Was Joseph at the Savior's Crucifixion?

[Stargazer]

43 minutes ago, Calm said:

I don’t see it intended as an idolization in general of virginity/celibacy, but more of the dedication/consecration to the Creator that goes with it…but I may be wrong.  Hopefully Catholic posters will add their views.

The virginity of Mary served a purpose.  Because of her Immaculate Conception, she was free from original sin.  Her vow of virginity may have kept her innocent and pure.  Not sure on that.

https://www.newadvent.org/summa/3152.htm

I suppose if you have to have original sin, Mary's perpetual virginity serves a purpose as it is said. 

But "original sin" is a crock. If "original sin" were real, and Mary was excused from it, did she never commit any sin at all in her own person? If she did not, what stops her from being the Savior? Aside from being mortal, anyway. If she never sinned at all in her life, she is the only person in history who did not need Jesus Christ's atonement. That would make her the biggest exception in the universe. And if she did commit a sin in her own person, why is her "original sin" more important? Why should the sin you didn't actually commit be more important than the sin that got handed down to you through no fault of your own?

On top of that, virgins can be just as venal as anyone else. Merely not having sexual relations does not make anyone superior to anyone else. 

Where do those Marian Dogmas come from, anyway? The first of the Marian Dogmas was created in 389 AD. The other three trailed in later, in 431, 1854, and 1950. Why not in 33 AD? Not Jesus nor any of the apostles said the first word about any of this. These doctrines cannot be found in scripture. The only reason they exist is because some guy with a PhD degree from the University of Eisegesis made a squirrelly set of deductions from faulty assumptions about the nature of sin, invented "original sin" from whole cloth, and was then horrified that since Jesus was born of a mortal woman, that somehow thereby He accrued some of that vacuous "original sin" through her. So to keep that from happening, it was necessary to invent some new doctrine to hop, skip, and jump out of the conundrum.

And that, also, is why tiny babies had to be baptized or they were toast.

Mormon was absolutely correct.

Moroni quoting Mormon, quoting Jesus Christ: Moroni 8:8 -> "Listen to the words of Christ, your Redeemer, your Lord and your God. Behold, I came into the world not to call the righteous but sinners to repentance; the whole need no physician, but they that are sick; wherefore, little children are whole, for they are not capable of committing sin; wherefore the curse of Adam is taken from them in me, that it hath no power over them; and the law of circumcision is done away in me."

What is the "curse of Adam": this refers to Adam’s separation from God’s presence as a result of the Fall.

 

[Stargazer]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Apostles have spoken of there being a time and season for commandments, that sometimes one commandment may prevent the fulfilling of another (such as young mothers don’t need to feel guilty about neglecting family history or students food storage), so I think there are more reasons to put some commandments on hold than inability.

Nevermind, I deleted the bulk of what I just posted. What you said stood on its own. I didn't need to expand upon it.

I'm feeling particularly verbose today. For some reason.

Edited December 19, 2023 by Stargazer

[webbles]

1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

But "original sin" is a crock. If "original sin" were real, and Mary was excused from it, did she never commit any sin at all in her own person? If she did not, what stops her from being the Savior? Aside from being mortal, anyway. If she never sinned at all in her life, she is the only person in history who did not need Jesus Christ's atonement. That would make her the biggest exception in the universe. And if she did commit a sin in her own person, why is her "original sin" more important? Why should the sin you didn't actually commit be more important than the sin that got handed down to you through no fault of your own?

Per the "Immaculate Conception" doctrine, Mary depends on Christ to be free of the original sin.

Pope Pius IX said in 1854:

Quote

The most Blessed Virgin Mary was, from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God and by virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, Saviour of the human race, preserved immune from all stain of original sin.

So, it is because of Christ that she was preserved from the original sin.  She couldn't do it herself.

And yes, it is believed that Mary never did commit any personal sins.

[Saint Bonaventure]

On 12/14/2023 at 3:30 PM, Pyreaux said:

The tradition in Catholicism is Joseph was older, about 40 when he wed Mary and had died by the time Jesus was 30. He's nowhere after losing Jesus in the temple, and we don't suppose his death would be premature with Jesus around.

Lots of speculation and no official teaching on this one. In recent years, a popular book used in devotion to St. Joseph presents a likelihood he wasn't an older man.

[Stargazer]

4 hours ago, webbles said:

Per the "Immaculate Conception" doctrine, Mary depends on Christ to be free of the original sin.

Pope Pius IX said in 1854:

So, it is because of Christ that she was preserved from the original sin.  She couldn't do it herself.

And yes, it is believed that Mary never did commit any personal sins.

Yes, I read what Pius wrote about this. From a certain subjective and philosophical point of view it kind of holds together, but from an objective point of view it smells like an evolving theological doctrine, and not a revealed one. And a man-made one. I seem to recall hearing that no Pope has ever claimed revelation. But I am sure that some form of inspiration is claimed. And then there's the Eastern Orthodox, which disagrees with the Catholic on what are considered important points of doctrine. The "filioque" comes to mind. 

 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

seem to recall hearing that no Pope has ever claimed revelation.

They use the term “revelation” as in public revelation, not personal, in a narrower definition than we do.  It is not like Catholics don’t believe in visions, after all or inspired reasoning like we do.

Quote

Church dogma is a truth revealed by God, declared as such by the infallible authority of the magisterium and considered necessary for salvation; the terms “official Church teaching” and “articles of faith” are sometimes used in a synonymous way.

https://www.oursundayvisitor.com/the-immaculate-conception-and-the-evolution-of-dogma/

Edited December 20, 2023 by Calm

[MiserereNobis]

12 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Also the idea that he was an old man, I think, was created to enhance the notion that Mary was a perpetual virgin, as if even marital sex is somehow wrong, perhaps justifying an unmarried clergy.  IMO!

That's not the Catholic teaching at all.

First of all, clergy can be married. In the Latin Rite (what most people think of as the Catholic Church) there is a long standing tradition of unmarried clergy. However, this is tradition, not dogma. This is clearly seen because the clergy in the Eastern Catholic Churches (the Eastern Rites in communion with the Pope) can be married.

As far as marriage and marital sex, the Catechism says this:

Quote

1603 "The intimate community of life and love which constitutes the married state has been established by the Creator and endowed by him with its own proper laws.... God himself is the author of marriage." The vocation to marriage is written in the very nature of man and woman as they came from the hand of the Creator

Quote

1604 God who created man out of love also calls him to love the fundamental and innate vocation of every human being. For man is created in the image and likeness of God who is himself love. Since God created him man and woman, their mutual love becomes an image of the absolute and unfailing love with which God loves man. It is good, very good, in the Creator's eyes

Quote

1613 On the threshold of his public life Jesus performs his first sign - at his mother's request - during a wedding feast. The Church attaches great importance to Jesus' presence at the wedding at Cana. She sees in it the confirmation of the goodness of marriage and the proclamation that thenceforth marriage will be an efficacious sign of Christ's presence.

There are those who give up marriage in order to remain virgins for the sake of the Kingdom. This does not mean that marriage is lesser. Both states are equal. From the Catechism:

Quote

1620 Both the sacrament of Matrimony and virginity for the Kingdom of God come from the Lord himself. It is he who gives them meaning and grants them the grace which is indispensable for living them out in conformity with his will. Esteem of virginity for the sake of the kingdom and the Christian understanding of marriage are inseparable, and they reinforce each other:

Whoever denigrates marriage also diminishes the glory of virginity. Whoever praises it makes virginity more admirable and resplendent. What appears good only in comparison with evil would not be truly good. the most excellent good is something even better than what is admitted to be good.

 

[MiserereNobis]

15 hours ago, Stargazer said:

I seem to recall hearing that no Pope has ever claimed revelation

I've brought this up a few times on this board. It's mainly an issue of semantics/definitions.

But here is a Pope very specifically claiming revelation. Pope Pius XII in 1950:

Quote

We pronounce, declare, and define it to be a divinely revealed dogma: that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory.

 

[MiserereNobis]

15 hours ago, Stargazer said:

from an objective point of view it smells like an evolving theological doctrine, and not a revealed one. And a man-made one.

That's not an objective point of view at all.

And the Catholic Church does not claim that all doctrine and dogma was fully known and understood since the time of the apostles. That's why there is magisterium, to clarify, expound, explain, and (to use LDS terms) reveal doctrine and dogma. The history of the ecumenical councils is the history of doctrine and dogma being clarified and revealed.

I don't think we are dissimilar from the LDS church is this matter, right? Didn't the doctrines of marriage, exaltation, and even the nature of God evolve over time in your church, especially in the early years?

[MiserereNobis]

On 12/19/2023 at 8:38 AM, Stargazer said:

I have a lot of respect for the Catholic Church, but this notion that virginity, per se, is so noble and wonderful just falls flat for me. The first commandment given to man was to multiply and replenish the earth. To me, procreation for a woman is the most noble thing she can do -- to sacrifice herself to serve the aims of God by providing bodies for His children to occupy. And that cannot be done as a virgin.

But who am I to complain.

But it's not virginity per se. Per se means "by or in itself." Virginity, in the eyes of the Catholic Church, is good if it is for the kingdom, such as the virginity of monks and nuns.

I did post some quotes from the Catechism in a reply to Mark. Check those out to get a better understanding of our beliefs concerning the relationship between marriage and virginity.

[MiserereNobis]

23 hours ago, Stargazer said:

That's a pretty neat sidestep! The philosophies of men take the foremost! 😃

Don't you have apologists who use reason/logic/"philosophy" to help explain LDS beliefs?

23 hours ago, Stargazer said:

But who says who must do it, and who is excused? 

God.

23 hours ago, Stargazer said:

It's as if God said to Adam and Eve: "Be fruitful and multiply -- but only if you feel called to it."

No, it is God who calls men and women to virginity for the sake of the kingdom, not themselves. It's called a "vocation" for a reason.

23 hours ago, Stargazer said:

My answer to this nice little sidestep is "What part of the word commandment implies there's an exception?"

Most commandments have exceptions if God gives you the exception. There is the commandment "thou shalt not kill" but God told Nephi to kill that one guy anyways.

[MiserereNobis]

22 hours ago, Stargazer said:

I suppose if you have to have original sin, Mary's perpetual virginity serves a purpose as it is said. 

Yep.

22 hours ago, Stargazer said:

But "original sin" is a crock.

You're sure feeling cantankerous about Catholic doctrine and practice today 😁

22 hours ago, Stargazer said:

If "original sin" were real, and Mary was excused from it, did she never commit any sin at all in her own person?

Yes, she was sinless.

22 hours ago, Stargazer said:

If she did not, what stops her from being the Savior?

Because she wasn't God.

This brings up an interesting question. Do LDS believe that Christ was able to be the Savior simply because he was sinless? Your question seems to imply so.

22 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Aside from being mortal, anyway. If she never sinned at all in her life, she is the only person in history who did not need Jesus Christ's atonement.

She did need His atonement. That's how she was able to avoid original sin in the first place and then remain sinless in her life.

22 hours ago, Stargazer said:

That would make her the biggest exception in the universe.

Well, there is a reason why the Catholic Church holds her in the highest of esteem and that Catholics are so devoted to her  

22 hours ago, Stargazer said:

And if she did commit a sin in her own person, why is her "original sin" more important? Why should the sin you didn't actually commit be more important than the sin that got handed down to you through no fault of your own?

They are two types of sin. She was free from both.

22 hours ago, Stargazer said:

On top of that, virgins can be just as venal as anyone else. Merely not having sexual relations does not make anyone superior to anyone else. 

I completely agree with you.

22 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Where do those Marian Dogmas come from, anyway? The first of the Marian Dogmas was created in 389 AD. The other three trailed in later, in 431, 1854, and 1950. Why not in 33 AD? Not Jesus nor any of the apostles said the first word about any of this.

How do you know what they said or taught?

22 hours ago, Stargazer said:

These doctrines cannot be found in scripture.

So? We are not sola scriptura. Neither are you, right?

22 hours ago, Stargazer said:

The only reason they exist is because some guy with a PhD degree from the University of Eisegesis made a squirrelly set of deductions from faulty assumptions about the nature of sin, invented "original sin" from whole cloth, and was then horrified that since Jesus was born of a mortal woman, that somehow thereby He accrued some of that vacuous "original sin" through her. So to keep that from happening, it was necessary to invent some new doctrine to hop, skip, and jump out of the conundrum.

Dang, you are grumpy. You've also got a lot of things wrong up to this point, so perhaps you got some more things wrong? Just something to think about.

22 hours ago, Stargazer said:

And that, also, is why tiny babies had to be baptized or they were toast.

No one knows the state of unbaptized children who die. We are bound by God's sacraments, but God is not bound by them.

22 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Mormon was absolutely correct.

Moroni quoting Mormon, quoting Jesus Christ: Moroni 8:8 -> "Listen to the words of Christ, your Redeemer, your Lord and your God. Behold, I came into the world not to call the righteous but sinners to repentance; the whole need no physician, but they that are sick; wherefore, little children are whole, for they are not capable of committing sin; wherefore the curse of Adam is taken from them in me, that it hath no power over them; and the law of circumcision is done away in me."

Well of course the Book of Mormon is going to support LDS doctrine  

22 hours ago, Stargazer said:

What is the "curse of Adam": this refers to Adam’s separation from God’s presence as a result of the Fall.

And original sin.

[Stargazer]

1 hour ago, MiserereNobis said:

That's not an objective point of view at all.

Perhaps not. I may not be in a position to be fully objective, but I can at least simulate it. 

1 hour ago, MiserereNobis said:

And the Catholic Church does not claim that all doctrine and dogma was fully known and understood since the time of the apostles. That's why there is magisterium, to clarify, expound, explain, and (to use LDS terms) reveal doctrine and dogma. The history of the ecumenical councils is the history of doctrine and dogma being clarified and revealed.

But it seems logical to presume that most, if not all, major points of doctrine would be established within a reasonable time frame after Jesus's resurrection and during Apostolic times. But 1,854 years after His birth we suddenly discover something important we had never realized before? Why did this take so long? It seems to have come forth in order to clear up a loose end that was finally recognized as such. If one reads the history of Mariology in the Christian church as a whole, one cannot but notice that it has been all over the place over time, ever increasing in detail and depth.  That why I claimed a degree of objectivity in suspecting it was a man-made doctrine. For starters, there is utterly no scriptural warrant for it.

1 hour ago, MiserereNobis said:

I don't think we are dissimilar from the LDS church is this matter, right? Didn't the doctrines of marriage, exaltation, and even the nature of God evolve over time in your church, especially in the early years?

The key word here is "in the early years." Clearly, not all knowledge can be revealed at once. Line upon line, precept upon precept. The original Apostles didn't get it all handed to them in a week-long seminar. Jesus was teaching as a mortal for 3 years, and even after his resurrection he was still teaching the Apostles -- especially during that period between his resurrection and his final Ascension. But there is no record of any of the Apostles having taught the first thing about Mariology. The first official mention of it is more than 400 years later. Brand-new doctrine not taught by Christ or the Apostles.

As for the Latter-day Saints, the nature of God has not evolved, nor have marriage and exaltation. These matters were nailed down quite early. 

The nature of God was established from the beginning, within the lifetime of the Prophet. The First Vision established that the Godhead consisted of at least two personages. The Father introduced the Son and said "This is My Beloved Son. Hear Him!" This established them as two distinct but united individuals. In 1843 the Prophet made the nature of the God head very clear (but it was already clearly understood): 

"The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit. Were it not so, the Holy Ghost could not dwell in us." DC 130:22

• For eternal marriage there is DC 132, received in 1843. No change has occurred here, other than a temporary suspension of plural marriage practiced with more than one living wife
• For exaltation there is DC 76, received in 1832. Again, no change.
• For salvation/baptism for the dead there is DC 128, set forth in 1842 (but the principle was already being practiced). Once again, no change.

Now there have been occasional changes in administration over time, as circumstances have required. But there have been no changes in fundamental principles, which were established very early on. 

 

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

That's not the Catholic teaching at all.

Yes I know all that, sorry, misunderstanding.

I was talking about the FOLK LEGENDS that Joseph was an old man perpetuating the idea that Mary was a perpetual virgin.  Child 54 A ballad.

"The story may have originated in the "Infancy Gospel of the Pseudo-Matthew," an apocryphal Latin work of the ninth century. In it, the miracle took place after Jesus's birth. Joseph, Jesus, and Mary were fleeing from King Herod when Mary became faint from the heat."

Google "Lyrics The Cherry Tree Carol", or, here:

https://www.lizlyle.lofgrens.org/RmOlSngs/RTOS-CherryTree.html

I went to visit a seminary at the end of 8th grade and stayed for a weekend, deciding if I wanted to become a priest.  I was there to pray about my vocation, and prayed a lot. At the end, I was convinced that God wanted me to be both a priest AND have a family.

I went to a Byzantine Rite church for awhile, and felt it might work.  Through high school and college, and even grad school in philosophy I considered it, but then I met the Mormons. 

I prayed about Moroni's challenge, and it was like getting stuck by lightning.  Upon more study I found the unity of Christianity and the humanism of William James fit my studies perfectly.

Here I am, a fully humanist, fully Christian,  priest with grandchildren! 

Couldn't be better!

https://muse.jhu.edu/article/18126

Edited December 20, 2023 by mfbukowski

[Stargazer]

2 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

 

On 12/19/2023 at 5:56 PM, Stargazer said:

But "original sin" is a crock.

You're sure feeling cantankerous about Catholic doctrine and practice today 😁

Well, it was a Tuesday. I'm always cantankerous on Tuesdays. 😉

As I am sure you know, "original sin" is not exclusively Catholic. It was a doctrine that started to emerge in the 3rd century, finally getting its full form in the writings of Augustine of Hippo, who was the one who came up with the Latin term peccatum originale. It's found everywhere.

Catholic Answers has this to say about it: "Original sin may be taken to mean: (I) the sin that Adam committed; (2) a consequence of this first sin, the hereditary stain with which we are born on account of our origin or descent from Adam."

It is with this "hereditary stain" that I have an issue. Adam and Eve committed a sin. That's on them. Personally. There is no warrant whatsoever for saying that the taint of what they did in the Garden is heritable, per se, as a sin that follows and attaches to all their descendants. What we did inherit was our mortal condition of degeneracy and exile from God, which is in itself not a sin.  I will agree that because of the Fall and our consequent separation from God we inherit a tainted nature with a proclivity to sinful conduct. But again, a proclivity is not a sin until it is reduced to action. 

I understand the theological necessity of making Mary a superbeing in respect of lacking original sin, because if she inherited it then so did her son Jesus -- which is a unconscionable contract, as it were. He cannot be the Savior if he inherited original sin from her. The idea of the sinlessness of Mary seems to grow out of this as well. But if the sin of Adam and Eve is not heritable by their descendants, then Mary doesn't need an immaculate conception. As for her sinlessness, I suppose that's possible, but highly unlikely and unnecessary in any event.

My contention is that original sin is an invented doctrine and not a true principle of the Gospel. As evidence I state the fact that it cannot be found, as such, in the scriptures. Mention of sin as a propensity of our mortal condition is made, but not something inherited like eye color. And yes, as you point out, neither the LDS nor the Catholics are sola scriptura. But does this mean that any given Pope or President can invent whatever new doctrine he likes to augment the scriptures, at need? I say he can't, absent divine revelation. While I don't think a doctrine necessarily requires a positive scriptural backing, it definitely should not contradict a principle taught therein. And it seems reasonable that if the doctrine is important (as original sin seems to be), it should have ended up in there at some point. Since original sin didn't end up in there, and there is modern revelation contradicting it, it must be a false doctrine.

Our rejection of original sin is stated quite clearly by a Prophet of God in the Second Article of Faith: "We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression."

But if you don't believe Joseph Smith was a prophet, there we are.

 

[Stargazer]

3 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

On 12/19/2023 at 5:56 PM, Stargazer said:

If she did not, what stops her from being the Savior?

Because she wasn't God.

This brings up an interesting question. Do LDS believe that Christ was able to be the Savior simply because he was sinless? Your question seems to imply so.

Ah, yes, clearly she wasn't God. Stupid question, I admit. I let myself get carried away.

As for your interesting question, that IS an interesting question! As I said, my question was stupid, because obviously mere sinlessness does not make a fully mortal human into the Savior. Sinlessness is an essential qualification, yes, for without it He couldn't be the Savior, but it wasn't enough. Fully human newborn babies, after all, are sinless. But one of those cannot be the Savior.

To be the Savior, it was necessary for Christ to be the literal Son of God. For a number of reasons.

I'd love to explain my own reasons more fully, but my full take on this probably goes well beyond formal LDS doctrine, so I'm uncomfortable putting it out there -- I don't want to seem to be teaching the "Gospel According to Stargazer." 

[Stargazer]

4 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

On 12/19/2023 at 5:56 PM, Stargazer said:

Aside from being mortal, anyway. If she never sinned at all in her life, she is the only person in history who did not need Jesus Christ's atonement.

She did need His atonement. That's how she was able to avoid original sin in the first place and then remain sinless in her life.

On 12/19/2023 at 5:56 PM, Stargazer said:

That would make her the biggest exception in the universe.

Well, there is a reason why the Catholic Church holds her in the highest of esteem and that Catholics are so devoted to her  

Understandable! 

We hold her in high esteem as well. The Book of Mormon refers to Mary by name in prophecies of her mission (Mosiah 3:8) and describes her as "most beautiful and fair above all other virgins" (1 Nephi 11:13–20) and as a "precious and chosen vessel" (Alma 7:10).

[Stargazer]

4 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

 

On 12/19/2023 at 5:56 PM, Stargazer said:

Where do those Marian Dogmas come from, anyway? The first of the Marian Dogmas was created in 389 AD. The other three trailed in later, in 431, 1854, and 1950. Why not in 33 AD? Not Jesus nor any of the apostles said the first word about any of this.

How do you know what they said or taught?

Oh, that's clever! I obviously wasn't there, so how do I know they didn't teach these things. Zing! So I guess you could say that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. But I will counter that absence of evidence does however militate against the thing for which there is no evidence.

I might as well say that the absence of Jesus and/or His apostles teaching that rabbits and eggs were to be used as sacred symbols of Christ's resurrection doesn't mean they didn't teach about them. Or that the absence of Jesus and/or His apostles teaching that dogs go to heaven does not mean that dogs don't go to heaven. 

[Stargazer]

5 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

 

On 12/19/2023 at 5:56 PM, Stargazer said:

The only reason they exist is because some guy with a PhD degree from the University of Eisegesis made a squirrelly set of deductions from faulty assumptions about the nature of sin, invented "original sin" from whole cloth, and was then horrified that since Jesus was born of a mortal woman, that somehow thereby He accrued some of that vacuous "original sin" through her. So to keep that from happening, it was necessary to invent some new doctrine to hop, skip, and jump out of the conundrum.

Dang, you are grumpy. You've also got a lot of things wrong up to this point, so perhaps you got some more things wrong? Just something to think about.

LOL!

You say I got a lot of things wrong. Well, I might have misunderstood a couple of things, but "a lot of things wrong"? You can claim all you want, and so can I. But what matters most is the truth. Which I, of course, believe is on my side.

Note that my references to the University of Eisegesis do not refer necessarily to the Catholic Church and its people, but to the theologians of the distant past who got so much wrong because of being influenced by pagan philosophy and their own overthinking. Because that's what you guys had to deal with as an heritage, that puts you where you are now. You've got a lot of things right, and in some places where you didn't, what you have isn't necessarily bad. It's worked well this long, so what's to complain about? That may sound like faint praise, and that I am rather full of myself, but it reflects my genuine admiration.

I actually love the Catholic Church. I'm impressed by the staying power and faithfulness over the past many centuries. I have a great deal of admiration for many of the RCC's past and present leaders. And aside from being wrong on many salient points, the theology of the RCC is interesting, well-organized and understandable. Your liturgy, what I've seen of it, is beautiful and uplifting. Your cathedrals are places of beauty and grandeur, and make their environs seem more heavenly. 

If I ever were to leave the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, I'd probably feel most comfortable as a Catholic, despite the fact that my upbringing was vaguely Protestant. And I've really enjoyed our little repartee here. 

Edited December 20, 2023 by Stargazer

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, Stargazer said:

But again, a proclivity is not a sin until it is reduced to action. 

Oh, you mean the wonderful gift of agency, which also obviously Father has as part of his "nature", a meaningless tale. What's a "proclivity"?

Yes we have just as much  "proclivity" to do good.  Two natures doesn't work either

A dog's nature is to be a dog, elephants are elephants, people are people.

Two natures in one being? As impossible as a dog which also is an elephant.

The word is useless.  A=A.

As Popeye, the great prophet said "I am what I am"

AND, Determinism is a fable.

THAT's the philosophy of Satan, if you want to see it that way.  

Read up on Compatiblism 

This ain't bad:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compatibilism#:~:text=Compatibilism is the belief that,nothing to do with metaphysics.

Edited December 20, 2023 by mfbukowski

[Stargazer]

5 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

 

On 12/19/2023 at 4:41 PM, Stargazer said:

My answer to this nice little sidestep is "What part of the word commandment implies there's an exception?"

Most commandments have exceptions if God gives you the exception. There is the commandment "thou shalt not kill" but God told Nephi to kill that one guy anyways.

OK, you got me: God can call an exception. They are His commandments, after all.

But on the other hand, I don't believe Nephi was breaking the commandment. The commandment isn't "Thou shalt not kill," but "Thou shalt not murder." "Killing" may be necessary to defend oneself, and is not forbidden. "Murder," on the other hand, is the deliberate killing of an innocent human being. Laban was not innocent. In the case at hand, he was guilty of attempted murder under color of law. Left alive, he would have realized who had taken the brass plates and would have mobilized his troops to seek Lehi's camp to fulfill his desire to kill the witnesses of his crime.  One might argue that Nephi was guilty of robbery, having taken the brass plates without Laban's permission. However, Nephi had earlier shown up to purchase the plates, and offered Laban a large payment. When Laban rejected the offer to buy, but took the payment anyway, then attempted to kill the ones offering payment, he was the one who committed robbery. Having accepted payment for the plates, but refusing to hand them over, Laban was the guilty one. 

I say that, even absent God's command to take Laban's life, Nephi was fully justified in killing him, and his death was not murder, but self-defense.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Our rejection of original sin is stated quite clearly by a Prophet of God in the Second Article of Faith: "We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression."

But women are still dealing with the consequences of Eve’s transgression.

[Calm]

58 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Oh, that's clever! I obviously wasn't there, so how do I know they didn't teach these things. Zing! So I guess you could say that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. But I will counter that absence of evidence does however militate against the thing for which there is no evidence.

I might as well say that the absence of Jesus and/or His apostles teaching that rabbits and eggs were to be used as sacred symbols of Christ's resurrection doesn't mean they didn't teach about them. Or that the absence of Jesus and/or His apostles teaching that dogs go to heaven does not mean that dogs don't go to heaven. 

Are you claiming there is evidence that existed and can be found by AD 33 for everything the LDS Church teaches?  (Sincere question, trying to understand your position)

Edited December 20, 2023 by Calm

[Stargazer]

55 minutes ago, Calm said:

But women are still dealing with the consequences of Eve’s transgression.

Yes they are. But so are men. I, for one, would love to just sit around all day and eat the fruits that grow spontaneously without much sweat.

[Stargazer]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Are you claiming there is evidence that existed and can be found by AD 33 for everything the LDS Church teaches?  (Sincere question, trying to understand your position)

No, ma'am. I'm just saying that there isn't a hint of this Mariology in the scriptures, nor in the writings of the early church fathers (such that we have) until rather late in history. I'm saying that if devotion to Mary were so important (and to the RCC she is VERY important) then there should have been something in the teachings of Jesus or the Apostles, post-resurrection, suggesting it. But there's nothing. Not the barest twinkling of a hint.

There are things that the LDS church teaches which weren't written about in the Primitive church at all. But the latter-days are, besides a time of restoration, a time when new teachings were to appear. 

Edited December 20, 2023 by Stargazer
grammar