Pope Francis and the "Fortunate Fall"

[mfbukowski]

Mormons believe that the fall of Adam was "fortunate" and actually part of God's plan, since it gave us choice between good and evil and therefore able to merit praise for our actions and to overcome evil in our lives, or alternately follow a sinful path and cut ourselves off from our Father and make repentance harder, if not impossible in some cases.

Without the choice to overcome temptation, we cannot overcome the "natural" or "carnal" tendencies within ourselves and attempt to become Christlike- many scriptures speak of "overcoming the world", and that is not possible without fully experiencing both the good and the bad within the world.

The follower of Christ is to be IN the world but not OF the world.

It appears that this idea varies from the view of Pope Francis in a recent interview.

https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2018/01/deliver-us-from-dynamic-equivalence

Quote

 

Pope Francis has a problem with “lead us not into temptation,” the penultimate line of the Lord’s Prayer in English as it appears in Matthew’s Gospel and is recited at Catholic Mass and in Catholic devotions. Francis objects that it’s not God who tempts us to stray from His path of righteousness (that’s the devil’s job), so “lead us not” could prove confusing to ordinary Catholics. As he put it in a December 6 interview with an Italian Catholic television channel: “It is I who fall, it is not God who throws me into temptation and then sees how I fell . . . . A father does not do that, a father helps you to get up immediately.” Francis suggested that the world’s Catholics should pray “do not let us fall into temptation,” in place of “lead us not.”

And indeed French Catholics, on order from France’s bishops, have duly changed the offending words. Starting this past Advent, they’ve dropped the traditional ne nous soumets pas à la tentation (“do not subject us to temptation”) for a more Francis-friendly ne nous laisse pas entrer en tentation (“do not let us go into temptation”).

The problem, as Anthony Esolen has argued, is that “lead us not” is in fact a faithful translation. Nearly all manuscripts of the Latin Vulgate Bible—the fourth-century text that is baseline Scripture for the Latin-Rite Church—some dating to the very early Middle Ages, have either ne inducas nos or ne nos inducas for the words Jesus used with respect to temptation in both Matthew and Luke. Inducas is the second-person singular present active subjunctive form of inducere, a Latin verb that means, precisely, “to lead in.” Inducas is itself a literal translation of the Greek me eisenenkeis hemas eis peirasmon, found in the very oldest manuscripts of the New Testament (eisenenkeis is a second-person singular aorist—past-tense—subjunctive form of the verb eisphero,meaning “carry in,” while peirasmon means “trial” or “temptation”). And although we don’t have the precise Aramaic words that Jesus would have spoken, Esolen observes certain parallels in the phrase to the Hebrew psalmic poetry with which Jesus was familiar and in which God plays a causative role.

 

And at least from this article, it seems some scholars would come down more on the idea that we should be proactive in overcoming temptation rather than avoiding it.

What do you think?

Are there any defenders of Pope Francis here?

 

[Atheist Mormon]

4 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Mormons believe that the fall of Adam was "fortunate" and actually part of God's plan, since it gave us choice between good and evil and therefore able to merit praise for our actions and to overcome evil in our lives, or alternately follow a sinful path and cut ourselves off from our Father and make repentance harder, if not impossible in some cases.

Without the choice to overcome temptation, we cannot overcome the "natural" or "carnal" tendencies within ourselves and attempt to become Christlike- many scriptures speak of "overcoming the world", and that is not possible without fully experiencing both the good and the bad within the world.

The follower of Christ is to be IN the world but not OF the world.

It appears that this idea varies from the view of Pope Francis in a recent interview.

https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2018/01/deliver-us-from-dynamic-equivalence

And at least from this article, it seems some scholars would come down more on the idea that we should be proactive in overcoming temptation rather than avoiding it.

What do you think?

Are there any defenders of Pope Francis here?

 

Not me, I stick with what Joseph said then. Not to appear to be vindictive but most of those guys left such a rap sheet I'm wondering how can one still follow his seat. 

[pogi]

27 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Mormons believe that the fall of Adam was "fortunate" and actually part of God's plan, since it gave us choice between good and evil and therefore able to merit praise for our actions and to overcome evil in our lives, or alternately follow a sinful path and cut ourselves off from our Father and make repentance harder, if not impossible in some cases.

Without the choice to overcome temptation, we cannot overcome the "natural" or "carnal" tendencies within ourselves and attempt to become Christlike- many scriptures speak of "overcoming the world", and that is not possible without fully experiencing both the good and the bad within the world.

The follower of Christ is to be IN the world but not OF the world.

It appears that this idea varies from the view of Pope Francis in a recent interview.

https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2018/01/deliver-us-from-dynamic-equivalence

And at least from this article, it seems some scholars would come down more on the idea that we should be proactive in overcoming temptation rather than avoiding it.

What do you think?

Are there any defenders of Pope Francis here?

 

It seems to me that the Pope is simply clarifying the phrase to remove any confusion.  He seems to agree with a position that we too hold, namely that God does not tempt us.

Quote

 

James 1

13 Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:

14 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.

 

 

[Eek!]

If I'm going to recite a prayer that is not in my own words (the Sacrament prayers come to mind), I want to make sure that I understand and agree with all of it first.   I have never been comfortable with that particular wording of the Lord's Prayer in English, which implies that the Father is the one who leads us into temptation.  Imo that's not one of His jobs.

54 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

And at least from this article, it seems some scholars would come down more on the idea that we should be proactive in overcoming temptation rather than avoiding it.

What do you think?

Are there any defenders of Pope Francis here?

As for being "proactive" in overcoming temptation, I do not think it's cheating to ask God to help us out with that, nor do I think it's a cop-out to avoid temptation when reasonably feasible.  

Temptation, and the decision to give in or not, is something that happens in the mind.  Imo training your mind to avoid temptation is more effective than trying to fight temptation on temptation's terms. 

So yeah, I'm definitely with Pope Francis on this one.  Kudos to him for not being afraid to make a course-correction. 

 

Edited January 8, 2018 by Eek!

[RevTestament]

12 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Mormons believe that the fall of Adam was "fortunate" and actually part of God's plan, since it gave us choice between good and evil and therefore able to merit praise for our actions and to overcome evil in our lives, or alternately follow a sinful path and cut ourselves off from our Father and make repentance harder, if not impossible in some cases.

Without the choice to overcome temptation, we cannot overcome the "natural" or "carnal" tendencies within ourselves and attempt to become Christlike- many scriptures speak of "overcoming the world", and that is not possible without fully experiencing both the good and the bad within the world.

The follower of Christ is to be IN the world but not OF the world.

It appears that this idea varies from the view of Pope Francis in a recent interview.

https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2018/01/deliver-us-from-dynamic-equivalence

And at least from this article, it seems some scholars would come down more on the idea that we should be proactive in overcoming temptation rather than avoiding it.

What do you think?

Are there any defenders of Pope Francis here?

The lead us not into temptation phrase has always made me think. It just seemed strange to me. I wouldn't mind the idea of a change, but would change it from the negative to the positive: "lead us from temptation." I actually believe God does try us. Those trials involve temptation. What He would like us to do is to pray to Him for guidance in learning how to overcome these temptations. Nevertheless, He eventually expects us all to overcome these same temptations if we are going to be like him. Hence:

Gen 3:22 And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil:

Zechariah 5 shows the Most High does play an active role in presenting us with things and choices which are trials:

3 Then said he unto me, This is the curse that goeth forth over the face of the whole earth: for every one that stealeth shall be cut off as on this side according to it; and every one that sweareth shall be cut off as on that side according to it.

4 I will bring it forth, saith the Lord of hosts, and it shall enter into the house of the thief, and into the house of him that sweareth falsely by my name: and it shall remain in the midst of his house, and shall consume it with the timber thereof and the stones thereof.

How is this house of falsehood going to fall? By men overcoming it. Men will actually be led out of its temptations. What temptations? False promises of 72 virgins for one. So in this situation praying to be led from temptation is quite appropriate. If we have a problem with a particular temptation shouldn't we pray to God to learn how to overcome it? I think that is the ultimate goal of the Lord's Prayer. The "not into" could be understood as "away from" or "out of." 

The French version of "do not subject us to temptation" seems the exact opposite of what God did in the Garden of Eden, and the LDS goal of progression.

The JST says:

Matt 6:14 And suffer us not to be led into temptation, but deliver us from evil.

Hence the last phrase is carrying the idea of what we are praying for: for the Most High to lead us away from temptation or deliver us therefrom. 

Francis' phrase “do not let us fall into temptation” I think carries with it about the same idea as the JST, but again I like the proactive request to be taught how to not be subject to temptation rather than the negative idea that God will somehow lead us into temptation or will let us fall into it if we forget to pray about it. Trying to couch the idea in the negative, is just difficult in English I think. 

So after many years of trying to understand God I will pray: Our Father who art in heaven, hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come, thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread, and forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us. Lead us from temptation, and deliver us from evil, for thine is the kingdom, and the power and the glory for ever. Amen.

[Eek!]

9 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

Our Father who art in heaven, hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come, thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread, and forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us. Lead us from temptation, and deliver us from evil, for thine is the kingdom, and the power and the glory for ever. Amen.

 

I used to attend a church where we recited the Lord's Prayer as part of the service, and I'd quietly change up my wording to something similar to yours above.  But I like your version better; it's unobtrusive and doesn't interrupt the poetic rhythm of the Prayer. 

[hope_for_things]

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Mormons believe that the fall of Adam was "fortunate" and actually part of God's plan, since it gave us choice between good and evil and therefore able to merit praise for our actions and to overcome evil in our lives, or alternately follow a sinful path and cut ourselves off from our Father and make repentance harder, if not impossible in some cases.

Without the choice to overcome temptation, we cannot overcome the "natural" or "carnal" tendencies within ourselves and attempt to become Christlike- many scriptures speak of "overcoming the world", and that is not possible without fully experiencing both the good and the bad within the world.

The follower of Christ is to be IN the world but not OF the world.

It appears that this idea varies from the view of Pope Francis in a recent interview.

https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2018/01/deliver-us-from-dynamic-equivalence

And at least from this article, it seems some scholars would come down more on the idea that we should be proactive in overcoming temptation rather than avoiding it.

What do you think?

Are there any defenders of Pope Francis here?

 

The quoted passage that you reference isn't talking about the fall of Adam at all, (I didn't read the full link, just the part you quoted), but rather is talking about the Lord's prayer.  I actually think the Pope's sentiments here are very similar to how Joseph Smith was viewing God's nature.  Joseph changed the passage in the story of Moses so that it wasn't God that hardened the heart of Pharaoh, but rather Pharaoh that hardened his own heart if I remember correctly.   

I believe Joseph did this is other area's too, so I think the Pope's emphasis on what God is like and that God wouldn't lead us into temptation as a loving father is actually quite harmonious with a Mormon reading of scripture.  

Edited January 8, 2018 by hope_for_things

[pogi]

So, is there going to be a PFT (Pope Francis Translation) section in reprinted Bibles?

While I ultimately agree with his intent and translation, Interestingly I don't see any mandate from God (as Joseph received in the D&C to translate the Bible) nor do I see any claim to revelation in translation.  Neither is the Pope using the scholarly method of translating from the original text, but instead the Pope is simply offering his personal understanding of scripture to be used by arguing, “It is I who fall, it is not God who throws me into temptation and then sees how I fell . . . . A father does not do that, a father helps you to get up immediately.”  Without revelation or divine mandate, I could see how this practice and precedent could ultimately lead to a further corruption of the word of God over time, piece by piece. 

The question is, on what authoritative grounds can the Pope alter scripture?

The Second Vatican Council taught, in Dei Verbum, that the Church cannot teach contrary to Scripture:

Quote

[T]he living teaching office of the Church… is not above the word of God, but serves it, teaching only what has been handed on, listening to it devoutly, guarding it scrupulously and explaining it faithfully…

Explaining or clarifying scripture is one thing, but altering the wording all together seems to be beyond the scope of the Popes authority.  Maybe a fellow Catholic board member can help me out with that one. 

Pope Benedict XVI seemed to warn against changes in usage of scripture such as Pope Francis suggests.  In a homily of May 7, 2005:

Quote

 

The Pope is not an absolute monarch whose thoughts and desires are law.  On the contrary: the Pope's ministry is a guarantee of obedience to Christ and to his Word.  He must not proclaim his own ideas, but rather constantly bind himself and the Church to obedience to God's Word, in the face of every attempt to adapt it or water it down, and every form of opportunism…

The Pope knows that in his important decisions, he is bound to the great community of faith of all times, to the binding interpretations that have developed throughout the Church's pilgrimage.  Thus, his power is not being above, but at the service of, the Word of God.  It is incumbent upon him to ensure that this Word continues to be present in its greatness and to resound in its purity, so that it is not torn to pieces by continuous changes in usage.

 

Edited January 8, 2018 by pogi

[Bobbieaware]

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Mormons believe that the fall of Adam was "fortunate" and actually part of God's plan, since it gave us choice between good and evil and therefore able to merit praise for our actions and to overcome evil in our lives, or alternately follow a sinful path and cut ourselves off from our Father and make repentance harder, if not impossible in some cases.

Without the choice to overcome temptation, we cannot overcome the "natural" or "carnal" tendencies within ourselves and attempt to become Christlike- many scriptures speak of "overcoming the world", and that is not possible without fully experiencing both the good and the bad within the world.

The follower of Christ is to be IN the world but not OF the world.

It appears that this idea varies from the view of Pope Francis in a recent interview.

https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2018/01/deliver-us-from-dynamic-equivalence

And at least from this article, it seems some scholars would come down more on the idea that we should be proactive in overcoming temptation rather than avoiding it.

What do you think?

Are there any defenders of Pope Francis here?

 

Elder Jeffrey R Holland provides the following answer to your question:

”The Prophet Joseph Smith helped us with this verse when he gave his translation of it in the Inspired Version of the New Testament. There he modified the language to read “suffer us not to be led into temptation, but deliver us from evil.” (JST, Matt. 6:14. Italics added.)

A loving Father in heaven does not maliciously “lead us into temptation” nor have any wish to ensnare us in evil. He has, however, allowed us to come to this mortal world in which we must face temptations of every kind, temptations from “men” and from “devils.” (See D&C 46:7.) This prayer is a prayer for strength, for the ability to endure such difficult times. L. It is an expression of our desire to remain clean.”

In other words, I believe it means ‘Lord bless us with thy divine strength that our temptations will not get above us.’

[CV75]

3 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Mormons believe that the fall of Adam was "fortunate" and actually part of God's plan, since it gave us choice between good and evil and therefore able to merit praise for our actions and to overcome evil in our lives, or alternately follow a sinful path and cut ourselves off from our Father and make repentance harder, if not impossible in some cases.

Without the choice to overcome temptation, we cannot overcome the "natural" or "carnal" tendencies within ourselves and attempt to become Christlike- many scriptures speak of "overcoming the world", and that is not possible without fully experiencing both the good and the bad within the world.

The follower of Christ is to be IN the world but not OF the world.

It appears that this idea varies from the view of Pope Francis in a recent interview.

https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2018/01/deliver-us-from-dynamic-equivalence

And at least from this article, it seems some scholars would come down more on the idea that we should be proactive in overcoming temptation rather than avoiding it.

What do you think?

Are there any defenders of Pope Francis here?

 

If the Pope's comments are indeed reflective of his views on God's role in the Fall, I agree with the narrow point that God did not throw Adam and Eve into temptation. But at the same time I think he instead attributes sin to Adam as the source, and transmitting original sin to us, rather than attributing our arrival into this world (with the attendant vulnerability to temptation) to Adam, so there I part ways (AoF 2). The latter is what the Lord's Prayer addresses.

[The Nehor]

God led us to the source of all temptation by being willing and eager to put us in mortality in the first place. When you have the kind of power God the distinction between allowing something to happen and making it happen becomes blurry and perhaps a distinction without a difference.

[mfbukowski]

10 hours ago, pogi said:

It seems to me that the Pope is simply clarifying the phrase to remove any confusion.  He seems to agree with a position that we too hold, namely that God does not tempt us.

 

This is what my objection is based on:

Quote

 Francis suggested that the world’s Catholics should pray “do not let us fall into temptation,” in place of “lead us not.”

I think that the "fortunate fall" was based on God LETTING us fall into temptation.  Therefore it is incorrect to pray to be exempted from temptation.  WE ARE HERE to BE TEMPTED.

In the creation story we clearly have two incompatible commandments given, one was to multiply and replenish the earth- and the other was to not eat of the fruit of the tree.  The reason they are incompatible is not really clear in Mormon theology in my opinion, and is left as kind of an excuse that since Eve ate of the tree she would be expelled and thus could not multiply and replenish the earth.   There has always seemed to me that there was a deeper issue there- it seems clear that we do not have the whole story.

Yet it is clear that Eve perceived the incompatibility when in her discussion with Satan she clearly saw the dichotomy and was seeking another alternative which was not presented. 

I think the church has gone out of its way to make this fact clear,  that she was justified in wanting to become like God, and that God went through a similar progression Himself.

THAT is clearly her motivation, to follow God's plan though she struggles for an alternative, in vain.   And so she partakes of the fruit.

In order to do that, one MUST overcome the world and temptation.  Without temptation there is nothing to overcome and therefore we cannot become like God

Praying to be exempted from temptation is praying to not have the ability to become like God.

[mfbukowski]

27 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

God led us to the source of all temptation by being willing and eager to put us in mortality in the first place. When you have the kind of power God the distinction between allowing something to happen and making it happen becomes blurry and perhaps a distinction without a difference.

Well I think we do that all the time ourselves and the whole issue is simply knowing that something will happen - with certainty.

I have illustrated that by holding a pencil out at arms length and allowed it to fall to the floor by force of gravity.   Clearly I did not create gravity or "make it fall"  but yes I did "allow it to fall"

I also knew with certainty that it would fall and not float up to the ceiling but still I did not "make it fall", gravity did that all by itself.   It's kind of like organizing matter vs creating it.  In one case you take advantage of what you know is going to happen as a result of your intervention and in the other, you actually 

So yeah, there are distinctions and I think with real differences.

[mfbukowski]

7 hours ago, CV75 said:

If the Pope's comments are indeed reflective of his views on God's role in the Fall, I agree with the narrow point that God did not throw Adam and Eve into temptation. But at the same time I think he instead attributes sin to Adam as the source, and transmitting original sin to us, rather than attributing our arrival into this world (with the attendant vulnerability to temptation) to Adam, so there I part ways (AoF 2). The latter is what the Lord's Prayer addresses.

Yet he gave Eve incompatible commandments,   what was she supposed to do?

Edited January 9, 2018 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

8 hours ago, Bobbieaware said:

Elder Jeffrey R Holland provides the following answer to your question:

”The Prophet Joseph Smith helped us with this verse when he gave his translation of it in the Inspired Version of the New Testament. There he modified the language to read “suffer us not to be led into temptation, but deliver us from evil.” (JST, Matt. 6:14. Italics added.)

A loving Father in heaven does not maliciously “lead us into temptation” nor have any wish to ensnare us in evil. He has, however, allowed us to come to this mortal world in which we must face temptations of every kind, temptations from “men” and from “devils.” (See D&C 46:7.) This prayer is a prayer for strength, for the ability to endure such difficult times. L. It is an expression of our desire to remain clean.”

In other words, I believe it means ‘Lord bless us with thy divine strength that our temptations will not get above us.’

Yet he gave Eve incompatible commandments.

See my other comments

[mfbukowski]

8 hours ago, pogi said:

So, is there going to be a PFT (Pope Francis Translation) section in reprinted Bibles?

While I ultimately agree with his intent and translation, Interestingly I don't see any mandate from God (as Joseph received in the D&C to translate the Bible) nor do I see any claim to revelation in translation.  Neither is the Pope using the scholarly method of translating from the original text, but instead the Pope is simply offering his personal understanding of scripture to be used by arguing, “It is I who fall, it is not God who throws me into temptation and then sees how I fell . . . . A father does not do that, a father helps you to get up immediately.”  Without revelation or divine mandate, I could see how this practice and precedent could ultimately lead to a further corruption of the word of God over time, piece by piece. 

The question is, on what authoritative grounds can the Pope alter scripture?

The Second Vatican Council taught, in Dei Verbum, that the Church cannot teach contrary to Scripture:

Explaining or clarifying scripture is one thing, but altering the wording all together seems to be beyond the scope of the Popes authority.  Maybe a fellow Catholic board member can help me out with that one. 

Pope Benedict XVI seemed to warn against changes in usage of scripture such as Pope Francis suggests.  In a homily of May 7, 2005:

I am no longer Catholic, but the entire mass was changed in the early 1960's.  

Yes he has the authority and yes it caused a .... problem, to minimize it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tridentine_Mass

In defense of the Pope, it is exactly analogous to a non-member asking if the prophet has the authority to change the endowment and I think we know the classic answer which is the same for both of us

The presentation is changed but the "essence" is not. 

 

Edited January 9, 2018 by mfbukowski

[Eek!]

32 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

I think the church has gone out of its way to make this fact clear,  that she was justified in wanting to become like God, and that God went through a similar progression Himself...

I think I understand your line of reasoning, but I don't think the Lord's Prayer is about Adam and Eve.

32 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Without temptation there is nothing to overcome and therefore we cannot become like God.

So I'm sitting here with a computer in front of me, connected to the internet.  What am I doing on a Mormon discussion forum when there is temptation out there to be overcome??

My point being, avoiding temptation isn't a bad thing, nor is asking for God's help with that, imo. 

Edited January 9, 2018 by Eek!

[Robert F. Smith]

11 hours ago, pogi said:

It seems to me that the Pope is simply clarifying the phrase to remove any confusion.  He seems to agree with a position that we too hold, namely that God does not tempt us.......

Yes, I thought that Francis was simply trying not to make God the bad guy.

[mfbukowski]

10 hours ago, RevTestament said:

The lead us not into temptation phrase has always made me think. It just seemed strange to me. I wouldn't mind the idea of a change, but would change it from the negative to the positive: "lead us from temptation." I actually believe God does try us. Those trials involve temptation. What He would like us to do is to pray to Him for guidance in learning how to overcome these temptations. Nevertheless, He eventually expects us all to overcome these same temptations if we are going to be like him. Hence:

Gen 3:22 And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil:

Zechariah 5 shows the Most High does play an active role in presenting us with things and choices which are trials:

3 Then said he unto me, This is the curse that goeth forth over the face of the whole earth: for every one that stealeth shall be cut off as on this side according to it; and every one that sweareth shall be cut off as on that side according to it.

4 I will bring it forth, saith the Lord of hosts, and it shall enter into the house of the thief, and into the house of him that sweareth falsely by my name: and it shall remain in the midst of his house, and shall consume it with the timber thereof and the stones thereof.

How is this house of falsehood going to fall? By men overcoming it. Men will actually be led out of its temptations. What temptations? False promises of 72 virgins for one. So in this situation praying to be led from temptation is quite appropriate. If we have a problem with a particular temptation shouldn't we pray to God to learn how to overcome it? I think that is the ultimate goal of the Lord's Prayer. The "not into" could be understood as "away from" or "out of." 

The French version of "do not subject us to temptation" seems the exact opposite of what God did in the Garden of Eden, and the LDS goal of progression.

The JST says:

Matt 6:14 And suffer us not to be led into temptation, but deliver us from evil.

Hence the last phrase is carrying the idea of what we are praying for: for the Most High to lead us away from temptation or deliver us therefrom. 

Francis' phrase “do not let us fall into temptation” I think carries with it about the same idea as the JST, but again I like the proactive request to be taught how to not be subject to temptation rather than the negative idea that God will somehow lead us into temptation or will let us fall into it if we forget to pray about it. Trying to couch the idea in the negative, is just difficult in English I think. 

So after many years of trying to understand God I will pray: Our Father who art in heaven, hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come, thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread, and forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us. Lead us from temptation, and deliver us from evil, for thine is the kingdom, and the power and the glory for ever. Amen.

I pretty much agree with the first portion but less with the last part

I know my weaknesses bring on temptation and I pray to overcome temptation and ask God for strength and to help me change my poor attitude and to help me listen to the spirit more and temptations less

But I personally don't pray to keep me out of temptation.  That's my problem- my weakness to overcome.

If God is not the source of temptation- who is?   Why pray to Him to keep us out of temptation when he does not tempt us in the first place?  It's convenient to blame Satan but all he can do is exploit our weaknesses and our lack of resolve.

Does he even have the authority to interfere with our agency that much to change our attitude toward temptation?

[mfbukowski]

44 minutes ago, Eek! said:

I think I understand your line of reasoning, but I don't think the Lord's Prayer is about Adam and Eve.

So I'm sitting here with a computer in front of me, connected to the internet.  What am I doing on a Mormon discussion forum when there is temptation out there to be overcome??

My point being, avoiding temptation isn't a bad thing, nor is asking for God's help with that, imo. 

If you are not LDS I am sorry to say, you do not understand the issues in the same way we do.  I never meant to say that avoiding temptation was a bad thing- just that praying to be exempt from temptation is not God's job.

When I learned the Act of Contrition before my First Communion, I learned the words "I firmly resolve, with the help of thy grace, ... to avoid the "NEAR OCCASIONS" of sin."

That's something I agree with.   If you have weakness for porn, I think it is appropriate to pray for the strength to overcome the desire to go to porn sites, for example, or bars if you like to drink.  Those are the "occasions of sin" in Catholic parlance.

But the difference is that you are asking God for strength to avoid temptation on your own,  not to keep you free from the temptations.

You are asking God to help YOU build your spiritual muscles, not to lighten the burdens that shall be placed on your spiritual shoulders

THAT is the nuance here I think that some may be missing.

[CV75]

8 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Yet he gave Eve incompatible commandments,   what was she supposed to do?

Before the Fall, she was to do whatever she chose (I'm not sure the Pope agrees with that; evidently he teaches that they were supposed to refrain from the forbidden fruit while multiplying more holy and just beings like unto themselves, sharing the divine life in a state of original justice as transmitted to their descendants). After the Fall, pray like crazy! Hence the prayer under discussion.

I'm not sure they were incompatible commandments, as there is a time and a place for everything (Ecclesiastes 3): "To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven: A time to be born, and a time to die; a time to plant, and a time to pluck up that which is planted; A time to kill, and a time to heal; a time to break down, and a time to build up; A time to weep, and a time to laugh; a time to mourn, and a time to dance; A time to cast away stones, and a time to gather stones together; a time to embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing; A time to get, and a time to lose; a time to keep, and a time to cast away; A time to rend, and a time to sew; a time to keep silence, and a time to speak; A time to love, and a time to hate; a time of war, and a time of peace."

 

 

[pogi]

9 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

This is what my objection is based on:

I think that the "fortunate fall" was based on God LETTING us fall into temptation.  Therefore it is incorrect to pray to be exempted from temptation.  WE ARE HERE to BE TEMPTED.

In the creation story we clearly have two incompatible commandments given, one was to multiply and replenish the earth- and the other was to not eat of the fruit of the tree.  The reason they are incompatible is not really clear in Mormon theology in my opinion, and is left as kind of an excuse that since Eve ate of the tree she would be expelled and thus could not multiply and replenish the earth.   There has always seemed to me that there was a deeper issue there- it seems clear that we do not have the whole story.

Yet it is clear that Eve perceived the incompatibility when in her discussion with Satan she clearly saw the dichotomy and was seeking another alternative which was not presented. 

I think the church has gone out of its way to make this fact clear,  that she was justified in wanting to become like God, and that God went through a similar progression Himself.

THAT is clearly her motivation, to follow God's plan though she struggles for an alternative, in vain.   And so she partakes of the fruit.

In order to do that, one MUST overcome the world and temptation.  Without temptation there is nothing to overcome and therefore we cannot become like God

Praying to be exempted from temptation is praying to not have the ability to become like God.

The problem is that your objection doesn't go away with the original wording either, "lead us not into temptation".  The changing of the wording by the Pope didn't really create a new dilemma, it just removed God from the position of the tempter, similar to the JST. 

I see where you are coming from and agree that we are here to be tried.  However, I think we sometimes rely too much on our own strength in overcoming temptation.  The real trial is not to struggle through every temptation, but to turn our wills and lives over to the Lord.  As we do so, God can and does remove us from temptation by giving us the power to banish Satan from our lives to a certain degree (think of the endowment video).  We see this mighty change in heart throughout the scriptures.  In Mosiah 5, we see a change come over the people to the point where they "no longer desire to do evil, but to do good continually".  Obviously, there will always be temptation to some degree or another, but we can be strengthened situationaly, through faith, to the point where a temptation is no longer a temptation for us.  For all practical purposes, the temptation has been removed from us.  I think that is what the Lord had in mind when he said, "suffer us not to be led into temptation, but deliver us from evil (JST).” 

As far as the conflicting commandments go, I agree that we don't have the full story.  I personally hold a rather unorthodox view on this subject, and wont derail your thread with my opinions on it.  Suffice it to say, I don't believe that they were conflicting at all.  "The Lord gives no commandment...save he shall prepare a way for them to obey (1 Nephi 3:7)."  A fall needed to happen, I agree, but it was not forced upon them through conflicting commands to either fall one way or the other.  

 

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

The problem is that your objection doesn't go away with the original wording either, "lead us not into temptation".  The changing of the wording by the Pope didn't really create a new dilemma, it just removed God from the position of the tempter, similar to the JST. 

I see where you are coming from and agree that we are here to be tried.  However, I think we sometimes rely too much on our own strength in overcoming temptation.  The real trial is not to struggle through every temptation, but to turn our wills and lives over to the Lord.  As we do so, God can and does remove us from temptation by giving us the power to banish Satan from our lives to a certain degree (think of the endowment video).  We see this mighty change in heart throughout the scriptures.  In Mosiah 5, we see a change come over the people to the point where they "no longer desire to do evil, but to do good continually".  Obviously, there will always be temptation to some degree or another, but we can be strengthened situationaly, through faith, to the point where a temptation is no longer a temptation for us.  For all practical purposes, the temptation has been removed from us.  I think that is what the Lord had in mind when he said, "suffer us not to be led into temptation, but deliver us from evil (JST).” 

As far as the conflicting commandments go, I agree that we don't have the full story.  I personally hold a rather unorthodox view on this subject, and wont derail your thread with my opinions on it.  Suffice it to say, I don't believe that they were conflicting at all.  "The Lord gives no commandment...save he shall prepare a way for them to obey (1 Nephi 3:7)."  A fall needed to happen, I agree, but it was not forced upon them through conflicting commands to either fall one way or the other.  

 

I would like to hear your interpretation of that, insofar as we can avoid Temple content.

[mfbukowski]

I still have this impression that we are supposed to build our spiritual muscles in facing the world and taking it on with all the evil it throws at us.

You can't build muscles without stressing them and exercise.

It seems to be the praying to God to help us not to be tempted is like praying for God not to make us not go to the gym. 

He says to us in the sandbox "Here is your matter unorganized go and create a world."

"Oh that's too hard please don't make me do that."

[The Nehor]

12 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Well I think we do that all the time ourselves and the whole issue is simply knowing that something will happen - with certainty.

I have illustrated that by holding a pencil out at arms length and allowed it to fall to the floor by force of gravity.   Clearly I did not create gravity or "make it fall"  but yes I did "allow it to fall"

I also knew with certainty that it would fall and not float up to the ceiling but still I did not "make it fall", gravity did that all by itself.   It's kind of like organizing matter vs creating it.  In one case you take advantage of what you know is going to happen as a result of your intervention and in the other, you actually 

So yeah, there are distinctions and I think with real differences.

Perhaps, but if you ‘allow’ something to happen you are often responsible as a mortal. If you know the end from the beginning as God does you are responsible for basically everything and what is the difference. Inaction is a choice and if you have infinite resources to act with as God does then you are responsible for the results of things you allow to happen.

There are times I wonder if the Atonement also served to exculpate God as well as Man for the sins of the world. That is probably heresy but it makes symmetric sense. The Savior created a world destined to fall and bears responsibility for it. Not something I would teach in Sunday School admittedly.

Edited January 9, 2018 by The Nehor