LDS: Why try to convert Catholics, what do we lack for salvation?

[paul_c]

Paul C,
I should have worded my comment differently, I suppose. Some people just write, “I’m going to put you on ignore.” The responses that do not seem to show “listening” is when statements are made that say “Christ said this in this way,” or “God meant this”–when those are opinions, not facts, and I have tried to demonstrate the facts about the actual scripture based on the scriptural text itself. It becomes a pointless conversation.

To jump to the conclusion that I would advocate the item you mentioned that I deleted as I quoted your quote, is a serious misunderstanding. You evidently didn’t catch the point at all. Adam’s dilemma wasn’t that sort of dilemma. He had a choice between breaking one commandment having to do with himself and the forbidden fruit, or breaking four other commandments having to do with Eve and his God-given relationship with her. He had no basis for thinking she would be “redeemed” if he did not partake of the forbidden fruit–no basis whatsoever. She would die–that was what he knew. He would lose her companionship. That was what he knew. God had given her to him, and him to her. That was what he knew.

Peace to you and all. Genesis is wonderfully insightful. The Bible is a magnificent blessing to humankind.

Do you always want to ignore those that disagree with you? You disagree with me and yet, I am not ignoring you. In fact, I am giving you extra attention. As for this sentence" The responses that do not seem to show “listening” is when statements are made that say “Christ said this in this way,” or “God meant this”–when those are opinions, not facts, and I have tried to demonstrate the facts about the actual scripture based on the scriptural text itself. It becomes a pointless conversation." You hypocritically ascribe these attributes to me, while you constantly proclaim your opinions as words of God. Just look at the paragraph above. No where in scripture does it say that Adam was forced to make a decision about which commandment to break, yet you state it as if it were a fact.

Frankly, Adam was not in a position where he had to break a commandment. No one ever is. He did not need to eat the fruit that Eve gave him. He knew that doing so would break his covenant with God and yet he freely chose to do so. It had nothing to do with any obligations to Eve. As is perfectly obvious from the story, He could have refrained from eating the Fruit and still been fruitful and multiplied. And besides, if he really did believe that God would strike Eve down dead the second she ate of the fruit, he also knew that God had the capability of creating a new Eve. We need to trust God and put him first in our lives. Adam faiiled to do that and was therefore expelled from paradise.

Face it, Parker, this is Catholic Answers Forum. We are here to give Catholic answers to questions of faith and morals and to represent the Catholic position. Do not take offense when we do that.

I am the original poster on this thread. My goal was to identify what you Mormon’s thought Catholics lacked for Salvation. The only thing you could come up with is that we lacked Celestial marriage. I challenged you to prove that this was ever a teaching of Christ and showed you through multitple passages that Christ (and Paul) never made marriage a criteria for salvation and in fact, advocated celibacy for those that were able to withstand their lust because they could devote their entire lives to God and wouldn’t be distracted by the things of this world. You could not refute those points but instead claimed that God’s direction to Adam and Eve to populate the earth takes precedence. Well, no one said that marriage wasn’t sacred. It is a sacrament for a reason. But it is not required for heaven as you claimed - Jesus unambiguously said there is no marriage in heaven. So here we are and you are now advocating that God’s direction to Adam and Eve to populate the earth takes precedent over his commandment to not eat of the fruit. You know the Devil twists everything and is the Father of all lies. Can you not see how following Satan was detrimental to Adam and to his progeny (the entire human race)

 

[TheosisM]

(LDS apparently believe that Adam and Eve were sterile or sexually immature, I don’t remember which, while they were in the garden, so they would have to leave the garden in order to become parents)

I don’t think I’ve heard that LDS believe that Adam and Eve were sterile or sexually immature pre-Fall. What I have read is that they believe that pre-Fall, Adam and Eve were in a state of innocence, and that since they didn’t realize that they were naked until post-Fall, they wouldn’t have been able to “be fruitful and multiply” until after the Fall, where they did know that they were naked.

 

[sablouwho]

I don’t think I’ve heard that LDS believe that Adam and Eve were sterile or sexually immature pre-Fall. What I have read is that they believe that pre-Fall, Adam and Eve were in a state of innocence, and that since they didn’t realize that they were naked until post-Fall, they wouldn’t have been able to “be fruitful and multiply” until after the Fall, where they did know that they were naked.

I had never heard that sterile/sexually immature thing either, until I attended a lecture. This statement was made by a Stake President at a public lecture in which there was a discussion between Jews and LDS on their different takes on the Genesis creation story, held at a local synagogue.

I have no idea whether this Stake President’s beliefs represented his own thinking only, or larger LDS thoughts on the subject. Though I would hope that a person in such a leadership position would represent the faith and not just his own personal opinions. (He certainly didn’t present it as his own personal opinion–he implied in what he said that it wasn’t just his opinion).

All I can do is report what I had heard in this lecture, and hope that one of the LDS posters on CAF might help us know whether this is a common belief!

 

[ParkerD]

I had never heard that sterile/sexually immature thing either, until I attended a lecture. This statement was made by a Stake President at a public lecture in which there was a discussion between Jews and LDS on their different takes on the Genesis creation story, held at a local synagogue.

I have no idea whether this Stake President’s beliefs represented his own thinking only, or larger LDS thoughts on the subject. Though I would hope that a person in such a leadership position would represent the faith and not just his own personal opinions. (He certainly didn’t present it as his own personal opinion–he implied in what he said that it wasn’t just his opinion).

All I can do is report what I had heard in this lecture, and hope that one of the LDS posters on CAF might help us know whether this is a common belief!

Sablouwho and TheosisM,
Thanks for your thoughts and request for clarification.

I think the Stake President was giving an opinion, since there is no set “doctrine” other than the following statements directly from LDS scriptures:

2 Nephi 2:22 And now, behold, if Adam had not transgressed he would not have fallen, but he would have remained in the garden of Eden. And all things which were created must have remained in the same state in which they were after they were created; and they must have remained forever, and had no end.
23 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.

(Note: Verse 23 is not implying that having children is “sin”, but the noted “state of innocence” implies that they really were quite child-like in their understanding of life.)

Moses 5:10 …Adam blessed God and was filled, and began to prophesy concerning all the families of the earth, saying: Blessed be the name of God, for because of my transgression my eyes are opened, and in this life I shall have joy, and again in the flesh I shall see God.
11 And Eve, his wife, heard all these things and was glad, saying: Were it not for our transgression we never should have had seed, and never should have known good and evil, and the joy of our redemption, and the eternal life which God giveth unto all the obedient.

With those two passages, one is left wondering why Eve said they “should never have had seed.” Perhaps her body was changed by the Fall such that she began having “periods” (trying to be delicate here) and thus egg cells could die, since death began to occur because of the Fall. Maybe her body was not in a condition that egg cells were active until after the Fall. It is something that I don’t think is a known situation, yea or nay.

Even a Stake President can give an opinion in a fireside and not necessarily be giving a doctrinally-based answer, but trying his best to answer a question that would be a difficult one in front of a general audience.

 

[paul_c]

Sablouwho and TheosisM,
Thanks for your thoughts and request for clarification.

I think the Stake President was giving an opinion, since there is no set “doctrine” other than the following statements directly from LDS scriptures:

2 Nephi 2:22 And now, behold, if Adam had not transgressed he would not have fallen, but he would have remained in the garden of Eden. And all things which were created must have remained in the same state in which they were after they were created; and they must have remained forever, and had no end.
23 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.

(Note: Verse 23 is not implying that having children is “sin”, but the noted “state of innocence” implies that they really were quite child-like in their understanding of life.)

Moses 5:10 …Adam blessed God and was filled, and began to prophesy concerning all the families of the earth, saying: Blessed be the name of God, for because of my transgression my eyes are opened, and in this life I shall have joy, and again in the flesh I shall see God.
11 And Eve, his wife, heard all these things and was glad, saying: Were it not for our transgression we never should have had seed, and never should have known good and evil, and the joy of our redemption, and the eternal life which God giveth unto all the obedient.

With those two passages, one is left wondering why Eve said they “should never have had seed.” Perhaps her body was changed by the Fall such that she began having “periods” (trying to be delicate here) and thus egg cells could die, since death began to occur because of the Fall. Maybe her body was not in a condition that egg cells were active until after the Fall. It is something that I don’t think is a known situation, yea or nay.

Even a Stake President can give an opinion in a fireside and not necessarily be giving a doctrinally-based answer, but trying his best to answer a question that would be a difficult one in front of a general audience.

So let me see if I have this right. The Mormon scriptures you are quoting say that joy was created through sin? Wow… Doesn’t that imply that there is no joy in heaven, since there is no sin there?

I’ll give you the alternative Catholic view. Before the fall, all man knew was good. When the Devil convinced Eve that she would be like God, knowing the difference between good and evil, he was being deceptive (as you would expect). Eating the fruit taught them about evil and disobedience. It didn’t bring joy which they already had, but it brought hardship and death.

This Mormon view that you espouse, that evil brings joy, is just another of Satan’s deceptions. Isnt that obvious?

 

[zach_dunn]

Zach Dunn,
I had kind of felt like I had talked myself “blue in the face” about the eternal marriage covenant and the difference between such a covenant and the marriages talked about in the experience with the Sadducees. That was why I hadn’t answered you.

Here is your post 63:

. . .

I understand that, but I believe in talking until I can’t breathe anymore, catching my breath, and going through the same process over again, I don’t ever give up!

It was you who said “humans will not marry in heaven”–not Christ.

I suppose you are technically correct, Christ said “they” but was referring to humanity.

Christ used a verb with an understood subject, and the understood subject was either “Sadducees” (my view) or a larger subset of “unbelieving Jews” (your view), but to say that the understood subject is suddenly “all humans” is to make an extreme grammatical error because that subject was never implied in the passage, at all.

If it is “an extreme grammatical error” to insinuate that “they” is a generalization referring to all humans in heaven, then I suppose the same would go for all of Jesus’ parables such as the Prodigal Son, etc., etc., correct? I don’t think you will agree though, let’s show these texts again:

Matthew 22:28-30
At the resurrection therefore whose wife of the seven shall she be? for they all had her. And Jesus answering, said to them: You err, not knowing the Scriptures, nor the power of God. For in the resurrection they shall neither marry nor be married; but shall be as the angels of God in heaven.

Mark 12:23-25
In the resurrection therefore, when they shall rise again, whose wife shall she be of them? for the seven had her to wife. And Jesus answering, saith to them: Do ye not therefore err, because you know not the scriptures, nor the power of God? For when they shall rise again from the dead, they shall neither marry, nor be married, but are as the angels in heaven.

Luke 20:33-36
In the resurrection therefore, whose wife of them shall she be? For all the seven had her to wife. And Jesus said to them: The children of this world marry, and are given in marriage: But they that shall be accounted worthy of that world, and of the resurrection from the dead, shall neither be married, nor take wives. Neither can they die any more: for they are equal to the angels, and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection.

These passages are so obvious, you cannot wriggle out of them on false technicalities. The brothers are not necessary Sadducees, and even if they were it wouldn’t matter, it wouldn’t make sense that the only people in the whole world who couldn’t marry were the Sadducees, it simply doesn’t hold water. I think the most telling verse in all of these is Luke 20:36, Christ says that the children of God — the ones who would be in the highest heaven no doubt — are the ones who are equal to the angels and therefore will not marry; your word craft cannot help you here, because the “they” is referring to the children of God, too, and I’m assuming you believe that the children of God will be married, correct? Celestial marriage just doesn’t fit with the teaching of the Bible, if marriage is as important as LDS make it out to be (I’m not trying to belittle marriage, it is a very sacred covenant, but I don’t believe it is required to be married to get into heaven and achieve exaltation), why would St. Paul tell Christian followers to not marry at all, that is assuming that St. Paul does not want some people to be in heaven and be exalted!

By Adamic covenant, I meant the specific covenant that Adam and Eve had when God joined them in marriage and they had the knowledge that “what God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.” That gives great perspective to the decision of Adam to partake of the forbidden fruit after Eve had partaken, knowing they would thus go into a condition where they would die, but knowing also that God had joined their marriage together and thus Adam could not keep the covenant and commandment regarding his marriage by letting her die alone. As far as he knew, they were going to die, it is true–but Christ’s mission was to break the bands of that death, and still Christ used the example of Adam and Eve to exemplify marriage.

I’m not exactly sure what you’re saying here, it would seem paul c was on the mark when he said that you are implying that Adam chose to disobey God so that Eve would not be alone . . . care to explain some more?

God does covenant making for eternity–not for this life only, ever. So I would never agree that covenants are “dissolved by death.” Earthly contracts can be (many times they continue by contract law), but not heavenly covenants, ever.

Ok . . . have you ever heard of the New Covenant?:

Matthew 26:28
For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

Jesus ushered in a New Covenant, dissolving the old . . . I have to go though, I’ll answer the rest of the post later.

 

[ParkerD]

Hi, Zach Dunn,
I have answered the very issues you brought up several times. I think what I’ll do is acknowledge your post by answering briefly on another thread about LDS marriage covenants where the conversation showed communication skill happening and reading comprehension happening.

Peace to all.

 

[dianaiad]

dianaiad;6382010:

So? It was Clear that it was two WHOLE households, which included not only extended families, but servants, etc.

and there is no hint anywhere that those SPECIFIC households had children under the age of eight. There is no evidence either for, or against, those households having children.

lol…which do you think is more likely in that time period? Whole households including extending familes and servants’s families that did NOT have children under 8 or that did? Do you truly need to check your reason at the door to be LDS?

What is more likely? Why, that they would not have children. Then, as anow, “household’ means 'those who dwell in one house.” Only very wealthy households would have the incredibly large numbers of people you are assuming, y’know…and if there IS extended family, the odds then, as now, indicate that the extra people would be parents, not extra children.

Since we do not have any information as to whether THESE two households had children or not, one has to go to other information in the scriptures as to whether they did…that is, according to scriptures, would infants have been baptised?

You are going at this backwards. You are assuming that these households had very young children in them. Dumb assumption, since it could go either way…In fact, according to everything I’ve read about life back then, it was slightly more likely that they did not than that they did.

You are using a baseless assumption to overthrow actual written scripture because, well, you want to. Not the most logical approach to take.

First, we are talking about then, not now.

So was I.

So what households “have” and don;t “have” is not relevant, though as a Mormon, I did not know very many families at all who had ZERO children in the household.

As you mentioned, we are talking about then, not now.

And if the average number in a household back then was 4, that means there were families that had more than four. So, if the average was four, then the odds that there were no children in either household are very very slim.

Really? I think that it is more likely that these households had no children below the age of accountablility than that they did…and didn’t mention them, letting this assumption that they did over rule all the scriptures about baptism. It’s a VERY shaky foundation for a doctrine as far reaching as this one is.

No, since the Bible says WHOLE households, it is not easier to assume that there were no children. That is actually a silly assumption based on your need to defend your practice. But let’s see what the Bible says: It says EVERYONE needs to be baptized and does not make ANY stipulation as to age. So…we have EVERYONE needing to be baptized with no stipulation as to age, AND whole households getting baptized (notice it did not say, in either case, only the adults…it said the whole household…that oughta make you wonder. If it was intended to be only certain ages, then why say the whole household?)

As to your last crack, about Mormons believing that Christ really meant “let the little children come unto me, but not until they are eight…” talk about taking a quote out of context!

No…it is reflecting what you believe.

And you claim to have been a Mormon! Come on, Atticus…as a former Mormon you know better than this, or you should. We don’t believe what you claim…not even close. We do not baptise children under the age of eight, not because we don’t want them to 'come unto Jesus," but because, as HE said, they are already THERE. “Of such is the Kingdom of Heaven,” remember? Children under the age of eight, and others who are incapable of sinning, don’t NEED baptism. They are not ‘lesser,’ they are not cast away, thier fates are not problematic; if a child under 8 dies without being baptised, we believe that s/he goes instantly to Christ; to heaven. Baptism is for those who require it for the remission of personal sin.

…and for you to present our beliefs as you are doing tells me that you never were a Mormon. Either that, or you had no idea what you were supposed to believe when you were one. That is one of the most deeply important doctrines we have, y’know, this idea that infants are born entirely without sin, and are ‘of the kingdom of heaven.’

Like I said…it is a shame that LDS children are not part of WHOLE households…because it is easy to assume that whole households just never have any children…if you are LDS

No, we simply do not assume that these two specific households had children under the age of eight…or that another assumption, that their WERE children under the age of eight but that since infants were NOT baptised, it was naturally assumed that baptising a ‘whole household’ meant only those who required it.

After all, there is no verse in the NT anywhere that tells us to baptise infants. No verse. Anywhere. There ARE verses that indicate that Jesus, at least, didn’t think that these children needed it, because He said “of such ARE the Kingdom of Heaven” (not 'will be if you sprinkle 'em" or “dunk 'em first and then they will be” but 'let the little children come for of such are the Kingdom of Heaven.") Unbaptised children already ARE of the Kingdom of Heaven, Atticus. Jesus didn’t put a caveat on that.

You are.

 

[dianaiad]

So let me see if I have this right. The Mormon scriptures you are quoting say that joy was created through sin? Wow… Doesn’t that imply that there is no joy in heaven, since there is no sin there?

I’ll give you the alternative Catholic view. Before the fall, all man knew was good. When the Devil convinced Eve that she would be like God, knowing the difference between good and evil, he was being deceptive (as you would expect). Eating the fruit taught them about evil and disobedience. It didn’t bring joy which they already had, but it brought hardship and death.

This Mormon view that you espouse, that evil brings joy, is just another of Satan’s deceptions. Isnt that obvious?

You might want to look up the idea of the “fortunate fall,” Paul.

 

[TheosisM]

You might want to look up the idea of the “fortunate fall,” Paul.

Very interesting, thanks!

 

[AMDGtoo]

We’ve been through this before, we don’t believe that children below the age of reason are capable of sinning either (of course I’m sure that Mothers truly wonder about that when faced with fighting siblings or a guilty child who insists that “Not Me” broke-whatever it is she is questioning him about ) Infants are Baptised for different reasons–of course Jesus’ command, to restore the grace that was intended for us (but Adam managed to lose for us–can’t pass on what you don’t have), and being honest about welcoming the child into the Christian family, just as the earlier Jews would honetly welcome their children into the “Chosen family”.

And “for such is the Kingdom of heaven”, use the whole verse (Jesus did). You actually have three to chose from–Matthew 19:14, Mark 10:14, and Luke 18:16. All KJV. (I actually prefer the Luke 18:16, since I read verse 15 and 17 to provide “context”–Luke 18:15 “And they brought unto Him also infants, that He would touch them: but when His disciples saw it, they rebuked them.” Luke 18:16 "But Jesus called them unto Him, and said, ‘Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingom of God’. And finally Luke 18:17 “Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kindom of God as a little child shall in no wise enter therein.”

 

[RebeccaJ]

Very interesting, thanks!

There is major difference, which LDS fail to grasp for some reason. But it is found throughout how they read and interpret scripture. The Fall is just one example.

LDS seem to believe that if they read of sin in scripture, it means that God’s intentions are that in certain circumstances, sin is desired by God.

What we see is that people choose sin, which is to go against God’s intentions and His desires. God in His infinite Mercy forgives us, and never ceases to bring us back to Him.

When we sing the Exultant we are not thinking as LDS do, that God desired the Fall…what LDS fail to grasp is that we understand that God conquers all sin. For the great sin of the Fall, God increased His grace even more. The Exultant is a recognition of God’s greatness and goodness. It is not recognizing a false “plan” that involves God desiring sin, and now we are praising sin.

This is just yet another example of LDS applying their belief to Catholicism (and other cultures as well). It is a false belief, and one that is based on a false understanding of God.

This is not the first time that Dianaiad has put out this false teaching as something that resembles a Christian Easter celebration.

 

[paul_c]

Originally Posted by paul c
So let me see if I have this right. The Mormon scriptures you are quoting say that joy was created through sin? Wow… Doesn’t that imply that there is no joy in heaven, since there is no sin there?

Diana,
I did that. Milton’s speculation was interesting. However, while God’s plans account for and can overcome evil, it is still blasphemous to claim that any turning away from God through sin is a good thing. If you start believing that Good comes from evil, you quickly go down the slope to the point where there is no distinction between ther two. Rather, the truth is that Good can and will overcome evil and that Jesus triumph on the cross shows this. But this doesn’t mean that the fall was a good thing. Jesus had to suffer for it.

 

[dianaiad]

Diana,
I did that. Milton’s speculation was interesting. However, while God’s plans account for and can overcome evil, it is still blasphemous to claim that any turning away from God through sin is a good thing. If you start believing that Good comes from evil, you quickly go down the slope to the point where there is no distinction between ther two. Rather, the truth is that Good can and will overcome evil and that Jesus triumph on the cross shows this. But this doesn’t mean that the fall was a good thing. Jesus had to suffer for it.

:Felix culpa" was a uniquely Catholic idea considerably before Milton, Paul.

 

[paul_c]

:Felix culpa" was a uniquely Catholic idea considerably before Milton, Paul.

Did you fail to read RebeccaJ’s post right above mine? The concept from a Catholic point of view is that God will overcome evil, not that he desires evil. Don’t twist the Early church father’s words into something they are not. They are not advocating doing evil to promote good. Again, This concept that you need evil to create a better good is just another Satanic lie. Good does not need evil to exist. Good always existed. Evil is the absence of good.

 

[zach_dunn]

Hi, Zach Dunn,
I have answered the very issues you brought up several times. I think what I’ll do is acknowledge your post by answering briefly on another thread about LDS marriage covenants where the conversation showed communication skill happening and reading comprehension happening.

Peace to all.

I don’t believe I’ve ever seen you “answer” Luke 20:35-36 . . . it just doesn’t fit with celestial marriage.

 

[zach_dunn]

Zach Dunn,
I have been impressed this morning that I should add a couple of points in response to your question about “public revelation”.

First, as a youth you personify characteristics that are naturally prevalent in youth–zeal and excitement about one’s beliefs. If you’ll think back to 70 AD and on, you may be assured that youth back then had similar zeal and excitement. The leaders would have wanted to channel that zeal and excitement toward helping in the “causes” of keeping the church together and keeping it strong. Paul shows that in his epistles to Timothy and in other epistles.

As leaders seek to channel such zeal, they would need to be extremely thoughtful and careful to not squash the very thing that they should have been wanting to preserve–which was the kind of individual personal revelation and guidance that Paul wrote about in 1 Corinthians 2. Yet as they began to appeal to the “authority of the church” and to “tradition” and said at the same time that “public revelation was completed”, they in effect were saying “you must trust us because we have the authority and we have all the knowledge God wanted humankind to know.”

. . .

It becomes a “self-fulfilling” belief system, with certain people in charge who could “refine” the doctrine to appeal to more people or to preserve their own place in being sought after as an authority figure. This is natural human tendency which would have been logically expected to happen under those premises.

Parker, your argument here truly holds no water whatever. In fact, this could possibly be the worst argument I’ve seen you make, no offense. What I’m trying to say is that it would be much easier for this type of “refining” to happen in a church that claims “we don’t know it all yet, God is going to reveal all He wants us to know in due time”; two perfect examples of this are polygyny (not polygamy), and allowing black people to join the priesthood, it would seem that God chose the perfect time to change His mind about such things, correct?

And to be 100% honest with you Parker, and all Latter-Day Saints, I’m not trying to argue for the sake of arguing. I truly am listening to what you have to say and I am reflecting on them, I just don’t see Mormonism fitting into what the Bible teaches, or what the early Church believe . . . it’s simply not there. My intention in debating with you is not necessarily “conversion” for only the Holy Spirit can do that, my intentions are just to throw ideas around and learn more about the Bible and other faiths. If you get anything out of this post, please understand that I really am listening.

By teaching youth that concept, and those youth teaching their children, and so forth, of course it would be a very difficult thing to think that some youth or other is going to say to themselves, “No–the Bible says if we lack wisdom we should ask God, not man–I’m going to do exactly that”. Especially would it be extremely difficult for such a youth to have needful faith if they did ask God for the kind of wisdom necessary to trust that there was a need and Biblical precedence for a fountain of knowledge that is indicated by the term “public revelation.” A youth would need tremendous faith to break through the barrier to divinely sent knowledge that is created within everyone by the notion that “public revelation is complete–no more necessary.”

I’m sorry Parker, I’m not exactly following you on this point . . . are you saying that the early Church “needed” the concept of public revelation? Thanks for clarification.

 

[ParkerD]

So let me see if I have this right. The Mormon scriptures you are quoting say that joy was created through sin? Wow… Doesn’t that imply that there is no joy in heaven, since there is no sin there?

I’ll give you the alternative Catholic view. Before the fall, all man knew was good. When the Devil convinced Eve that she would be like God, knowing the difference between good and evil, he was being deceptive (as you would expect). Eating the fruit taught them about evil and disobedience. It didn’t bring joy which they already had, but it brought hardship and death.

This Mormon view that you espouse, that evil brings joy, is just another of Satan’s deceptions. Isnt that obvious?

Paul C,
I guess that before I answer Zach Dunn’s questions, I need to go ahead and respond to this misunderstanding here.

The 2 Nephi passage did not say that “joy was created through sin”–of course that is untrue. It says “having no joy, for they knew no misery…” The word “misery” may seem harsh, but perhaps a word you may be familiar with would be “tribulation”. Joy can follow tribulation, but joy does not follow a blank life where there is no adversity, no pain or sorrow through tribulation, no overcoming “hard things”. A person who sang in a choir all their life with no illness, no losses through the suffering of loved ones, no feelings of sadness, ever, would simply not know joy because they would not understand what joy is. They would have nothing to compare with and nothing for which to “be joyful” because they would have no “tears” for God to wipe away.

The other clause says “doing no good, for they knew no sin.” The word “knew” in this context does not mean “taste by sinning”. It simply means “acknowledge that sin exists, and understand that it exists as a possibility.” It means to become acquainted with a world where sin can indeed exist because Satan can indeed tempt humankind and because humankind have weaknesses. “Doing no good” follows from a situation where they had no concept of sin, therefore all the “good” that they did in the garden of Eden was really God’s doing, not a choice they were consciously making. To consciously make a choice to do good when there is another choice that could be made (the choice of evil), is to “do good” in the sense of that clause.

They were in a condition of innocence until they were cast out into a world where evil was going to be present as they and their posterity would be tempted by Satan because God was going to allow that tempting to occur. (God does not “cause” that which He allows to happen.)

The joy in heaven is a totally different case, for everyone who tastes the joy there will have come to the condition of such joy, through having had some sort of test and some sort of tribulation. It will be a part of their memory, with the knowledge that they overcame the “world” and overcame adversity, thus their joy is an active, participative joy.

Evil never brings joy–nothing of the kind. But if God had eliminated Satan from the world right at its outset (which He certainly could have done), then humankind would have a condition of no choices to make between right and wrong except the one choice of whether to partake of the forbidden fruit. Growth comes by seeing the possibility of wrong choices and hopefully seeing that the consequences of wrong choices would not be good, thus making right choices. It is like using a muscle to help the muscle grow. It is why Satan has been allowed to tempt humankind, in a world where God really is omnipotent and really does allow Satan to tempt and to bind and to blind and to captivate. God wants us to make a choice by ourselves, through our love for Him and through loving His commandments.

 

[ParkerD]

I don’t believe I’ve ever seen you “answer” Luke 20:35-36 . . . it just doesn’t fit with celestial marriage.

Luke 20:33-36
In the resurrection therefore, whose wife of them shall she be? For all the seven had her to wife. And Jesus said to them: The children of this world marry, and are given in marriage: But they that shall be accounted worthy of that world, and of the resurrection from the dead, shall neither be married, nor take wives. Neither can they die any more: for they are equal to the angels, and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection.

Zach,
“The children of this world” is an expression that, whenever used by Christ, means “children of the things of the world” as opposed to “children of light” or “children of God”. You will not find any passage where “children of this world” is placed in a context where it means “children of light” or “followers of Christ.”

If one studies the Greek Textus Receptus and its translation from the Greek, then the phrase that begins with the words “accounted worthy” should have been translated as follows: “accounted worthy of that world and resurrection from the dead”. It was a particular kind of resurrection, not a universal representation of all resurrection since both the “just” and the “unjust” will be resurrected.

Put those two concepts together, and we find that Jesus was saying that the unbelieving Jews such as these hypothetical Sadducees, will be resurrected and thus become children of the resurrection and children of God, but they will receive the kind of resurrection they are worthy to receive–one where there is no marriage in the heaven they receive. If you would like to be identified as a “child of this world” meaning the opposite of a “child of light”, then you will still be resurrected but it is a sure thing that no eternal covenant marriage would be applicable to such a person.

 

[zach_dunn]

Zach Dunn,
The passage you quoted from Hebrews 1, joined also with Hebrews 2, does not indicate at all that we should expect “public revelation” to cease, particularly in view of the vision of Revelation coming after the epistles of Paul in chronological time of when they were written down. Christ spoke as the Son of God come to earth, but He had also spoken by means of the prophets of old, as He testified to the Jews. What Paul is emphasizing is that Christ is differentiated from “the angels” and has a higher glory. He goes on in Hebrews 2 to say that Christ’s mission was to bring men to a like condition as Christ–not as the angels, who are “ministering spirits” (1:14), but as “sons unto glory” or in other words, “sons unto God”. (2:10)

There are a few things to consider here:

1. 
   *]The point about Revelation coming after Paul’s letters doesn’t work — at least for Catholics — because we believe public revelation ended with the death of the last Apostle who was, of course, John. Oh wait, Mormons don’t believe he’s dead . . . oops.
   *]How does God’s communication with us have anything to do with Christ being greater than an angel?
   *]You yourself testify that in the past God spoke to us using prophets, now He has spoken through His everlasting Word.
   *]None of this even remotely addresses Jude 3 which is extremely explicit.
   

   The lack of “public revelation” during the period from AD 100 until 1820, does not mean no inspiration through the Holy Spirit was happening, for it was on many occasions and in many places. It means that those types of inspiration that occurred were not providing doctrinal clarity and guidance for the salvation of humankind–they were providing specific guidance for specific people who sought guidance for their relationships or for helping human endeavors such as writing the United States Constitution and the earlier documents that led to it, brought into a form that would be the basis of governing and blessing the lives of people.

   Why did God leave the general population "hangin’ " with regards to doctrinal direction?
   

   One looking at the LDS view of human history as regards the plan of salvation for humankind, always needs to keep in mind that God values freedom of choice including that the entire population can choose wrong doctrine, and also that God has a plan that includes providing the saving ordinances (many involving vicarious temple ordinances) as an option for every human soul unless they were a son of perdition and fought against God, Christ, and the Holy Spirit during their life. So the time period when a fullness of authority and pure true doctrines were not going forth in the world, only postpones the opportunity that those spirits who lived at those times will eventually have for a knowing choice "yea’ or “nay” regarding Christ, baptism and the Holy Ghost, and as I had previously noted, an eternal marriage covenant for their own marriage.

   Is it not possible to make a choice if you have a set deposit of faith?