13
Apr
12

Natural Man

Lesson 15 in the Gospel Doctrine’s curriculum looks at Mosiah 1-3 in the Book of Mormon.  Mosiah 3:19 talks about the natural man and how it is an enemy of God.  The teacher’s guide has one quote from McConkie’s Mormon Doctrine explaining it.  Other than that, it’s difficult to find much written about it.  The LDS Bible Dictionary contains no entry on it.  I found no specific listing of it in either of Mormonism’s basic manuals: Gospel Principles or True to the Faith.  Neither has it often been raised in my discussions with LDS members.

The one thing that is obvious about Mormonism’s view of the natural man is that, in Mormonism, it doesn’t describe a thorough corruption.  For example, Mosiah 3:16 talks about how even if little children could sin, they couldn’t be saved without Christ’s atonement because “as in Adam, or by nature, they fall.”  So even though they fell, they don’t sin.  D&C 29:47 simply says: “Wherefore, they cannot sin, for power is not given unto Satan to tempt little children, until they become accountable before me.”  According to D&C 68:27 they reach that at the age of eight.  Therefore Mormonism teaches that children don’t sin until the age of eight.  Just as an aside, spending one hour in any preschool will severely put that belief to the test!

But to the bigger point.  This teaching about children is just one illustration of Mormonism’s view that the natural man doesn’t describe a thorough corruption.  But thoroughly corrupt is how the Bible describes us by nature.  God said:  “for the imagination of man’s heart is evil from his youth” (Gen. 8:21).  What is so striking about that is that God said that after the Flood – when Noah and his family constituted the whole human race!  Even then God did not have an optimistic view of humanity.  Instead of talking about an innate right to choose between good and evil, he said that even a person’s inclination is evil.

Other scriptures support this. “God looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, that did seek God.  Every one of them is gone back; they are altogether become filthy; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.”  (Psalm 53:2-3.)  That is all inclusive.  None were seeking God – all have become filthy – none does good.  Wouldn’t yielding to “the enticings of the Holy Spirit” which Mosiah 3 says is the way to put off the natural man be doing something good?

Mormonism and the Bible have differing views of humanity.  Because of their different starting points, they end up in different places.  Because of its more optimistic view of humanity, Mormonism talks about grace plus.  It says that “effort is required on our part to receive the fullness of the Lord’s grace and be made worthy to dwell with Him” (True to the Faith, p. 77).  Because of its pessimistic view of man by nature, the Bible talks about grace alone based entirely on Jesus’ work for us.  “In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace.”  (Ephesians 1:7).

I confess that by nature I was rotten through and through.  I confess that I was filthy in God’s sight.  I confess that I sinned against God a multitude of times before I was eight years old.  Therefore I am thankful that Jesus did everything for me.  I praise him for drowning my sins in the depths of the sea.  He completely covered me with his perfection.  I am saved by God’s grace alone.  Only because of what he did am I confident that I will spend eternity living with Heavenly Father.  To God be all the praise!

Advertisements

95 Responses to “Natural Man”


  1. April 13, 2012 at 3:57 pm

    I have to chuckle here Mark, that the only thing you can fault us for here is that we believe Christ throughout the Gospels when he says, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.” Matt 19:14NIV

    And he said: “I tell you the truth, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Matt 18:3NIV

    Matt 18: 2-4

    2 And Jesus called a little child unto him, and set him in the midst of them,

    3 And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.

    4 Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven.

    These are just a couple of examples of how Jesus sees little children.

    Nothing here tells me that he sees little children as corrupt.

    It seems to me that you needed to pull attention away from your sinking ship in the last post.

  2. 2 JBR
    April 14, 2012 at 3:18 am

    It’s no surprise that so far with every lesson it is in opposition to the Bible. So we have the typical humanistic doctrine found in Mormonism that children are somehow a non-product of filthy rag parents.

    ….”God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.” Gen 6:5

    …. “Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me” Psalm 51:5

  3. April 14, 2012 at 3:50 am

    It’s no surprise that you would completely ignore my comment. How do you explain Jesus’ words about children? How do those scriptures reconcile with your statement?

  4. 4 JBR
    April 14, 2012 at 5:25 am

    And why shouldn’t it be ignore … you didn’t quote any passage that was in the correct context of the OP.

  5. 5 joshtried
    April 14, 2012 at 5:42 am

    JBR: first and foremost welcome back.

    Second, because i am conceived in sin does not make me sin incarnate. It makes me a new child entering this world with no idea what sin is and what is right and what is wrong. Your parents do teach you everything, which inevitably leads to you sinning. At what point do you know it is a sin? At what point are you merely transgressing?

    When i tell a 1 year old not to stick a fork in the light socket, does he understand me? does he know this will lead to death? Even if i explain death, does he understand it? What about a 2 year old, do they understand death? When do they fully understand THIS, the most basic of human functions? We are Born, we WILL die. My 4 year old KIND OF understands life and death. She understands that if a car hits her she will die. Does she understand that she will not get to see her mother or I again until we die after her death? Probably not. I really dont know because 4 y/o have problems with not being able to explain EVERYTHING yet… If they cant explain it, they probably dont understand it.

    Now, just because you dont understand it obviously does not mean it is impossible to do. Just because i dont see the speed limit sign drop does not mean i am free and clear. Just because i tell the 1 y/o not to put a fork in the socket, doesnt mean he cant put the fork in there.

    What “sin” then can a newborn baby commit? They cant profess belief in a different God, They cant commit murder, or adultery. They cannot lie. The cannot show hate to another human being. They can show fear of, but not hate to. The cant steal or covet. What then can a newborn do to commit sin?

  6. 6 joshtried
    April 14, 2012 at 5:48 am

    Third, what a harsh and unfriendly way to return. Kate showed her belief in a Bible scripture and you say this is not in context of the original post… how is it not?
    The topic is natural man. If we are born to Christian parents who are following Gods commandment to multiply and fill the earth, would we not have been created as a mandate of God, and therefore be created in perfection rather than in sin?

  7. April 14, 2012 at 6:24 am

    Kate quoted scripture: “And he said: “I tell you the truth, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Matt 18:3NIV

    Matt 18: 2-4…

    2 And Jesus called a little child unto him, and set him in the midst of them,

    3 And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.

    4 Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven.

    We need to change and become like little children by humbling ourselves. That is what the verse you quoted says. Those verses say nothing about being sinless.

  8. April 14, 2012 at 6:37 am

    But…you are only looking at the surface of what Jesus is saying. He is not just teaching us to be humble…he is teaching you that a child is not corrupted. He is teaching you how he sees little children.

  9. April 14, 2012 at 6:45 am

    You are wrong. Those verses tell us how Jesus feels about children. You are only seeing the surface of those verses.

  10. April 14, 2012 at 7:12 am

    Kate said: “You are wrong.”

    The verse says exactly what I said: “4 Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child”

    Kate said: “Those verses tell us how Jesus feels about children.”

    How Jesus feels about children and whether or not they are sinners are two different things.

    Kate said: “You are only seeing the surface of those verses.”

    You are adding something to the scripture that just isn’t there.

  11. 11 joshtried
    April 14, 2012 at 2:23 pm

    Echo: I know a good chunk of time has gone past, and obviously this is a different thread. I am not asking this to get off subject, but because it was said and never really followed up on. Previously, we were talking about Joseph Smiths alleged false prophecies. You said you needed some time to read regarding Zion in particular. Have you had an opportunity to read regarding Zion, and did you understand everything regarding this prophecy? Did you have any follow on questions?
    Again, I appologize in advance for asking this here and now. Had this question come up in private, it would have stayed there. Since it was asked in open forum, I thought it fair to be answered in open forum.

  12. 12 joshtried
    April 14, 2012 at 2:57 pm

    To comment specifically to a child being born with or without sin… If all child are born as manifestations of sin, then Christ himself is sin, because he had an earthly mother who in fact had already sinned. If children are born sinless, then Christ is in fact the Christ.

  13. April 14, 2012 at 4:02 pm

    Josh, I am not finished reading the D&C yet. :)

    Christ was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the virgin Mary. Christ was born with both a human and a divine nature. For this reason, he was without sin. If you would like to learn more about this, I suggest reading: “The Two Natures in Christ” by Martin Chemnitz

  14. 14 JBR
    April 14, 2012 at 4:12 pm

    Josh,
    Thanks for the greetings…….. just had a few moments to read & reply (like now) ;)
    \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\

    Harsh? …. you do understand that context is crucial for proper application.
    Matt 18:2-4, Matt 19:14 is not speaking to the context of the condition of natural man.

    Matt 18:2-4 Jesus comparing what faith should be in an adult toward God as like how a child has faith in their parents to them. His context wasn’t sinful condition.

    Matt 19:14 ..this is Jesus’ rebuke to the disciples for preventing children to come to him.

    >>>> But <<<<<>>>>>>>>>>> Do babies die ? <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>> Do babies need to understand why they die before they die ? <<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>> Do Mormons teach lessons to their babies how to die before they die ? <<<>>>>>> Do Mormons have a lesson on teaching children temper acquisition
    >>>>>>> Do Mormons have a lesson on teaching children disrespect acquisition
    >>>>>>> Do Mormons have a lesson on teaching “evil thoughts in the heart” acquisition

    If you don’t… why not?

  15. 15 JBR
    April 14, 2012 at 4:16 pm

    —- Do babies sin ? >>>>>> Do babies die ?

    Do babies need to understand why they die before they die ?

    Do Mormons teach lessons to their babies how to die before they die ?

    Do Mormons have a lesson on teaching children temper acquisition ?

    Do Mormons have a lesson on teaching children disrespect acquisition ?

    Do Mormons have a lesson on teaching “evil thoughts in the heart” acquisition

    If you don’t… why not?

  16. 16 joshtried
    April 14, 2012 at 4:17 pm

    If original sin is inherant in every single man ever born, and Christ was born a man, then Christ was born sin. Regardless of the divine nature of the birth, he was a man. He had all the attributes of a man. If one of those attributes was sin, then we are all doomed. Sin is not an inherited attribute, it is learned. Whether it is learned by normal human interaction or “survival of the fittest”, it is still learned. Christ was.able to overcome this learning disability by his divine nature. You cant be born with original sin and say you have never sinned. You can be born without sin and say you have not sinned.

  17. April 14, 2012 at 4:19 pm

    Do babies go to hell if they day as babies?

    We have actually had this discussion before.

  18. April 14, 2012 at 4:27 pm

    Josh said: “If original sin is inherant in every single man ever born, and Christ was born a man, then Christ was born sin.”

    Christ was not just a man. He was both God and man. Christ is God incarnate. Mary was a virgin “after” the conception. It’s a miraculous conception.

  19. 20 joshtried
    April 14, 2012 at 4:29 pm

    Babies are born of corrupt flesh, therefore they will all die. Jesus would have died had he been allowed to lead his life and live to an old age, simply because his flesh was corrupt. Flesh is not abstract thought processes. My leg does not choose to walk, I think I am going to get up and walk. My flesh does not covet the $400 coat someone else is wearing. Having corrupt flesh is not in itself a sin. Allowing your thought process also to become corrupt is the sin. If having corrupt flesh was in itself a sin, Jesus would not have been able to live perfect and die for us as he did.

  20. April 14, 2012 at 4:38 pm

    Josh,

    Jesus taught us that we all must be born again, that would include infants…

    John 3:3 “Very truly I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God unless they are born again. ”

  21. 22 markcares
    April 14, 2012 at 5:23 pm

    Josh:
    Using your logic about babies above, I have a question. Was Jesus born with a natural man?

  22. April 14, 2012 at 5:27 pm

    I don’t have a lot of time today, but want to leave this with you to read. Hopefully, at least some will read it. It touches on what we are discussing as well as many other topics we have hashed over. It is an excellent read.

    Also, please don’t bother to just pull quotes from it unless you actually read the whole thing.

    http://rsc.byu.edu/archived/book-mormon-second-nephi-doctrinal-structure/9-atonement-jesus-christ-2-nephi-9

  23. 24 shematwater
    April 14, 2012 at 6:06 pm

    MARK

    There is plenty said on the subject of the Natural Man, if you look. I went to LDS.org, and did a general search for the phrase “natural Man.” This is what I got. General Conference(89), Magazines(265), Manuals(33), Media Library(1), Scriptures(59), Other (66). A total of 426 references to the concept. Looking at the listing for Manuals, there are three in the Book of Mormon Institute manual, three in the Seminary Institute Manual, plus references in the sunday school manuals for the New Testament and Book of Mormon, among others.
    If you haven’t found that much I wonder where you were looking.

    Now, to make your point concerning the perspective of the Bible in regards to man you give two quotes: Genesis 8: 21, and Psalms 53: 2-3.
    In regards to Psalms you state it is all inclusive. While this is true, I would point out that this is a psalm, it is a literary piece, or poetry. While I have the utmost respect and love for the psalms, they must be understood as psalms. David is writing this about Israel, who had become fairly corrupt, and he was making a social commentary. Did he literally mean everyone, or was he using this strong language to make his point?
    In Genesis 8: 21 we do have the declaration that man’s inmagination is evil. This does not mean that they are inherently evil and sinful, but that they are weak, and are more inclined to choose the evil than the good. This is why they have such great need of God’s assistance. Speaking of the children, I find it interesting that in this verse it says that this is true from their youth, not from their childhood. He does not say from birth, but that by the time they reach the age of youth (which was twelve years of age) they have succombed to the corruption of the flesh and their weakness of will is manifest.

    Personally, I read the Bible and I see a very optomistic view of the Human race. His divine potential and his ability, through the grace of God, to do great works. The LDS perspective and the Biblical perspective could not be more similar.

    Personally, I have always liked 1 Peter 3: 20-21. I know that people have different interpretations, but let me give you mine.
    “Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, WHEREIN FEW, THAT IS, EIGHT SOULS WERE SAVED BY WATER.
    THE LIKE FIGURE WHEREUNTO EVEN BAPTISM DOTH ALSO NOW SAVE US (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ”
    (I am not yelling)

    Now, many people say that verse twenty one is refering to the water when it talks of the figure. However, I would disagree. If this were so there would be no point in mentioning how many people were saved. Eight were saved by water, and that figure is the figure by which baptism also saves by water; the figure eight. What does this mean? It means that baptism is only effective for those who have reached this figure of eight. Just as a male child did not need to be circumsized befrore they were eight days old, Peter is saying that Baptism is only for those who have reached the age of Eight years.
    As I said, others have their own interpretation, but this interpretation fits the text and the context of the verses.

    I will say that we have hashed out the idea of original sin and the ability of children to sin before, but I will briefly go over it again.
    In order to sin one must have agency. Agency consists of four parts.
    1. The power to choose, which all men are born with.
    2. Opposition so that a clear choice can be made. After all, a choice between black and black is not a choice. One must have opposing forces tempting them in order to actually make a choice. This part simply exists.
    3. Laws. We must know what choice is the right choice. God has provided many laws.
    4. Knowledge of Good and Evil. We must understand why a choice is right. This is not something learned through others, but is part of the psychlogical development of every person, and until it has developed one does not have agency, and is thus not capable of committing sin.
    To illustrate this consider the study done at the end of the 19th century. Several children, ranging in age from 4 to 12, were told this story. Two brothers are told by their father not to get into his desk. The younger, while playing around one day, bumps the desk causing a bottle of ink to spill, ruining several pages. The elder, in a fit of rage, takes one page and rips it up. Whose action was more wrong?
    The study showed clearly that a child under the age of eight will say the younger, for he ruined many pages. It was not until around the age of eight years that the children began to show the higher reasoninf in understanding that the actions of the elder were done on purpose, and thus were inherently more wrong than those of the younger, even though the younger did more actual damage.

    JBR

    “Do Mormons have a lesson on teaching children temper acquisition ?
    Do Mormons have a lesson on teaching children disrespect acquisition ?
    Do Mormons have a lesson on teaching “evil thoughts in the heart” acquisition?”

    Actually we do. Not as a church, but as families. These are covered in the lessons taught during family home evening, and many of them are even addressed in the church supliments created for this institution.

  24. 25 JBR
    April 14, 2012 at 6:15 pm

    Shem…
    you actualy teach children how to aquire tempers.. how to aquire disrespect … how to aquire evil thoughts….

    in other words you set them down and explain how to do it….?

    Then I suppose no Mormon baby dies until they understand how to …. or do you teach them that also?

  25. 26 JBR
    April 14, 2012 at 6:18 pm

    josh…..
    Babies are born of corrupt flesh, therefore they will all die.

    “corrupt flesh” is the result of sin.
    “corrupt flesh” is the result a earned wage.

  26. 27 JBR
    April 14, 2012 at 6:24 pm

    Shem….
    Can you give us some names of Mormon parents whose baby died that we can contact to find out if the baby used agency for that baby to die?

  27. April 14, 2012 at 8:00 pm

    JBR: “Shem…
    you actualy teach children how to aquire tempers.. how to aquire disrespect … how to aquire evil thoughts….

    in other words you set them down and explain how to do it….?”

    Wow…you have really turned what Shem said upside down. You may want to reread things before you continue your conversation.

    So, JBR, are you of the belief that when babies die they die sinful and corrupt?

  28. April 14, 2012 at 8:40 pm

    Kate, can you answer JBR’s questions?

  29. April 14, 2012 at 10:11 pm

    I do not plan to waste any time answering his questions. Either you have gone in and edited his questions, or my eyes played the same trick on me that Shem’s did and those questions were worded differently. They are stupid questions, bottom-line and not worth answering. Also, this whole thing has been hashed out previously and can be accessed through archives. I suggest if you want to know how the conversation would all pan out, then go back and read the archives.

  30. 31 joshtried
    April 14, 2012 at 10:29 pm

    JBR: to my knowledge, corrupt flesh can bring forth nothing more than corrupt flesh. If we could make our own flesh perfect, there would be no need for Christ to have conquered death. Yes, we do teach our children everh bad thing, whether directly or indirectly. When your wife asks if she looks good and you say yes, but really meant no, your child picks up on that. We do not teach cellular decay or death, the corrupt body does that all on its own. We also dont teach how to be resurrected, Christ does that all on his own.

  31. 32 shematwater
    April 15, 2012 at 4:54 am

    JBR

    Lets not be too stupid in trying to make a point. It is unbecoming. And yes I realize that this is bad form, but honestly, I am sick of your bad form, and can barely stumach anymore of it.

    Kate is correct in saying that your questions are misleading, and so I will clarify. We teach our children correct behavior and thinking. In so doing we are forced to compare it to wrong behavior and thinking, as without that opposition they would never truly understand. So, by teaching them the right way to live we are forced to also teach them the wrong way so that they have a clear choice.
    A parent who never mentions drugs and what they do and which ones are safe to take, and how to take them will not be justified in scolding the child who begins using, as they did nothing to teach them of the dangers and the proper use.

    You will also notice that I made no comment on your rather ridiculous questions of death and all that. All you did was to take what Josh had said and twist it into something he never meant. However, I will say that we do teach our children concerning death; what it is, and truly when the choice of death is preferable to others (and yes, there are times when it is), and when it is not. We do not teach them to naturally decay their bodies, but we do teach them how to handle that decay.

    But, you still have not actually answer the primary question of others. If a child dies in infancy, are they condemned to Hell for not accepting Christ?

    MARK

    To answer your question, I would say yes. He was born with as a natural man because he was born of a mortal mother. However, because he was also born of a divine father he had the inherrent power to follow father without the aid of another. By the time he was twelve he had already given himself so completely to God that he was able to astound the greatest Jewish theologians of his day, proving that he had for several years been under the tutaligue of his Father.
    Christians say that he was both Man and God, but don’t seem to really grasp what this means. He was man, and thus he had all the same weaknesses as man, and was thus subject to death and temptation. However, he was also divine, and thus he had the power of God that allowed him to overcome those mortal weaknesses.
    We are only men with a divine potential, who currently lack that power, and thus we need one who has the power to redeem us.

  32. 33 JBR
    April 15, 2012 at 8:40 pm

    Echo,
    And there will no answer to the questions because it’s obvious that the truth revealed in the Bible claims the natural man is not what the false teachers \ religions say to the contrary.

    Their mouths are full of deceit for cemeteries are full of babies that died because the “wages of sin is death”

  33. April 15, 2012 at 9:21 pm

    So JBR, babies die because they sinned? Your comment makes no sense.

  34. 35 JBR
    April 15, 2012 at 11:20 pm

    Well Kate…. you have a choice.

    Believe the revelations that “the wages of sin is death” …. “in sin my mother conceive me”

    or

    continue to believe the satanical lie that claims otherwise and belong to that church that tickles your ears

  35. April 16, 2012 at 12:05 am

    I’m truly trying to understand if I’m hearing you right…so if you could answer my question that would be great. Are you saying that if a baby dies, it died because it sinned? and if so, then the baby goes to hell?

  36. 37 shematwater
    April 16, 2012 at 1:28 am

    I am having the strangest case of De Ja Vu, as I could swear that these last three posts have been given word for word on a different thread.

    JBR

    I have answered all your questions, but as usual you are going to ignore what I say as it doesn’t fit your preconceived ideas about the LDS and our reasoning.

    As to babies, yes they die because of the transgression of Adam, as the result of the transgression was mortality, part of which is death. However, as Christ also died because of that act by your reasoning he also died from sin, and was thus of a sin nature, as Josh has pointed out.

    However, the quote you are using does not actually refer to physical death, as you imply by your posts. It refers to spiritual death, and is stating that for each individual who sins the wage is spiritual death. It has nothing to do with the nature we are born into, but our choices that we make. As such, unless you are going to argue that a new born infant is capable of making a conscious choice to rebel against God, babies are not dead in Christ, but are alive.

    KATE

    JBR will never answer the question directly, because in doing so he will either contradict everything he has said, or he will portray himself as a heartless brute. Either way he can’t win.

  37. 38 joshtried
    April 16, 2012 at 3:18 am

    JBR, to start, we do believe “in sin my mother conceive me”, and “the wages of sin is death”. You taking both out of context and saying because Adam sinned every person on earth will go to hell is taking things WAY out of context. Again, if every single child born is born sinfu simply because of either parent, then Jesus Christ was not Lord and Savior because he was born of a sinful mother (regardless of how much favor was found in her).
    Second, as i have stated before, we do not teach “cellular decay” to our children. We do not teach that agency must be used to die. As early as a child’s understanding allows, we do begin to teach the difference between spiritual death and physical death. The wage of sin is a place in hell.

    Now, maybe i missed it, but when i read Genesis I dont see anything that says Adam will never die, and then after he “sins” by taking the fruit, it then says he dies physically. I see the ground being cursed after they eat, and womans sorrows in child bearing. It says “for dust though art, and unto dust shalt thou return”, but it does not say that this could not happen before he ate of this tree. Before he ate, he was still of dust, and as such must still have had a physical death. Therefore, we must all have a physical death of this “dust” flesh. (no idea if this is LDS or not, this is merely my “logical” evaluation of these scriptures based on reading them for the sake of this debate)

  38. 39 shematwater
    April 16, 2012 at 4:13 am

    JOSH

    Its not LDS doctrine, though I do understand your point. After all, if the bible is the only thing that can be used, than what you say is actually very true, as nowhere in the Bible to I recall it saying that they would not die physically before the Fall. This is addressed in the Book of Mormon, not the Bible.

  39. 40 JBR
    April 16, 2012 at 6:41 am

    Why is it so hard for you guys to understand …..

    This OP is about the natural man. That means that all humanity is the object of God’s wrath because of Adam and Eve. According to the law .. the age of a person has no exception.

    \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\

    Josh… death did not exist in the human kingdom, the animal kingdom, the plant kingdom until Adam & Eve rebelled. Please re-read carefully the Bible alone. The alternative “explainations” are contrary to the Bible (thus making them false and from Satan).

    \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\

    Kate, you asked:
    >>>>>>>>>> “Are you saying that if a baby dies, it died because it sinned?” <<<<<<>>>>>>> “and if so, then the baby goes to hell? “<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

    Answer:
    From past experience, you wantonly make this back handed accusation of God not being fair, so you rely on Mormonism alternative humanistic answer and conclude that babies are not accountable \ sinless ect.

    We sorry to disappoint you, but there is no answer to that question that is given in the Bible that can universally be applied to all situations…unfortunatly the silence of that is not enough to satisify skeptics of God's handling of this situation.

    I am comfortable to not bother myself to satisfy you with a yes or no.

    \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\

    Shem,

    It's too bad that you can't stomach being confronted in such a way that you can't submit false LDS doctrine teachings about the natural condition while can't maneuver this false theology as true and still be intellectuallly honest.

    Yea… it's stupid to argue against God's revealed truth from the Bible

    "there is no one righteous … not even one"

  40. 41 joshtried
    April 16, 2012 at 7:29 am

    JBR,
    Please explain to me where in the Bible it says nothing will die before the fall.

    Also, to the OP part of this discussion: I cant even begin to count the number of times that it has been said that we are no longer under the law, from our “Christian” counterparts. Are you standing against them in saying that we are in fact under the law? What law exactly is this that we are under? I ask this so that i may accurately differentiate this from any other law, so that i understand this with the utmost clarity.

    “That means that all humanity is the object of God’s wrath because of Adam and Eve.” Please elaborate more on this particular statement, again so that i may understand of what in particular you speak. If ALL humanity is the object, Again, this includes Christ, as he was human.

    “We sorry to disappoint you, but there is no answer to that question that is given in the Bible that can universally be applied to all situations.”
    Can you give me AN answer that can be applied to A situation? I do not remember really reading about babies dying and their particular “judgements”.

    To the second part of Kate’s question, the obvious answer is Yes, if the baby did somehow commit sin, then their soul is damned to hell. The question I have is to the first part, how exactly does a baby sin? Which part of the law does the baby break?

    If you want to claim this: “there is no one righteous … not even one”, then, again, Christ is not able to atone for us because he is not righteous either.

    Finally, you tell me in one part:Josh… death did not exist in the human kingdom, the animal kingdom, the plant kingdom until Adam & Eve rebelled.
    Shem said: After all, if the bible is the only thing that can be used, than what you say is actually very true, as nowhere in the Bible to I recall it saying that they would not die physically before the Fall. This is addressed in the Book of Mormon, not the Bible.
    and then you tell shem: Yea… it’s stupid to argue against God’s revealed truth from the Bible

    So, what is it JBR? could death happen prior to the fall, or could it not happen prior to the fall? You only said death DID NOT happen before the fall, not whether it could or could not happen.

  41. 42 shematwater
    April 16, 2012 at 3:24 pm

    JBR

    I can’t stomach underhanded tactics that are geared for deception, the twisting of others words, and general antagonism that you constantly display. Your arrogance in tone, and condescension in words is insulting and always has been. If that is the fruit of your faith I want nothing to do with it, and I don’t believe God would approve.

    As to honestly, I have seen little in your methods, and so to make any such accusation merely makes you a hypocrite. You avoid any direct discussion of what you believe, deflecting all questions, preferring to shield yourself behind a glossy coat of Intellect that has no real substance.

    Until you are actually willing to answer a direct question put to you in a direct way than you prove yourself to be dishonest and thus no discussion with you is profitable for anyone.

    Here is the question again. Can a new born baby willingly and knowingly commit sin?

  42. 43 Kent
    April 16, 2012 at 3:40 pm

    joshtried said, “So, what is it JBR? could death happen prior to the fall, or could it not happen prior to the fall? You only said death DID NOT happen before the fall, not whether it could or could not happen.”

    I find a recurring theme among Mormons 1. They say that if something isn’t stated in the Bible about a subject, then it could be true if the Bible doesn’t specifically say it isn’t true and 2. They often say, even if something is clearly stated, that is just one interpretation.

    Well regarding whether death would have occurred in the garden without the fall, the Bible does say that death came through Adam and that Adam and Eve were allowed to eat of every tree in the Garden except the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, including the tree of life, which God put a barrier up to keep people from getting to it after he had expelled Adam and Eve from the Garden. So no, they would not have died if they had stayed in the Garden as they would have freely eaten of the tree of life.

    It isn’t just an interpretation that Adam and Eve were allowed to eat of the tree of life if the fall had not happened, so death would not have occurred and it came as the result of the fall, and the Bible clearly says that God blocked the way to the tree of life after Adam and Eve were expelled from the Garden after the fall.

    1 Corinthians 15:22

    22 FOR AS IN ADAM ALL DIE, even so in Christ all shall be made alive.

    Genesis 2:15-17

    15 Then the LORD God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to tend and keep it. 16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, “OF EVERY TREE OF THE GARDEN YOU MAY FREELY EAT; 17 BUT OF THE TREE OF THE KNOWLEDGE OF GOOD AND EVIL YOU SHALL NOT EAT, FOR IN THE DAY THAT YOU EAT OF IT YOU SHALL SURELY DIE.”

    Genesis 3:24

    24 So He drove out the man; and HE PLACED CHERUBIM AT THE EAST OF THE GARDEN OF EDEN, AND A FLAMING SWORD WHICH TURNED EVERY WAY, TO GUARD THE WAY TO THE TREE OF LIFE.

    Mormons, that is what you celebrate when you say the fall was a good thing, the introduction of death, not life into the world. But the good news, the gospel, is that you can have eternal life, not just a chance for eternal life some time in the distant future if you are worthy enough, if you believe and put your trust completely in Jesus Christ alone, that He died and rose again on the third day to save us, sinners who can never save ourselves as we can never be worthy enough but take heart, He is worthy enough for us!

    John 14:6

    6 Jesus said to him, “I AM THE WAY, THE TRUTH, AND THE LIFE. NO ONE COMES TO THE FATHER EXCEPT THROUGH ME.

    John 3:14-16

    14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up, 15 that WHOEVER BELIEVES IN HIM SHOULD NOT PERISH BUT HAVE ETERNAL LIFE. 16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.

  43. 44 Kent
    April 16, 2012 at 3:52 pm

    Joshtried, I suppose you may say that it was possible for death to occur before the fall if Adam and Eve had decided not to eat of the tree of life as after all, they had free will to decide if they wanted to eat of this tree or not just as they had the free will to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil that for sure brought death into the world when they were expelled from the garden and God blocked mankind from the tree of life. I do not believe though they would have chosen not to eat of the tree of life as why would they if they could freely eat of it and live in paradise forever?

  44. 45 Kent
    April 16, 2012 at 4:11 pm

    I also believe that when Adam and Eve were in the garden it was the last time that any human beings could do anything themselves to have eternal life by eating of the tree of life but since then they and everyone else have been blocked from doing anything ourselves to have eternal life as we can’t get to the tree of life as God has blocked us from getting there ourselves.

    But we don’t have to get to the tree of life ourselves as Jesus Christ alone is the way back to eternal life for all of mankind for those who believe in Him!

  45. 46 joshtried
    April 16, 2012 at 4:52 pm

    Kent according to you: “So no, they would not have died if they had stayed in the Garden as they would have freely eaten of the tree of life.”
    Well, they had not yet eaten of this tree, so therefore, YES they COULD die. Could and Would are 2 totally different things. This is why i make this distinction all the time between yall…. You do not answer the question i ask. Instead, you change a word, and then state that I am wrong. This is beginning to show how much any of you really want to have a dialouge, or (and i am sorry if this is taken as an insullt) how stupid some of you really are. I CLEARLY asked could or could not. If you were in Elementary school, and answered my question as you did, you would fail. Well, you have failed to answer my question.

    “They had the free will to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil that for sure brought death into the world,”
    Kent, was this physical death that they brought into the world, or was it spiritual death? If the wage of sin is physical death, what about Christ? Christ died a physical death. Was this because of sin? If it was, how then can Christ be our savior?

    Also, Kent, i think you are wrong about the tree being the last time humans could control their own salvation. The law was given as a way for those to come back unto the Lord. We see in the New testament that this is no longer the case because they did things only because the law said to. They did not understand or feel anything with regard to this law. They did not understand that Christ is and always was the fulfillment of the law. There were righteous people before Christ. Abraham came way before Christ, and we know Abraham would go to heaven. Elijah came before Christ, and would go to heaven. They understood ALL of the law, not just the letter of it.

  46. 47 andersonddj
    April 16, 2012 at 4:56 pm

    I enjoy reading this blog and the comments. While it is very rare for me comment as I don’t like to get into a debate (I don’t consider myself qualified), I have noticed this “go around” about babies and sin and what happens to them when they die. There is a website that I use quite often when I have questions and just wanted to share their perspective with you. I am in no way trying to add the argument!

    http://www.gotquestions.org/age-of-accountability.html

  47. 48 joshtried
    April 16, 2012 at 5:14 pm

    Anderson,
    First and foremost, thank you for taking the time to post this, and welcome to the discussion. While you may not consider yourself “qualified”, there are no stupid questions. (just look back at some of those i ask) :P

    While reading through the link you posted, i came across this, which has been a part of this debate for a bit: “The Bible tells us that even if an infant or child has not committed personal sin, all people, including infants and children, are guilty before God because of inherited and imputed sin.”
    If ALL people are guilty, then Christ could not have been free from guilt. He was a person as well. He was born of a human and earthly mother. He would have inherited his mothers guilt.

  48. 49 Kent
    April 16, 2012 at 7:49 pm

    joshtried said, “This is beginning to show how much any of you really want to have a dialouge, or (and i am sorry if this is taken as an insullt) how stupid some of you really are.”

    Yes, I do want a dialouge but sometimes I don’t state things as well as I would like to so I guess, since I do want a dialouge with you, then in your opinion, I suppose, I am just too stupid to do so.

    And yes, I believe, you did mean it as an insult as out of the mouth, in this case the computer keyboard, comes what is really in the heart.

    Let me see, since some of us don’t make our points well at times, so since we don’t do so, we are not to take it as an insult when joshtried calls us stupid?

  49. April 16, 2012 at 8:08 pm

    Kent, it amazes me how you are now acting like you just didn’t “make our point well at times”, instead of how you really act and the blatant way you attack, ignore, and twist things. You are also judging what is in Josh’s heart…which seems ok for you guys to do, but if we even judge your words, we are of the devil. Sounds like a double standard to me. If you want respectful dialogue, engage in respect toward us…something I have really never seen you do (from what I have read).

  50. 51 JBR
    April 16, 2012 at 8:56 pm

    Josh,
    “Please explain to me where in the Bible it says nothing will die before the fall.”

    Answer: Carefully read Gen 1&2…. death is not an issue until after the fall into sin.
    \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\

    >>>> Are you standing against them in saying that we are in fact under the law?

    Answer: No, I’m not standing against them. Christians believe that Jesus fulfilled what the law demands as an complete 100% subsitute… not like Mormonisms version as the example after all you can do

    >>>>> What law exactly is this that we are under?
    Answer:
    “the wages of sin (singular) is death”
    Believers and unbelievers have this in common … we all will eventually get old, deteriorate and die from that.

    Physical death is physical proof that “sin” is more than just incorrect actions \ thoughts. Sin is a disease that put a physical and spiritual barrier between God and human.
    \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\

    Can you give me AN answer that can be applied to A situation? I do not remember really reading about babies dying and their particular “judgements”.

    Couple situations: One can believe or be wicked from the womb

    1)
    Psalm 58:3
    The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies.

    2)
    Psalm 22:10
    I was cast upon thee from the womb: thou art my God from my mother’s belly.

    “faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God.”

    I’ll stay with my continued answer of ……
    I do not know how God decides one over the other when a baby doesn’t have the opportunity

    Ultimatly God decides about babies that die: Romans 9:15, Romans 9:18. When people predetermine the judgement, then they are peering into God’s sovereignty.
    \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\

  51. 52 JBR
    April 16, 2012 at 9:07 pm

    Josh said:
    If you want to claim this: “there is no one righteous … not even one”, then, again, Christ is not able to atone for us because he is not righteous either.

    That is the wrong conclusion…for Christ is not an example to follow, but a 100% subsitute.

    Whether or not you like this is besides the point. The point is that Jesus paid for everyone’s debt whether they believed it or not. The Bible teaches that if one does believe, that isnj’t because of th eperson’s doing but if they reject or not have the opportunity… then it is their fault.

    Never is there an age exemption for the above truths. Unlike Mormonism and other religions, I do not insist on how that should be determined.

  52. 53 JBR
    April 16, 2012 at 9:20 pm

    So, what is it JBR? could death happen prior to the fall, or could it not happen prior to the fall? You only said death DID NOT happen before the fall, not whether it could or could not happen.

    Answer:
    If death DID NOT happen … then it is a mute point whether death “could have” happened.

    Frankly, the lie from false teachers (who can only hear this from satan) is that the fall, sin and subsequent curse of physical and spiritual death (or any combination of) by God was somehow a good thing for humanity and the creation.

    The people who do are fooled into thinking that the natural man begins existance neutral \ sin disease free.

  53. 54 JBR
    April 16, 2012 at 9:44 pm

    Josh,
    Shem’s problem is that the truth from the Bible exposed his Satan’s lie about the natural man’s inherited barrier between a perfect God and him\her self.

    So he asks again …
    “Here is the question again. Can a new born baby willingly and knowingly commit sin?”

    Being so indoctrinated by the lie he can not hear the answer nor see it even if he walks through a cementary. But I know by his contemptuous answers that the Bible convicts the falsehood of the belief.

    Apparently he wantonly refuses to see that physical death is proof of being found having the disease of “sin”.

    Contentment is great gain. And I’m content with knowing in part where the Bible doesn’t specifically answers.

  54. 55 joshtried
    April 16, 2012 at 11:47 pm

    Kent, are you ignorant to the difference of the 2 words? If so, I appologize whole heartedly for what you percieve to be an insult.
    If you do know the difference and chose to answer a question that I did not ask instead of what was asked, then I stand behind my remark. While you may feel wronged in this, I see the number of times questions go specifically unanswered in a certain light. This is my opinion of these situations. This is not to say I dont want a dialouge to continue. The exact opposite is true. If my questions can not be answered by lack of evidence or lack of knowledge of evidence, then I find that an acceptable answer. I dont expect everyone to have every answer to every question in the world, but in a discussion such as this I do expect us each to be truthful. Most of us are not using our full name, so for the most part are acting completely anonamously.
    As a side note Kent, I was not saying being unable to appropriately voive your point was stupid. I was saying answering a question with an answer that you know does not answer the question is in some cases stupid. This, to me, was one of those cases.
    If you were not attempting to answer my question, but were trying to make a separate point, I also appologize for what you see as an insult. My comment was made in response to what I perceived was a reply.

  55. 56 andersonddj
    April 17, 2012 at 1:34 am

    Josh, I am a non-denominational born-again Christian and believe that Jesus is God. It is my belief that because Jesus is God he has always been without sin. My understanding is that Jesus entered into human physical existence by entering into Mary’s womb (that is, she became ‘pregnant’ with him). He was then physically born in just the same way as every human being is. The divinely engineered conception is a miracle that is beyond our comprehension. By it we understand and believe that Jesus entered the world fully human, without the intervention of man, but through the agency of woman, by the power of The Holy Spirit and in accordance with God’s plan. So, to reiterate, Jesus had no human father (and neither did Adam, the first man, who was created by God, and was also sinless to start with). So, I do believe that us humans are born with a sin nature. Of course God is loving and merciful and knows what is in every human’s heart and would never condemn an innocent child. Only He knows at what age EACH individual is accountable for sin. Much of this information is taken from the following website:

    http://www.kerysso.org/public/pageG302.htm

    P.S. Please don’t get mad if I keep referring you to websites. Besides reading the Bible, I do my research online and I am nowhere near a theologian. I do understand that the LDS may view things differently, but as a born-again Christian I have been convicted by the Holy Spirit that the HOly Bible is the true Word of God.

  56. 57 Kent
    April 17, 2012 at 2:08 am

    Joshtried, apology accepted. Kate, I have never said anything personal about anyone here ever. Have I been critical of what the Mormon Church teaches, of course, but that is not the same thing.

    Josh aplogized but, I guess you wouldn’t have if you had said what he said.

  57. 58 shematwater
    April 17, 2012 at 3:33 am

    JBR

    Here is a good example of your tactics.

    “If death DID NOT happen … then it is a mute point whether death “could have” happened.”

    It is not a mute point for the very fact that you have expressly taught that physical death is the result of the act of eating the fruit. If, therefore, death was possible before this act than your entire argument is proven wrong.
    Who is intellectually dishonest now?

    How can we actually have an honest discussion with you when you refuse to actually discuss anything, but merely want to ridicule us for our beliefs?

    “When people predetermine the judgement, then they are peering into God’s sovereignty.”

    This is true, but is only applicable if you don’t believe that God has declared his judgment to us. We do not have to peer into his judgment because it is layed before us in plain terms.

    As to your quotes, again the psalms need to be understood in the context of psalms, or works of poetry and art. They teach many great principles, but not when interpreted in a literal, face value way.
    So, let us look at the two psalms that you quote.
    Psalm 22 is a psalm that prophecies concerning the Savior. Notice that it begins with Christ’s great plea from the cross “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” It also talks of how he will be mocked for his following the Father (verses 6-9). Later it describes the crusifiction; “the assembly of the wicked have inclosed me: they pierced my hands and my feet.” (verse 16). Given the context of a prophecy concerning Christ, verse ten is simlpy showing that from his birth the Father was present in Christ’s life, that he had that special connection. It does not mean that a baby has the ability to choose to believe, but that from birth the Father showed great favor to Jesus, His only begotten Son.

    Psalm 58 is a psalm written to chastize the corrupted judges of Israel. In verse three he is using strong language to portray the extent of their wickness. It is not meant to be taken literally, but symbolically. He also calls them serpents, lions, and water. Near the end of the Psalm he states that the righteous will wash their feet in the blood of the wicked. How much of this is literal, and how much is symbolic to give vivid images and stir a man’s heart to repentence?

    Neither of the verses you site mandate the understanding you give, but are just as easily, if not more so, seen in a much different light that has very little to do with anything you are claiming.

    ANDERSON

    I also appriciate the answer, and I do understand what you are saying. However, I would like to ask just a few questions.
    If we inherit a sin nature through birth, being descended from Adam, would not Christ also have inherited that same nature from his mother Mary?

  58. 59 shematwater
    April 17, 2012 at 3:35 am

    ANDERSON

    After re-reading your post I think I understand a little better. Are you saying that you believe that Christ, due to the method of conception, did not inherit anything from Mary, but merely used her body as a kind of vessal to come into the mortal world?

  59. 60 joshtried
    April 17, 2012 at 5:01 am

    Anderson, thank you again for continuing to join the conversation. I also am no theologian, but i am can take a pretty good stab at most of our (LDS) understandings. I grew up in a non-denominational Church as well (though i think we were pentecostal looking back… I still have no real idea).

    You said:
    but as a born-again Christian I have been convicted by the Holy Spirit that the Holy Bible is the true Word of God.

    As LDS we also believe this, but we also believe this scripture: “`How can you say, “We [the Jews] are wise, for we have the law of the LORD,” when actually the lying pen of the scribes has handled it falsely?’ (From the NIV Bible, Jeremiah 8:8)”
    It is not to say that the bible is completely and totally corrupt, and this scripture does not say that. It does say the scribes have handled it falsely, and therefore we must be very careful in our reading of it. Some have posted additions that Joseph smith has made to the Bible, and honestly, i think i really looked into only one of them. To me, it seemed accurate. Most of the debating i do is based out of the Bible, as that is what most others refer to the sole word of God. We do use the Bible, we do study the Bible, we do read the Bible. We do not say it is the ONLY word of God. We expect since God is unchanging that today he does have apostles and prophets just as he did of old. We expect since he has given scripture to some, there are probably others as well (for instance Bible vs BoM, and more). We do our best to not limit God in any way, especially ways in which we have already known him to work.

  60. 61 joshtried
    April 17, 2012 at 5:16 am

    JBR: “Carefully read Gen 1&2…. death is not an issue until after the fall into sin.”
    I understand it is not commented on until then, but that was not my question. If we are made of Dust, and to that we will return, COULD we die before the bite (physically)?

    Not that i will get a clear answer out of this either, but i do not fully understand your position on this:
    “Answer: No, I’m not standing against them. Christians believe that Jesus fulfilled what the law demands as an complete 100% subsitute… not like Mormonisms version as the example after all you can do”
    So, are we under the law or not? I understand that Christ CAN substitute for you. I understand that he WILL substitute for you if you ask sincerely. I am asking what is our judgement BEFORE Christ? IF it is death, than we ARE under the law. Once Christ steps in, someone still accepts the judgement for our sin. That person is Jesus Christ. perhaps a crazy analogy will work here…
    We are standing in front of a gun, whose trigger is pulled the moment we sin. Of course, we will sin, so the trigger will be pulled, and a bullet will exit the barrel and come flying at us. For this analogy, we will use a heat seeking round that will eventually find us, no matter what we do. Now, we realize we sin and go “Oh snap! Jesus, please save me!” He steps in and takes the bullet, thus saving us from death. Is there a part of this analogy through which i have erred? (i made it up @ midnight, so dont fry me to hard)

    ““the wages of sin (singular) is death”
    Believers and unbelievers have this in common … we all will eventually get old, deteriorate and die from that.”
    I could be mistaken, but i was under the impression that the wage of my sin was spiritual death. The wage of my progenitors sin is my corrupt body, through which i will have a physical death.
    IF the only way to physically die is to sin, then Christ himself committed a sin, or he would not have been able to physically die.

    “Couple situations: One can believe or be wicked from the womb”
    If one is able to believe in the womb, then they would be born without sin, correct?

  61. 62 joshtried
    April 17, 2012 at 5:27 am

    (to JBR continued…)
    “That is the wrong conclusion…for Christ is not an example to follow, but a 100% subsitute. ”
    I understand he is a 100% substitute once we ask. My point is if “not one is righteous”, and that applies from the start of man to the end of man, then Christ himself is not able to even substitute in because he is not righteous because he is a man.

    “Apparently he wantonly refuses to see that physical death is proof of being found having the disease of “sin”. ”
    If sin is a “disease”, and i have no choice of whether i catch it or not, then once again i do not have agency that is granted me. So, now i am Forced to sin and I am forced by Christ to accept him. This is 2 times now that “Christians” have removed the agency that God has given to man.
    On top of that, as i just pointed out in my last reply Christ suffered a physical death, which “is proof of being found having the disease of sin”. Therefore, according to you Christ cannot be our savior, because he died a physical death, which is proof of sin. The savior is supposed to die sinless, or at least that’s the way i heard it.

  62. 63 andersonddj
    April 17, 2012 at 12:41 pm

    Josh,
    Speaking of the Lord, Hebrews 4:15 says, “For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are—yet was without sin.” He had an earthly mother but no earthly father.

    Exodus 20:5 tells us, “I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me.” In its narrowest interpretation, this verse could imply that only the father’s sins are inherited by the children.

    Mary had an earthly father and inherited his sin nature, but Jesus had no earthly father and didn’t inherit Mary’s sin nature. The conclusion, although circumstantial, is that the sin nature passes through the father.

    The miracle of Jesus Christ’s conception was that He alone was conceived as the only perfect and sinless one, because He is God!

  63. April 17, 2012 at 1:01 pm

    “21For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.”

    Jesus had no sin, and lived a perfect life in our place. “6In his days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely: and this is his name whereby he shall be called, THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS.” Jeremiah 23:6

  64. 65 andersonddj
    April 17, 2012 at 1:10 pm

    Shem,

    Yes, Mary was the human vessel for Jesus. He is 100% human and 100% GOD (He has 2 natures). He needed to be born of the flesh to become God in the flesh.

  65. 66 shematwater
    April 17, 2012 at 2:23 pm

    ANDERSON

    Honestly, that is what I will never really understand. However, if this is true you still have the dilemma that Josh has been going over on this thread. If Christ was 100% human and all humans sin, or have the corruption of sin imputed to them, than he also had sin imputed to him, and thus was not a perfect sacrifice, which makes his atonement ineffective.

    I did also read your reasoning in Exodus 20: 5, but I would point out that verse six seems to negate this.
    “And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.”
    He punishes the children for the sins of the fathers, but not if they love him and keep his commandments. If the children turn to God he has mercy on them.
    Also, in verse 25 he never actually says that he counts the children as being the sinners because their father sinned.

    However, my main argument against this reasoning comes from Paul. 1 Timothy 2: 14 “And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.”

    Why would Paul state that it was the woman that caused the fall if the effects of it were to be inherited through the man?

    Understand that I am not trying to prove you wrong, or to get into a senseless debate, or even to convert you (at least not at this time). You have shown great respect, and I have come to understand at least your perspective better. For that I am grateful. I am now merely showing my perspective, and how it conflicts with yours so that you can better understand us.

  66. April 17, 2012 at 2:47 pm

    I think everyone forgets that the Atonement covered Adam and Eve’s sin.

    Here is a great explanation from: http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Original_Sin

    “Latter-day Saints believe that infants inherit certain effects of the Fall, but not the responsibility for any sin as a result of Adam’s or Eve’s transgression. From the foundation of the world, the Atonement of Jesus Christ makes amends “for the sins of those who have fallen by the transgression of Adam” (Mosiah 3:11). Therefore, baptism is not needed until children reach a state of accountability, generally at the age of eight years, for little children cannot sin and are innocent (see Children: Salvation of Children). They are redeemed from the beginning by the grace of Jesus Christ (D&C 29:46-47), whose Atonement cleanses them of the effects of the Fall (D&C 137:10). The Prophet Mormon wrote the following words of Christ: “Little children are whole, for they are not capable of committing sin; wherefore the curse of Adam is taken from them in me, that it hath no power over them” (Moro. 8:8).

    In one account in the Pearl of Great Price, Adam learned that he had been forgiven for his transgression in the Garden of Eden, and that “the Son of God hath atoned for original guilt, wherein the sins of the parents cannot be answered upon the heads of the children” (Moses 6:54). However, as a consequence of the Fall, evil is present in the world and all “children are conceived in sin, [and] so when they begin to grow up, sin conceiveth in their hearts, and they taste the bitter, that they may know to prize the good” (Moses 6:55). Begetting children in marriage is not a sin (cf. Heb. 13:4), but the propensity for sin is inherited.

    No mortal person bears the burden of repenting for Adam’s transgression. Nevertheless, all inherit the effects of the Fall: All leave the presence of God at birth, all are subject to physical death, and all will sin in some measure. From the moment of conception, the body inherits the seed of mortality that will eventually result in death, but only as a person becomes accountable and chooses evil over good do personal sins result in further separation from God. Thus Adam was counseled: “Wherefore teach it unto your children, that all men, everywhere, must repent, or they can in nowise inherit the kingdom of God, for no unclean thing can dwell there” (Moses 5:57).”

  67. April 17, 2012 at 3:17 pm

    Kate said:

    “I think everyone forgets that the Atonement covered Adam and Eve’s sin.”

    Shem said:

    “If Christ was 100% human and all humans sin, or have the corruption of sin imputed to them, than he also had sin imputed to him, and thus was not a perfect sacrifice, which makes his atonement ineffective.”

    The Bible says:

    “21 Once you were alienated from God and were enemies in your minds because of[a] YOUR EVIL BEHAVIOR. 22 But now HE HAS RECONCILED YOU by Christ’s physical body through death to present you holy in his sight, WITHOUT BLEMISH AND FREE FROM ACCUSATION— 23 if you continue in your faith, established and firm, not moved from the hope held out in the gospel. THIS IS THE GOSPEL THAT YOU HEARD that has been proclaimed to every creature under heaven, and of which I, Paul, have become a servant.” Colossians 1:21-23

    “10 And by that will, we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
    11 Day after day every priest stands and performs his religious duties; again and again he offers the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. 12 But when this priest had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God. 13 Since that time he waits for his enemies to be made his footstool,
    14 because by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy.
    15 The Holy Spirit also testifies to us about this. First he says:
    16 “This is the covenant I will make with them
    after that time, says the Lord.
    I will put my laws in their hearts,
    and I will write them on their minds.”[b]
    17 Then he adds:
    “Their sins and lawless acts
    I will remember no more.”[c]
    18 And where these have been forgiven, there is no longer any sacrifice for sin.” Hebrews 10:10-18

    “8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse! 9 As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let them be under God’s curse!” Galatians 1:8-9

    “13 For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, masquerading as apostles of Christ. 14 And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light. 15 It is not surprising, then, if his servants masquerade as servants of righteousness. Their end will be what their actions deserve. ” 2 Corinthians 11:13-15.

  68. April 17, 2012 at 3:43 pm

    Ok, so David, since you will talk in scripture, I will tell you what I “read” you as saying.

    You agree with what I said 100%. the scriptures you quoted say the same thing. We are sinful for “our” sinful acts. If “we CONTINUE (action verb) in faith.

    Now I truly love that you quoted from Hebrews 10. It really gives us the truth! However, you left out these verses:

    23 Let us hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering; (for he is faithful that promised;)

    24 And let us consider one another to provoke unto love and to good works:

    25 Not forsaking the aassembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching.

    26 For if we SIN WILFULY AFTER that we have received the knowledge of the truth, THERE REMAINETH NO MORE SACRIFICE FOR SINS

    AND: 36 For ye have need of patience, that, AFTER YE HAVE DONE THE WILL OF GOD, ye might receive the promise.

    SO, CALL THE GOSPEL WE TEACH FALSE DAVID…TO YOUR OWN CONDEMNATION.

  69. April 17, 2012 at 3:45 pm

    I didn’t finish a thought in that….If we CONTINUE in faith….we can take advantage of our sins being cleansed from us. Continue is an action verb…it requires something from us. The rest of my post speaks volumes.

  70. April 17, 2012 at 4:46 pm

    Kate

    “SO, CALL THE GOSPEL WE TEACH FALSE DAVID…TO YOUR OWN CONDEMNATION.”

    The LDS gospel is completey false.

    It is also NOT the gospel I quoted in post 68. The LDS church teaches that Jesus’ atonement was only a starting point making eternal life the with the Heavenly Father only “possible” by saving everyone, including unbelievers, only from physical death . It applies grace AFTER YOU do all YOU can – “it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do.” 2 Nephi -23-25. LDS forgiveness depends on your own efforts. The LDS chruch does not teach the gospel described in Hebrews 10, or Galatians 2, or in Romans, or Colosians or Titus or anywhere else in the BIble. They do not teach that Jesus’ saving work alone perfected forever those that are sanctified. This is the truth.

    ” 8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9 not by works, so that no one can boast. 10 For we are God’s handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.”

    The LDS cchurch teaches 2 Nephi 23-25 which rejects Ephesians 2. Works are not what save us or make us perfect before God.

    “21 But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. 22 This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe.” Romans 3:21-22

    The LDS church teaches works are a necessary componant to obtaining God’s grace. They see works as the cause of faith rather than being the result of faith that has already saved us from sin because of Jesus. The LDS gospel teaches the the gospel includes required obedience with all the laws and ordinances the church has and whatever others they create in the future. The gospel of the BIble teaches “28 For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law. ” Romans 3:28

    So let me be clear – The LDS gospel is false and always has been false. It is a lie from a false prophet.

  71. April 17, 2012 at 5:01 pm

    David…let me be clear since you purposely muddle the conversation at hand. The scriptures you posted only serve to confirm that what we are teaching is true. We have showed you over and over again. You, yourself, posted the very verses from the chapter that says “AFTER YE HAVE DONE THE WILL OF GOD, ye might receive the promise.” of course, you purposely left that verse out…go figure.

    I give the readers of this blog a lot more credit than you obviously do. Your statements that you THINK are clearing things up for people to make them think what we teach is false, are only serving to condemn you.

  72. 73 joshtried
    April 17, 2012 at 5:14 pm

    So David, ir is wrong for me to take Genesis in higjer regard than Isaiah with regard to tge plurality of God, but it is okay for you to accept one verse that says YOU dont do anything to be saved over one that says work continuously IN FAITH.. I completely understand what you meant now. It was not a question of whether I am taking into account scripture in the wrong order, it was.merely a statement that I am wrong because I am LDS. Our prophet Joseph Smith was a false prophet huh? I give you the.same charge I have to Echo. Prove it. He posted a link a while back regarding possible false prophecies. He is currently searching out the truth regarding all that was prophecied of Zion. Perhaps you can begin searching the others. When you come to one that you think truely shows JS to be a false prophet, bring it back here and let us debate it. If you cannot prove beyond a doubt that there is in fact a false prophecy, would you accept that joseph smith was a prophet? Would at very least stop calling him a false prophet? I doubt it, but I leave the challenge to you, David. Will you accept this challenge?

  73. April 17, 2012 at 5:59 pm

    Kate

    I really wish we could have a conversation without all the hissing and @$#% that usually accompany my discussions with you. I’m sure you are a very nice person. You don’t believe this, but I am not your enemy. If I didn’t care about Mormons I wouldn’t be here. Can you give me the benefit of the doubt that yes I believe the BIble and yes you believe in the LDS church but we can still have an intelligent honest discussion about things even though we disagree? Can we do that?

    To say that “after ye have done the will of God” means works are really a requirement for God’s grace is really not what the passage is saying. ONe can always cite a passage not included and say it was taken out of context . ANd that is not to say it doesn’t happen, it can and it does. But that is not what happened here. You cannot select a few words out of one sentence and then not consider how other passages on the same subject relate to each other. ALL passages of scripture have meaning and none contradict each other. I’d like to ask you to reconcile the passages I quoted, with the “after ye have done the will of God” and interpret them so that they are consistent with each other. Your claim that the Bible gospel is consistent with LDS gospel shows how the LDS additions to the Bible can impact how two people looking at the same Biblcial text can see something entirely different. But when it comes to matters of one’s enternity – the stakes for that difference could not be any higher. You cite these 8 words from Hebrews and assume incorrectly that they undercut the other “without works” passages I cited. They do not. For instance, could you explain how those passages I quoted say works are required? Can you explain how the 8 words you quoted don’t really mean works are required but are actually consistent with what I quoted? Here – I’ll give you a hint – just for a brief second (or longer if you can) – consider that good works actually do result from the fact that someone has faith that Jesus did everything necessary to save them and bring them to eternal life with God without even considering their own individual works polluting his perfect work done for them, then consider that such people WILL do good works (yes the “will of God”) BECAUSE they have confidence in Christ’s saving work done on their behalf just because He loved them that much and has already saved them making them perfect in His sight because they are wearing the righteousness of Christ alone. Now go back and read the 8 words again and the surrounding text. What do you think?

  74. 75 joshtried
    April 17, 2012 at 6:27 pm

    David, I think part of the problem is in what instance of.salvation are we talking. The very first moment we are saved, you are correct that works are not required. They could not be because we cant yet do any good.. We completely and whole heartedly agree with you there. If we were to die I. This very instant, we would be saved. Most of us do not die in this instance, but live a fulfilling life pasf this point in time.
    This brings us to the rest of life. If we accept Christ when we are 20, and die when we are 80, and have done absolutely no work for God, we will not still be entitled to heaven. This is the part Kate is speaking to.
    The only other possibility is once saved always saved, which unless I am mistaken, you do not believe in.

  75. April 17, 2012 at 6:37 pm

    David said, “ONe can always cite a passage not included and say it was taken out of context . ANd that is not to say it doesn’t happen, it can and it does. But that is not what happened here. You cannot select a few words out of one sentence and then not consider how other passages on the same subject relate to each other. ALL passages of scripture have meaning and none contradict each other. I’d like to ask you to reconcile the passages I quoted, with the “after ye have done the will of God” and interpret them so that they are consistent with each other. ”

    I have done so and still find that you are incorrect. Also, anyone here can see that it is you that can’t seem to have a decent conversation.

    David asked, “Can you explain how the 8 words you quoted don’t really mean works are required but are actually consistent with what I quoted? ”

    I would love to explain, and have done so a million times over as well as all the other LDS people here, but to no avail…you don’t listen.

    David asked, “What do you think?”

    This is what I think: Hebrews 10:26 For if we SIN WILFULY AFTER that we have received the knowledge of the truth, THERE REMAINETH NO MORE SACRIFICE FOR SINS

    AND: Hebrews 10:36 For ye have need of patience, that, AFTER YE HAVE DONE THE WILL OF GOD, ye might receive the promise.

    What is His will? Here is what we believe:

    Colosians 1: 9 “For this cause we also, since the day we heard it, do not cease to pray for you, and to desire that ye might be filled with the knowledge of his will in all wisdom and spiritual understanding;

    10 That ye might walk worthy of the Lord unto all pleasing, being fruitful in every good work, and increasing in the knowledge of God;

  76. April 17, 2012 at 7:22 pm

    Kate:

    Galatians 2:21
    “I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.”

  77. April 17, 2012 at 8:25 pm

    Is it necessary David, to say AGAIN….study what was meant by the “law” and who was being spoken to and why. I won’t go into it here…also, saying that righteousness can only come through the Atonement of Christ, does not say we don’t have to DO anything with it….as I showed you in the verses I quoted…it is required that you DO.

    But,then, you will just keep going back to saying what YOU want others to think we believe instead of recognizing that what we believe is correct.

  78. April 17, 2012 at 9:25 pm

    Kate

    When / if you can demonstrate you can conduct a civil discussion I will consider responding to you at some point in the future.

  79. April 17, 2012 at 9:40 pm

    Showing that you are incorrect about what we believe…and what the Bible is teaching is being uncivil?

    It’s fine David. I have backed you into a corner that you can’t get out. Excuse me if I find it difficult to watch as you continually spout twisted truths and untruths about what we believe. I am merely correcting you for the record. If I got on and told you that you believed X, and really you believe Y, and then you get on and explain that you don’t believe X, but you believe Y…and then I got on and said you are wrong, that you really believe X no matter what you are showing me and that X is not taught in the Bible and that you are believing a liar and will go to hell for it, I would think you would have a hard time making ANY conversation sound civil.

  80. 81 Kent
    April 18, 2012 at 2:47 pm

    Questions to the Mormons here, you state here that we get what you believe wrong so I will ask you what you believe with a few questions. Could I ever be able to live in the mansions where God is, what you would call the celestial kingdom, if I don’t join your church, if I don’t tithe 10 percent to your church, or if I drink about 10 beers in an entire year, each year?

    Also, Aren’t these statements the cornerstone of your testimonies that you testify that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God, that the Book of Mormon is true, and that the Mormon Church is true?

  81. 82 shematwater
    April 18, 2012 at 3:23 pm

    KENT

    “you state here that we get what you believe wrong”

    You actually get a large part of it right. It is the subtleties and nuances of faith that you miss. As to your questions:
    “Could I ever be able to live in the mansions where God is, what you would call the celestial kingdom, if I don’t join your church?”
    That is for God to decide. I can say that he has declared, in the Bible as well as other scripture, that one must be baptized by one holding the proper authority to enter the Celestial Kingdom. As we are the only church that has that Authority I am worried about your chances if you are not baptized by it. However, I do not fully understand the qualifications of everything, and so I will not make a judgment.

    “Could I ever be able to live in the mansions where God is, what you would call the celestial kingdom, if I don’t tithe 10 percent to your church?”
    Again, that is for God to decide. He has declared his will in this matter, both in the Bible as well as other scriptures, and so again I worry for you, but leave judgment to him.

    “Could I ever be able to live in the mansions where God is, what you would call the celestial kingdom, if I drink about 10 beers in an entire year, each year?”
    Same answer, though I would say there is a little less worry on this matter, as it is not of the same degree as the others.

    “Aren’t these statements the cornerstone of your testimonies that you testify that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God, that the Book of Mormon is true, and that the Mormon Church is true?”

    Cornerstone would be the wrong term to use. The Chief Cornerstone of our Faith, and thus our testimonies, is Christ, the sure foundation, on which, if men build, they cannot fall. The Book of Mormon is the keystone (the center stone at the top of an arch or dome, on which rests all the weight). It is not the foundation of our faith, but is the support for the exact style of faith we choose. As Joseph Smith is the one that translated it, and the LDS church was organized by him, both are more appropriately referred to as the pillars of the arch that are held in place by the Keystone and Supported by the Cornerstone.

  82. 83 shematwater
    April 18, 2012 at 3:38 pm

    DAVID

    “You cannot select a few words out of one sentence and then not consider how other passages on the same subject relate to each other.”

    And yet this is what you constantly do by citing the five words “after all you can do” and ignoring everything else that is said on the subject in that chapter, as well as in all the other scriptures. You are so hung up on us believing this that you refuse to do exactly what you want us to do, but declare that you know what this means, regardless of any evidence to the contrary.
    I believe your exact argument is “after all you can do” means exactly what it says.
    So, why is it that we cannot argue that “After ye have done the will of God” means exactly what it says?
    You talk of civil discussion, and yet use hypocritical arguments to try and block any actual discussion.

    As to the meaning of Hebrews, the meaning is clear: It is through our faith that we gain the power to do the will of God, but we must choose to do it, or we cannot receive the promise. In no way does this detract from Faith, but it also does not deny the requirement of works; and it wraps it all up in the atonement, which makes both possible (agreeing completely with 2 Nephi 25: 23).

    Going back to what you originally were commenting on from my post, in which I said “If Christ was 100% human and all humans sin, or have the corruption of sin imputed to them, than he also had sin imputed to him, and thus was not a perfect sacrifice, which makes his atonement ineffective.”
    Nothing you posted in response to this actually addressed this, but was a deflection of the issue. You basically make the argument that your right and I’m wrong, and so no one should listen to me. The problem is there is no substance to your argument, and so it falls rather flat.
    (I do not comment on the scriptures, so don’t try to claim I do. I comment on your use of the scriptures.)

  83. 84 joshtried
    April 18, 2012 at 4:15 pm

    Kent, to this:
    “Could I ever be able to live in the mansions where God is, what you would call the celestial kingdom, if I don’t join your church, if I don’t tithe 10 percent to your church, or if I drink about 10 beers in an entire year, each year?”

    In the celestial Kingdom? From our understanding of the covenants associated with the celestial kingdom, you would still come up short. There are many things that are associated with this, one of which is being sealed for eternity. Now, If you believe in Christ now, and have someone seal you to your wife once you are dead, theoretically you will go to the celestial kingdom. It is not for me though to choose whether or not you are allowed to accept this, which is why i say theoretically.
    To the 10% tithe or 10 beers per year PART of this question, there is but one unforgivable sin, and that is to blaspheme the holy spirit. It is expected that you live as perfect as you can once you understand the rules, but we understand that you will again make a mistake, and so does God. The point is to the best of our ability to not make these mistakes again. Even Christianity teaches this. Come to God however broken you are, let him heal you, make you whole. Be changed in Him. Go forth clean. Neither of these by themselves will keep you from entering into the celestial kingdom, though you may feel like a re-re once you get there, once you realized who you were really cheating (hint: you arent cheating yourself).

  84. 85 Aston
    April 18, 2012 at 5:35 pm

    Shematwater

    please could you clarify where in the bible it says the words ‘you have to be baptised by one holding the correct authority to enter the celestial kingdom’. I have never seen this verse and would be interested to know where this is. When trying to prove your point ensure that it is in conext of the chapter and the rest of scripture. Not mormon ‘truths’ but biblical truths.

    Secondly, you state that the book of mormon is the keystone and that the foundation is Jesus Christ. Question. If the book of mormon were to be false then what would happen to you faith. I suggest that it would be non existent because without the book of mormon being true the JS is not a prophet. The first vision a lie and the Jesus you claim false. Your religon would crumble and the so priesthood that goes with it.
    This would then equate to your foundation includes the book of mormon because the rest stands or falls on it being true.

    This is contray to biblical Christianity.
    Our faith is in the LIVING word only. Jesus Christ, His work, His righteousness and His salvation. The focus being on the work on the cross. Not having to believe in anything else that takes the focus away from Jesus and the cross. Not temples, word of wisdom, believing in a modern day prophet, new and everlasting covenant, magnifying a calling, etc. This equates to your Focus as Kent said, as after all you can do. You are working you way to salvation.

    Is this correct. Please answer in an objective manner and not subjectively. Be completely honest.

  85. 86 joshtried
    April 18, 2012 at 8:26 pm

    Aston, to answer your question of baptizing by proper authority, I ask you this: who was Jesus Christ baptized by and why THIS person?

    Yes, you are correct that if Joseph Smith is not a prophet then our religion is false and we were lied to. As I have asked of Echo, I ask now of you as well. Prove it. Prove Joseph Smith was not a true prophet. Find a single prophecy he made that was false, as this will indicate a false prophet. On the other side of things, you must be prepared to at minimum stop calling JS a false prophet if these accusations are not true. You can choose to not believe the prophecies, but if nothing he prophecied of is absolutely untrue then calling him a false prophet would be a lie. Saying you dont believe his prophecies may then still apply, but we will come to that point when we get there. Pick a prophecy and prove it is false.

  86. 87 Aston
    April 18, 2012 at 10:17 pm

    Joshtried

    Read through these links and then check the references in your church history and D&C. Don’t just reject them but study through them. Always check the references to the history of your church. At the end is the is the biblical passages to test the validity of a prophet. Then line this up with what. these prophesies. Utlm.org is a good place to search. recommend it.
    http://www.irr.org/mit/js-failed-prophecies.html
    http://bibtruth.com/jspro.html
    http://www.utlm.org/onlineresources/falseprophecies.htm

    The baptism question. You didn’t answer my question. Where does it state that you have to be baptised by proper authority to enter the celestial kingdom. You are answering a question with a question. Answer honestly were it states this. Your 2 Nephi 31 passage is not a suffient return. Use the bible to back up your statement. Water Baptism takes place but where does it state that this is is a must to live with God. John 3 will not back your argument as you need to read that in context.

  87. 88 joshtried
    April 19, 2012 at 12:39 am

    Aston, I am on my phone, will check links and reply later on those.
    To baptism, why did Jesus Christ go to John the baptist instead of pulling a random bum off the street and having that bum dunk him in water?
    Why did Jesus get baptized at all if it was not necessary?
    Every “christian” sect understands the importance of baptism, or they would not try and attempt it at all.

  88. 89 shematwater
    April 19, 2012 at 4:34 am

    ASTON

    Interesting questions.

    First of all, it is not one single verse that shows the need for proper authority in baptism. It is a few verses taken together, with a firm understanding of the basics of the Bible.
    Mark 16: 16 “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.”
    In this passage we see a clear statement that without baptism one cannot be truly saved. It is true that without faith even baptism does not save, but baptism is still required for that salvation.
    For context, this is the great commission of Christ, given to the Apostles after his resurrection, but before his assencion. He is commanding them to go forth and preach the gospel.

    In his discussion with Nicodemus on how to be saved, Christ also states that “Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” Being born of the water is to be baptized.

    Speaking of Priesthood Authority, Paul writes to the Hebrews “And no man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron.” (Hebrews 5: 4)
    No man can claim authority to act in the name of God and perform the ordinances of the Gospel save he has been called in the same way that Aaron was called; who was called through direct revelation from God declaring the ordination to the appointed leader, Moses, and by the laying on of hands.
    This method of ordination is also seen in the New Testament. Acts 6: 5-6 tells us of the ordaining of seven elders to work directly under the twelve. “And the saying pleased the whole multitude: and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Ghost, and Philip, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicolas a proselyte of Antioch: Whom they set before the apostles: and when they had prayed, they laid their hands on them.”
    These men were first confirmed through prayer, showing that the apostles saught out God’s sanction of the chosen men; and then they were ordained through the laying on of hands.

    We again read in Acts 8: 14-17 “Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John: Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost: (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.) Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost.” It is once more through the laying on of hands by those appointed and ordained to the ministry that we see the fulfilling of the ordinance. In this same story there is the man Simon that seeks to buy this authority and the apostles rebuked him, saying “Thou hast neither part nor lot in this matter: for thy heart is not right in the sight of God.” (verse 21) clearly showing that this authority is reserved to only a few.

    Again, in acts 13: 2-3, we read of the ordination of Paul and Barnabas when they are first sent to the gentiles. “As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them. And when they had fasted and prayed, and laid their hands on them, they sent them away.”
    Once again it is by revelation and the laying on of hands by those apointed by God that these men receive their ordinations.

    Part of the counsel that Paul gives to Timothy is ” Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery.” (1 Timothy 4: 14-presbytery means elders, or leaders of the church), once again affirming that this is the appointed method by which callings and authority is confered upon man.

    As Christ himself clearly teaches the Baptism is essential, having set the example of righteousness in being baptized himself; and given the many references to proper authority and method of performing ordinances without the gospel; it is clear from the Bible that one must be baptized by a person holding the proper authority, or it will benefit them nothing.

  89. 90 shematwater
    April 19, 2012 at 5:39 am

    ASTON

    “If the book of mormon were to be false then what would happen to you faith. I suggest that it would be non existent because without the book of mormon being true the JS is not a prophet. The first vision a lie and the Jesus you claim false. Your religon would crumble and the so priesthood that goes with it.
    This would then equate to your foundation includes the book of mormon because the rest stands or falls on it being true.”

    This reasoning is generally sound, with only one small problem. Our faith is not our religion. These are two very different things. This is why I made the distinction between cornerstone and keystone. If Joseph Smtih were proven a fraud (hypothetically) than the religion would fall, but the faith would not, for it is built on Christ, not the Book of Mormon. Yes, we would need to reassess our understanding of things, but we would still have the Bible, the atonement of Christ, and all the promises that go with those. Our foundation would still remain, but we would, of necessity, need to build up a new house, or religion in place of the one that fell.

    As to the prophecies, I thought I would look at just the first one from the list in the suggested website you give.

    “-‘… my father presented himself,… I asked of him a father’s blessing, which he granted by laying his hands upon my head, in the name of Jesus Christ, and declaring that I should continue in the Priest’s office until Christ comes.’-”
    This is quoted, but is not given a reference, and so I am unable at this time to verify that it was said, or to fill in the gaps that are not quoted. Due to this lack of reference on the part of whoever is making this site, I am inclined to dismiss it.
    However, on the assumption that this was stated, I can say that this might have been fulfilled. One does not cease to be a priest when they die, but continue as a priest after death. The only way to loose that office is through transgression. With the given information I can’t say one way or the other, however.

    “When the Twelve Apostles were first ordained in the Mormon church some of them also received the promise that they would live until Christ came: “The blessing of Lyman E. Johnson was,… that he shall live until the gathering is accomplished…. and he shall see the Savior come and stand upon the earth with power and great glory” (History of the Church, vol. 2, p. 188).”

    You will note that it doesn’t actually say that Lyman Johnson would live to see the Savior come, but that he would see it. This could be in vision, but I think more likely it will be in the resurrection. The righteous will be resurrected at Christ’s coming, while the wicked will not. Given all this we can see that the promise was to be in that resurrection (much like Job saying that even though he would die he would still see Christ in the flesh).
    Also note that this is a blessing, not a prophecy. It is contingent of personal worthiness and how well he fulfilled his duties as an apostle. The same thing is true of all these quotes.

    “William Smith’s blessing stated: “He shall be preserved and remain on the earth, until Christ shall come to take vengeance on the wicked” (Ibid., vol. 2, p. 191).”
    This was fulfilled, as Christ did take vengeance on the wicked; it was called the Civl War. This makes no mention of Christ coming in his glory, as Lyman Johnson’s blessing does. It is not refering to the second coming. William Smith lived to see the Civil War, and especially the disctruction that occured in Missouri, and thus remained on the Earth until Christ came to take vengeance on the wicked.

    “Writing in 1838, Apostle Parley P. Pratt said the following: “Now, Mr. Sunderland…. I will state as a prophesy, that there will not be an unbelieving Gentile upon this continent 50 years hence; and if they are not greatly scourged, and in a great measure overthrown, within five or ten years from this date, then the Book of Mormon will have proved itself false” (Mormonism Unveiled—Truth Vindicated, by Parley P. Pratt, p. 15; copied from a microfilm of the original at the Mormon church historian’s library). This tract was reprinted in the book Writings of Parley P. Pratt, but this entire prophecy was deleted without any indication.”

    First, I find it interesting that the website says Joseph Smith said this, and yet they quote Parley P. Pratt, giving no indication that he even got the idea from Joseph Smith.
    I will also say that you can find this track online, without having to go to the microfilm, and it contains the original text. “http://jared.pratt-family.org/parley_histories/parley-pamphlets-mormonism-unveiled.html”
    I also note the claim that this was removed from the book “Writings of Parley P. Pratt” and yet I find it included in that book, at least in the ebook version. http://www.archive.org/stream/mormonismunveile01prat/mormonismunveile01prat_djvu.txt
    I realize that these do not address the prophecy itself, but the question is dealing with propheicies by Joseph Smith, not Parley P. Pratt, and so this one doesn’t really matter anyway. On top of this is the apparent lack of real scholarly work, or just plain deception. So, this is one quote that I will dismiss for the purposes of this discussion.

    “A Temple in Zion: In a revelation given by Joseph Smith September 22 and 23, 1832, the following statements appear: Yea, the word of the Lord concerning his church, established in the last days for the restoration of his people,… for the gathering of his saints to stand upon Mount Zion, which shall be the city of New Jerusalem. Which city shall be built, beginning at the temple lot, which is appointed by the finger of the Lord, in the western boundaries of the State of Missouri, and dedicated by the hand of Joseph Smith, Jun., and others …”

    And yet, no where in this do we read a prophecy. We read a command, but not a prophecy. Now, as no real reference is given, allow me to do so. This is quoting D&C 84: 2-3. However, it is in verse 5 that we read the actually prophecy. “For verily this generation shall not all pass away until an house shall be built unto the Lord, and a cloud shall rest upon it, which cloud shall be even the glory of the Lord, which shall fill the house.”
    So, while the saints were commanded to build a Temple in Zion, the prophecy itself does not specify a particular location, only that a Temple would be built, and that the glory of the Lord would rest upon it. This happened four years later when the Kirtland Temple was completed and dedicated.

    Now, I have actually gone through several lists of so-called false prophecies in the past, and I have no desire to do so now. I have yet to read one that was truly false, and this is no different.

  90. 91 joshtried
    April 19, 2012 at 5:40 am

    Aston, you asked:
    “Read through these links and then check the references in your church history and D&C. Don’t just reject them but study through them. Always check the references to the history of your church. At the end is the is the biblical passages to test the validity of a prophet. Then line this up with what. these prophesies. Utlm.org is a good place to search. recommend it.”
    You have given some sites as reference, and some of what are concluded to be false prophecy. Before I answer a single one of them, I have some requests that i feel should be met. As i have said, Echo is currently looking into one of these prophecies. The one he is researching is whether or not the prophecy regarding Zion is false. I posted a rather lengthy response to him regarding this, but what it boiled down to was this: The one scripture regarding Zion that says “a temple will be built” is not the only scripture regarding Zion. There were many scriptures regarding Zion, and as such, these must all be taken into account. God, more often then not, states “behave and you will be blessed”. This same thing happened with Zion, just not in this exact scripture. (I guess you get a freebie) :P
    If you have a specific prophecy that you wish me to speak on, then ask me specifically. I am not going to chase down every claim that a person makes because i believe JS to in fact be a prophet. I will speak respectfully on here regarding genuine questions a person has regarding my faith, or regarding specific allegations. I choose not to debate entire websites as the amount of both time (for me and the reader), and the mere volume of space this would take is way past what i am willing to devote to this website.
    There are some things that we dont see as official doctrine (like the journal of discourse). There are some that find this merely a loop hole. Whether you think it or not, how we see things is our right, just as it is your right to use whichever version of the Bible you choose (for instance there are several additional books in the Catholic Bible). I may question why you reject these additional books from the bible, but i will not tell you that they are what you believe. It would be nice to have the same courtesy.
    Finally, if I did prove every prophecy to be true, would you accept them? would you at least be willing to stop saying Joseph Smith is a false prophet? If this last one will not be met, then i will not spend any time discussing any prophecy, as it would no longer be an honest discussion looking for the truth. If you are asking about them, then i expect you to want to honestly know if they are truth, and not only be accusing our side of lying.

  91. 92 shematwater
    April 19, 2012 at 5:50 am

    JOSH

    Well said. I have given a direct reply to one of the prophecies mentioned on the recommended website, but I will be following your example from here on out.
    With only one exception. I want to make a brief comment on the second prophecy from that same website.

    “Zion (Independence, Mo.) can not fall (D&C 97:19)”
    They claim this is a prophecy. They reference verse 19, which states “And the nations of the earth shall honor her, and shall say: Surely Zion is the city of our God, and surely Zion cannot fall, neither be moved out of her place, for God is there, and the hand of the Lord is there”

    They seem to have missed verse 18, which states “And, now, behold, if Zion do these things she shall prosper, and spread herself and become very glorious, very great, and very terrible.”
    Clearly there are conditions placed on the prospering of Zion as well as her immovability. If these conditions are not met, then this promise is made void. As such, this is not a real prophecy.

    They also miss verse 21, which tells us “Therefore, verily, thus saith the Lord, let Zion rejoice, for this is Zion—the pure in heart; therefore, let Zion rejoice, while all the wicked shall mourn.”
    As Zion is the pure in Heart this promise is not made in reference to Jackson County, but to all the faithful who are pure in heart, and seek to obey God.

  92. 93 Kent
    April 19, 2012 at 2:45 pm

    Aston, I took the liberty to post Mormon sources from one of Joseph Smith’s prophesies that didn’t come true. David W Patten died on October 25, 1838, before he got a chance to go on his mission, so this alone proves Smith was a false prophet!

    Doctrine and Covenants 114:1

    1 Verily thus saith the Lord: It is wisdom in my servant David W. Patten, that he settle up all his business as soon as he possibly can, and make a disposition of his merchandise, that he may perform a mission unto me next spring, in company with others, even twelve including himself, to testify of my name and bear glad tidings unto all the world.

    Daily Events in the Life of Joseph Smith

    April 17

    1834— Kirtland, Ohio. Joseph Smith attended a meeting where Elder Sidney Rigdon discussed the “deliverance of Zion” and the building of a temple in Kirtland.
    History of the Church, 2:50

    1838— Far West, Missouri. Joseph Smith received D&C 114, a revelation instructing David W. Patten to prepare for a mission the coming spring.
    History of the Church, 3:23

    http://www.lds.org/josephsmith/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=e581001cfb340010VgnVCM1000001f5e340aRCRD&vgnextfmt=tab1&month=4&day=17

    I am posting a link from Wikipedia, in addition to the Mormon sources above, to document when David W Patten died

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_W._Patten

  93. 94 shematwater
    April 20, 2012 at 2:31 am

    KENT

    You need to distinguish between command and prophecy. In section 114 of the Doctrine and Covenants we read a command issued to David W. Patten to serve another mission. His death prevented him from doing so, but never was it stated that he would serve the mission, only that God commanded him to.
    It is not a failed prophecy because it is not a prophecy.

  94. 95 joshtried
    April 20, 2012 at 4:27 am

    While i do not know David Patten’s life, i want to finish this chapter.
    2 For verily thus saith the Lord, that inasmuch as there are those among you who deny my name, others shall be planted in their stead and receive their bishopric. Amen.

    I do not know if Mr Patten did in fact settle his estate, which was part of this “prophecy”. I also do not know if Mr Patten came to deny the name of God. If he did, then “others were planted in his stead”.

    Part of the problem with any of these things is the predisposition to assume their lives were conducted perfectly as necessary. Do we know if he settled his estate as he was told? Do we know if he still believed in God? Was he a rich man that did not want to give up his riches? “I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.” Matthew 19:23-24
    Am i saying that he was rich, and did not give up his land? No. I am stating i cannot testify of the circumstances surrounding his entire life. As such, i can not make a fair comment on the validity of this “prophecy”


Comments are currently closed.

April 2012
M T W T F S S
« Mar   May »
 1
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
30  

Blog Stats

  • 182,152 hits

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 998 other followers


%d bloggers like this: