Mothers Day: Report from a Mormon ward (parish)

[MelanieAnne]

Its an interesting line of reasoning, but utterly unsupported by scripture. Mary was a good righteous women a normal everyday person in all other respects who was selected to be the mother of Christ. Christ went to many places that where not overly holy. so your inhabited by God= special holy thing does not fit what we know.

It’s completely supported by scripture, apparently you are not sufficiently familiar with the Bible.

 

[ibkc]

Thanks for the reference, teancum79.

To sum:

Christian interpretation: God made humans sinless, but gave them free will. Humans chose to disobey God.

Mormon interpretation: God made humans sinless, but to be sinless was to be boring, so humans used their god-given free will to disobey God. They were rewarded with the gift of being able to have children.

You guys have the most fantastically alien idea of God that I have ever encountered. Having come from years of neo-paganism, I can honestly say that the Mormon mythology is much more pagan than Christian in the way it views deities as imperfect and capable of failure, and considering that you guys believe that deities were once people, that fits. It’s an extremely pagan way to look at things. The freaky thing about it is that it has taken the traditions of a decidedly monotheistic system and retrofitted it with a polytheistic worldview and it just doesn’t add up. The ancient mythologies of the pre-Christian pagans are much more internally consistent.

 

[teancum79]

It’s completely supported by scripture, apparently you are not sufficiently familiar with the Bible.

Well when I find that angels holyed every place that Christ went before he got there or that Mary was not a normal human I’ll think about it.

 

[teancum79]

Thanks for the reference, teancum79.

To sum:

Christian interpretation: God made humans sinless, but gave them free will. Humans chose to disobey God.

Mormon interpretation: God made humans sinless, but to be sinless was to be boring, so humans used their god-given free will to disobey God. They were rewarded with the gift of being able to have children.

You guys have the most fantastically alien idea of God that I have ever encountered. Having come from years of neo-paganism, I can honestly say that the Mormon mythology is much more pagan than Christian in the way it views deities as imperfect and capable of failure, and considering that you guys believe that deities were once people, that fits. It’s an extremely pagan way to look at things. The freaky thing about it is that it has taken the traditions of a decidedly monotheistic system and retrofitted it with a polytheistic worldview and it just doesn’t add up. The ancient mythologies of the pre-Christian pagans are much more internally consistent.

If you don’t like the idea stop reading the bible or you might get an upsetting surprise one day.

 

[MelanieAnne]

Well when I find that angels holyed every place that Christ went before he got there or that Mary was not a normal human I’ll think about it.

So you need God to be the way you want Him to be?

In any event, the sinlessness of Mary is supported by scripture. The fact that someone may not be sufficiently knowledgeable about the Bible to understand that does not change the fact.

 

[teancum79]

So you need God to be the way you want Him to be?

In any event, the sinlessness of Mary is supported by scripture. The fact that someone may not be sufficiently knowledgeable about the Bible to understand that does not change the fact.

Then do be so kind as to point me to a scripture that says so. I’ve been unable to find anything close to it

 

[MelanieAnne]

Then do be so kind as to point me to a scripture that says so. I’ve been unable to find anything close to it

There are so many places in the forum where that subject has been discussed at length that I suggest that you search the forum on the topic as well.

In the meantime, here is one reference, which includes an appropriate scriptural citation as well as further explanation:

catholic.com/library/Immaculate_Conception_and_Assum.asp

The description of Mary given in the Gospel ~ the Greek word is “kecharitomene” ~ is unique in the Bible. It is a term used to describe no one else. Mary was special.

She’s not “just like us” in one particular way. She was born without sin and never sinned. Ignorance of her uniqueness does not change that. Indeed, it would be silly to think that our ignorance of any truth somehow affects the truth itself.

 

[ibkc]

If you don’t like the idea stop reading the bible or you might get an upsetting surprise one day.

No, I don’t think so.

 

[teancum79]

There are so many places in the forum where that subject has been discussed at length that I suggest that you search the forum on the topic as well.

In the meantime, here is one reference, which includes an appropriate scriptural citation as well as further explanation:

catholic.com/library/Immaculate_Conception_and_Assum.asp

The description of Mary given in the Gospel ~ the Greek word is “kecharitomene” ~ is unique in the Bible. It is a term used to describe no one else. Mary was special.

She’s not “just like us” in one particular way. She was born without sin and never sinned. Ignorance of her uniqueness does not change that. Indeed, it would be silly to think that our ignorance of any truth somehow affects the truth itself.

We do agree on something (these don’t come up often and I think its healthy to point them out when they do)

Ignorance does not alter facts (except in quantum physics).

Anyhow I’m still not seeing anything that I can buy into here. Being “full of grace”= never sins is not a reasonable conclusion.

Don’t get wrong I like Mary and think she is one of the most holy and wonderful women who have lived, but this supper human exception stuff is not supported in the Bible and sorry but given the CC’s high level of focus (which some call worship, but I think thats a stretch) I’m not to inclined to trust their official positions as reliable.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

The scripture is from 2 Nephi 2:22
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. Since you are the Catholic Dude and do not consider the Book of Mormon as authoratative, I don’t know how much evidence this would be for you.

Taken alone this verse does not really go against Catholic teaching. However I looked up the context:
18 And because he had fallen from heaven, and had become miserable forever, he sought also the misery of all mankind. Wherefore, he said unto Eve, yea, even that old serpent, who is the devil, who is the father of all lies, wherefore he said: Partake of the forbidden fruit, and ye shall not die, but ye shall be as God, knowing good and evil. 19 And after Adam and Eve had partaken of the forbidden fruit they were driven out of the garden of Eden, to till the earth.

 20  And they have brought forth children; yea, even the family of all the earth. 

 21  And **the days of the children of men were prolonged, according to the will of God, that they might repent while in the flesh**; wherefore, their state became a state of probation, and their time was lengthened, according to the commandments which the Lord God gave unto the children of men. For he gave commandment that **all men must repent; for he showed unto all men that they were lost, because of the transgression of their parents.** 

 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.

Up to this point this is pretty much in line with Catholic theology. The Devil wanted to make man miserable so he tempted them, they ate “forbidden” fruit (forbidden by God), they were driven out of paradise to work the land, they were given longer lifespans in order to have time to repent (repentance is required for those who are not in God’s favor).
HOWEVER, the very next few verses appear and virtually collide with the previous verses:

 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**. 

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

 25 **Adam fell that men might be; and men are, that they might have joy**.

This does not flow with the previous verses, nor does it fit with what the Bible says. Further, the idea that you cant have joy or do good unless you know what misery and sin feel like is nothing short of the damnable lie the devil told.

 26  And the **Messiah cometh in the fulness of time, that he may** **redeem the children of men from the fall**.  And because that they are redeemed from the fall they have become free forever, knowing good from evil; to act for themselves and not to be acted upon, save it be by the punishment of the law at the great and last day, according to the commandments which God hath given.

Given what is said here, I wonder if verses 23-25 were not added later because it does not flow with the context. Here we see the NEED for a Messiah to RESCUE mankind.

However, from a practical point of view if the garden of Eden and all the creatures in it are eternal and never die and they are mulitplying, well, soon you’d run out of space. Not much of a proof to a Catholic Dude but something to consider.

I dont think overpopulation was ever a problem in God’s plans. A point in time could have come when Adam obeyed God sufficiently that Adam was was taken to Heaven and Glorified.

Further, the overpopulation argument strikes me as very problematic because in our fallen world today the population is growing rapidly and people are living longer. If an “overpopulation” situation ever came about on fallen earth, then how would you answer this? Logically, from your position, the only options are a massive genocide or that God did not make enough space and childbearing caused this problem.

Also, although there’s no indication of how long Adams and Eve were in the garden before they partook of the fruit, you’ll notice that there’s no record of them having children until after the fall. In fact, the following scripture from Genesis suggests that this was something new for Eve, the ability to bear children:

just as it was a new thing for Adam to have to labor for his daily bread.

All that passage says is that childbearing would now be painful. The fact is before they ate they were given the command to be fruitful and multiply.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

The lds concept of the garden of eden does make some sense. I remember as a young catholic boy understanding the garden as a place of bliss and careless wonder. Certainly not a place of work and having babies. The garden was basically a heaven on earth. And both adam and eve were without sin until the apple part came into play.

You are placing having children in the same category as going to work for an employer?
Imagine a place where babies did not die in infancy, did not get diseases, etc. THAT was what God planned for Eden.

I just can not imagine adam and eve doing anything sexual before the fall. Sorry.

So “be fruitful and multiply” in Gen 1 meant what? Sin if you want to be fruitful? What about “the two shall become one flesh” in Gen 2? Your only option is to conclude that God was confused when He made man and woman different because in order to make use of that difference God’s creation would have to become corrupt.

No offense, but this is utter blasphemy to my ears.

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

I must say that it is very entertaining to read a Mormon try and use quotes from the BOM to argue with Catholics. As that since Catholic and Protestants hold no value in any thing written in this book other than a interesting fable. they can not support their stance within the limits of scripture writings of the early church fathers Jewish text or even Deuterocanonical or Apocryphal books. Many of the Apocryphal writings were rejected as heretical other were left out of scripture as not inspired writings.( subject for another thread), anyway it a Mormon can support there claims with anything other than the writings of Mr Smith I would love to hear them. Since the BOM can not be supported by the Bible or any other writings prior to Mr. Smith I can not accept them as authoritative on in matters concerning God.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Thanks for the reference, teancum79.

To sum:

Christian interpretation: God made humans sinless, but gave them free will. Humans chose to disobey God.

Mormon interpretation: God made humans sinless, but to be sinless was to be boring, so humans used their god-given free will to disobey God. They were rewarded with the gift of being able to have children.

This appears to be the situation in a nutshell.
Eden was too boring!

This is right out of the Greek mythology. Paradise is too boring, so lets mix it up a bit with war, sin, pain, sexual experimentation, etc.

 

[teancum79]

Taken alone this verse does not really go against Catholic teaching. However I looked up the context:
18 And because he had fallen from heaven, and had become miserable forever, he sought also the misery of all mankind. Wherefore, he said unto Eve, yea, even that old serpent, who is the devil, who is the father of all lies, wherefore he said: Partake of the forbidden fruit, and ye shall not die, but ye shall be as God, knowing good and evil. 19 And after Adam and Eve had partaken of the forbidden fruit they were driven out of the garden of Eden, to till the earth.

 20  And they have brought forth children; yea, even the family of all the earth. 

 21  And **the days of the children of men were prolonged, according to the will of God, that they might repent while in the flesh**; wherefore, their state became a state of probation, and their time was lengthened, according to the commandments which the Lord God gave unto the children of men. For he gave commandment that **all men must repent; for he showed unto all men that they were lost, because of the transgression of their parents.** 

 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.

Up to this point this is pretty much in line with Catholic theology. The Devil wanted to make man miserable so he tempted them, they ate “forbidden” fruit (forbidden by God), they were driven out of paradise to work the land, they were given longer lifespans in order to have time to repent (repentance is required for those who are not in God’s favor).
HOWEVER, the very next few verses appear and virtually collide with the previous verses:

 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**. 

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

 25 **Adam fell that men might be; and men are, that they might have joy**.

This does not flow with the previous verses, nor does it fit with what the Bible says. Further, the idea that you cant have joy or do good unless you know what misery and sin feel like is nothing short of the damnable lie the devil told.

 26  And the **Messiah cometh in the fulness of time, that he may** **redeem the children of men from the fall**.  And because that they are redeemed from the fall they have become free forever, knowing good from evil; to act for themselves and not to be acted upon, save it be by the punishment of the law at the great and last day, according to the commandments which God hath given.

Given what is said here, I wonder if verses 23-25 were not added later because it does not flow with the context. Here we see the NEED for a Messiah to RESCUE mankind.

I dont think overpopulation was ever a problem in God’s plans. A point in time could have come when Adam obeyed God sufficiently that Adam was was taken to Heaven and Glorified.

Further, the overpopulation argument strikes me as very problematic because in our fallen world today the population is growing rapidly and people are living longer. If an “overpopulation” situation ever came about on fallen earth, then how would you answer this? Logically, from your position, the only options are a massive genocide or that God did not make enough space and childbearing caused this problem.

All that passage says is that childbearing would now be painful. The fact is before they ate they were given the command to be fruitful and multiply.

God planed for the Fall. This much is made clear even with just the bible alone.
1 Peter 1:

17 And if ye call on the Father, who without respect of persons judgeth according to every man’s work, pass the time of your sojourning here in fear:
18 Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers;
19 But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:
20 Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,

Adam was supposed to Fall. Such was planed for before the world was made. Christ was not an oh crude Adam messed up what do we do now thing. The Creation was needed as was the Fall for God’s children to learn and grow. In this process we all sin so the a Savior was also needed and planed for.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

God planed for the Fall. This much is made clear even with just the bible alone.
1 Peter 1:

17 And if ye call on the Father, who without respect of persons judgeth according to every man’s work, pass the time of your sojourning here in fear:
18 Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers;
19 But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:
20 Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,

Adam was supposed to Fall. Such was planed for before the world was made. Christ was not an oh crude Adam messed up what do we do now thing. The Creation was needed as was the Fall for God’s children to learn and grow. In this process we all sin so the a Savior was also needed and planed for.

I dont know where you get your interpretations. That 1 Peter passage says nothing of the fall, nor of it being “supposed” to happen.

God certainly knew the fall would occur, it was done in DISOBEDIENCE to Him however. Without the fall God the Son would not have to humble himself to become man, and ESPECIALLY not die a violent death.

The idea that the fall was required for spiritual growth is nothing short of the same lie which Satan tempted Eve with: Eat this apple and you will grow spiritually.

 

[MelanieAnne]

Anyhow I’m still not seeing anything that I can buy into here. Being “full of grace”= never sins is not a reasonable conclusion.

It’s not about what you choose to “buy into”, it’s about what actually happened. The fact that you do not read or understand the original text, and refuse to accept the explanation of Biblical scholars when it is given to you does not change the nature of the Mother of God.

You keep trying to make this all about you and what you think makes sense and how you think it should be. That’s backward thinking. It’s not God’s job to accommodate Himself and His Creation to you, it’s your job to accommodate yourself to God.

This sort of “make God in our own image” is, I believe, an outgrowth of the Mormon heresy of God as an exalted man. As long as anyone clings to that heresy, they are stuck.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

It’s not about what you choose to “buy into”, it’s about what actually happened. The fact that you do not read or understand the original text, and refuse to accept the explanation of Biblical scholars when it is given to you does not change the nature of the Mother of God.

You keep trying to make this all about you and what you think makes sense and how you think it should be. That’s backward thinking. It’s not God’s job to accommodate Himself and His Creation to you, it’s your job to accommodate yourself to God.

This sort of “make God in our own image” is, I believe, an outgrowth of the Mormon heresy of God as an exalted man. As long as anyone clings to that heresy, they are stuck.

Dont forget Genesis 3:15, the Protoevangelium.

 

[MelanieAnne]

Dont forget Genesis 3:15, the Protoevangelium.

OK, but I’m not seeing how that has a bearing on Mormons re-making God in the image of Man. Maybe I’m missing something or not looking at with the same perspective that you are?

 

[Catholic_Dude]

OK, but I’m not seeing how that has a bearing on Mormons re-making God in the image of Man. Maybe I’m missing something or not looking at with the same perspective that you are?

The Protoevangelium is when God said He would “put enmity between” the snake and the woman and the promised messiah. This fits with your “full of grace” comments in that Mary was put at odds with the devil, she was always at enmity with satan.

 

[MelanieAnne]

The Protoevangelium is when God said He would “put enmity between” the snake and the woman and the promised messiah. This fits with your “full of grace” comments in that Mary was put at odds with the devil, she was always at enmity with satan.

Thanks. However, I suspect our Mormon friends, while understanding the concept of putting enmity between Satan and Eve, will not see that as applying to Mary the way we know it to be. When you do not understand the source and meaning of “full of grace”, you’re pretty much stuck.