consiglieri Posted March 10, 2011 Author Posted March 10, 2011 It's just that great minds think alike. Turn about is fair play.
mercyngrace Posted March 10, 2011 Posted March 10, 2011 That is where Consig confuses me.That's just the Captain Kirk in him. He likes to make sure everyone is awake before he engages the warp drive.Oh and MnG, I really liked those scriptures where you pointed out "weakness". Never thought of it that way before.If I have seen further it is only by standing on the shoulders of giants. ~ Isaac Newton
zerinus Posted March 10, 2011 Posted March 10, 2011 If I have seen further it is only by standing on the shoulders of giants. ~ Isaac Newton The only "giants" you could be thinking of are are Martin Luther and John Calvin and those who followed them. They came up with those ideas first, and they were all wrong. I am not a spokesman for the Church; but as far as I know he LDS Church does not officially accept those doctrines. It is nor necessary for anyone to sin in order to participate in the plan of salvation.
zerinus Posted March 10, 2011 Posted March 10, 2011 Nope. We're not related.It's just that great minds think alike. There are other possible explanations, such as, "Birds of a feather, flock together!" LOL!
mercyngrace Posted March 10, 2011 Posted March 10, 2011 The only "giants" you could be thinking of are are Martin Luther and John Calvin and those who followed them. They came up with those ideas first, and they were all wrong. I am not a spokesman for the Church; but as far as I know he LDS Church does not officially accept those doctrines. It is nor necessary for anyone to sin in order to participate in the plan of salvation.Get thee to the temple.
mercyngrace Posted March 10, 2011 Posted March 10, 2011 There are other possible explanations, such as, "Birds of a feather, flock together!" LOL! Indeed.But they that wait upon the Lord shall renew their strength; they shall mount up with wings as eagles; they shall run, and not be weary; and they shall walk, and not faint.
zerinus Posted March 10, 2011 Posted March 10, 2011 Get thee to the temple.The experience of Adam and eve was an oddity. It does not translate into our daily experiences during mortality. There is no direct equivalence between their sin, and the sins we are forbidden to commit. Partaking of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil was not in itself an immoral or sinful act. It was a tree that was
mercyngrace Posted March 10, 2011 Posted March 10, 2011 The experience of Adam and eve was an oddity. It does not translate into our daily experiences during mortality. There is no direct equivalence between their sin, and the sins we are forbidden to commit. Partaking of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil was not in itself an immoral or sinful act. It was a tree that was
CV75 Posted March 10, 2011 Posted March 10, 2011 The experience of Adam and eve was an oddity. It does not translate into our daily experiences during mortality. There is no direct equivalence between their sin, and the sins we are forbidden to commit. Partaking of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil was not in itself an immoral or sinful act. It was a tree that was
CV75 Posted March 10, 2011 Posted March 10, 2011 We were made sinners by Adam's actions. The fall in Eden allowed us to inhabit corruptible bodies whose weakness does not allow for perfection, spiritually or physically.I would re-phrase this as:
mercyngrace Posted March 10, 2011 Posted March 10, 2011 That is Evangelical theology. They misunderstand and misinterpret Paul, and so do you.Someone should have told King Benajmin...For behold, and also his blood atoneth for the sins of those who have fallen by the transgression of Adam, who have died not knowing the will of God concerning them, or who have ignorantly sinned....for behold, as in Adam, or by nature, they fall, even so the blood of Christ atoneth for their sins.We consider ourselves to be Adam and Eve when we make covenants that from hence forth we will keep God's commandments, as they did after the Fall (and kept it). We are not told to consider ourselves as Adam and Eve in following their examples to sin.We already fell, through Adam and Eve, which is why sin is an inevitability. There is no command to sin because there simply is no way to avoid it in our mentally darkened state.
zerinus Posted March 10, 2011 Posted March 10, 2011 Someone should have told King Benajmin...For behold, and also his blood atoneth for the sins of those who have fallen by the transgression of Adam, who have died not knowing the will of God concerning them, or who have ignorantly sinned....for behold, as in Adam, or by nature, they fall, even so the blood of Christ atoneth for their sins.Sure, because of the Fall we have inherited an inclination or tendency to commit sin; but that is not equivalent to saying that we need to sin for any reason whatever. The commandment is not to sin.We already fell, through Adam and Eve, which is why sin is an inevitability."Inevitability" is not equivalent to "necessity".There is no command to sin because there simply is no way to avoid it in our mentally darkened state.The command is not to sin, period.
Senator Posted March 10, 2011 Posted March 10, 2011 "Inevitability" is not equivalent to "necessity".In my book, given the context, at the end of the day its six of one half a dozen of another.The command is not to sin, period.You would think, that by now, if God really expected us to never sin, that He would be a bit frustrated, seeing that after billions upon billions of failures, things just ain't working out as planned.
LeSellers Posted March 10, 2011 Posted March 10, 2011 You would think, that by now, if God really expected us to never sin, that He would be a bit frustrated, seeing that after billions upon billions of failures [to follow the commandment not to sin], things just ain't working out as planned.Things are working out exactly "as planned". Father knew we would sin, but that's far from saying He wanted us to sin or that He required that we sin. Father is at least as good a tactician and strategist as Napoleon or Patton. And they both knew how to use the enemy's habits and history to gain their objectives. Patton famously read Rommel and could use that information when he planned his own campaigns against the German. God does not want us to sin. If He did, he'd be going against His own nature (which is not even possible): "For I the Lord cannot look upon sin with the least degree of allowance". He is holy. But, knowing we would sin, He provided a way by which we could repent and return to holiness ourselves so we can live with Him again. But, while He planned for it, it was not His will. Lehi
consiglieri Posted March 10, 2011 Author Posted March 10, 2011 It is nor necessary for anyone to sin in order to participate in the plan of salvation.Then why is it called the plan of salvation?
consiglieri Posted March 10, 2011 Author Posted March 10, 2011 The experience of Adam and eve was an oddity.You completely miss the point as long as you continue to see it this way.Have I mentioned we are all respectively Adam and Eve? All the Best!--Consiglieri
consiglieri Posted March 10, 2011 Author Posted March 10, 2011 There is no command to sin because there simply is no way to avoid it in our mentally darkened state.And in the hopes of clarity (since I am known to be confusing), there can be no such thing as a command to sin. It is an oxymoron.It is only through violating commandments that we sin.And that is why God gives us commandments he knows we cannot keep.All the Best!--Consiglieri
consiglieri Posted March 10, 2011 Author Posted March 10, 2011 Father knew we would sin, but that's far from saying He wanted us to sin or that He required that we sin. Do you see any problem claiming this about an omniscient Being?All the Best!--Consiglieri
mercyngrace Posted March 10, 2011 Posted March 10, 2011 God does not want us to sin. If He did, he'd be going against His own nature (which is not even possible): "For I the Lord cannot look upon sin with the least degree of allowance". He is holy. LehiIt isn't about wanting us to sin. It's about recognizing the necessity of experiencing opposition in order to acquire knowledge.If He was solely governed by His inability to abide sin, He would intercede every time an evil act occured, and yet He doesn't.
mercyngrace Posted March 10, 2011 Posted March 10, 2011 ... there can be no such thing as a command to sin. It is an oxymoron.--Consiglieri Ooooh, I wish I'd said that. That is exactly how I see it. It's the design of the test, not the test instructions that makes the outcome inevitable.
emeliza Posted March 10, 2011 Posted March 10, 2011 Sure, because of the Fall we have inherited an inclination or tendency to commit sin; but that is not equivalent to saying that we need to sin for any reason whatever. The commandment is not to sin. The commandment is impossible. God knew the commandment was impossible. I don't think He delights in our sinning, but I think He knew that it was 'inevitable' and 'necessary'. Just like we know it is 'inevitable' and 'necessary' for our kids to make mistakes. Often times they learn from the mistakes. "Inevitability" is not equivalent to "necessity".I think this is just semantics.
Senator Posted March 10, 2011 Posted March 10, 2011 But, while He planned for it, it was not His will. I wonder if God despises his own plan?
thesometimesaint Posted March 10, 2011 Posted March 10, 2011 Adam and Eve were commanded by God not to eat of the fruit.Ps. It was not impossible. All they had to do was wait until God commanded them to eat of the fruit.
emeliza Posted March 10, 2011 Posted March 10, 2011 Adam and Eve were commanded by God not to eat of the fruit.Ps. It was not impossible. All they had to do was wait until God commanded them to eat of the fruit.You are assuming that God would have commanded them to eat of it at some point. For all we knew, Adam and Eve had been in the garden for centuries not eating the fruit prior to Lucifer coming along.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.