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

[ParkerD]

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.

It depends on whether one likes the epistles or not, and whether one likes the book of Revelation or not. I think they are very valuable and provide evidence that “public revelation” was to have been ongoing–not for ongoing changes in doctrine, but for keeping the doctrine pure and for keeping the relationship between God and prophets and the people generally. God speaks to prophets and reveals His will to them, and they teach the people who hopefully listen to the counsel. Thus it is God ultimately doing the teaching. But the members need to be listening in such a way that when they hear the teaching, they know in their heart and soul that “it is true and righteous altogether.”

The point about “personal revelation” is that every member needs to be receiving personal guidance from the Holy Spirit, and needs to be able to know with certainty that the prophets are speaking the truth, because the Holy Spirit touches each heart with a knowledge of the truth individually, so they can act and follow counsel with sincere conviction and absolute firmness of mind and heart. This is what 1 Corinthians 2 is all about.

 

[ParkerD]

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.
   
   Why did God leave the general population "hangin’ " with regards to doctrinal direction?
   
   Is it not possible to make a choice if you have a set deposit of faith?

1. 
   Zach,
   God was always speaking through “His everlasting Word”–that was one of my points. It was not a new thing, since Christ was revealing His Word before He was born on the earth. “In the beginning was the Word.”
   
   Jude 3 uses the word “once” not as a meaning of “only once”. It is merely a meaning of “at one time”. It is a literary term, not a “you only get this once” kind of meaning.
   
   But I doubt that you will ever see that, so keep what you have and go with it. It is fine to hang your hat on “no new revealed knowledge–God has finished revealing everything He ever wanted us to know, or ever will want us to know until the resurrection.” That makes Him a changeable God, since whenever prophets were on the earth in times past He was revealing knowledge to the prophets and they were teaching the people what they were told to teach.

 

[Diamantina]

Z–I think you perhaps misunderstood what I was writing about, or maybe you aren’t familiar with believer’s baptisms? The whole point of what I was saying is that I don’t recommend an age. Believer’s baptisms are done when the individual wants to get baptized rather than at a set age. I think that if baptism is going to be delayed (not done in infancy), it makes more sense, at least to me, that each individual would determine when they are ready rather than set a specific age.

That said, if I was going to be forced to pick an age, I would pick somewhere in the teen years. This probably reflects my Jewish background/influence since bar/bat mitzvahs are done at age 13 and confirmations are done sometime in high school. By this time critical thinking skills have had a chance to develop and I think a person is more actively able to know what they are saying “yes” to than they are at age 8.

Sorry, I’ve been away from the thread for the past few days, and just now caught up. Since people who leave or change religions usually do so between the ages of 18 and 24, I would recommend that “believers’ baptisms” be for people who are at least 25 and thus should have some stability and maturity in their lives. Younger people who are in imminent danger of dying (including infants) can be baptized, but on the whole I would recommend that in this era where most people live to an advanced age that believers’ baptisms should be delayed until people are out of college, working full-time, starting families and the suchlike.

As for me, I prefer infant baptism if the parents are willing and able to give their child(ren) a good religious education and take them every week to church. I was baptized when I was one month old (although I should not have been, according to modern regulations) to please my pious grandmother, since my father was (and is) a lapsed Catholic and my mother was (and is) a non-churchgoing Methodist: they were married in a civil ceremony. Neither of my younger brothers were ever baptized, and it was only when I was 10 years old, on my own initiative, that I began to attend Mass regularly and to go to CCD classes. Thank goodness my baptism “took” – in many cases like this, it would not.

 

[sablouwho]

Since people who leave or change religions usually do so between the ages of 18 and 24, I would recommend that “believers’ baptisms” be for people who are at least 25 and thus should have some stability and maturity in their lives. Younger people who are in imminent danger of dying (including infants) can be baptized, but on the whole I would recommend that in this era where most people live to an advanced age that believers’ baptisms should be delayed until people are out of college, working full-time, starting families and the suchlike.

Sigh, it seem that you misunderstand my post. The way I am defining it, a “believer’s baptism” would be the kind of baptism that specifically does NOT take place at a set age, but rather, when a person, of their OWN volition, chooses to be baptized. Not because the community “expects” baptism to be done at a certain age because they have doctrine or standards relating to that very subject, or has interviews with the bishop to see if the person (child, in the case of LDS at age 8) is ready.

When I referred to a “recommended age” for baptism, it was NOT for what I am defining as a believer’s baptism, but rather for the type of baptism that happens in a community where the religious rite is “expected” to happen at a set age. And I picked the teen years for reasons already described above–but again, I think that this is distinctly different from a believer’s baptism (as I understand it as I relayed in the paragraph above.)

 

[RebeccaJ]

Zach,
God was always speaking through “His everlasting Word”–that was one of my points. It was not a new thing, since Christ was revealing His Word before He was born on the earth. “In the beginning was the Word.”

Jesus is the Word of God.

 

[paul_c]

Paul C,

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. …

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.

;; shortened to fit:.

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.

This must have been a very hard argument for you to construct. You know that you have to say that evil never brings joy because otherwise you are clearly on the side of Satan, but yet you must defend the following two passages from the BOM:

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.

and:

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.

Which ironically, you yourself brought up to defend celestial marriage. You can wordsmith it all you want but you know these verses seek to show that good came from evil. Dianaiad said as much when she brought up the " fortunate fault".

Your summary , " God wants us to make a choice by ourselves, through our love for Him and through loving His commandments" is very Catholic. I agree with every word. Adam did not make that choice, now did he? His choice was to not love God and to not follow his commandment to refrain from eating the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

Its interesting where this discussion has taken us. We started off with the question of what do Catholics lack for salvation in the eyes of the Mormons. You came up with the idea of celestial marriage. I pointed out that Celestial marriage is contradicted by Jesus in his answers to the sadduccess (the same one that Zach Dunn is now pressing you on When you couldn’t counter those arguements, you took us into a discussion that God charged Adam and Eve with procreating so therefore Celestial marriage must be true doctrine. You are now in the position of having to defend Adams fall as good for mankind, in effect saying that evil led to good, an obvious contradiction.

Parker, I respect you as a man of intelligence and faith and you clearly see it as your reponsibility to defend LDS teachings. But now you clearly are in a box. You have defined Celestial marriage as the one thing Catholics lack for salvation but now it appears that for celestial marriage to be true, you need to argue that Adam’s fall was good for mankind and that therefore Evil leads to good. This is what happens when faith is based on error, if you study it long enough you eventually run into an obvious contradiction. By the way, the other quandry you face is that the goal of celestial marriage is to make you a god. But you know that there is and can be only one God and by the way, why would that be your goal? Do you crave that power?

I suspect that this could be heart wrenching for you. You have a lot invested in the LDS and you would have a lot of explaining to do to those around you. I hope you have the courage to follow the truth. My prayers are with you.

 

[paul_c]

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.

Parker,
please, this argument has already been debunked on this thread. Jesus said that those worthy of heaven and eternal life will not marry. Why do you twist the words to try to make the opposite true? If Jesus was really teaching that you need to be sealed in a celestial marriage to be worthy of exaltation in heaven, he would have said it clearly. As it is, he said, clearly, “there is no marriage in heaven”.

 

[Jay53]

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.

I am interested to know more about what the line I’ve underlined above means. It appears to mean that if Adam and Eve had not eaten of the fruit of the tree and fallen from grace then they would have been** unable** to “be fruitful and multiply” implying then that God intended for Adam and Eve to disobey Him which, of course, makes no sense. Can someone explain? Is there another verse for context which would explain what this is supposed to mean?

 

[TheosisM]

I am interested to know more about what the line I’ve underlined above means. It appears to mean that if Adam and Eve had not eaten of the fruit of the tree and fallen from grace then they would have been** unable** to “be fruitful and multiply” implying then that God intended for Adam and Eve to disobey Him which, of course, makes no sense. Can someone explain? Is there another verse for context which would explain what this is supposed to mean?

Yes, LDS believe that “be fruitful and multiply” and don’t eat from the tree were “contradictory” (not sure if this is the right word) commandments. They would not have been able to be fruitful and multiply pre-Fall. One somewhat crude explanation I have read of this essentially asked how Adam and Eve could be fruitful and multiply if they didn’t know that they were naked until the Fall.

 

[Jay53]

Yes, LDS believe that “be fruitful and multiply” and don’t eat from the tree were “contradictory” (not sure if this is the right word) commandments. They would not have been able to be fruitful and multiply pre-Fall. One somewhat crude explanation I have read of this essentially asked how Adam and Eve could be fruitful and multiply if they didn’t know that they were naked until the Fall.

OK. Is there any explanation as to why God would intentionally give two contradictory commandments? Do LDS then believe that God intended for Adam & Eve to sin from the beginning - either by eating from the tree or not “being fruitful” (kind of a catch-22)?

 

[RebeccaJ]

OK. Is there any explanation as to why God would intentionally give two contradictory commandments? Do LDS then believe that God intended for Adam & Eve to sin from the beginning - either by eating from the tree or not “being fruitful” (kind of a catch-22)?

Yes, this is mormon belief. It is a catch-22, a trick, a double bind.

 

[ParkerD]

OK. Is there any explanation as to why God would intentionally give two contradictory commandments? Do LDS then believe that God intended for Adam & Eve to sin from the beginning - either by eating from the tree or not “being fruitful” (kind of a catch-22)?

Hi, Jay53,
It is important to differentiate between the foreknowledge of God and what He allows, and between the freedom to choose that God wants humankind to have without any kind of force exerted that limits freedom of choice, versus a situation where there would be limited freedom of choice.

God had foreknowledge (being omniscient) that Satan would tempt Eve, and that Eve would be enticed by the idea of gaining knowledge and gaining joy. She wanted to “be wise” (see Genesis 3:6), and she thought the fruit looked “good” and “pleasant to the eyes.” God knew that she would have these kinds of reactions when Satan presented to her the temptation to eat the forbidden fruit. If one says God “intended” for Adam and Eve to sin by eating the forbidden fruit, then that is not differentiating between an allowance for choice by God, and the intent of God for Eve and then Adam to freely choose.

As to whether they would have had children in the garden of Eden if they had not chosen to eat the forbidden fruit (and yet they had been commanded to “multiply and replenish the earth”)–I give an opinion only, that Eve’s body was not in a condition with active egg cells for reproduction until after she chose to eat the forbidden fruit and hence brought death into the world–including the death of an unfertilized egg and the cycle that brings to her body.

God said of the forbidden fruit, “Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.” The consequence was death, but the fact that she chose to do it anyway surely shows that she reasoned that there were compelling reasons for her to eat that fruit, beyond just that Satan was tempting and deceiving her.

So a conclusion that that commandment not to eat that fruit was contradictory to the commandment to “multiply and replenish the earth” does appear to be correct if one considers the innate desire that a woman has to bear children. She would not have chosen a consequence that would have resulted in her having no children. Maybe she had had a self-realization about how children are conceived and brought into the world, and accepted that this meant that death was going to be a necessary part of her life.

It’s a complicated question. I may have confused you more–I hope not. Have a good evening or day tomorrow.

 

[sablouwho]

So a conclusion that that commandment not to eat that fruit was contradictory to the commandment to “multiply and replenish the earth” does appear to be correct if one considers the innate desire that a woman has to bear children. She would not have chosen a consequence that would have resulted in her having no children. Maybe she had had a self-realization about how children are conceived and brought into the world, and accepted that this meant that death was going to be a necessary part of her life.

But the above rests on a MAJOR supposition, well, two actually. The first is that all the details of the story are to be taken as literal history, a view to which I myself, as well as many Catholic biblical scholars, do not subscribe. BUT since that is a major rabbit hole I will leave it alone for now and pretend the story is literal.

Going on, then, I see a second supposition, which is that Eve, in her “innocent” state, was somehow clever enough to know that eating the fruit would be the catalyst to her being able to have children. We don’t know just how innocent A&E were in the garden, but one could speculate that they wouldn’t have even known to “be fruitful and multiply” unless God had told them. I mean, God did TELL them this–so it could possibly be that they wouldn’t have known otherwise. Thus, it is possible that Eve didn’t actually yet have the innate desire to bear children…in her innocent state.

 

[paul_c]

Hi, Jay53,
It is important to differentiate between the foreknowledge of God and what He allows, and between the freedom to choose that God wants humankind to have without any kind of force exerted that limits freedom of choice, versus a situation where there would be limited freedom of choice.

God had foreknowledge (being omniscient) that Satan would tempt Eve, and that Eve would be enticed by the idea of gaining knowledge and gaining joy. She wanted to “be wise” (see Genesis 3:6), and she thought the fruit looked “good” and “pleasant to the eyes.” God knew that she would have these kinds of reactions when Satan presented to her the temptation to eat the forbidden fruit. If one says God “intended” for Adam and Eve to sin by eating the forbidden fruit, then that is not differentiating between an allowance for choice by God, and the intent of God for Eve and then Adam to freely choose.

As to whether they would have had children in the garden of Eden if they had not chosen to eat the forbidden fruit (and yet they had been commanded to “multiply and replenish the earth”)–I give an opinion only, that Eve’s body was not in a condition with active egg cells for reproduction until after she chose to eat the forbidden fruit and hence brought death into the world–including the death of an unfertilized egg and the cycle that brings to her body.

God said of the forbidden fruit, “Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.” The consequence was death, but the fact that she chose to do it anyway surely shows that she reasoned that there were compelling reasons for her to eat that fruit, beyond just that Satan was tempting and deceiving her.

So a conclusion that that commandment not to eat that fruit was contradictory to the commandment to “multiply and replenish the earth” does appear to be correct if one considers the innate desire that a woman has to bear children. She would not have chosen a consequence that would have resulted in her having no children. Maybe she had had a self-realization about how children are conceived and brought into the world, and accepted that this meant that death was going to be a necessary part of her life.

It’s a complicated question. I may have confused you more–I hope not. Have a good evening or day tomorrow.

Parker, their is nothing in Genesis to indicate that Adam and Eve were not able to procreate in Eden. This is just another opinion to prop up the false doctrine of Celestial marriage and to try to justify the Mormon scriptural accounts you referenced that claim that good comes from evil.

In fact, if you go back and read Genesis again, you will see that in Genesis 1, before the desciption of the fall, we have:
26 Then God said: “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. Let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, the birds of the air, and the cattle, and over all the wild animals and all the creatures that crawl on the ground.”
27 God created man in his image; in the divine image he created him; male and female he created them.
28 God blessed them, saying: “Be fertile and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it. Have dominion over the fish of the sea, the birds of the air, and all the living things that move on the earth.”
29 God also said: “See, I give you every seed-bearing plant all over the earth and every tree that has seed-bearing fruit on it to be your food;
30 and to all the animals of the land, all the birds of the air, and all the living creatures that crawl on the ground, I give all the green plants for food.” And so it happened.
31 God looked at everything he had made, and he found it very good. Evening came, and morning followed–the sixth day.

So God gave them the commandment to be fruitful and multiply prior to their sin and prior to their expulsion from Eden. Why, therefore, would you assume that they weren’t able to have children without sin?

Don’t you see that you are on the side of Satan when you try to prove that good comes from Evil. Is that what you really want?

 

[PaulDupre]

So God gave them the commandment to be fruitful and multiply prior to their sin and prior to their expulsion from Eden. Why, therefore, would you assume that they weren’t able to have children without sin?

This is a 19th-century Campbellite belief that was (like so many others) incorporated into the Book of Mormon and the LDS religion.

Paul (a former Mormon, now happily Catholic)

 

[ParkerD]

But the above rests on a MAJOR supposition, well, two actually. The first is that all the details of the story are to be taken as literal history, a view to which I myself, as well as many Catholic biblical scholars, do not subscribe. BUT since that is a major rabbit hole I will leave it alone for now and pretend the story is literal.

Going on, then, I see a second supposition, which is that Eve, in her “innocent” state, was somehow clever enough to know that eating the fruit would be the catalyst to her being able to have children. We don’t know just how innocent A&E were in the garden, but one could speculate that they wouldn’t have even known to “be fruitful and multiply” unless God had told them. I mean, God did TELL them this–so it could possibly be that they wouldn’t have known otherwise. Thus, it is possible that Eve didn’t actually yet have the innate desire to bear children…in her innocent state.

Sablouwho,
This is a good point, which may be true.

I would surely be interested to know whether those who don’t consider it literal history think there was a “fall of Adam and Eve” and if not, do they believe in the idea of “original sin” anyway? (Perhaps you have occasion to know of these kinds of issues?)

 

[ParkerD]

Parker, there is nothing in Genesis to indicate that Adam and Eve were not able to procreate in Eden. This is just another opinion to prop up the false doctrine of Celestial marriage and to try to justify the Mormon scriptural accounts you referenced that claim that good comes from evil.

In fact, if you go back and read Genesis again, you will see that in Genesis 1, before the desciption of the fall, we have:
26 Then God said: “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. Let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, the birds of the air, and the cattle, and over all the wild animals and all the creatures that crawl on the ground.”
27 God created man in his image; in the divine image he created him; male and female he created them.
28 God blessed them, saying: “Be fertile and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it. Have dominion over the fish of the sea, the birds of the air, and all the living things that move on the earth.”
29 God also said: “See, I give you every seed-bearing plant all over the earth and every tree that has seed-bearing fruit on it to be your food;
30 and to all the animals of the land, all the birds of the air, and all the living creatures that crawl on the ground, I give all the green plants for food.” And so it happened.
31 God looked at everything he had made, and he found it very good. Evening came, and morning followed–the sixth day.

So God gave them the commandment to be fruitful and multiply prior to their sin and prior to their expulsion from Eden. Why, therefore, would you assume that they weren’t able to have children without sin?

Don’t you see that you are on the side of Satan when you try to prove that good comes from Evil. Is that what you really want?

Paul C,
If you believe God allows evil to exist, and believe the teaching of Paul in 1 Corinthians 10:13, then it would follow that good triumphing over evil means a good thing was accomplished by the adversity of the existence of evil things. God had a plan with a greater good in that plan than whether anyone would make any single mistake or follow Satan in any single point of temptation.

“Have children without sin” would mean “have children without partaking the forbidden fruit and being subject to death”–so the corollary question is (I’d love to know):

how long were they in the garden of Eden, and if longer than a year then why no children there (under your assumption)?

 

[Stephen168]

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

Yes, she has tried it before. In fact post #616 looks similar to this:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=4789197&postcount=499

 

[AtticusFinch]

AtticusFinch;6384659:

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,

That is not true. Even now, poor families have a lot of extended family living with them. eEven in Honduras, where I served my mission, a lot of POOR families had a lot of extended families living with them

y’know…and if there IS extended family, the odds then, as now, indicate that the extra people would be parents, not extra children.

That is also not true. Odds are there are babies. Odds are, there are young children. That is one reason families live together: to take care of 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.

No. I am going at this logically. You are going at this trying to make your doctrine work by forcing illogical assumptions into truth. It does not work.

You are assuming that these households had very young children in them. Dumb assumption, since it could go either way…

No. What is dumb is someone assuming that the only two times households were mentioned in a place where birth control was rarely, if ever, used, the households had no hcildren.

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.

No, if you were being intellectually honest, you would know that you are wrong. Everything I have read back then, and in discussions I have had with Jewish Scholars, households would have included children.

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

No, you are using an idiotic assumption to fit your square dosctrine inbto round truth. That is a dangerous approach.

And you claim to have been a Mormon!

I never claimed it. I stated it as fact. Your attempt to doubt it it not surprising since you continue to fight against truth.

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.

No, He never said that. In fact, as I showed, He said that ALL must be baptized. He did NOT say, “except those under 8”. Now, if you show me in the Bible where Jesus said THAT, I will listen. Until then, to us, WHOLE HOUSEHOLDS and ALL includes children. To you, they don’t.

…and for you to present our beliefs as you are doing tells me that you never were a Mormon.

There you go again. You simply cannot fight truth at every corner. If you dislike truth, you say it is not truth. That explains your approach to this whole Baptism thing.

 

[paul_c]

Paul C,
If you believe God allows evil to exist, and believe the teaching of Paul in 1 Corinthians 10:13, then it would follow that good triumphing over evil means a good thing was accomplished by the adversity of the existence of evil things. God had a plan with a greater good in that plan than whether anyone would make any single mistake or follow Satan in any single point of temptation.

“Have children without sin” would mean “have children without partaking the forbidden fruit and being subject to death”–so the corollary question is (I’d love to know):

how long were they in the garden of Eden, and if longer than a year then why no children there (under your assumption)?

Sure, God allows Evil to exists and allows people to be tested. And yes, Good will triumph over evil. But it does not follow that you evil leads to good. In fact, this is a clear contradiction. Throughout our lives, we make choices of good or evil, when we choose good, we bcome more holy and grow closer to God and when we choose evil, we move away from holiness and God.

We don’t know how long they were in the Garden of Eden before they fell to temptation. Could be a week, a month, a year, or decades. It doesn’t matter. You don’t have to be subject to death to procreate and new life certainly didn’t require sin to happen.