The natural man versus a saint

[telnetd]

Mosiah 3:19 says "For the natural man is an enemy to God, and has been from the fall of 
Adam, and will be, forever and ever, unless he yields to the enticings of the Holy 
Spirit, and putteth off the natural man and becometh a saint through the atonement 
of Christ the Lord, and becometh as a child, submissive, meek, humble, patient, full 
of love, willing to submit to all things which the Lord seeth fit to inflict upon 
him, even as a child doth submit to his father".

The Plan of Salvation guide defines the terrestrial and telestial inhabitants.

Terrestrial kingdom - People who refuse to accept the gospel of Jesus Christ but who 
live honorable lives will receive a place in the terrestrial kingdom.

Telestial kingdom - Those who continue in their sins and do not repent will receive a 
place in the telestial kingdom.

Does this mean the terrestrial and telestial inhabitants remain the enemies of God
because they did not yield to the enticings of the Holy Spirit since they did not
endure to the end?

Gale

[teddyaware]

37 minutes ago, telnetd said:

Mosiah 3:19 says "For the natural man is an enemy to God, and has been from the fall of 
Adam, and will be, forever and ever, unless he yields to the enticings of the Holy 
Spirit, and putteth off the natural man and becometh a saint through the atonement 
of Christ the Lord, and becometh as a child, submissive, meek, humble, patient, full 
of love, willing to submit to all things which the Lord seeth fit to inflict upon 
him, even as a child doth submit to his father".

The Plan of Salvation guide defines the terrestrial and telestial inhabitants.

Terrestrial kingdom - People who refuse to accept the gospel of Jesus Christ but who 
live honorable lives will receive a place in the terrestrial kingdom.

Telestial kingdom - Those who continue in their sins and do not repent will receive a 
place in the telestial kingdom.

Does this mean the terrestrial and telestial inhabitants remain the enemies of God
because they did not yield to the enticings of the Holy Spirit since they did not
endure to the end?

Gale

Why is it that you make the assertion the inheritors of the terrestrial kingdom “refuse to accept the gospel Jesus Christ“ when Doctrine and Covenants 76 clearly says otherwise?

72 Behold, these are they who died without law;
73 And also they who are the spirits of men kept in prison, whom the Son visited, and preached the gospel unto them, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh;
74 Who received not the testimony of Jesus in the flesh, BUT AFTERWARDS RECEIVED IT. (Doctrine and Covenants 76)

Edited October 14, 2020 by teddyaware

[carbon dioxide]

39 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

Why is it that you make the assertion the inheritors of the terrestrial kingdom “refuse to accept the gospel Jesus Christ“ when Doctrine and Covenants 76 clearly says otherwise?

72 Behold, these are they who died without law;
73 And also they who are the spirits of men kept in prison, whom the Son visited, and preached the gospel unto them, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh;
74 Who received not the testimony of Jesus in the flesh, BUT AFTERWARDS RECEIVED IT. (Doctrine and Covenants 76)

Terrestrial kingdom candidates refused to accept or received not the gospel in the flesh but in the spirit world do receive or accept it.   Much harder to deny the gospel in the spirit world as many of the excuses that one uses reject it melt away soon after death.  Celestial candidates who heard not the gospel in the flesh but would have received it in the flesh had they heard it. 

[teddyaware]

1 hour ago, carbon dioxide said:

Terrestrial kingdom candidates refused to accept or received not the gospel in the flesh but in the spirit world do receive or accept it.   Much harder to deny the gospel in the spirit world as many of the excuses that one uses reject it melt away soon after death.  Celestial candidates who heard not the gospel in the flesh but would have received it in the flesh had they heard it. 

I believe there will be many who will also have died without the gospel law, but in their case they will inherit celestial glory because of the demonstration of extraordinary valor to the cause of Christ while in the spirit world. These souls will actually prove themselves worthy of celestial glory while sojourning in the spirit world after the death of their mortal body. In other words, the primary way it will be known that they would have fully embraced the gospel if they had heard it in the flesh will be by observing how valiantly they respond to the message of salvation and the gospel law while in the realm of the departed dead..

There will be others who will also accept the gospel in the spirit world, after not having heard the message of salvation while in the flesh, who will be relegated to the terrestrial kingdom because they do not live lives of full valor to the cause of Christ while in the spirit world. Yes, as hard to believe as it may be for some, just like here there are degrees of faithfulness and valiancy among the members of the Church in the spirit world.

Edited October 14, 2020 by teddyaware

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

Terrestrial kingdom candidates refused to accept or received not the gospel in the flesh but in the spirit world do receive or accept it.   Much harder to deny the gospel in the spirit world as many of the excuses that one uses reject it melt away soon after death.  Celestial candidates who heard not the gospel in the flesh but would have received it in the flesh had they heard it. 

Not clear just how easy or difficult it is to accept the Gospel in the Spirit World/Prison.  After all 1/3 of the heavenly host rebelled at the Council in Heaven, and demons all have a testimony of God and tremble.

[InCognitus]

5 hours ago, telnetd said:

Mosiah 3:19 says "For the natural man is an enemy to God, and has been from the fall of  Adam, and will be, forever and ever, unless he yields to the enticings of the Holy  Spirit, and putteth off the natural man and becometh a saint through the atonement  of Christ the Lord, and becometh as a child, submissive, meek, humble, patient, full  of love, willing to submit to all things which the Lord seeth fit to inflict upon  him, even as a child doth submit to his father".

The Plan of Salvation guide defines the terrestrial and telestial inhabitants.

Terrestrial kingdom - People who refuse to accept the gospel of Jesus Christ but who  live honorable lives will receive a place in the terrestrial kingdom.

Telestial kingdom - Those who continue in their sins and do not repent will receive a place in the telestial kingdom.

Does this mean the terrestrial and telestial inhabitants remain the enemies of God because they did not yield to the enticings of the Holy Spirit since they did not endure to the end?

Gale

This is essentially the same principle as is taught in the Bible, James 4:4–8:

Quote

4 Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God.
5 Do ye think that the scripture saith in vain, The spirit that dwelleth in us lusteth to envy?
6 But he giveth more grace. Wherefore he saith, God resisteth the proud, but giveth grace unto the humble.
7 Submit yourselves therefore to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you.
8 Draw nigh to God, and he will draw nigh to you. Cleanse your hands, ye sinners; and purify your hearts, ye double minded.

If people persist in that type of behavior (i.e they "continue in their sin"), then they are being "a friend of the world" and therefore they are "the enemy of God". 

But Jesus taught us to love our enemies.  I'm pretty sure that God will practice what he preaches and love his enemies too, but his judgments are carried out against their behavior.

[CV75]

11 hours ago, telnetd said:

Mosiah 3:19 says "For the natural man is an enemy to God, and has been from the fall of 
Adam, and will be, forever and ever, unless he yields to the enticings of the Holy 
Spirit, and putteth off the natural man and becometh a saint through the atonement 
of Christ the Lord, and becometh as a child, submissive, meek, humble, patient, full 
of love, willing to submit to all things which the Lord seeth fit to inflict upon 
him, even as a child doth submit to his father".

The Plan of Salvation guide defines the terrestrial and telestial inhabitants.

Terrestrial kingdom - People who refuse to accept the gospel of Jesus Christ but who 
live honorable lives will receive a place in the terrestrial kingdom.

Telestial kingdom - Those who continue in their sins and do not repent will receive a 
place in the telestial kingdom.

Does this mean the terrestrial and telestial inhabitants remain the enemies of God
because they did not yield to the enticings of the Holy Spirit since they did not
endure to the end?

Gale

We are each an enemy and a friend to God along a spectrum. The idea is to become less of an enemy and more of a friend, even unto perfection through God's grace. Our attitude would continue in the afterlife for better or worse up until the Judgment Day, after which we live forever in the kingdom we are willing to receive. I believe God has done all He can to save us and the rest is a matter of choice as described in the verse you shared. Of course in the resurrection, the war is over and His "enemies" would no longer pose a threat to those He has saved.

[pogi]

13 hours ago, telnetd said:

Does this mean the terrestrial and telestial inhabitants remain the enemies of God
because they did not yield to the enticings of the Holy Spirit since they did not
endure to the end?

Gale

"The natural man" is one extreme of the spectrum of enmity.  A "saint" (in this context) is the opposite extreme.  The plan of salvation is not a black and white dichotomy.  I interpret this passage as speaking about opposing tendencies within each person. We each have the natural man within us, and we each have the saint within us as well.  It reminds me of an old parable:

Quote

 

A Cherokee grandfather explains to his grandson that he has always been witness to a terrible, ongoing inner conflict between two wolves: one full of anger, envy, greed, self-pity, guilt, arrogance, and self doubt; the other full of peace, acceptance, hope, serenity, humility, kindness, empathy, generosity, compassion, truth, and faith. This conflict is occurring inside every person.

The grandson asks “which wolf wins?”  The grandfather replies: “The one you feed.”

 

There are degrees of glory in the resurrection as varied as the stars of heaven.  If a person is not saved in the highest degree of the highest kingdom, then it is because of a degree of enmity toward God, that doesn't necessarily make them full on enemies.  A member of the Godhead will govern them.  The only true enemies of God in the full sense of the word, are the sons of perdition.

[stemelbow]

Scriptures is mostly silly and nonsense.  What would being an enemy to God mean?  Since it says "to God" instead of "of God" I suppose it means some people are seen by God as enemies.  "those people didn't yield to the enticings of my spirit and those people didn't put off the natural man so they are my enemies".  The notion that god sees someone on this earth, one of us foolish and ignorant mortals as enemies feels silly.  We're all just working in ignorance (on the notion there is a God) and our course is largely determined on our environment.  This blessed generation that was held in reserve in our day, due to their righteousness before the world was, has every opportunity on the Mormon position, but those who lived thousands of years before the Adam and Eve myth reared it's ugly head, found in a far away place on this planet having no word to read nor God to know may never have yielded to any enticing, nor understood what it might be to put off the natural man (since, let's face it, no one really does) must be, according to this scripture, be God's enemy.  

Is there anything more divisive than religion?   

[pogi]

40 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Scriptures is mostly silly and nonsense. 

That is not divisive at all, right?

40 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Is there anything more divisive than religion?   

Easy - being anti-religion is more divisive.   Religion dominates and builds societies.  The vast population of earth is religious.  Being anti-religion is perhaps the most divisive thing known to man, since most people are religious.  

Can you show me any secular organization that is as able to build united communities of family as effectively as religion is able to?  Religion builds the strongest, largest, and most united communities known to man.  There is nothing even closely comparable in secularism.  I think many secularists are jealous of that unity and community that religion provides. 

 

Edited October 14, 2020 by pogi

[stemelbow]

27 minutes ago, pogi said:

That is not divisive at all, right?

Sure.  When scripture is being unecessarily divisive it is divisive to point out the divisiveness, since so many who enjoy scripture can't possibly think scripture is silly.  But again, I didn't write scripture.  I"m merely pointing out what I see as it's weakness.  

27 minutes ago, pogi said:

Easy - being anti-religion is more divisive.   Religion dominates and builds societies. 

Religion dominates, sure.  Build's societies?  I guess, in part, there is some of that.  

27 minutes ago, pogi said:

The vast population of earth is religious.  Being anti-religion is perhaps the most divisive thing known to man, since most people are religious.  

Opposing religion, critiquing for the divisive nature of it, is certainly a response to divisive, and thus is itself divisive.  Religion has many groups and are not united, so it's rather simplistic to think there are but two groups the anti-religious and non.  Or, as the BoM puts it, there are but two churches.  That's simply dividing things.  

27 minutes ago, pogi said:

Can you show me any secular organization that is as able to build united communities of family as effectively as religion is able to? 

I'm not sure what you're asking.  A secular organization?  Building united communities of family as effectively as religion?  Some families are simply broken thanks to the divisiveness of religion.  I do think we can do better without religion.  

27 minutes ago, pogi said:

Religion builds the strongest, largest, and most united communities known to man.  There is nothing even closely comparable in secularism.  I think many secularists are jealous of that unity and community that religion provides. 

 

Religion certainly has dominated in the hearts of man and woman in many ways.  You can't really point to much other in the history of mankind than societies with religion, so it's kind of an unfair comparison.  They say the religious is declining in America at a high rate.  And that secular societies fare much better than religious.  As it is though, none of that matters a great deal to my point.  My point is simply the great divider in the history of mankind is religion.  

[pogi]

40 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Sure.  When scripture is being unecessarily divisive it is divisive to point out the divisiveness, since so many who enjoy scripture can't possibly think scripture is silly.  But again, I didn't write scripture.  I"m merely pointing out what I see as it's weakness.  

The scripture is plainly trying to unite mankind by rooting out that which is divisive - selfishness, greed, pride, etc.  Those things are opposing to that which unites in love and oneness.   What you see in scripture, is not the same as what is there.

40 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

My point is simply the great divider in the history of mankind is religion.  

The great divider is not religion.  The great divider is the natural man (which is really just a concept which describes the attributes which are opposed to unity and love).  The natural man is found both inside and outside of religion, but is probably more prevalent in wall street.        

God is the great unifier. 

"Be ye therefore one." 

 

 

Edited October 14, 2020 by pogi

[stemelbow]

26 minutes ago, pogi said:

The scripture is plainly trying to unite mankind by rooting out that which is divisive - selfishness, greed, pride, etc.  Those things are opposing to that which unites in love and oneness.   What you see in scripture, is not the same as what is there.

The divisiveness I see is found in the claim that everyone is God's enemy until they do some undefinable, arbitrary thing like yied to the enticing of the spirit and put off the natural man.  Those are loaded concepts which may or may not really mean anything.  Has one put off the natural man if he gets baptized then smokes and drinks?  Or has one put off the natural man if one gets baptized and over-eats, lacks motivation in the Church, and neglects other duties?  Are members who don't do enough, in that way, enemies of God because perhaps they failed to actually put off the natural man?  As I see it you keep going backwards and putting the divisiveness outlined in scripture on everyone else pretending, it seems, that scripture isn't being divisive.  

26 minutes ago, pogi said:

The great divider is not religion.  The great divider is the natural man (which is really just a concept which describes the attributes which are opposed to unity and love).  The natural man is found both inside and outside of religion, but is probably more prevalent in wall street.        

God is the great unifier. 

"Be ye therefore one." 

 

 

WEll, I disagree, even if I can't really decide why there is contradiction in scripture.  People are simply people following what they've been taught.  Religion has always divided even as it tries to grow.  

[Jared Livesey]

Mosiah 3

17 And moreover I say unto you

that there shall be no other name given nor no other way nor means

whereby salvation can come unto the children of men,

only in and through the name of Christ the Lord Omnipotent.

18 For behold, he judgeth and his judgment is just.

And the infant perisheth not that dieth in his infancy,

but men drinketh damnation to their own souls

except they humble themselves and become as little children

and believeth that salvation was and is and is to come

in and through the atoning blood of Christ the Lord Omnipotent.

 

19 For the natural man is an enemy to God

and has been from the fall of Adam and will be forever and ever

but if he yieldeth to the enticings of the Holy Spirit

and putteth off the natural man

and becometh a saint through the atonement of Christ the Lord

and becometh as a child,

submissive, meek, humble, patient, full of love,

willing to submit to all things which the Lord seeth fit to inflict upon him,

even as a child doth submit to his father.

=====

Questions:

1. If A is an enemy to B, does this imply B is an enemy to A?
2. Do we believe our enemies or do we instead regard their words with doubt and disbelief?
3. Do we freely do what our enemies ask of us or do we only obey under compulsory means?
4. What does it mean to humble oneself?
5. What does it mean to become as a little child?
6. What does it mean to be submissive?
7. What does it mean to be meek?
8. What does it mean to be humble?
9. What does it mean to be patient?
10. What does it mean to be full of love?
11. What are examples of things which the Lord sees fit to inflict upon us?
12. In what manner does a small child submit to his father?

Bonus:  If we aren't one of those things in v. 19 lines 5 through 9, are we any of those things?

[stemelbow]

22 minutes ago, Jared Livesey said:

Mosiah 3

17 And moreover I say unto you

that there shall be no other name given nor no other way nor means

whereby salvation can come unto the children of men,

only in and through the name of Christ the Lord Omnipotent.

18 For behold, he judgeth and his judgment is just.

And the infant perisheth not that dieth in his infancy,

but men drinketh damnation to their own souls

except they humble themselves and become as little children

and believeth that salvation was and is and is to come

in and through the atoning blood of Christ the Lord Omnipotent.

 

19 For the natural man is an enemy to God

and has been from the fall of Adam and will be forever and ever

but if he yieldeth to the enticings of the Holy Spirit

and putteth off the natural man

and becometh a saint through the atonement of Christ the Lord

and becometh as a child,

submissive, meek, humble, patient, full of love,

willing to submit to all things which the Lord seeth fit to inflict upon him,

even as a child doth submit to his father.

=====

Questions:

1. If A is an enemy to B, does this imply B is an enemy to A?

No.  I know many a believer consider me their enemy and Christ's enemy.  But I don't see anyone as my enemy.  

22 minutes ago, Jared Livesey said:

1. Do we believe our enemies or do we instead regard their words with doubt and disbelief?

I think we should take each person's idea and consider it's usefulness and truthfulness no matter its source.  

22 minutes ago, Jared Livesey said:

1. Do we freely do what our enemies ask of us or do we only obey under compulsory means?

I think my main and only enemy is something that is not human, but is perhaps disease.  It doesn't ask, it just takes.  

22 minutes ago, Jared Livesey said:

1. What does it mean to humble oneself?

humble means, as I see it well expressed in the dictionary:  "having or showing a modest or low estimate of one's own importance".  It works best when you consider how important you are compared to others.  No one has more importance.  

22 minutes ago, Jared Livesey said:

1. What does it mean to become as a little child?

Act foolish, unlearned, and selfishly.  Why would this be a good mandate?  

22 minutes ago, Jared Livesey said:

1. What does it mean to be submissive?

"ready to conform to the authority or will of others; meekly obedient or passive."

There's certain time and place for being submissive.  And of course there are other times and places where being submissive is foolishness.  

22 minutes ago, Jared Livesey said:

1. What does it mean to be meek?

quiet, gentle, and easily imposed on; submissive.

Similar to sbumissive (particularly since they essentially share meaning), there are times and places that it's good to so observe.  

22 minutes ago, Jared Livesey said:

1. What does it mean to be humble?
2. What does it mean to be patient?

able to accept or tolerate delays, problems, or suffering without becoming annoyed or anxious.

We can practice patience from time to time.  Some seem more prone, and often that's conditioned on circumstance.  

22 minutes ago, Jared Livesey said:

1. What does it mean to be full of love?

Love suggests profound affection for another.  To be full of love means you'd simply have that profound affection for everyone and perhaps everything.  The idea of being full of love is merely a hyperbole, since it's impossible for anyone to really be full of love.  

22 minutes ago, Jared Livesey said:

1. What are examples of things which the Lord sees fit to inflict upon us?

Abortion, tetinus, mushrooms on pizza etc.  

22 minutes ago, Jared Livesey said:

1. In what manner does a small child submit to his father?

Don't ask this father.  I don't think my children fit the bill of submit.  

22 minutes ago, Jared Livesey said:

Bonus:  If we aren't one of those things in v. 19 lines 5 through 9, are we any of those things?

Every single person, with perhaps some possible exception of some afflicted with psychosis, has all of those things and none of them at various times in life.  Scripture paints and unreal simplistic view of humanity that doesn't comport well with reality.  

[pogi]

52 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

The divisiveness I see is found in the claim that everyone is God's enemy until they do some undefinable, arbitrary thing like yied to the enticing of the spirit and put off the natural man.  Those are loaded concepts which may or may not really mean anything.  Has one put off the natural man if he gets baptized then smokes and drinks?  Or has one put off the natural man if one gets baptized and over-eats, lacks motivation in the Church, and neglects other duties?  Are members who don't do enough, in that way, enemies of God because perhaps they failed to actually put off the natural man?  As I see it you keep going backwards and putting the divisiveness outlined in scripture on everyone else pretending, it seems, that scripture isn't being divisive.  

WEll, I disagree, even if I can't really decide why there is contradiction in scripture.  People are simply people following what they've been taught.  Religion has always divided even as it tries to grow.  

You are not arguing against my interpretation of scripture.  You are arguing against yours. Have fun with that!   If I interpreted scripture the same way you do, I would probably consider them "silly and nonsense" too.  I suppose it is too much to ask of you to open your eyes to a new way of seeing things.  

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, stemelbow said:

Is there anything more divisive than religion?   

Yes, the internet.

[pogi]

13 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

But I don't see anyone as my enemy.  

No, you don't see "anyone" as your enemy, just all of religion combined.  That is all.  No biggie.  Get rid of religion and peace and unity would reign on earth!  There would be less divisiveness and communities would be richer and stronger and more united.  So naïve!   You are fighting the wrong enemy.  

[Jared Livesey]

Thank you for responding to the questions.  I would be interested to see how the believers respond to them as well.

[stemelbow]

4 minutes ago, pogi said:

You are not arguing against my interpretation of scripture.  You are arguing against yours. Have fun with that!   If I interpreted scripture the same way you do, I would probably consider them "silly and nonsense" too.  I suppose it is too much to ask of you to open your eyes to a new way of seeing things.  

I"m open as can be.  If you have a reasonable explanation of scripture, please share.  Concluding scripture is not divisive is simply your conclusion.  Great.  Fine.  BUt if you say scripture doesn't say what it does say, or doesn't mean what it does say then while you may think that's your interpretation, I can safely conclude that's not interpretation so much as misreading.  

[stemelbow]

9 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Yes, the internet.

Divisiveness is on the internet, particularly on the topic of religion, but the internet itself is not divisive.  

[The Nehor]

6 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Divisiveness is on the internet, particularly on the topic of religion, but the internet itself is not divisive.  

Letting everyone with an opinion shout it loudly at a similar volume with no distinction between wisdom and idiocy has caused more division than religion ever could.

[stemelbow]

12 minutes ago, pogi said:

No, you don't see "anyone" as your enemy, just all of religion combined.  That is all.  No biggie.  Get rid of religion and peace and unity would reign on earth!  There would be less divisiveness and communities would be richer and stronger and more united.  So naïve!   You are fighting the wrong enemy.  

What enemy should I be fighting?  My position is pretty simple when it comes to religion, in my view.  No religionist is my enemy.  But some beliefs are simply problematic and these problematic teachings affect more than just the believer, particularly since religion is so pervasive.  Really, though, as I see it, the problem with religion is dogma--ideas declared true without sufficient reason to so declare.  Some dogma may be harmless, but some is not.  For me, my enemy is bad ideas.  Disease is also an enemy.  But I do not see people as enemy as scripture does.  

[The Nehor]

2 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

What enemy should I be fighting?  My position is pretty simple when it comes to religion, in my view.  No religionist is my enemy.  But some beliefs are simply problematic and these problematic teachings affect more than just the believer, particularly since religion is so pervasive.  Really, though, as I see it, the problem with religion is dogma--ideas declared true without sufficient reason to so declare.  Some dogma may be harmless, but some is not.  For me, my enemy is bad ideas.  Disease is also an enemy.  But I do not see people as enemy as scripture does.  

Wouldn’t your enemy then include those who fight against reason itself and promulgate bad ideas?

[pogi]

10 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I"m open as can be.  If you have a reasonable explanation of scripture, please share.  Concluding scripture is not divisive is simply your conclusion.  Great.  Fine.  BUt if you say scripture doesn't say what it does say, or doesn't mean what it does say then while you may think that's your interpretation, I can safely conclude that's not interpretation so much as misreading.  

I have already shared my interpretation of this passage.  Maybe you overlooked it.

11 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

BUt if you say scripture doesn't say what it does say, or doesn't mean what it does say then while you may think that's your interpretation, I can safely conclude that's not interpretation so much as misreading.  

A disbeliever wanting a seat at the hermeneutics table as a literalist!  That is funny!  I think it is safe to say that as a disbeliever, your interpretation of scripture is moot.