The Priesthood and sin stains

[theplains]

I had some questions on this October 2017 GC talk.

"Because of His atoning sacrifice, Jesus Christ has the power and authority to redeem all mankind. To make
His atoning power accessible, He has delegated a portion of His power and authority to men on earth. This
delegated power and authority is called priesthood."

What LDS scriptures show God did not delegate any power or authority directly to women?

"We become stained by sin and cannot be allowed back to live in God’s presence."

What sin stained Adam and Eve so they could not be allowed back into God's presence?

Thanks,
Jim

Edited December 16, 2017 by theplains
grammar

[Duncan]

1 minute ago, theplains said:

I had some questions on this October 2017 GC talk.

"Because of His atoning sacrifice, Jesus Christ has the power and authority to redeem all mankind. To make
His atoning power accessible, He has delegated a portion of His power and authority to men on earth. This
delegated power and authority is called priesthood."

What LDS scriptures show God did not delegate any power or authority directly to women.

"We become stained by sin and cannot be allowed back to live in God’s presence."

What sin stained Adam and Eve so they could not be allowed back into God's presence?

Thanks,
Jim

they ate the fruit when they were told not to and then they tried to hide and cover up their nudididty with fig leaves which shrink over time exposing the situation

[RevTestament]

2 hours ago, theplains said:

I had some questions on this October 2017 GC talk.

"Because of His atoning sacrifice, Jesus Christ has the power and authority to redeem all mankind. To make
His atoning power accessible, He has delegated a portion of His power and authority to men on earth. This
delegated power and authority is called priesthood."

What LDS scriptures show God did not delegate any power or authority directly to women?

In scripture women represent the nurturing role of the Church. They teach us and bring us up to adulthood. Priesthood men are given the role of Christ - to leave the home and teach of Him to the world - walking in his shoes when need be. I am not saying that the two sexes don't help one another in their gospel roles, but it is a general trend in the scriptures, that the women stayed home and raised their families. To some extent modern society has attempted to destroy those roles. I gave my wife the primary responsibility of raising our family. She breast fed them as infants and stayed home to prepare their meals, and to be there when they came home from school, etc. I provided the money for food, a roof, and the basic traditional trappings, but helped when I was home. When the kids got older, and no longer needed a baby sitter, she went to work, and now she earns more than me as well as providing our insurance. So the roles are not like cut in stone, but they worked well for us, and I believe we had a happy home, and hopefully still do. Why has the Lord always had a patriarchal society? I have to say I really don't know, but it is not because women are inferior in any way. In many ways I regard women as superior. Nevertheless, the priesthood has always been a patriarchal society, and apparently always will. Have you developed some kind of issue with the Bible? It's LDS scripture too ya'know.

Quote

"We become stained by sin and cannot be allowed back to live in God’s presence."

What sin stained Adam and Eve so they could not be allowed back into God's presence?

Thanks,
Jim

The story of the forbidden fruit allegorically represents God's introducing His law to man at the beginning of the first seal. God gave man no-no's and man became sinners when they broke them. In this way man came to know the bad and the good like YHWH Elohim had - this is YHWH Elohim class 101. Gen 3:22. It was man's chance to follow in God's footsteps and to be able to gain eternal life represented in the tree of life in the Garden. This is the introduction of the gospel into the world - the tree of life representing the word of God, and bringing mankind back into God's presence in its various branches of life. Thus, we see the gospel plan tied up in a nutshell from the very beginning in the garden of Eden story. Orthodoxy has turned that into the original stain of sin for all mankind with a certain blame placed on Adam and Eve, when in reality if they had not introduced the law of God into the world, there would be no reason for any of us to be here, and we could just live happily with God in the heavens forevermore. That does not allow God to search for a godly seed nor to teach spirits to be better. Thus, there would be no way for man to gain eternal life with Him. We are not being punished for Adam and Eve's sin - God teaches that the sons and daughters shall not bear the responsibility/punishment of their fathers' sins. Thus, babies are not born in sin and are innocent until they commit sin which in God's law requires knowledge and intent. In a sense baptizing babies is like an old man "marrying" an eight-year old. Babies cannot be forced to accept Christ, and cannot be spiritually reborn, because their spirits cannot form the requisite intent necessary for that commitment. Well, I'm getting off topic here, but these types of issues stem from a misinterpretation of the teachings of Adam. LDS babies can be born into the covenant like Jewish babies were circumcised, but to be reborn in Yeshua, required requisite intent, and is not something thrust on us by Adam. We became stained by sin because the law entered the world, and we lived it imperfectly. As Paul says, the law came, and I died. If Adam and Eve remained sinless, the next man would have sinned. We are stained because of the law rather than because of any particular sin of Adam. Man really needs to get past that hangup. 

[SamIam]

3 hours ago, theplains said:

I had some questions on this October 2017 GC talk.

"Because of His atoning sacrifice, Jesus Christ has the power and authority to redeem all mankind. To make
His atoning power accessible, He has delegated a portion of His power and authority to men on earth. This
delegated power and authority is called priesthood."

What LDS scriptures show God did not delegate any power or authority directly to women?

"We become stained by sin and cannot be allowed back to live in God’s presence."

What sin stained Adam and Eve so they could not be allowed back into God's presence?

Thanks,
Jim

I'll provide two sources to think on as to what was the sin committed by Adam and Eve.

This first is from the Targum Pseudo Jonathon.  This is important as it might for some provide a paradigm shift which will be needed to grasp the second source:

Quote

And the Lord God commanded Adam, saying, Of every tree of the garden eating thou mayest eat. But of the tree of whose fruit they who eat (become) wise to know between good and evil, thou shalt not eat: for in the day that thou eatest thou wilt be guilty of death.(*Targum pseudo Jonathon)

Keeping in mind that the judgement of the Garden of Eden was a death sentence for Adam and Eve, only spiritual death immediate, and temporal death delayed.  God does not pick a sentence out of a hat - it has to fit the crime.

Second source:

Quote

 

Alma 5:2, 22-23, 28-29,31-33, 35, 41

2 And these are the words which he spake to the people in the church which was established in the city of Zarahemla

18 Or otherwise, can ye imagine yourselves brought before the tribunal of God with your souls filled with guilt and remorse, having a remembrance of all your guilt, yea, a perfect remembrance of all your wickedness, yea, a remembrance that ye have set at defiance the commandments of God?

22 And now I ask of you, my brethren, how will any of you feel, if ye shall stand before the bar of God, having your garments stained with blood and all manner of filthiness? Behold, what will these things testify against you?

23 Behold will they not testify that ye are murderers, yea, and also that ye are guilty of all manner of wickedness?

28 Behold, are ye stripped of pride?

29 Behold, I say, is there one among you who is not stripped of envy?

31 Wo unto such an one, for he is not prepared

32 Yea, even wo unto all ye workers of iniquity; repent, repent,

33 Behold, he sendeth an invitation unto all men, for the arms of mercy are extended towards them, and he saith: Repent, and I will receive you.

35 Yea, come unto me and bring forth works of righteousness, and ye shall not be hewn down and cast into the fire—

41 Therefore, if a man bringeth forth good works he hearkeneth unto the voice of the good shepherd, and he doth follow him; but whosoever bringeth forth evil works, the same becometh a child of the devil, for he hearkeneth unto his voice, and doth follow him.

 

 

The essence of these verses as it applies to the concept referenced in Pseudo Jonathon is that Alma is describing to members of the church transgressions of the members that will warrant them receiving the wages of death.  Yet the sins defined in Alma 5, pride, envy, materialism, mockery, would not traditionally warrant the penalty of death as the appropriate judgment in the courts of man. Murder is the transgression that scripturally warrants a sure penalty of death.  Yet, ostensibly, none of the aforementioned are murderers as pride, envy, mockery and so forth are not in and of themselves murderous acts.  In fact verse 18 sets the charge as being disobedient to the commandments of God.  So the question is, in what way does being disobedient to the commandments make one a murderer? Whose blood is on their garments that they are being held accountable too if they have not committed actual murder?

The commentary provided by Pseudo Jonathon puts it clearly, that the moment that man sins there is only one way to redeem them – innocent blood must be spilled.  Since all are subject to the innocent blood spilt in their behalf and it is only a charge of sin that rests upon all men we find that the acts of pride, envy, mockery are acts of culpability.  Christ has defined an entirely different set of behaviors that he expects of those that seek his exoneration.  They must be charitable, humble, and full of love for their fellow man to gain his advocacy.  Thus those of bad behavior in the least cast their lots with the apathetic who care little, if at all for the life of the Savior.  Thus, these earn a place in a lower kingdom than those who valiantly seek to sustain and magnify his life in their countenances.  Thoughts?

[Bobbieaware]

4 hours ago, theplains said:

I had some questions on this October 2017 GC talk.

"Because of His atoning sacrifice, Jesus Christ has the power and authority to redeem all mankind. To make
His atoning power accessible, He has delegated a portion of His power and authority to men on earth. This
delegated power and authority is called priesthood."

What LDS scriptures show God did not delegate any power or authority directly to women?

"We become stained by sin and cannot be allowed back to live in God’s presence."

What sin stained Adam and Eve so they could not be allowed back into God's presence?

Thanks,
Jim

22 Now Alma said unto him: This is the thing which I was about to explain. Now we see that Adam did fall by the partaking of the forbidden fruit, according to the word of God; and thus we see, that by his fall, all mankind became a lost and fallen people. (Alma 12)

[MiserereNobis]

2 hours ago, RevTestament said:

when in reality if they had not introduced the law of God into the world, there would be no reason for any of us to be here, and we could just live happily with God in the heavens forevermore.

In Catholicism, the original reason for us to be here was for humans to live in paradise forever. Sounds lovely.

2 hours ago, RevTestament said:

In a sense baptizing babies is like an old man "marrying" an eight-year old. Babies cannot be forced to accept Christ, and cannot be spiritually reborn, because their spirits cannot form the requisite intent necessary for that commitment.

I know you don't accept infant baptism, but you are using a straw man here by not refuting the actual teachings of orthodox Christianity on baptism, but instead refuting your ideas about them. Of course infant baptism doesn't make sense in terms of the LDS understanding of baptism (and LDS theology), but the LDS understanding of baptism is not the orthodox Christian understanding.

For example, in Catholicism, no one thinks that the infant is making a commitment. The infant is being cleansed of original sin and the parents and Godparents are making the commitment to raise the child in Christ. The child's commitment comes during confirmation, which typically takes place during high school.

It's interesting that you use an 8 year old as your marriage example, because I've thought it's odd for Mormons to disparage infant baptism because of lack of choice on the baby's part, but then say that an 8 year old raised in a Mormon household somehow has a real choice to not get baptized.

At least confirmation takes place as a teenager, where they have a bit more autonomy over their choices than an 8 year old. I know quite a few families whose children have rejected confirmation because the child is no longer a believing Catholic, even though the parents still are. How many 8 year olds in active LDS homes have rejected baptism? I'd wager the number is practically 0, which throws a wrench into the idea that they are really free to choose.

Edited December 17, 2017 by MiserereNobis

[SamIam]

8 hours ago, Duncan said:

they ate the fruit when they were told not to and then they tried to hide and cover up their nudididty with fig leaves which shrink over time exposing the situation

This perspective is far too Newtonian for me...

[strappinglad]

I wonder if the hosts of heaven were watching Adam and Eve while they were in the garden and hoping for them to transgress so they could get on with the process. Or perhaps they were assured that eventually the fruit would be partaken of without transgressing , as has been hinted at. Would the outcome have been the same whichever way it came about?

 Is it true that they were unable to obey one commandment until they broke another? Oh , I forgot, it's all metaphorical anyway .

[Duncan]

1 hour ago, SamIam said:

This perspective is far too Newtonian for me...

When in England.....

[Robert F. Smith]

9 hours ago, Duncan said:

....................................... then they tried to hide and cover up their nudididty with fig leaves which shrink over time exposing the situation

"nudidity"?  And shrinking fig leaves?  

[Robert F. Smith]

8 minutes ago, strappinglad said:

I wonder if the hosts of heaven were watching Adam and Eve while they were in the garden and hoping for them to transgress so they could get on with the process. Or perhaps they were assured that eventually the fruit would be partaken of without transgressing , as has been hinted at. Would the outcome have been the same whichever way it came about?

 Is it true that they were unable to obey one commandment until they broke another? Oh , I forgot, it's all metaphorical anyway .

No, it's liturgical.

[Duncan]

3 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

"nudidity"?  And shrinking fig leaves?  

yeah, no clothes on and fig leaves shrink exposing you know, what really lies beneath, you can't lie to God and cover it up with something, that something will fade away and God sees all and knows all

[The Nehor]

9 hours ago, theplains said:

What LDS scriptures show God did not delegate any power or authority directly to women?

There are not any. God gave women (and men) many powers outside of the Priesthood.

9 hours ago, theplains said:

What sin stained Adam and Eve so they could not be allowed back into God's presence?

Their transgression in Eden. On top of that all the sins they committed afterwards. Christ atoned for those sins though so that ban no longer holds.

[Robert F. Smith]

24 minutes ago, Duncan said:

yeah, no clothes on and fig leaves shrink exposing you know, what really lies beneath, you can't lie to God and cover it up with something, that something will fade away and God sees all and knows all

But you do understand that it is all symbolic and liturgical.  Adam & Eve are engaged in a ritual act.  You might be overthinking it.

[Duncan]

8 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

But you do understand that it is all symbolic and liturgical.  Adam & Eve are engaged in a ritual act.  You might be overthinking it.

that's what i'm saying the fig leaf is symbolic of hiding but you can't hide or lie from or to God though

[RevTestament]

15 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

In Catholicism, the original reason for us to be here was for humans to live in paradise forever. Sounds lovely.

Well, that is kind of the idea of the Garden of Eden. It does sound lovely. So I guess, Catholics see man as messing up His plan? If so, why did God put a tree of the knowledge of good and evil in the garden? Does Catholicism have an idea that the Garden of Eden would expand to incorporate everyone who would live forever on earth? I've never read that, so I would imagine the thinking never progressed that far.

Quote

I know you don't accept infant baptism, but you are using a straw man here by not refuting the actual teachings of orthodox Christianity on baptism, but instead refuting your ideas about them. Of course infant baptism doesn't make sense in terms of the LDS understanding of baptism (and LDS theology), but the LDS understanding of baptism is not the orthodox Christian understanding.

For example, in Catholicism, no one thinks that the infant is making a commitment. The infant is being cleansed of original sin and the parents and Godparents are making the commitment to raise the child in Christ. The child's commitment comes during confirmation, which typically takes place during high school.

It's interesting that you use an 8 year old as your marriage example, because I've thought it's odd for Mormons to disparage infant baptism because of lack of choice on the baby's part, but then say that an 8 year old raised in a Mormon household somehow has a real choice to not get baptized.

At least confirmation takes place as a teenager, where they have a bit more autonomy over their choices than an 8 year old. I know quite a few families whose children have rejected confirmation because the child is no longer a believing Catholic, even though the parents still are. How many 8 year olds in active LDS homes have rejected baptism? I'd wager the number is practically 0, which throws a wrench into the idea that they are really free to choose.

Is the Catholic convert thought of as making a commitment to be baptized? Does Catholicism think a baby is being "reborn" in baptism? What sin do Catholics feel is being washed away in a baby baptism? The sin of Adam?

Do Mormon babies have a real choice to not be baptized? Yes, they do. Because they grow to a point in which they know to choose between the right and the wrong.

God recognizes this:

Isaiah 7:

14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

15 Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good.

16 For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings.

I have heard of cases where the child waited. We raised our children in the Church, and yes, they all definitely wanted to get baptized. I baptized them. They understood they were making a commitment to Jesus - to follow Him. I grew up Baptist - I understood that too when I got baptized. When I prayed afterward I felt clean and exhilarated. I remember it being my first real, close encounter with God. I was filled with joy. I know it was an "apostate" baptism, but Christ seemed to respond affirmatively to my prayer. Obviously, an infant is not capable of making that choice or having that experience of rebirth.

To LDS and Baptists an infant baptism is just not necessary - as I previously explained LDS just don't see the baby as capable of sinning because it doesn't know to refuse "evil", and if it dies, it would in a sense go right back from whence it came - a place we call paradise - a place where saved spirits await resurrection - like the crook on the cross was promised. No fear of sin - no need for a priest. 

Going back to my point about child marriage, there are many cases where the child doesn't want to get married, but is forced to anyway. I don't want to get into that culture, but it is still practiced today. The case of a Yemeni girl making a video about her despair in being "betrothed" made a bit of a viral scene. So we see a child can be capable of forming the requisite intent and commitment. By the same token youngsters of eight are fully capable understanding wrong and of forming the requisite intent to repent, and follow Jesus. I have personally never thought of baptism of washing my sin away. When I was baptized as a child, I didn't feel that until I got home and prayed for repentance. Having that experience cemented for me that that was the point of baptism. Similarly, in the LDS Church, the child is confirmed and promised the gift of the Holy Ghost to help the child learn the choices of right and wrong. This is the baptism of the spirit spoken of in the New Testament - being baptized with fire and of the Spirit. Again, an infant cannot make those choices. I see baptism as a choice to rise up out of the sea of the world and leave sin behind. However, Jesus was baptized in "living water" - water that was moving - which emphasized that He was that living water, and was promising it - water than never ran out. 

I do not want Catholics to feel I am attacking them, I just wish to explain the rationale for the LDS point of view. I believe I understand the rationale for the Catholic practice - what I will call the fear of original sin - if I am missing something, please feel free to explain it more. We just don't relate to that view - having no fear of torment in a purgatory or hell. Having a God-parent does seem like a nice gesture, but as a parent, I would have felt a little strange about making someone else responsible for raising my child. I really felt primarily responsible for teaching my children right and wrong, and took pains to explain to my children my own rationale and reasons for choosing this and that as they grew up, as did my wife. Consequently, our children became very adept at making adult choices at a young age, and I have received many comments from my extended family at how mature our children seemed to them. On the flip side in the event of our deaths, the thought of someone being committed to helping and guiding our children would be comforting. Nevertheless, in America, modern law and its idea of child custody seems to have supplanted some of the rationale for God-parents.

Edited December 17, 2017 by RevTestament

[Atheist Mormon]

21 hours ago, theplains said:

What LDS scriptures show God did not delegate any power or authority directly to women?

God was very busy that time and skipped female gender totally.....And today we desperately trying to make it up. But how can we change scriptures and make it equitable? Can't happen.

[Tacenda]

15 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

In Catholicism, the original reason for us to be here was for humans to live in paradise forever. Sounds lovely.

I know you don't accept infant baptism, but you are using a straw man here by not refuting the actual teachings of orthodox Christianity on baptism, but instead refuting your ideas about them. Of course infant baptism doesn't make sense in terms of the LDS understanding of baptism (and LDS theology), but the LDS understanding of baptism is not the orthodox Christian understanding.

For example, in Catholicism, no one thinks that the infant is making a commitment. The infant is being cleansed of original sin and the parents and Godparents are making the commitment to raise the child in Christ. The child's commitment comes during confirmation, which typically takes place during high school.

It's interesting that you use an 8 year old as your marriage example, because I've thought it's odd for Mormons to disparage infant baptism because of lack of choice on the baby's part, but then say that an 8 year old raised in a Mormon household somehow has a real choice to not get baptized.

At least confirmation takes place as a teenager, where they have a bit more autonomy over their choices than an 8 year old. I know quite a few families whose children have rejected confirmation because the child is no longer a believing Catholic, even though the parents still are. How many 8 year olds in active LDS homes have rejected baptism? I'd wager the number is practically 0, which throws a wrench into the idea that they are really free to choose.

Very good point!

[MiserereNobis]

31 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

Well, that is kind of the idea of the Garden of Eden. It does sound lovely. So I guess, Catholics see man as messing up His plan? If so, why did God put a tree of the knowledge of good and evil in the garden? Does Catholicism have an idea that the Garden of Eden would expand to incorporate everyone who would live forever on earth? I've never read that, so I would imagine the thinking never progressed that far.

We are able to read the story of the Garden of Eden as an allegory -- early Christian fathers did so (St. Augustine, for example) though that doesn't necessarily preclude a literal understanding as well. I see the specific ideas in the story as an allegory of the cosmos in general and me in particular. But in either case it teaches us about God's plan which was, in deed, for all of humanity to live in a state of paradise of communion with God that was free from death, pain, and disordered desires. We were/are made in the image of God, which means we have some of His attributes: rationality, beauty, community, and free will. Free will is what allowed Adam and Eve (us) to go against God's will and plan. So yes, we messed up His plan but that's because He gave us free will. And the original plan was to have humanity in a state of paradise forever.

48 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

Is the Catholic convert thought of as making a commitment to be baptized?

Often the adult convert is both baptized and confirmed at the same time. An infant obviously doesn't make the commitment.

53 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

Does Catholicism think a baby is being "reborn" in baptism? What sin do Catholics feel is being washed away in a baby baptism? The sin of Adam?

Baptism washes away original and actual (personal) sin. For babies, there is no actual sin so only original sin is washed away. For adults, both are cleansed. The removal of original sin does constitute a "rebirth" into the Christian life and into the mystical Body of Christ, i.e. the Church.

55 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

Do Mormon babies have a real choice to not be baptized? Yes, they do. Because they grow to a point in which they know to choose between the right and the wrong.

I have heard of cases where the child waited.

Part of me wants to CFR the cases that children waited, because it seems so far-fetched to me. 8 year olds are not independent and sometimes the LDS explanation of the problems of infant baptism make it seem like the LDS practice of waiting until someone is 8 views an 8 year old like an adult.

Yes, an 8 year old has much more choice than an infant, of course, but in something as powerful as a family's religious choices, I would say there is very little difference. So perhaps LDS explanations should have a qualifiers, to include the fact that 8 year olds only have a tiny bit of free will when it comes to making a commitment to becoming a Mormon.

1 hour ago, RevTestament said:

Having a God-parent does seem like a nice gesture, but as a parent, I would have felt a little strange about making someone else responsible for raising my child. I really felt primarily responsible for teaching my children right and wrong, and took pains to explain to my children my own rationale and reasons for choosing this and that as they grew up, as did my wife.

The parent is primarily responsible, of course, but a godparent is there to help, too. Think of all the teachers in Sunday school and the other child/youth programs that the LDS church has, and even leaders like bishops, and how they teach your children, too. It is your primary responsibility still, but you are receiving help from others along the way.

Unfortunately, for many, godparents don't really take on this role anymore and it is more just a formality as part of the rite.

I was an adult convert to Catholicism and my godparent (called a sponsor) checks in on me from time to time. It is nice. I suppose you could think of it like a home teacher.

 

[3DOP]

53 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

We are able to read the story of the Garden of Eden as an allegory -- early Christian fathers did so (St. Augustine, for example) though that doesn't necessarily preclude a literal understanding as well. I see the specific ideas in the story as an allegory of the cosmos in general and me in particular. But in either case it teaches us about God's plan which was, in deed, for all of humanity to live in a state of paradise of communion with God that was free from death, pain, and disordered desires. We were/are made in the image of God, which means we have some of His attributes: rationality, beauty, community, and free will. Free will is what allowed Adam and Eve (us) to go against God's will and plan. So yes, we messed up His plan but that's because He gave us free will. And the original plan was to have humanity in a state of paradise forever.

Often the adult convert is both baptized and confirmed at the same time. An infant obviously doesn't make the commitment.

Baptism washes away original and actual (personal) sin. For babies, there is no actual sin so only original sin is washed away. For adults, both are cleansed. The removal of original sin does constitute a "rebirth" into the Christian life and into the mystical Body of Christ, i.e. the Church.

Part of me wants to CFR the cases that children waited, because it seems so far-fetched to me. 8 year olds are not independent and sometimes the LDS explanation of the problems of infant baptism make it seem like the LDS practice of waiting until someone is 8 views an 8 year old like an adult.

Yes, an 8 year old has much more choice than an infant, of course, but in something as powerful as a family's religious choices, I would say there is very little difference. So perhaps LDS explanations should have a qualifiers, to include the fact that 8 year olds only have a tiny bit of free will when it comes to making a commitment to becoming a Mormon.

The parent is primarily responsible, of course, but a godparent is there to help, too. Think of all the teachers in Sunday school and the other child/youth programs that the LDS church has, and even leaders like bishops, and how they teach your children, too. It is your primary responsibility still, but you are receiving help from others along the way.

Unfortunately, for many, godparents don't really take on this role anymore and it is more just a formality as part of the rite.

I was an adult convert to Catholicism and my godparent (called a sponsor) checks in on me from time to time. It is nice. I suppose you could think of it like a home teacher.

 

Thanks as always for your valuable insights Miserere. There is a great resistance against original sin from Latter-day Saints. In the Book of Mormon, it seems to be assumed that a baby who dies without baptism, suffers sensible torments, the sense pain of hell. But the Catholic Church explicitly denies that unbaptized babies are subject to the sense pains of hell. They are only excluded from the Beatific Vision, (which few non-Catholics believe in anyway). I say "only excluded" because when non-Catholics talk about heaven,  it is so natural. It seems like a great earth with no death and sickness or sin. The contrast with hell is so great. But the heaven of non-Catholics seems no better than the Limbo of unbaptized babies where St. Thomas Aquinas assures us that they enjoy a natural happiness commensurate with their natural capacities. After all, they are innocent of actual sin. I do not know, but I would guess their passions and intellect are no longer disordered from the wounds of original sin. I wouldn't mind getting in on at that train. Not a bad deal if I may put it that way. Perseverance means running the risk of a lot worse. Surely the reward is worth the risk. And anyway, we are not unbaptized babies. No Limbo for us. By faith, I think even Catholics have only an obscure, dim understanding of the joys and glory of heaven. This is why the language of the Church allows us to call those damned who miss out on the face to face vision of God for eternity even if the same damned are relatively contented with their condition. We think of those who are not deified as damned, even if they are happily glorifying God, through a sinless but natural eternity. When we say that the unbaptized babies are damned, they still go to a place that sounds as good as anything non-Catholics believe in.  

The sins of Adam and Eve are mirrored by the obedience of the Second Adam (Jesus) and the Second Eve (Mary). Whether we are born once to our first parents or are twice born to Christ through His Blessed Mother, we are members of one or the other family. Our actual sins and merits will determine our eternal rewards and punishments. But the family from which we come will determine where those punishments or rewards take place. On principle, If we benefit because of the obedience of Christ, why in God's justice can there be no detriment because of the disobedience of Adam? As you know, and some LDS here know, the Church sings at Easter of the felix culpa (happy fault) of Adam. Mormons are scandalized at the idea that God created out of nothing. That's nothing (no pun intended). I am afraid Catholics are so convinced that God do anything that we go even further than that. In the Recreation, the new world and the new heavens that follow the redemption of the sons of God, we can say that God recreates from what is literally, less than, or worse than...nothing, a happy fault: Through the eternal wisdom and might and mercy and goodness and justice and every other attribute of our Father in heaven, the original sin of our first parents led to so great and rich salvation. Creation out of less than or worse than...nothing. (if you will). Heh. What a story! Who could make it up?

A Blessed Gaudete Sunday, my friend, to you. Rejoice, and again I say, rejoice! No fourth Sunday of Advent this year. Feast of the Vigil next Sunday. I think it is not too early to wish a Happy Christmas season to you and yours and to our LDS friends.

Rory

 

 

[co-eternal]

On 12/16/2017 at 12:31 PM, theplains said:

I had some questions on this October 2017 GC talk.

"Because of His atoning sacrifice, Jesus Christ has the power and authority to redeem all mankind. To make
His atoning power accessible, He has delegated a portion of His power and authority to men on earth. This
delegated power and authority is called priesthood."

What LDS scriptures show God did not delegate any power or authority directly to women?

"We become stained by sin and cannot be allowed back to live in God’s presence."

What sin stained Adam and Eve so they could not be allowed back into God's presence?

Thanks,
Jim

Adam and Eve did not sin, they transgressed a law. That law being, If you want to remain here in the garden forever, do not eat the fruit. Not a sin.

[california boy]

On 12/16/2017 at 11:35 AM, Duncan said:

they ate the fruit when they were told not to and then they tried to hide and cover up their nudididty with fig leaves which shrink over time exposing the situation

The nudity thing is interesting.  It is satan that tells them to cover their nudity.  

[Duncan]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

The nudity thing is interesting.  It is satan that tells them to cover their nudity.  

but the weren't ashamed! some people have and some people don't!

[theplains]

On 17/12/2017 at 2:53 PM, co-eternal said:

Adam and Eve did not sin, they transgressed a law. That law being, If you want to remain here in the garden forever, do not eat the fruit. Not a sin.

Would you disagree with the 2008 Ensign teaching that Adam sinned?

Thanks,
Jim

[CV75]

On 12/16/2017 at 2:31 PM, theplains said:

What LDS scriptures show God did not delegate any power or authority directly to women?

What do you consider to be LDS scriptures?

On 12/16/2017 at 2:31 PM, theplains said:

What sin stained Adam and Eve so they could not be allowed back into God's presence?

I think you're missing an important line from the talk: "In mortality, we invariably make mistakes and violate God’s laws. We become stained by sin and cannot be allowed back to live in God’s presence." I don't think it matters whether Adam and Eve made a mistake, violated God's law, or sinned (willfully disobeyed). We do know that by eating the forbidden fruit, they fell from a paradisaical state and its attendant laws to telestial state with laws of its own, having no hope until the Lord visited them with a promise that they would receive His laws. Their paradisaical state was conditionally immortal, meaning they were immortal as long as they did not partake of the forbidden fruit. Their telestial state was unconditionally mortal. Do you see sin in the change from one to the other, and if so, on what point?