Flyonthewall Posted February 16, 2014 Posted February 16, 2014 Perhaps I have been under a misconception... I have always thought that the difference was a force of will, so to speak. I mean He did not succumb to temptation and sin - He overcame them. Being the Only Begotten of the Father meant He inherited some ability that we do not have - to lay down His life and take it up again. He over came death too. We are all spirit children of our Father in Heaven. When we are born sinless and is only as we grow up that temptation and sin enter our hearts... essentially our curse is to be born into this mortal world filled with temptation and sin. Lesson 3, The Plan of Salvation, in the Priesthood manual has this little blurp: But Adam, in breaking the law, himself became subject to the curse, and being under the curse could not atone, or undo what he had done. Neither could his children, for they also were under the curse, and it required one who was not subject to the curse to atone for that original sin. Moreover, since we were all under the curse, we were also powerless to atone for our individual sins. Maybe, I am off on what the "curse" is, but if Jesus was not subject to the curse, why? Wasn't He born of woman, someone that was subject to the curse? If we are born sinless, why are we subject to the curse and He is not? and if He is not subject to the curse, what did He overcome? (I have a feeling I will be saying "Nevermind" a la Gilda Radner on SNL)
JLHPROF Posted February 16, 2014 Posted February 16, 2014 Perhaps I have been under a misconception... I have always thought that the difference was a force of will, so to speak. I mean He did not succumb to temptation and sin - He overcame them. Being the Only Begotten of the Father meant He inherited some ability that we do not have - to lay down His life and take it up again. He over came death too.We are all spirit children of our Father in Heaven. When we are born sinless and is only as we grow up that temptation and sin enter our hearts... essentially our curse is to be born into this mortal world filled with temptation and sin.Lesson 3, The Plan of Salvation, in the Priesthood manual has this little blurp:Maybe, I am off on what the "curse" is, but if Jesus was not subject to the curse, why? Wasn't He born of woman, someone that was subject to the curse?If we are born sinless, why are we subject to the curse and He is not? and if He is not subject to the curse, what did He overcome?(I have a feeling I will be saying "Nevermind" a la Gilda Radner on SNL) I hate to say it, but I either disagree with that priesthood manual quote, or it's out of context. The scriptures tell us Christ WAS subject to the fall and was tempted. I find no scripture to agree with that quote. For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin. Hebrews 4:15 1
Ahab Posted February 16, 2014 Posted February 16, 2014 It has to do with how we needed our Father to send someone whose Father was not Adam, as our Savior's father was not Adam.
Mstewa Posted February 16, 2014 Posted February 16, 2014 I read that as Adams transgression caused the curse to fall upon him. His children if we follow the article of faith would not have had the curse strictly because Adam was their Father but because they too had fallen in to temptation. Christ by not having succumbed to sin and temptation was "not subject to the curse". But that's just my thoughts on it. 1
Flyonthewall Posted February 16, 2014 Author Posted February 16, 2014 I hate to say it, but I either disagree with that priesthood manual quote, or it's out of context. The scriptures tell us Christ WAS subject to the fall and was tempted. I find no scripture to agree with that quote.This is what I have always thought... that He did trod the same path we do, but did so perfectly and overcame all. 1
Kenngo1969 Posted February 16, 2014 Posted February 16, 2014 If Hebrews 4:15 is correct, Christ was tempted in all things as we are, but He was without sin. It poses a difficulty to say that He entreated (indeed, commanded) us to follow His example, yet He didn't tell us about the fine print: "Oh, by the way ... I'm Dad's favorite." That sort of an idea gives me a ... queasy feeling. Too many people in the Church already have the idea that Christ is cheering us on from the distant finish line ("Come on, you can do it!") rather than running the race with us. My $0.02.
Flyonthewall Posted February 16, 2014 Author Posted February 16, 2014 I am not sure about the paternal lineage part, if I am following correctly. Mary was still a daughter of Adam & Eve, and the way I have understood it, it was because of Mary that He was subject to the trials of mortal life. Yes, He did not succumb to those trials but He was still subject to them. His paternal lineage allowed Him to lay down and take up His life.
CV75 Posted February 16, 2014 Posted February 16, 2014 Perhaps I have been under a misconception... I have always thought that the difference was a force of will, so to speak. I mean He did not succumb to temptation and sin - He overcame them. Being the Only Begotten of the Father meant He inherited some ability that we do not have - to lay down His life and take it up again. He over came death too.We are all spirit children of our Father in Heaven. When we are born sinless and is only as we grow up that temptation and sin enter our hearts... essentially our curse is to be born into this mortal world filled with temptation and sin.Lesson 3, The Plan of Salvation, in the Priesthood manual has this little blurp:Maybe, I am off on what the "curse" is, but if Jesus was not subject to the curse, why? Wasn't He born of woman, someone that was subject to the curse?If we are born sinless, why are we subject to the curse and He is not? and if He is not subject to the curse, what did He overcome?(I have a feeling I will be saying "Nevermind" a la Gilda Radner on SNL)The paragraph you show was taken from a larger work ("Elijah the Prophet and His Mission and Salvation Universal," pp 79–80) so it would be best to see how “curse” might be used in the article leading up to this part of it. But I think the preceding paragraph in the manual speaks to “two deaths, spiritual and temporal—man being banished from the presence of God, and becoming mortal and subject to all the ills of the flesh.” If this is what is meant by the curse, Jesus was never banished from the presence of God in the same way the rest of man was. He voluntarily never transgressed or sinned to separate Himself from the Father. He voluntarily became “mortal and subject to all the ills of the flesh”. I think His sense of being forsaken by the Father during His final moments on the cross was not due to any transgression on His part but a necessary part of His voluntary service, and was a separate arrangement from the curse. 1
thesometimesaint Posted February 16, 2014 Posted February 16, 2014 Perhaps I have been under a misconception... I have always thought that the difference was a force of will, so to speak. I mean He did not succumb to temptation and sin - He overcame them. Being the Only Begotten of the Father meant He inherited some ability that we do not have - to lay down His life and take it up again. He over came death too.We are all spirit children of our Father in Heaven. When we are born sinless and is only as we grow up that temptation and sin enter our hearts... essentially our curse is to be born into this mortal world filled with temptation and sin.Lesson 3, The Plan of Salvation, in the Priesthood manual has this little blurp:Maybe, I am off on what the "curse" is, but if Jesus was not subject to the curse, why? Wasn't He born of woman, someone that was subject to the curse?If we are born sinless, why are we subject to the curse and He is not? and if He is not subject to the curse, what did He overcome?(I have a feeling I will be saying "Nevermind" a la Gilda Radner on SNL) Jesus had his Agency just like the rest of us.
Flyonthewall Posted February 16, 2014 Author Posted February 16, 2014 The paragraph you show was taken from a larger work ("Elijah the Prophet and His Mission and Salvation Universal," pp 79–80) so it would be best to see how “curse” might be used in the article leading up to this part of it. But I think the preceding paragraph in the manual speaks to “two deaths, spiritual and temporal—man being banished from the presence of God, and becoming mortal and subject to all the ills of the flesh.” If this is what is meant by the curse, Jesus was never banished from the presence of God in the same way the rest of man was. He voluntarily never transgressed or sinned to separate Himself from the Father. He voluntarily became “mortal and subject to all the ills of the flesh”. I think His sense of being forsaken by the Father during His final moments on the cross was not due to any transgression on His part but a necessary part of His voluntary service, and was a separate arrangement from the curse.Not trying to be obtuse here but... If man was banished from the presence of God, was this in pre-mortal life? Or mortal life? It seems that if we were in the presence of God in pre-mortal life, then we had not transgressed or sinned either, it is not until we were born and lived in mortality for a while that we have the opportunity to transgress/sin, same as Jesus...(except for the whole being fore-ordained as being Savior of the world and all - and I don't mean to trivialize that). I do believe that Jesus being forsaken on the cross by the Father was part of trodding the same path as us, to experience it first hand - voluntarily of course as He was sinless. 1
CV75 Posted February 16, 2014 Posted February 16, 2014 (edited) Not trying to be obtuse here but... If man was banished from the presence of God, was this in pre-mortal life? Or mortal life?It seems that if we were in the presence of God in pre-mortal life, then we had not transgressed or sinned either, it is not until we were born and lived in mortality for a while that we have the opportunity to transgress/sin, same as Jesus...(except for the whole being fore-ordained as being Savior of the world and all - and I don't mean to trivialize that).I do believe that Jesus being forsaken on the cross by the Father was part of trodding the same path as us, to experience it first hand - voluntarily of course as He was sinless.As has been pointed out, President Smith may just have misspoken on some particular but at least not on the point that we need a Savior. But he may also have been speaking as follows: I think we are banished from the presence of God when we sin. I don’t think infants, for example, are banished from His presence, but only the accountable are banished once we sin. Yet even infants remain are here physically on Earth. So I think being in His presence happens in two ways. One is physically of course, in that we cannot endure or dwell in His presence without being quickened (including transfigured, translated or resurrected) to the requisite degree of glory. The other is spiritually (“little children are alive in Christ”), which is one’s qualification or eligibility to be quickened in the flesh and see God in the flesh, even if that doesn’t happen every day. In other words, through righteousness and the merits of Christ, we mortals can be in the presence of God spiritually before being in His presence naturally/physically. The curse of not being His presence spiritually (or of not being eligible to be quickened physically) is a consequence of sin, which Jesus never fell under. P.S. So the banishment for us at this point in our development takes place when we sin in mortality. For the "third part," it took place before that. Jesus, never having sinned, was never banished. Edited February 16, 2014 by CV75
JLHPROF Posted February 16, 2014 Posted February 16, 2014 It has to do with how we needed our Father to send someone whose Father was not Adam, as our Savior's father was not Adam. I can think of a few GA's in the 1800s who would disagree with your opinion.
Ahab Posted February 16, 2014 Posted February 16, 2014 I can think of a few GA's in the 1800s who would disagree with your opinion.I doubt that. I think the most you can do is think of a few GA's in the 1800's who you think would disagree with my opinion.
Damien the Leper Posted February 16, 2014 Posted February 16, 2014 (edited) Jesus is completely God and completely man. He is begotten and not made as the Arian heresy would suggest. We are created beings forever subject to God's always existing sovereignty. Edited February 16, 2014 by Valentinus
Ahab Posted February 16, 2014 Posted February 16, 2014 (edited) Not trying to be obtuse here but... If man was banished from the presence of God, was this in pre-mortal life? Or mortal life?It seems that if we were in the presence of God in pre-mortal life, then we had not transgressed or sinned either, it is not until we were born and lived in mortality for a while that we have the opportunity to transgress/sin, same as Jesus...(except for the whole being fore-ordained as being Savior of the world and all - and I don't mean to trivialize that).All of us, except Jesus, came here through Adam (and Eve), though, and it is because we came through Adam that we are (or were) subject to the same curse of Adam. And it is because the Father of Jesus was not Adam that Jesus was not under the same curse as Adam. So the crux of the issue has everything to do with who is the Father of Jesus, and less to do with who is his Mother.I do believe that Jesus being forsaken on the cross by the Father was part of trodding the same path as us, to experience it first hand - voluntarily of course as He was sinless.Yes but if his Father had been Adam, instead of the Father of Adam, the life of Jesus would not have freed us from the curse of Adam because Jesus would have been subject to the same curse of Adam that all the rest of us were subject to and someone else would be necessary who would be qualified to be our Savior.The only reason Jesus qualified as our Savior was because he was not under the same curse as Adam, and that was because Adam was not his father. And while it is true that Mary was his mother, and she was a child (descendent) of Adam and Eve, the paternal side (Father) of Jesus made up for what Jesus would have lacked if his Father had been Adam. Edited February 16, 2014 by Ahab
Flyonthewall Posted February 17, 2014 Author Posted February 17, 2014 Since I taught the lesson in HP today, I brought it up...What is this curse it is talking about. One person put it forward that the curse was mortality... Even though Jesus could die, He didn't have to. His life was His to lay down and take it up of His own power... which would fit the bill of something we were subject to but He was not. Though I do not think of mortality as a curse since it was integral to the Plan of Salvation. I suppose this was a case of mashing together quotes from different sources that cause confusion due to the language used. If someone has access to Elijah the Prophet and His Mission and Salvation Universal," pp 79–80, could you please chime in with what it refers to as the "curse".
BCSpace Posted February 17, 2014 Posted February 17, 2014 But Adam, in breaking the law, himself became subject to the curse, and being under the curse could not atone, or undo what he had done. Neither could his children, for they also were under the curse, and it required one who was not subject to the curse to atone for that original sin. Moreover, since we were all under the curse, we were also powerless to atone for our individual sins. Maybe, I am off on what the "curse" is, but if Jesus was not subject to the curse, why? Wasn't He born of woman, someone that was subject to the curse?If we are born sinless, why are we subject to the curse and He is not? and if He is not subject to the curse, what did He overcome? I don't think I like the terminology used, 'curse', to describe our fallen nature. But look at the entire context: It is most natural and just that he who commits the wrong should pay the penalty—atone for his wrongdoing. Therefore, when Adam was the transgressor of the law, justice demanded that he, and none else, should answer for the sin and pay the penalty with his life. But Adam, in breaking the law, himself became subject to the curse, and being under the curse could not atone, or undo what he had done. Neither could his children, for they also were under the curse, and it required one who was not subject to the curse to atone for that original sin. Moreover, since we were all under the curse, we were also powerless to atone for our individual sins. It therefore became necessary for the Father to send his Only Begotten Son, who was free from sin, to atone for our sins as well as for Adam’s transgression, which justice demanded should be done. He accordingly offered himself a sacrifice for sins, and through his death upon the cross took upon himself both Adam’s transgression and our individual sins, thereby redeeming us from the fall, and from our sins, on condition of repentance.10 http://www.lds.org/manual/print/teachings-of-presidents-of-the-church-joseph-fielding-smith/chapter-3-the-plan-of-salvation?lang=eng So I'm thinking it merely means that because he was sinless he had not fallen spiritually and therefore was qualified to offer himself as the required sacrifice. Recall Alma 7:11-12 that he suffered pains, afflictions, and temptations of every kind and yet did not succumb to them.
Storm Rider Posted February 17, 2014 Posted February 17, 2014 Too often I think we focus too much on the "Jesus is our brother" concept and not enough Jesus is a member of the Godhead concept. Jesus went through mortality, but did it perfectly and never succumbing to the temptations of this mortal existence. More importantly, he never ceased to be a member of the Godhead by coming to earth. He remained a God, but constantly chose to not use his powers while overcoming the world.
CV75 Posted February 17, 2014 Posted February 17, 2014 Since I taught the lesson in HP today, I brought it up...What is this curse it is talking about. One person put it forward that the curse was mortality... Even though Jesus could die, He didn't have to. His life was His to lay down and take it up of His own power... which would fit the bill of something we were subject to but He was not. Though I do not think of mortality as a curse since it was integral to the Plan of Salvation. I suppose this was a case of mashing together quotes from different sources that cause confusion due to the language used. If someone has access to Elijah the Prophet and His Mission and Salvation Universal," pp 79–80, could you please chime in with what it refers to as the "curse".Here's how I see it: The curse of mortality isn't mortality itself but the irreversible physical death tht follows, since we lack the power to be immortal or live again -- hence the need for the Savior, even little children who are "alive in Christ." The curse of spiritual death is separation / banishment from God which everyone that hasn't attained "the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ" is bound to suffer without the Savior's Atonement.
Recommended Posts