The Seven Deadly Heresies

[ERayR]

Lucifer still got a bad rap. I like the guy. I don't view him as the source of all evil. That's just silly. Someone had to inspire him to do "wrong".

 

Evil is eternal.  It just takes someone to make it active.  Lucifer chose to be one of those someones even though he knew better.

[Damien the Leper]

Evil is eternal.  It just takes someone to make it active.  Lucifer chose to be one of those someones even though he knew better.

 

No. Evil had to be created just as much as good had to be created. Again, Lucifer got a bad rap because he didn't want to be God's slave for eternity. I think the suggestion that he wanted the Throne is a projection to make him seem more malicious. Don't get me wrong, I do also believe that he and the other who fell from grace in some ways acted like spoiled kids with a ridiculous temper tantrum. Then again, I could be oversimplifying the situation as well.

[oremites]

Again, Lucifer got a bad rap because he didn't want to be God's slave for eternity. I think the suggestion that he wanted the Throne is a projection to make him seem more malicious. Don't get me wrong, I do also believe that he and the other who fell from grace in some ways acted like spoiled kids with a ridiculous temper tantrum. Then again, I could be oversimplifying the situation as well.

 

This is obviously a difference of opinion where a long discussion isn't going to do any good, so I'll just say my piece and be off.

 

I don't believe LDS doctrine teaches that Lucifer created or thought up evil and that there was no evil before him.  We're not accusing him of that.

 

Lucifer didn't want to simply escape being God's slave, he wanted to be the slave-master.  No projection, the truth.  It's impossible to make him seem more malicious than he really is.  He's the likable guy who smiles, pats you on the back and makes you think he's your greatest friend in the world while he robs you blind, corrupts your children and destroys everything you hold dear.  You shouldn't reduce his horrific crimes to simply "a spoiled brat throwing a temper tantrum" any more than you'd use that phrase to describe any of the world's worst dictators or mass murderers.  He deserves no sympathy, understanding or kind words.  

[Damien the Leper]

This is obviously a difference of opinion where a long discussion isn't going to do any good, so I'll just say my piece and be off.

 

I don't believe LDS doctrine teaches that Lucifer created or thought up evil and that there was no evil before him.  We're not accusing him of that.

 

Lucifer didn't want to simply escape being God's slave, he wanted to be the slave-master.  No projection, the truth.  It's impossible to make him seem more malicious than he really is.  He's the likable guy who smiles, pats you on the back and makes you think he's your greatest friend in the world while he robs you blind, corrupts your children and destroys everything you hold dear.  You shouldn't reduce his horrific crimes to simply "a spoiled brat throwing a temper tantrum" any more than you'd use that phrase to describe any of the world's worst dictators or mass murderers.  He deserves no sympathy, understanding or kind words.  

 

I didn't suggest that LDS asserted Lucifer created evil. Some being before him did...perhaps the author of creation.

 

I'm issuing an official CFR for Lucifer's crimes. If you dare say the Job narrative then you got that mess wrong. He had absolutely nothing to do with Judas and Jesus' crucifixion so those are out. Adam and Eve ate the fruit and humans need to quit whining that it's Lucifer's fault they did so. No...absolutely not! Creator and creation need to saddle up and start taking responsibility for their own actions and stop looking for a scapegoat. If someone honestly thinks that Lucifer has the ability to tempt them so seriously then they are weak. Also...speaking of crimes. Genocide is a crime. Where was it understood to be a crime when Daddy decided to wipe out creation with a flood? Looking at the righteous atrocities in the name of God in the Canon make God and His mouth piece puppets no better than Lucifer. Plain and simple.

[Sevenbak]

Full Speech by Bruce R. McConkie in 1980: http://speeches.byu.edu/?act=viewitem&id=658

Does anybody agree that all seven items on this list are heresies?

I agree with all seven, but I do have slight pause with number one, since we believe in eternal progression, so I wouldn't necessarily call that one heresy.

Oh, and he left off number eight, the one about a Cumorah in Mexico. :-) (ducking)

[Stone holm]

This is obviously a difference of opinion where a long discussion isn't going to do any good, so I'll just say my piece and be off.

 

I don't believe LDS doctrine teaches that Lucifer created or thought up evil and that there was no evil before him.  We're not accusing him of that.

 

Lucifer didn't want to simply escape being God's slave, he wanted to be the slave-master.  No projection, the truth.  It's impossible to make him seem more malicious than he really is.  He's the likable guy who smiles, pats you on the back and makes you think he's your greatest friend in the world while he robs you blind, corrupts your children and destroys everything you hold dear.  You shouldn't reduce his horrific crimes to simply "a spoiled brat throwing a temper tantrum" any more than you'd use that phrase to describe any of the world's worst dictators or mass murderers.  He deserves no sympathy, understanding or kind words.

I agree with this. The part I always have trouble getting head around is the fact that Lucifer plays an essential role.

[thesometimesaint]

I agree with this. The part I always have trouble getting head around is the fact that Lucifer plays an essential role.

 

He doesn't. He took it upon himself to tempt A&E to violate Gods command.

[Damien the Leper]

He doesn't. He took it upon himself to tempt A&E to violate Gods command.

 

Nope. If gaining knowledge via a certain method by means of "temptation" is a sin/transgression then the gaining of said knowledge is equally the sin. Lucifer did nothing wrong. He gave the meat bags a nudge in the right direction.

[thesometimesaint]

Incorrect. It wasn't the gaining of knowledge. It was in not doing it in the way that God told them.

[Damien the Leper]

Incorrect. It wasn't the gaining of knowledge. It was in not doing it in the way that God told them.

What were the explicit instructions give to Adam and Eve to gain knowledge in the Genesis narrative? Anything outside of the narrative doesn't really count.

[thesometimesaint]

A&E were commanded not to eat from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil unless God commanded them to. Lucifer tempted A&E to not wait unti that command was given. Eve was begulied(Mislead), and Adam wanting to stay with Eve also partook. The Bible takes note that A&E had become like God. Knowing good from evil.

[Damien the Leper]

I don't recall there being a conditional "unless" in the narrative. The "unless" is not to be implied or assumed. That would be fallacious.

[thesometimesaint]

We do have several instances from the Bible where previous commands were replaced with later commands. We(LDS) also have the Pearl of Great Price where God says in Abraham 3:23-25 

 

23. And God saw these souls that they were good, and he stood in the midst of them, and he said: These I will make my rulers; for he stood among those that were spirits, and he saw that they were good; and he said unto me: Abraham, thou art one of them; thou wast ^achosen before thou wast born.

24 And there stood ^aone among them that was like unto God, and he said unto those who were with him: We will go down, for there is space there, and we will take of these materials, and ^bwe will make an earth whereon these may ^cdwell;

 25 And we will ^aprove them herewith, to see if they will ^bdo all things whatsoever the Lord their God shall command them;

[Damien the Leper]

I'm talking specifically about the Genesis narrative. The authoritative document. The PGP doesn't clarify the narrative. It is pseudepigraphal. Unless you can provide something of substance from Genesis your argument becomes moot. Again, point out where in Genesis a conditional "unless" is explicitly on display. The PGP is not a narrative to fall back on.

[Stone holm]

He doesn't. He took it upon himself to tempt A&E to violate Gods command.

 

Yes he took it upon himself, but he still plays an essential role.  There must be opposition in all things.  Even Brigham Young conceded that Satan plays an essential role -- doesn't mean we should feel sorry for him though.

[thesometimesaint]

I'm talking specifically about the Genesis narrative. The authoritative document. The PGP doesn't clarify the narrative. It is pseudepigraphal. Unless you can provide something of substance from Genesis your argument becomes moot. Again, point out where in Genesis a conditional "unless" is explicitly on display. The PGP is not a narrative to fall back on.

 

The New Testament isn't authoritative?

[thesometimesaint]

Yes he took it upon himself, but he still plays an essential role.  There must be opposition in all things.  Even Brigham Young conceded that Satan plays an essential role -- doesn't mean we should feel sorry for him though.

 

His role isn't essential. There are plenty of things to go wrong in this old world without being tempted to do them.

[Damien the Leper]

The New Testament isn't authoritative?

 

When did I suggest anything about the NT? Can you answer my question specifically using Genesis or not? No more dancing around the issue. No fall back arguments. Just answer the question. It really is rather simple.

 

Okay, no more games. CFR. Chapter and verse in Genesis where a conditional "unless" is authoritatively displayed. The NT, BoM, D&C and PGP do not correct or clarify the HB.

Edited September 27, 2013 by Valentinus

[thesometimesaint]

See Genesis 3:22

[JLHPROF]

He doesn't. He took it upon himself to tempt A&E to violate Gods command.

His role isn't essential. There are plenty of things to go wrong in this old world without being tempted to do them.

 

There is the belief that the fall HAD to happen, that God knew this, and that it was a transgression of law/commandment but that there was no actual sin.

It goes back to the first half of the Book of Mormon couplet - Adam fell that men might be.  The fruit HAD to be eaten or God could not have provided mortal bodies for his spirit children.  There were consequences to the transgression, but it really wasn't sin.

 

Which, unfortunately leads to the question, why would Lucifer tempt Adam and Eve to do something that would actually further God's plan?

Edited September 28, 2013 by JLHPROF

[Tiki]

There is the belief that the fall HAD to happen, that God knew this, and that it was a transgression of law/commandment but that there was no actual sin.

It goes back to the first half of Lorenzo Snow's old couplet - Adam fell that men might be.  The fruit HAD to be eaten or God could not have provided mortal bodies for his spirit children.  There were consequences to the transgression, but it really wasn't sin.

 

Which, unfortunately leads to the question, why would Lucifer tempt Adam and Eve to do something that would actually further God's plan?

Because Lucifer does not know all things and is an enemy to God and fights against Him continually. Moro 7:12.

Adam and Eve were given their agency to Fall or not. Thus Lucifer stepped in and tempted them just because he fights against God.

[thesometimesaint]

I don't beleive the Fall HAD to happen. God certainly allowed for it. God also provided a way for A&E, along with their sons and daughters, to repent.

 

The first half of that couplet simply says that: As man is God once was... I think we get far into conjecture and speculation when we go beyond the example Jesus set.

 

Because Lucifer wanted all the glory, and to replace God with himself.

[Tacenda]

There is the belief that the fall HAD to happen, that God knew this, and that it was a transgression of law/commandment but that there was no actual sin.

It goes back to the first half of Lorenzo Snow's old couplet - Adam fell that men might be. The fruit HAD to be eaten or God could not have provided mortal bodies for his spirit children. There were consequences to the transgression, but it really wasn't sin.

Which, unfortunately leads to the question, why would Lucifer tempt Adam and Eve to do something that would actually further God's plan?

I've been stuck on this very question for a long time now. It gives me great pause in my journey into full belief of the church again. I hope we LDS aren't going to hell over it, like some EV's think.

[thesometimesaint]

I've been stuck on this very question for a long time now. It gives me great pause in my journey into full belief of the church again. I hope we LDS aren't going to hell over it, like some EV's think.

 

If I go to Hell simply for being LDS, at least I'll be among friends.

[Billy the Law]

Heresy one: There are those who say that God is progressing in knowledge and is learning new truths.

 

This is likely a heresy. Though I kind of think it would get kind of boring to know everything. They quest for knowledge is half the fun. But I don't know everything so I don't know what it's like.

 

Heresy two concerns itself with the relationship between organic evolution and revealed religion and asks the question whether they can be harmonized.

 

The church seems to have adopted a more appropriate approach to evolution than BRM. There are likely good arguments both ways but BRM seemed to definitive.

 

Heresy Three: There are those who say that temple marriage assures us of an eventual exaltation. Some have supposed that couples married in the temple who commit all manner of sin, and who then pay the penalty, will gain their exaltation eventually.

 

D&C 132 may seem to insinuate this idea. But I can see good arguments against it. Anyone have any research regarding the early church's view towards this idea?

 

Heresy Four: There are those who believe that the doctrine of salvation for the dead offers men a second chance for salvation.

 

My opinion is that this doctrine is very "squishy" to begin with. As noted earlier, I don't know that we know what a first chance looks like. 

 

Heresy five: There are those who say that there is progression from one kingdom to another in the eternal worlds or that lower kingdoms eventually progress to where higher kingdoms once were.

 

To be fair, I think that BRM may have be clarifying that we don't know and it's a heresy to teach it as if you do know. I personally can't see a loving heavenly Father not allowing this. Eternity is a long time and life there are so many uncertainties in life. I would feel like a crappy dad if I put my children in a situation where so much depended on so little knowledge. Though, to let people know that they can progress to a higher kingdom might incentive poor living.

 

Heresy six: There are those who believe or say they believe that Adam is our father and our god, that he is the father of our spirits and our bodies, and that he is the one we worship.

 

I think this is just clean up after the category five hurricane known as Brigham Young swept through LDS doctrine. BY either taught or his scribes continuously did a bad job of portraying his teachings. Its teachings like this that make the "a prophet is only a prophet when he is speaking like a prophet" policy very convenient. 

 

Heresy seven: There are those who believe we must be perfect to gain salvation.

 

I agree with BRM.