Mosiah 15: 1-5

[RevTestament]

17 hours ago, LittleNipper said:

GOD cannot sin.. Free will applies only to beings GOD created. GOD is light and love.

Then why did Jesus believe He must be tempted by Satan?

Heb 1:9 Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.

Yeshua was chosen and anointed because He chose the right. To exercise choice one is exercising free agency by definition.

[pogi]

7 hours ago, LittleNipper said:

GOD is HIS will. 

What does that even mean? You are basically saying that he is nothing more than an algorithm.

7 hours ago, LittleNipper said:

GOD simply will never do anything abhorrent to HIS character/nature. 

I agree, because that is His choice.  If he is stripped of agency and is simply forced to be good, without the ability to choose goodness in and of himself, then that cheapens his goodness and dilutes his Godhood into something that more resembles a machine or an algorithm.  How is that worthy of my worship?  I don't worship objects, rather, He is the subject of my worship.  What makes God great is his choice to be good and his choice to love me.  If he is forced to love me, then that is cheap love and doesn't mean very much to me.  

[Robert F. Smith]

5 hours ago, snowflake said:

Good point Robert, "demons" are not mentioned in the KJV.  Ok, I like being specific, they (demons) are referred to as devils, unclean spirits in the KJV. Take Matthew 4 for example.

 

²⁴ And his fame went throughout all Syria: and they brought unto him all sick people that were taken with divers diseases and torments, and those which were possessed with devils, and those which were lunatick, and those that had the palsy; and he healed them.

 

Are these devils and unclean spirits human?

Are they real, or are they psychological delusions?  We treat such people today as psychologically deluded and Schizophrenic.  Are lunatics people possessed by devils?  Or is that the way people explained mental illness in premodern times?

[LittleNipper]

6 hours ago, RevTestament said:

Satan is a spirit. Spirits are not created. If so, they would all come to this earth as beings.

Where does it say in the Bible that Satan is a spirit? If spirits are invisible and GOD created everything both visible and invisible through Jesus, why would you imagine GOD didn't create something?

How you are fallen from heaven,
    O Day Star, son of Dawn!
How you are cut down to the ground,
    you who laid the nations low!
You said in your heart,
    “I will ascend to heaven;
above the stars of God
    I will set my throne on high;
I will sit on the mount of assembly
    in the far reaches of the north;
I will ascend above the heights of the clouds;
    I will make myself like the Most High.”
But you are brought down to Sheol,
    to the far reaches of the pit. (Isaiah 14:12-15)

Edited July 28, 2017 by LittleNipper

[LittleNipper]

4 hours ago, pogi said:

What does that even mean? You are basically saying that he is nothing more than an algorithm.

I agree, because that is His choice.  If he is stripped of agency and is simply forced to be good, without the ability to choose goodness in and of himself, then that cheapens his goodness and dilutes his Godhood into something that more resembles a machine or an algorithm.  How is that worthy of my worship?  I don't worship objects, rather, He is the subject of my worship.  What makes God great is his choice to be good and his choice to love me.  If he is forced to love me, then that is cheap love and doesn't mean very much to me.  

What I'm saying is that GOD does whatever HE wants, but all that HE wants to do is perfect and out of love. God is worth of our worship because we were created by Him. God's nature is goodness.

[RevTestament]

2 hours ago, LittleNipper said:

Where does it say in the Bible that Satan is a spirit? If spirits are invisible and GOD created everything both visible and invisible through Jesus, why would you imagine GOD didn't create something?

How you are fallen from heaven,
    O Day Star, son of Dawn!
How you are cut down to the ground,
    you who laid the nations low!
You said in your heart,
    “I will ascend to heaven;
above the stars of God
    I will set my throne on high;
I will sit on the mount of assembly
    in the far reaches of the north;
I will ascend above the heights of the clouds;
    I will make myself like the Most High.”
But you are brought down to Sheol,
    to the far reaches of the pit. (Isaiah 14:12-15)

As that passage indictates, Satan was once a morning star.

Job 38:7 When the morning stars ^asang together, and all the ^bsons of God shouted for ^cjoy?

But somewhere along the line Satan refused to sing the song, but rebelled. He was a very powerful spirit, but does not have the power of God, as he rebelled against God's priesthood. Thus he fell and became Satan, the father of lies. To become a morning star, Satan had to be a spirit. But just like the other spirits Yeshua banished from people, they refused to follow God's plan on an earth so remain demons or wicked spirits who try to lead man astray. If spirits were created when God creates our bodies, there would have been no evil spirits for Yeshua to kick out of men, would there? But these evil spirits are a proof that our spirits preexist our bodies.

Ecclesiastes 12:7  Then shall the ^adust return to the earth as it was: and the ^bspirit shall return unto God who ^cgave it.

Notice that this passage does not say the spirit shall return to God who created it. Adam's body was made from dust, but had no life. Life came when God breathed his spirit into him. Thus, the body is a creation which returns to dust, but the spirit is not.

Abraham 3:18 Howbeit that he made the greater star; as, also, if there be two spirits, and one shall be more intelligent than the other, yet these two spirits, notwithstanding one is more intelligent than the other, have no beginning; they existed before, they shall have no end, they shall exist after, for they are gnolaum, or eternal.

19 And the Lord said unto me: These two facts do exist, that there are two spirits, one being more intelligent than the other; there shall be another more intelligent than they; I am the Lord thy God, I am more intelligent than they all.

See also the King Follett sermon. Spirits are eternal - they existed before, and will exist after.

[Jane_Doe]

2 hours ago, LittleNipper said:

What I'm saying is that GOD does whatever HE wants, but all that HE wants to do is perfect and out of love. God is worth of our worship because we were created by Him. God's nature is goodness.

Do you believe God has free will to choose to love?  Or do you believe he does not have free will?

From your earlier posts I got the impression that you don't believe God has free will, but I want to be sure as to not misunderstand. 

Edited July 28, 2017 by Jane_Doe

[MiserereNobis]

On 7/26/2017 at 5:36 PM, USU78 said:

And one finds this in scripture  ...  where exactly?

Mormons aren't sola scriptura, so Mormons attacking a beliefs that are not found in the Bible is a bit disingenuous.

On 7/27/2017 at 7:45 AM, USU78 said:

Just keeps reciting his catechism whilst fiddling with his rosary.

C'mon man, don't disrespect other religions' spiritual practices. I imagine you wouldn't like it much if someone treated your spiritual practices that way, right?

[USU78]

On 7/28/2017 at 7:53 AM, MiserereNobis said:

Mormons aren't sola scriptura, so Mormons attacking a beliefs that are not found in the Bible is a bit disingenuous.

C'mon man, don't disrespect other religions' spiritual practices. I imagine you wouldn't like it much if someone treated your spiritual practices that way, right?

Jerkin' the sola scriptura/sola fid's chain ... My apologies that this causes you pain. Forgive a silly jerk.

poster removed

[MiserereNobis]

5 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Jerkin' the sola scriptura/sola fid's chain ... My apologies that this causes you pain. Forgive a silly jerk.

Yeah, it's good to point out the irony of sola scriptura. And I was probably being too sensitive. It's the liberal snowflake in me 

[USU78]

22 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Yeah, it's good to point out the irony of sola scriptura. And I was probably being too sensitive. It's the liberal snowflake in me 

You weren't wrong to point it out. 

[cdowis]

On 7/25/2017 at 11:11 AM, snowflake said:

Yes I understand that the children of God are gods in embryo, but the church teaches that Jesus was the firstborn offspring spirit child of Heavenly Father and Mother no? How can he be God before the world was and a spirit offspring?

May I suggest that you read and study the Bible.  It is truly remarkable how it can answer such questions.

Heb 1 [1] God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
[2] Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;

Edited August 1, 2017 by cdowis

[Bobbieaware]

4 minutes ago, cdowis said:

It is truly remarkable how the Bible answers such questions.

Heb 1 [1] God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
[2] Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;

So the point is how can someone be appointed to hold a position that he has always held?

[cdowis]

11 hours ago, Bobbieaware said:

So the point is how can someone be appointed to hold a position that he has always held?

Can you give me that reference.

[LittleNipper]

On 7/27/2017 at 11:24 PM, Jane_Doe said:

Do you believe God has free will to choose to love?  Or do you believe he does not have free will?

From your earlier posts I got the impression that you don't believe God has free will, but I want to be sure as to not misunderstand. 

I believe GOD is unchanging. In that regard I I do not see Him changing His mind. True, GOD was going to destroy the evil city of Nineveh. But it seems His intent was to warn it first and also teach Jonah a lesson. The people of the city changed and not GOD's intentions.  And it could be honestly noted that Nineveh is no more. So eventually it was destroyed for backsliding. 

Free will has to do with individuals as creations of GOD  being allowed to either accept GOD or reject HIM. GOD cannot either accept or reject Himself. God is (I AM). God is not part of the creation but the CREATOR of it. It is like the author of a book. GOD knows the outcome before it happens. GOD is not in fact human. Christ assumed a human form and lived among man and can be sympathetic to our fallen nature but Jesus is still God in the truest sense. He could heal, create, raise the dead, control nature, and assume the penalty of sin to be the Savior. Jesus was very much a man but also very much God. However, there are still 2/3's of the Godhead being forever exactly as they are. And Jesus demonstrated that He was committed to sticking with the Father's plan with was conceived from the beginning.

Edited August 6, 2017 by LittleNipper

[Jane_Doe]

39 minutes ago, LittleNipper said:

I believe GOD is unchanging. In that regard I I do not see Him changing His mind. True, GOD was going to destroy the evil city of Nineveh. But it seems His intent was to warn it first and also teach Jonah a lesson. The people of the city changed and not GOD's intentions.  And it could be honestly noted that Nineveh is no more. So eventually it was destroyed for backsliding. 

Free will has to do with individuals as creations of GOD  being allowed to either accept GOD or reject HIM. GOD cannot either accept or reject Himself. God is (I AM). God is not part of the creation but the CREATOR of it. It is like the author of a book. GOD knows the outcome before it happens. GOD is not in fact human. Christ assumed a human form and lived among man and can be sympathetic to our fallen nature but Jesus is still God in the truest sense. He could heal, create, raise the dead, control nature, and assume the penalty of sin to be the Savior. Jesus was very much a man but also very much God. However, there are still 2/3's of the Godhead being forever exactly as they are. And Jesus demonstrated that He was committed to sticking with the Father's plan with was conceived from the beginning.

So you don't believe God has any free will.   He is forced to do everything He does.  Logical conclusion: He didn't choose to send Christ- He was forced to do it.  He didn't choose to love me- but was/is forced to do so.  He doesn't choose to do any good, but is forever forced to do so.  He's nothing more than a programmed robot.

Why in the world would I (or anyone else) ever consider such a robot to be worthy of admiration, let alone worship?

[LittleNipper]

On 8/6/2017 at 9:46 AM, Jane_Doe said:

So you don't believe God has any free will.   He is forced to do everything He does.  Logical conclusion: He didn't choose to send Christ- He was forced to do it.  He didn't choose to love me- but was/is forced to do so.  He doesn't choose to do any good, but is forever forced to do so.  He's nothing more than a programmed robot.

Why in the world would I (or anyone else) ever consider such a robot to be worthy of admiration, let alone worship?

You don't comprehend GOD. Perfection cannot be improved upon. And Jesus --- as part of the Trinity (Godhead), did what He did because there was no other possible way to save the lost. That alone is worthy of praise.

Edited August 10, 2017 by LittleNipper

[Jane_Doe]

1 hour ago, LittleNipper said:

You don't comprehend GOD. 

I am trying to understand your belief system, and you respond with a personal attack of "you don't comprehend God"?

???

1 hour ago, LittleNipper said:

 And Jesus as part of the Trinity (Godhead) did what He did because there was no other possible way to save the lost. That alone is worth of praise.

I'm going to answer you a simple question.  Please give me as simple and direct answer, A or B.  Please don't respond with a lengthy paragraph because those are failing to answer my question.

In your theology did Christ (A) choose to die and save mankind (of His own free will), or (B) was he forced (lacking free will)?  

Again, please just directly respond A or B.

[LittleNipper]

4 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

I am trying to understand your belief system, and you respond with a personal attack of "you don't comprehend God"?

???

I'm going to answer you a simple question.  Please give me as simple and direct answer, A or B.  Please don't respond with a lengthy paragraph because those are failing to answer my question.

In your theology did Christ (A) choose to die and save mankind (of His own free will), or (B) was he forced (lacking free will)?  

Again, please just directly respond A or B.

You don't like my answer. I was not attacking you. I pointed out the weakness of your logic. I cannot give you an either/or sort of answer. Clearly according to my beliefs (as the Holy Spirit enlightens me through the Bible) GOD chose to create this Universe. Clearly GOD had/has a plan; however, once that plan was set into motion -- clearly GOD was not winging it. The Trinity is GOD in total. They were/are in total perfect agreement. The Father was not forcing the Son and the Son was not forcing the Holy Spirit. They clearly are in complete harmony and originated a perfect plan that needed the cooperation of all three persons of the Godhead to achieve the goal they together always intended.

Now in the case of Jesus, when Satan said to worship him and everything would be given to Jesus ----Jesus said, "You shall not tempt the Lord your God." Now if Jesus (being God) could not be tempted by Satan clearly Jesus demonstrated His perfection of character. GOD's will is always the best solution and so His choices are only limited to what He deems the very best. This most certainly doesn't make Him a robot or inferior by an stretch of the imagination. 

The point I'm making is that GOD is not answerable to any other supreme being, because there is no other supreme being that ever existed (I don't believe Mormons accept this --- which maybe hindering your understanding). Any choices HE made were HIS plan from the beginning and in full agreement with every person of the Godhead --- Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Everything they accomplished was out of love bringing glory to GOD.

SO, if you really desire to understand "my" theology, you need to realize that neither A or B fits the bill...

[Jane_Doe]

43 minutes ago, LittleNipper said:

 Clearly according to my beliefs (as the Holy Spirit enlightens me through the Bible) GOD chose to create this Universe. Clearly GOD had/has a plan; however, once that plan was set into motion -- clearly GOD was not winging it. The Trinity is GOD in total. They were/are in total perfect agreement. The Father was not forcing the Son and the Son was not forcing the Holy Spirit. 

So in your theology God DOES have free will.

How do you view answer A not being correct?

[LittleNipper]

7 hours ago, Jane_Doe said:

So in your theology God DOES have free will.

How do you view answer A not being correct?

Because GOD is unchanging, He never changes.

[Benjamin McGuire]

I know I am a little late to this discussion (I don't stop by this forum very often). But I really like Mosiah 15. It has a very significant doctrinal message that we sometimes lose sight of because of the language that is used to make it. Early on, Gray noted this - "The theology is pretty weird, it doesn't match LDS theology, it doesn't fit with the trinity." I think that the language is part of the struggle because at least in 1829, there is no Mormonism, and there is no LDS theology (because Mormonism doesn't really exist yet), and so there isn't any sort of unique LDS terminology like we have today to try and develop the theology that is in here.

1 And now Abinadi said unto them: I would that ye should understand that God himself shall come down among the children of men, and shall redeem his people.
2 And because he dwelleth in flesh he shall be called the Son of God, and having subjected the flesh to the will of the Father, being the Father and the Son—
3 The Father, because he was conceived by the power of God; and the Son, because of the flesh; thus becoming the Father and Son—
4 And they are one God, yea, the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth.
5 And thus the flesh becoming subject to the Spirit, or the Son to the Father, being one God, suffereth temptation, and yieldeth not to the temptation, but suffereth himself to be mocked, and scourged, and cast out, and disowned by his people.
6 And after all this, after working many mighty miracles among the children of men, he shall be led, yea, even as Isaiah said, as a sheep before the shearer is dumb, so he opened not his mouth.
7 Yea, even so he shall be led, crucified, and slain, the flesh becoming subject even unto death, the will of the Son being swallowed up in the will of the Father.
8 And thus God breaketh the bands of death, having gained the victory over death; giving the Son power to make intercession for the children of men—

So Abinadi is very interested in this issue of atonement - what it means for God to atone for us, what it means for God to become a man like us, and so on. These are all the same sorts of questions that early Christianity asks as well. And so I like to compare Abinadi's statements here to an early Christian document which is called the Statement of Faith produced at the Council of Chalcedon. This was a really important development for Christian theology, because it established the idea that Jesus had two essential natures. And this was the statement that they produced:

"So, following the saintly fathers, we all with one voice teach the confession of one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ: the same perfect in divinity and perfect in humanity, the same truly God and truly man, of a rational soul and a body; consubstantial with the Father as regards his divinity, and the same consubstantial with us as regards his humanity; like us in all respects except for sin; begotten before the ages from the Father as regards his divinity, and in the last days the same for us and for our salvation from Mary, the virgin God-bearer as regards his humanity; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, only-begotten, acknowledged in two natures which undergo no confusion, no change, no division, no separation; at no point was the difference between the natures taken away through the union, but rather the property of both natures is preserved and comes together into a single person and a single subsistent being; he is not parted or divided into two persons, but is one and the same only-begotten Son, God, Word, Lord Jesus Christ, just as the prophets taught from the beginning about him, and as the Lord Jesus Christ himself instructed us, and as the creed of the fathers handed it down to us."

One person, with two natures. Our problem in reading Mosiah 15 is that we often make this assumption (because of the language) that by "Father" and "Son" we refer to our own idea of the Godhead - God the Father and God the Son. Mosiah on the other hand, seems to me to be trying to describe this dual nature of the Messiah. And without the advantage of early Christians with the New Testament and all that it has to say, he is Abinadi is trying to do this in that Old Testament context. And I see this very clearly if I take these two terms adopted at Chalcedon - the idea of "true man" and "true God" and substitute them back into Mosiah 15 - so that everywhere it says "son", I will use "true man", and everywhere it says "father", I will use "true God". So I get this:

1 And now Abinadi said unto them: I would that ye should understand that God himself shall come down among the children of men, and shall redeem his people.
2 And because he dwelleth in flesh he shall be called the Son of God, and having subjected the flesh to the will of the eternal God, being truly God and truly man
3 Truly God, because he was conceived by the power of God; and truly man, because of the flesh; thus becoming true God and true man
4 And they are one God, yea, the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth.
5 And thus the flesh becoming subject to the Spirit, or the true man to the true God, being one God, suffereth temptation, and yieldeth not to the temptation, but suffereth himself to be mocked, and scourged, and cast out, and disowned by his people.
6 And after all this, after working many mighty miracles among the children of men, he shall be led, yea, even as Isaiah said, as a sheep before the shearer is dumb, so he opened not his mouth.
7 Yea, even so he shall be led, crucified, and slain, the flesh becoming subject even unto death, the will of the true man being swallowed up in the will of the true God.
8 And thus God breaketh the bands of death, having gained the victory over death; giving the true man power to make intercession for the children of men
 

In this way, I think that this passage in Mosiah is best understood. Abinadi explains what he means when he says that God would come down among the children of men (not as God so to speak, but as one of us). And how he would redeem mankind. And then what comes out of it is something very relevant to our modern LDS theology. We can speak of how Jesus is both God and man, but it is the humanity in Him – His mortality - that allows him to make intercession for us. Without that mortal nature, he could not atone for us. A God who is truly God in every way cannot really suffer in the same sense that we suffer (was the suffering in the garden and on the cross merely for show?). We might ask (as the early Christians did) could God in every sense really be tempted? This is an issue that we deal with in the New Testament as well - and part of the thought that drives the theology behind the statement from Chalcedon). In this sense, this idea of Jesus being a man like us is quite at home in LDS theology, even if we have modern revelation that adds to what Abinadi teaches.

Read this way, the passage makes some sense in the context of the larger dialogue that Abinadi is having over the nature of God and atonement. This certainly isn't modalism (even if it's language creates this sense that it could be). And while there is quite a bit of difference between traditional trinitarian views and Mormon theology in this context, much of that disagreement revolves around the LDS notion of pre-existence and that idea that Jesus can pre-exist in his humanity (just as we do) and not just in his divinity. But that is a different discussion (and isn't really explored here by Mosiah).

[Atheist Mormon]

On 7/25/2017 at 10:00 AM, snowflake said:

My question is: How can Jesus be our created spiritual brother if he is "God himself come down among us"?

In that realm of reality everything is possible.

[Jane_Doe]

3 hours ago, LittleNipper said:

Because GOD is unchanging, He never changes.

I'm asking whether or not you believe God (or Christ specifically) can choose.  You agree that He does.  I don't see why you keep bringing this point up, as we both obviously agree on it. 

[LittleNipper]

6 hours ago, Jane_Doe said:

I'm asking whether or not you believe God (or Christ specifically) can choose.  You agree that He does.  I don't see why you keep bringing this point up, as we both obviously agree on it. 

GOD made a choice. My belief is that the future has already (in the mind of God) been predetermined.

Edited August 9, 2017 by LittleNipper