exalted humans will be able to make the same claim as well. That doesn’t make for a powerful or even meaningful testimony of Yahweh as an individual, as the context of the verse demands that it be.

Soren1,
The use of the word “formed” can be compared directly with its use in Isaiah 44:10 and the examples that follow that verse, about a “smith” who “fashioneth” and a “carpenter” who “maketh it after the figure of a man” and (v. 15) “he maketh a god, and worshippeth it” with part of a piece of wood from which that same carpenter takes pieces of wood and makes a fire to cook his food. Verses 17-19 emphasize the foolishness of believing in such a god as that.

Such is the context for the use of the word “formed” by Isaiah (in the original language).

 

[Xavierlives]

Soren1,
The use of the word “formed” can be compared directly with its use in Isaiah 44:10 and the examples that follow that verse, about a “smith” who “fashioneth” and a “carpenter” who “maketh it after the figure of a man” and (v. 15) “he maketh a god, and worshippeth it” with part of a piece of wood from which that same carpenter takes pieces of wood and makes a fire to cook his food. Verses 17-19 emphasize the foolishness of believing in such a god as that.

Such is the context for the use of the word “formed” by Isaiah (in the original language).

But making yourself a god is not foolish.

 

[Xavierlives]

Genesis 3:22

“And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:”

P.S.
In response to your later post, I’ll note that the “earthly witness” (besides the many who associated with JS) is the Book of Mormon, and there it is–plain as day. It can be read, or it can be ignored or spurned, but there it is–plain as day.

Just as important a witness is the Savior’s expression that one will know the doctrine who lives by the teachings. One cannot have a witness without living by the teachings, or it would be an imperfect and incomplete witness. The Savior lived by the teachings, so He was a perfect witness.

Also, Isn’t Satan the one who used this reasoning? Eat of the fruit and you will be like God?

 

[ParkerD]

But making yourself a god is not foolish.

Xavierlives,
Indeed it does seem foolish and completely outside of the scope of man’s reasoning. So is the idea of the atonement, whereby Christ could take upon Himself the sins and the sicknesses of all humankind and have the weight of justice and the weight of the imperfections of our physical bodies cumulatively be born by Him–yet that is exactly what the atonement did. The atonement is truly to provide the way whereby humankind, with all our weaknesses, can be totally cleansed and hence have “perfect” bodies and souls and yet have gone through all of the learning processes of mortality wherein we make so many mistakes. It is absolutely amazing to think that Heavenly Father could see so much in us that He would present to us a “plan of salvation” that we could all jointly agree to wherein we would come to this earth, go through such a significant learning process, and then learn some more in the spirit world after we die and be enabled through Christ to really, truly become perfect just as He said “Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father in Heaven is perfect.”

It does seem foolish, unreasonable, unattainable–but Christ and John taught the doctrine and who am I to say Christ cannot do what He said He could do, and does do? John rejoiced in it–he didn’t question it and say it can’t happen. I’d rather follow Christ and John than follow you, Xavierlives. Have a nice day, though.

 

[ParkerD]

Also, Isn’t Satan the one who used this reasoning? Eat of the fruit and you will be like God?

Xavierlives,
Clearly, Satan was mocking God’s plan of salvation when he tempted Eve. He rejected the plan of salvation and rejected Christ in the premortal world–why would he do differently in this world? He knew that God had said Adam and Eve would die if they ate the forbidden fruit. So what was his objective?–get them to eat so they will die and so that he will have defied God’s plan.

We both have acknowledged the verse in Genesis 3:22 wherein it says,
“And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil:”

Yet we know that just to “know good and evil” is not to have “become as one of us” since the Lord God was speaking. It is only to have entered into a condition that made possible the knowledge of good and evil and the actions permissible to act upon that knowledge by making choices.

So Christ needed to be in the picture from that very beginning, and His atonement was part of the plan of salvation from the beginning, and figured into it as the keystone event in human history to make possible the progress of humankind and yet not subject humankind to the penalties for their mistakes along the way of that progress. Christ redeems from the fall and redeems from individual sin–and did so because of His perfect, infinite love for us–who can fathom the depth of that love!

 

[Xavierlives]

Xavierlives,
Indeed it does seem foolish and completely outside of the scope of man’s reasoning. So is the idea of the atonement, whereby Christ could take upon Himself the sins and the sicknesses of all humankind and have the weight of justice and the weight of the imperfections of our physical bodies cumulatively be born by Him–yet that is exactly what the atonement did. The atonement is truly to provide the way whereby humankind, with all our weaknesses, can be totally cleansed and hence have “perfect” bodies and souls and yet have gone through all of the learning processes of mortality wherein we make so many mistakes. It is absolutely amazing to think that Heavenly Father could see so much in us that He would present to us a “plan of salvation” that we could all jointly agree to wherein we would come to this earth, go through such a significant learning process, and then learn some more in the spirit world after we die and be enabled through Christ to really, truly become perfect just as He said “Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father in Heaven is perfect.”

It does seem foolish, unreasonable, unattainable–but Christ and John taught the doctrine and who am I to say Christ cannot do what He said He could do, and does do? John rejoiced in it–he didn’t question it and say it can’t happen. I’d rather follow Christ and John than follow you, Xavierlives. Have a nice day, though.

Hmm… Jesus and John said we were to be gods? I must have missed those scriptures. I have heard the Romans 8:17 (joint-heirs reference, but we know the intent behind that, so its use is out of context). Where does Jesus say this?

 

[Xavierlives]

Xavierlives,
Clearly, Satan was mocking God’s plan of salvation when he tempted Eve. He rejected the plan of salvation and rejected Christ in the premortal world–why would he do differently in this world? He knew that God had said Adam and Eve would die if they ate the forbidden fruit. So what was his objective?–get them to eat so they will die and so that he will have defied God’s plan.

We both have acknowledged the verse in Genesis 3:22 wherein it says,
“And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil:”

Yet we know that just to “know good and evil” is not to have “become as one of us” since the Lord God was speaking. It is only to have entered into a condition that made possible the knowledge of good and evil and the actions permissible to act upon that knowledge by making choices.

So Christ needed to be in the picture from that very beginning, and His atonement was part of the plan of salvation from the beginning, and figured into it as the keystone event in human history to make possible the progress of humankind and yet not subject humankind to the penalties for their mistakes along the way of that progress. Christ redeems from the fall and redeems from individual sin–and did so because of His perfect, infinite love for us–who can fathom the depth of that love!

Satan had no idea of God’s plan or he would never would have had Jesus crucified. Satan might have had the scripture, but he, like Judas, thought the plan was going to play out differently.