The American Spectator

Dropping By| 3.16.09 @ 8:31AM

Interesting, when I read "Watchmen" (haven't seen the movie yet), I never once thought, "Hey, Dr. Manhattan is just like Heavenly Father!" It turns out that there may indeed be some few similarities, on a very superficial level.

But those are utterly overwhelmed for this Mormon by how completely out-of-touch and inhuman Dr. Manhattan becomes post-transformation. Mormons believe the Father remains ever vigilant about the happiness and well-being of his children (us), that he works closely in a Godhead that includes our savior (Jesus Christ) and the Holy Spirit. I keep reading that Mormons don't believe in the Trinity -- but we do believe in the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, our conception of it is merely different.

Oh, Father in Heaven also isn't blue or bald, and he's modest.

But you got the headline right.

Francis Beckwith| 3.16.09 @ 10:11AM

In 2001 I published a response to the charge that the classical concept of God is "Greek philosophy baptized," as Mr. Hopkins is arguing: "Mormon Theism, the Traditional Christian Concept of God, and Greek Philosophy: A Critical Analysis." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 44.4 (December 2001): 671-95. You can find it on my website here: http://homepage.mac.com/francis.beckwith/LDSGreek.pdf

On a personal note, Mr. Hopkins is a delightful man who has been nothing but gracious to me in our personal interactions.

TomH| 3.16.09 @ 10:21AM

Jeremy:

If you're going to be critical of the Mormon view of God, the very least you could do is actually make an accurate comparison?

There is something very strange with your comparison. Mormon prophets counsel members to "avoid" R-rated movies and "the Watchmen" is probably one of the worst R-rated films out in theaters right now. So, for Mormons who don’t frequent poorly crafted R-rated movies, or who don’t read comic books, you’re silly critique of and attempt to ridicule the Mormon view of God will not resonate with them.

The modern doctrine of deity involves two important areas of study: the reality of existence (the nature of matter and energy) and necessary theological foundations that are in agreement with it.

And Jeremy, why choose Hopkin's book as the definitive comparative text?

How about "The Mormon Doctrine of Deity," by B.H. Roberts, or "The Theological Foundations of the Mormon Religion," by Sterling McMurrin, and how about this one - "The Doctrine and Covenants," which is official Mormon scripture?

The Mormon doctrine of deity has more to do with the Old and New Testament than it does with the comic book, "The Watchmen." Why not make those comparisons? Oh, right, because your analogy would fail. Got it.

To all:
Jeremy advances the "classic view" of God as "spirit only" but runs into an impenetrable "flesh and bone" wall when we must account for the literal resurrection of Jesus Christ.

If Jesus Christ was literally resurrected, and ascended to heaven as such, then, "houston, we've got a problem:" God is no longer only "a spirit" but is spirit, flesh, and bone.

The resurrection "localizes" God inside the universe - in space and time - related to reality in the universe - not according to human understand only.

Creation:
The classic theological view of the creation of all things (ex nihilo) is incompatible with the laws of conservation and energy. Simple put – matter cannot be created or destroyed. To argue that this is only our perception is to argue that God is faking us out – or using a deception to “test” whether or not we’ll continue to believe that “God is no where but everywhere, that he is so small he can dwell in our heart but so large that he fills the immensity of space.” Such was the debate for centuries in early Catholicism and those sympathetic to the Hellenized view of God, ultimately won the debate and New Testament Godhead theology was snuffed out until 1820.

The classic theological view of the creation is only an untenable theological position. Why? When we reduce this view of God from before the creation, we see only a pure consciousness – ever existing in an eternity past – ever perfect but never creating. This “consciousness” has consciousness in itself. However, this is a stolen concept from reality. The purpose of consciousness is to be conscious of “something.” The something is “existence” or matter and energy. To be conscious only belongs to the reality where in there is existence co-dwelling with a consciousness.

Omniscience:
The classic view of omniscience only works if God has “eyes.” Since it is said that he is outside the “universe” bubble and can “LOOK” into the bubble, he must have “eyes” to peer into this bubble. But not just one eye, millions of eyes, so he can see the bubble from all angles and perspectives. And, what evidence do we have that such “eyes” can even accomplish such a thing in the first place?

But, if he’s everywhere INSIDE THE BUBBLE, (omniscience) then he’s really not exclusively outside space and time is he? See the problem? Mormons define omniscience as knowing all truth in existence: things as they were, as they are, and as they will be – God remembers all laws and events in existence (reality), knows all current events and processes in existence, (reality) and knows what future events or processes will occur in the future. The real question should be, How does the Mormon God do all of that without existing outside space and time? The answer: through God’s glory and his connection to all matter and energy in the universe.

Omnipresence:
No, Jeremy, Mormons do not believe that because God is corporeal he is subject to the same limits AS HUMANS. Your “watchmen” analogy just failed, again.

In Mormonism, God is perfect which does not refer only to a perfection of form but a perfect of substance. God has overcome all inherit weaknesses of human flesh and therefore, all things are subject to him – he is not subject to them. While God’s physical body is localized, his glory and influence fill the immensity of space, and the Holy Spirit and his influence also testify and witness throughout space of the reality (literal existence) of the Father and Son.

Change:
No, Jeremy, Mormons do not claim that God is “ever-evolving.” Mormons claim that God is perfect and has been perfect for longer than we can comprehend – there is no increase to his perfection, but only that his glory and dominion expand because of his NEW creations.

Classic theists hold a very curious position when it comes to God’s “unchanging nature.” Ultimately, it is an untenable position. Why? Remember what we did above when we reduced the classic view of God to a pure consciousness originating from outside space and time? Where God dwelled – ever perfect and never creating? If God’s perfection was complete in such a state, then why did he “change” and start creating? The view of God as a static non-creator turned creator only 6000 years and 6 days ago, is the most recent and dramatic theological change in history and would categorize the Christian God as the "newest" creator on the cosmological block. In Mormonism, God has been creating for billions upon billions of years - the earth isn't his first creation wherein he has "peopled" a planet and saved and sanctified its inhabitants - his children.

Corporeality:
True, Mormons do not agree with traditional Christianity’s view that God is “spirit” only. But, that position is inconsistent with the message of the Old Testament and New Testament witnesses of God. So where did this “spirit only” idea come from? Early Catholicism. From there doctrine stuck by creedal declaration and it was inherited centuries later by Protestants and passed down until today.

You see, when a person holds to the position that God is everywhere and nowhere or outside space and time – then God cannot be corporeal – at least according to classical metaphysics of the 3rd and 4th centuries. However, those theologians didn’t understand the true nature of matter, energy, and light.

Ultimately, this is a philosophical debate of whether the Mormon view of God is more compatible with the Bible.

Recently, it would seem that Christian scholars are unwittingly making concessions, that Mormon revelation on the creeds and the nature of God is correct, by demonstrating that the Orthodox Trinity doctrine is not a biblical doctrine. What scholars?

First, allow me to introduce Dr. Emil Brunner.

Emil Brunner was born near Zurich. He studied at both the universities of Zurich and Berlin, receiving his doctorate in theology from Zurich in 1913. Brunner insisted that Jesus was God incarnate and central to salvation. Brunner undoubtedly holds a place of prominence in Protestant theology in the 20th century and was one of the four or five system builders. Dr. Brunner is not an enemy of Orthodox Christianity. He is an Orthodox Christian scholar of the most upstanding type. He found:

“When we turn to the problem of the doctrine of the Trinity, we are confronted by a peculiarly contradictory situation. On the one hand, the history of Christian theology and of dogma teaches us to regard the dogma of the Trinity as the distinctive element in the Christian idea of God, that which distinguishes it from the idea of God in Judaism and in Islam, and indeed, in all forms of rational Theism. Judaism, Islam, and rational Theism are Unitarian. On the other hand, we must honestly admit that the doctrine of the Trinity did not form part of the early Christian-New Testament-message. Certainly, it cannot be denied that not only the word "Trinity", but even the explicit idea of the Trinity is absent from the apostolic witness of the faith. The doctrine of the Trinity itself, however, is not a Biblical Doctrine…” Emil Brunner, The Christian Doctrine of God (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1949), 205, 236.

Second, The new “Godhead” conceived in the Nicene Trinity was not taught in the Church prior to the Council in 325 A.D. Edwin Hatch, (bio here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwin_Hatch) an emeritus professor of Ecclesiastical History at the University of Oxford taught,

"And if the doctrine of God now espoused by the various sects is foreign to the thought of the primitive Church, what was the Godhead of the early Church like? Indeed, we find in the early Church the true doctrine of a Godhead consisting of three distinct persons who are completely separate in substance, but one in will - the Father presiding over the Son and the Son over the Spirit." [Hatch, E., The Influence of Greek Ideas and Usages upon the Christian Church, (New York: Harper Torchbooks, 1957,) p. 124.]

Third, Justin Martyr, a follower of Christ from 100-161 A.D. wrote that God abides

"in places that are above the heavens:" the "first-begotten," the Logos, is the "first force after the Father:" he is "a second God, second numerically but not in will," doing only the Father's pleasure. He also maintained that the Son is "in the second place, and the prophetic Spirit in the third." --[Justin Martyr, First Apology 13, in Davies, J.G., The Early Christian Church, (New York: Barnes and Noble, 1995,) p. 97.]

Fourth, another bible scholar states:

"...no doctrine of the Trinity in the Nicene sense is present in the New Testament ... there is no doctrine of the Trinity in the strict sense in the Apostolic Fathers ... to judge the Apologists by post-Nicene theology would be grossly unfair. Isolated passages could be cited to support the notion that the Apologists taught subordination within the deity"
- William G. Rusch, Lutheran Scholar ("The Trinitarian Controversy. Sources of Early Christian Thought", Fortress Press, 1980, 2,3,6)

Fifth, "... it is absurd to imagine (as some fundamentalists seem to do) that Christians today, armed with no knowledge of Christian history but only with their Bibles, could arrive at orthodox theories of, say, the Incarnation or the Trinity ... tradition helps us to grasp - as we see preeminently with the doctrine of the Trinity - that a doctrine or idea can be deemed normative for Christians despite the absence of any clear proof texts specifically teaching it" [Stephen T. Davis, Conservative Protestant Philosopher, Professor of Philosophy and Religion, Claremont McKenna College, "Philosophy and Theological Discourse, St. Martin's Press, 1997, 47-68]

Sixth, "... thus the New Testament itself is far from any doctrine of the Trinity or of a triune God who is three co-equal Persons of One Nature" [William J Hill, "The Three-Personed God", Washington, D.C., The Catholic University of American Press (1982, 27]

I understand the need for Christians to worship God in their own way. I believe that all men must be permitted to worship God “according to dictates of their own conscience”.

However, that the doctrine of the Orthodox Trinity should be used as a measuring stick for God’s nature, or for Jeremy’s authority for ridiculing the Mormon view of God with a comic flair, is unbiblical and absurd.

Jeremy Lott| 3.16.09 @ 10:36AM

TomH: I hate to break it to you but this piece is in no way an attack on Mormonism.

Doctor Right| 3.16.09 @ 10:40AM

This must be the strangest review of a comic book movie I've ever read. And quite a weird segue, too.

As I am a self-professed comics geek, and a HUGE fan of WATCHMEN, let me provide a little background.

In the 60's, the BIG comics companies doing super-heroes were D.C. (the evolved "National Periodicals"), and upstart rival MARVEL. However, there were a few other companies that. while they did not reach the heights of either MARVEL or DC, still generated a decent following.

One of these companies was CHARLTON COMICS. CHARLTON managed to make it through the 60's and 70's before folding-up their tents for good in the mid-80's. Prior to the company's final dissolution, the rights to all of their characters were purchased by D.C.

When Alan Moore originally wrote WATCHMEN for D.C., he had planned to use the CHARLTON characters. However, D.C. wisely nixed that idea, as they were nervous about the financial impact of using these characters, meant for kid's comics, in an adult-themed story. Basically, they believed that the characters would no longer be useful in mainstream comics, AND that it might alienate some of their readers who were also fans of CHARLTON (until recently, comics companies were generally loathe to diverge too far from a character's "comfort zone" - the fans would go beserk).

However, D.C. did agree to let Moore create new characters for WATCHMEN that were, for the most part, duplicates of the CHARLTON characters, thus allowing Moore to keep his excellent story basically intact.

For trivia's sake, it goes like this:

Dr. Manhattan = Captain Atom
Rorschach = The Question (who wears a trenchcoat and fedora, and has a faceless mask)
The Comedian = The Peacemaker
Night-Owl = The Blue Beetle
Adrian Veidt/Ozymandias = Peter Cannon/Thunderbolt
Silk Spectre = Nightshade

Moore is a great writer, probably the best in comics. He understands the genre, and he excels at plot and thematic development. Unfortunately, he's also an incurable lefty - he disliked Lady Thatcher intensely - but, one of the few with actual principles. For instance, he was so angered by the film interpretation of "V for Vendetta" (another classic graphic novel he authored) that he asked to have his name completely removed from the credits, and would not accept any cut of the profits.

BTW...One of the best, quirkiest artists/writers in modern comics is Mike Allred, who is also a devout Mormon...So don't be too sure about who's reading and watching "WATCHMEN"!

Apologist| 3.16.09 @ 10:43AM

TomH:

Well said. The information below is also useful:

Omnipotent God; Omnipresence of God; Omniscience of God

http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Omnipotent_God;_Omnipresence_of_God;_Omniscience_of_God

Author: Paulsen, David L.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints uses the familiar terms "omnipotent," "omnipresent," and "omniscient" to describe members of the Godhead.

OMNIPOTENCE. The Church affirms the biblical view of divine omnipotence (often rendered as "almighty"), that God is supreme, having power over all things. No one or no force or happening can frustrate or prevent him from accomplishing his designs (D&C 3:1-3). His power is sufficient to fulfill all his purposes and promises, including his promise of eternal life for all who obey him.

However, the Church does not understand this term in the traditional sense of absoluteness, and, on the authority of modern revelation, rejects the classical doctrine of creation out of nothing. It affirms, rather, that there are actualities that are coeternal with the persons of the Godhead, including elements, intelligence, and law (D&C 93:29, 33, 35: 88:34-40). Omnipotence, therefore, cannot coherently be understood as absolutely unlimited power. That view is internally self-contradictory and, given the fact that evil and suffering are real, not reconcilable with God's omnibenevolence or loving kindness (see Theodicy).

OMNIPRESENCE. Since Latter-day Saints believe that God the Father and God the Son are gloriously embodied persons, they do not believe them to be bodily omnipresent. They do affirm, rather, that their power is immanent "in all and through all things" and is the power "by which all things are governed" (D&C 88:6, 7, 13, 40-41). By their knowledge and power, and through the influence of the Holy Ghost, they are omnipresent.

OMNISCIENCE. Latter-day Saints differ among themselves in their understanding of the nature of God's knowledge. Some have thought that God increases endlessly in knowledge as well as in glory and dominion. Others hold to the more traditional view that God's knowledge, including the foreknowledge of future free contingencies, is complete. Despite these differing views, there is accord on two fundamental issues: (1) God's foreknowledge does not causally determine human choices, and (2) this knowledge, like God's power, is maximally efficacious. No event occurs that he has not anticipated or has not taken into account in his planning.
[edit] Bibliography

Roberts, B. H. "The Doctrine of Deity." Seventy's Course in Theology, third year. Salt Lake City, 1910.

DAVID L. PAULSEN

unger| 3.16.09 @ 11:07AM

Moore if I am not mistaken calls himself a Wodenist. And Woden/Odin or whichever name you please is merely Hermes Trismegistus dressed in German garb (if you don't believe me check Tacitus's' Germania). Hermes, for those of you who don't know, plays an important part in many esoteric and hermetic traditions, of which Mormonism is an inheritor (so much for being free from Hellenisms stain). I would say there is a clear connection between Dr. Manhattan and the Mormon god, they share a common ancestor, Hermes.

GW| 3.16.09 @ 11:17AM

The overall tone of the article is to demean and to ridicule a belief system of some 13 million people. (There approximately that many Jews in the world. ) I suppose it would it be OK to compare their concept of God to an offensive caricature from a comic book. But wait, you might have to get a strongly worded letter from B'nai B'rith or the ADL, which would be embarrassing.

Bigotry takes on a lot of forms. Smug disrespect is one of them. You article will be used to provide intellectual justification for intolerance.

RICHARD JERNIGAN| 3.16.09 @ 11:35AM

So ... now that you've got through your 2 minute Mormon "hate" rant ... got anybody else to dump on?

Kent Lyon| 3.16.09 @ 11:37AM

TomH does a pretty good job of demolishing Jeremy's thesis. Trivializing the Mormon concept of God by comparing it to a rather bizarre comic book character is certainly stooping low. Obviously, it's still acceptable, or more correct, in vogue and de riguer to ridicule Mormons, who have a theology that is indeed creative, but perhaps the most profound of any religion.
One point is the consequence for the view of humankind of the Mormon view of Deity, and that is, that humans have infinite potential, and hence, infinite worth. No religion affords greater reverence for, value to, and empowerment of, the human individual. In this, Mormonism is the ultimate American religion: "For the power is in them (speaking of ordinary individuals) wherein they are agents unto themselves, and inasmuch as men do good, they shall in no wise lose their reward." Any conservative should at least appreciate the concordance of Mormonism with Jeffersonian democracy and the apotheosis of the American yoeman. Mormon scripture repeatedly affirms that the American Founding was inspired by and ordained of Deity. Mormons virtually canonize the American Founding. That can't be all bad (unless you're a liberal who despises the American Founding--and I don't see many contributors to the American Spectator who fall in to that category).

The Mormon view provides the ultimate validation of individual human existence. It's still hard for me to square the infinite value afforded individual human life in Mormonism with the rather cavalier attitudes on abortion, and rather poorly thought out views on embryonic stem cell research, of many Mormon politicians, including Harry Ried and Orin Hatch. They are about as far from their religious precepts as Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry, Joe Biden, et. al. are from Catholicism and the Pope.

Mike| 3.16.09 @ 11:51AM

So much Latter Day Sensitivity! I didn't detect any anti-Mormon bias in the piece whatsoever.

MarkR| 3.16.09 @ 11:59AM

TomH, GW, Richard Jernigan and any other offended Mormons:

I think maybe you are a bit too sensitive. As a practicing Mormon I read the article and thought, "Interesting that a non-Mormon sees comparisons between what he perceives Mormonism's view of God is and Dr. Manhattan." I don't think the article was critical at all. It sounded like he was just showing the similarities as he saw them. While I appreciate your zeal to correct all misinformation about Mormonism, your attacks on Jeremy don't help the cause. It just makes you look defensive. Sometimes it is better to read the article and then move on. Better yet, go help your non-LDS neighbors for an hour or two and you will feel better. Life on earth is too short to go around feeling persecuted all the time.

TomH| 3.16.09 @ 12:32PM

MarkR:

I have given no indication in my posts that I am "feeling persecuted." I do find it curious how on one hand, Jeremy exalts classic theism, but debases Mormon theology. Very curious.

I disagree with your assessment that my posts are attacks on Jeremy.

Jeremy has a website, I saw a picture of him and he seems like a happy-go-lucky and pleasant enough fellow.

But this isn't about the "person" Jeremy but instead about the article he's written from his limited knowledge and biases.

I am sure Jeremy would correct you and man-up and say that he can defend his own assertions without appeals to the claims of "personal attacks."

I will certainly concede that perhaps my posts are a bit too aggressive for your style. Your point is well taken - but my motives are sincere - to correct conclusions or "biases" with important information through arguments and points grounded in solid and valid philosophy.

Still the call to help a neighbor, either non-mormon or mormon is not lost on me.

But how about I do both? How about I help a non-mormon and also critique Jeremy's article?
Is that acceptable too?

MinJae Lee| 3.16.09 @ 12:35PM

TomH and Apologist - thank you for your contributions. Excelent and accurate explanations.
This article, while perhaps not intended to be an attack on Mormons, nevertheless was an attack. The author, based on limited knowledge, compared what he thought Mormon theology and belief is with a fictional, science fiction, comic book - that in itself is demeaning. But more than that, his portrayal of Mormon theology and beliefs was not accurate and seems to be based on the portrayals provided by many anti-Mormon activists. I wouldn't have been nearly so offended if it had been accurate.

JoeM| 3.16.09 @ 12:43PM

Alan Moore is above all things an anarchist...note all of the principle characters in the Watchmen act based on their individual (and as such anarchistic) set of personal ethics, which, in the course of the narrative, tend to change and compromise based on circumstance for all but one of the characters.

Ironically, from an outsider’s perspective, Mormonism appears to be just as much of an implausable comic book, if not as well crafted, with its hero pulling a “corrected” King James version of the Bible (with the same typos contained in the 1800’s version) out of a hat literally.

TomH| 3.16.09 @ 1:02PM

Jeremy:

After rereading your article I would agree that you haven't directly attacked Mormonism.

However, using your thin interpretations of LDS theological anthropomorphism as an impetus to force a necessary connection between it and the "Watchmen" deity, you also force a “comic book” conclusion of Mormon deity.

You state that according to the story, Dr. Manhattan is “sort of a god.” By making the comparison between this “supposed” god and Mormon theological views of God’s nature, aren’t you also asking your readers to view the Mormon God as “sort of a god” as well?

You say that your “guess” is that the story “character” would not seem so “incredible” to Mormons by sighting the concept of the deification of man found in Mormonism.

But, in Mormonism, the deification of man is only possible through obedience to the laws and ordinances of the gospel. Do you see the necessary rather than contingent connection?

In fairness, you do state that “It holds out the promise that men can become gods, albeit gods whose will must conform to the will of Heavenly Father and the whole heavenly council that includes Jesus and the Holy Spirit.”

But, with that statement, you’ve just killed your own analogy. In Mormonism, there can be no “credible” belief that the story character is “a god”, simply because of a scientific experiment gone awry, without the necessary obedience spoken of above and without the power of Jesus Christ.

In Mormonism, God isn’t “superhuman” he is an eternal spiritual being “clothed” in perfected flesh and bone, without the limitations of humanity. (In truth, Mormons or others don’t need to look to the Mormon faith to enjoy the fictitious character or to establish character credibility; they only need look to their imaginations. Anything is possible in a personal consciousness accompanied by an appeal to fantasy without natural and immutable laws.)

You continue to advance the similarities between the Mormon view of God’s nature using the limited nature of the character, Dr. Manhattan, and the measure of the "unlimiting" Classic theistic view on creation, omniscience, omnipresence, change, and corporeality.

You say:
“So far as I can tell, there's nothing in the book of Mormon about God having blue skin and a symbol of hydrogen burned onto his forehead, but you never know.” How about in the complete witness the Mormon faith, can you tell from that body of information whether or not that God has blue skin and the symbol of hydrogen burned into his forehead? What about the eyewitness accounts of Joseph Smith – he did indeed describe God and it was nothing like the story character mentioned in your article.

You assert that both Dr. Manhattan and the Mormon nature of God are necessarily limited, while classic theism is limitless. For you, one is god-like and the other is God – one counterfeit the other authentic.

The only similarity that I could find in your comparison is that in Mormonism, God has a physical shape nearly identical to humans, but its unclear whether your character literally has indestructible flesh and bone or if it is just the appearance of it. But we don’t need the story character to make that comparison, we can use any mortal whose been made in God’s image. In reality, REAL indestructible matter and energy are necessary in existence and in Mormonism – but in classic theism and in comic books, they are only superfluous fantasies.

When we take your article in its entirety – what is the message you’re sending about the Mormon view of God, when we add up all of your points?

All in the name of a comic book review? C’mon Jer, you have to admit that your approach here isn’t without its biases and very strange connections between Mormonism and the fantasy film, "The Watchmen."

For you, I suppose they aren't that dissimilar, because in your mind, they are both fantasies? Something like that?

Did you get up yesterday and say:

"At the top of today's task list-

1. Write a movie review and belittle Mormon theology in the process."

The statement above is said slightly with tongue-and-cheek, but may be insightful nonetheless.

TomH| 3.16.09 @ 1:13PM

JoeM:

I certainly respect to your own belief about Mormomism.

However, everything in Mormonism is rooted in existence - no mysticism and no magic - everything a product of matter and energy and is indeed plausible.

Whether one believes it or not is another matter altogether -but all quite plausible in space and time.

sardu| 3.16.09 @ 2:09PM

This type of petty bickering and myopia is much of why I spent so many years as an atheist. (I have since been forced to re-evaluate my hypothesis).

Jeremy Lott| 3.16.09 @ 2:46PM

TomH: No, sorry, you've misread my article and my intentions. If I meant to caricature Mormonism -- and, I maintain, I haven't here --, I would not have have used the words of a sensible Mormon theologian or linked to his refutation of Francis Beckwith, which appeared in a publication of Brigham Young University. I don't believe that I've misread or misapplied Hopkins. If I'm right about that, then your quarrel is with him, not with me.

Doctor Right| 3.16.09 @ 3:39PM

Any article that mentions Mormons always seems to devolve into a thesis on the relative merits and veracity of Mormonsim. So in that vein, I must weigh in with my two cents. If I offend anyone, I don't mean to...But it is what it is.

Like any group of people, there are good Mormons (Mitt Romney, the Osmonds, Mike Allred), and there are bad Mormons (Warren Jeffs, Dan and Ron Lafferty). There are devout believers, and then there are Mormons who go to Church on Sundays because that's what they've always done, but otherwise could care less. In short, Mormons are no different than other people. Most of them are patriotic, upstanding citizens who I'd be pleased to have as neighbors.

But on the subject of Christian apologetics, I part company with Mormons.

Put simply, the beliefs that support the foundation of the Mormon Church (or "LDS") are neither historically accurate nor substantiated by archaeology. There is absolutely no historical evidence supporting the claim that native Americans are descended from the tribes of Israel, no evidence supporting the existence of the Nephites, the Lamanites, and other peoples who supposedly populated the Americas, and no support for the claim that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God, as opposed to one of history's most successful hucksters.

Again, I'm sorry if this offends, but as a Christian myself, I am greatly troubled by Mormon beliefs (although from a humanistic perspective, I'm not troubled at all, which is why I have no problem with the idea of "President Mitt Romney. In fact, I voted for him in the primaries).

I've been to the Temple in Salt Lake City. I've had extensive discussions with Mormon missionaries (all very pleasant and personable individuals). Yet the conversation regarding the veracity of Mormonism always comes down to: "You just need to pray for guidnace, open your heart, and you'll know that the Book of Mormon is true."

Sorry, but that's not credible. I became a Christian precisely because I was swayed by the scientific and historical arguments and accounts, not because of what's "in my heart". For that reason, I could never become a Mormon.

The inconsistencies concerning Joseph Smith's life, the present whereabouts of the Ummin and the Thurmin, the bigamy (which WAS a cornerstone of the LDS in Smith's day - the modernists would try to erase that), the changes to the infallible Book of Mormon, the non-existence of the Nephis and Lamanites, the complete lack of any archaeological or historical evidence of their presence in the Americas, the lack of any substantial genetic links between Semmitic peoples of the Middle East and native Americans, the lack of any firm basis in apologetics, etc, etc...Sorry, but it's too much to accept.

Volumes could be written about this - and already have been. Regardless, any believing Mormon owes it to himslef or herself to critically examine the Church's foundation and beliefs, and not simply trust their hearts.

So again...Mormons...GREAT people. Solid family values. Excellent Americans. Nice neighbors...I LIKE THEM! But their faith is not sustainable.

Zoltan| 3.16.09 @ 3:56PM

It's funny to see people argue about which person is lying or telling the truth about talking with "God".

HAL9000| 3.16.09 @ 4:24PM

Wow. Some pretty defensive Mormons around here. Watching people debate the finer points of corporeality and the "powers" it conveys on their favorite superhero is like watching some comic-book store folks get into a lively fracas regarding Warhammer figurine aesthetics. Mormonism and The Watchmen share a fundamental core trait that both are the products of some wild imaginations put to paper. Sorry guys, there were never any plates.

Kunal| 3.16.09 @ 4:43PM

Unger,
Using Tacitus as a source on the Germanic religion is like using Albert Sidney Johnston as a source on the LDS Church.

God Exists, and He's Mormon

South Park called this one years ago.

EVancleave| 3.16.09 @ 4:43PM

Doctor Right, can you provide a small bit of that scientific or historical argument for God or Jesus that you speak of?

Eric D. Dixon| 3.16.09 @ 5:10PM

Kunal,
" God Exists, and He's Mormon

South Park called this one years ago. "

Actually, God declared that he was a Buddhist in that episode. It's just that all the people in heaven were Mormon. Wearing bicycle helmets...

Fenevad| 3.16.09 @ 5:15PM

As a practicing Mormon who is interested in theology and culture, I really don't find anything offensive in the article and don't understand my coreligionists’ offense at this article. While I think the interpretation is a tad simple, Lott never claimed it was explanatory and I doubt that he intended it to be such. I took this as actually quite respectful and accurate to LDS belief: Lott was not trying to score theological brownie points or count coup, so trying to debate him on theology seems absolutely pointless.

All I can figure that upsets TomH and others is that they feel that comparing God to a comic book character is inherently demeaning or something. (To be honest, I couldn't wade through TomH’s post because in what I did read he was so obviously arguing with something other than what Lott wrote that I didn’t really want to finish it.)

I have to say that I find it funny how anything to do with Mormonism brings out the two sides of the sheet of paper: the non-Mormons who call Mormons idiots (to paraphrase slightly) and the Mormons who call the non-Mormons idiots (again, to paraphrase). All this while most people who might be interested in the comparison are scratching their heads about the debate that has nothing to do with the article.

Sometimes a comparison is just a comparison...

Fenevad| 3.16.09 @ 5:23PM

TomH wrote “No, Jeremy, Mormons do not claim that God is ‘ever-evolving.’ Mormons claim that God is perfect and has been perfect for longer than we can comprehend – there is no increase to his perfection, but only that his glory and dominion expand because of his NEW creations.”

It's not worth arguing over, but that was *not* the position of Brigham Young and (possibly) Joseph Smith. Lott is actually closer to the historical conception of Mormonism that lost out in the late 19th century in favor of a concept imported from traditional Christianity.

PK| 3.16.09 @ 5:30PM

The plates are the reason I joined the Mormon church at 24 years old. I will get into that later.

My grandfather was a presbyterian minister so there is lots of religion in my family.

We as a people are so ingrained in the religious traditions of the day, that we cannot see any other way. Many of the current Christian phylosophies were handed down over and over again from uninspired men about 2000 years ago. Without a prophet to guide the people, these warmed over doctrines are combined with the traditions of the day and what is comfortable to us. You have to admit that the flavor of the major religions of the day do not compare very well to what was happening in the new testament.

When a friend introduced me to the Mormon church, it is no wonder that it seemed so foreign to me. However, I had to admit over time that the idea's made more sense than the Christianity of the day. I mean, when you think about it, it seems kind of silly to believe in a God that will thrust one group of people to everlasting burning and another to eternal bliss simply because one group believes in Christ. And then we call him merciful and loving. And if that is all there is to the Gospel, why did the early church scholars save all of those letters to the different church's admonishing them to live better and keep them on such a strait path.

At any rate, there is a promise toward the end of the Book of Mormon that states:
"When ye shall receive these things, I would exort you that ye would ask God the eternal father in the name of Christ if these things are not true. And if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you by the power of the Holy Ghost.

At the point that I read the Book of Mormon, I was not sceptical but I really wanted to know if it was true. I received a witness throught the Holy Ghost that it is true. I cannot explain exactly how that was except that I knew in a very powerful way without any doubt, I mean zero doubt that the book is true. And the thing about the Book of Mormon is that if it is true, than Jesus is the Christ and Joseph Smith was a prophet.

The book of Mormon is very easy to read. A person may be turned off because it seems so simple. But the doctrines that are taught are extremely deep and greatly expand on the teachings of the bible. If you want a heavy duty discourse on the atonement and almost any other principle, such as freedom of choice, the fall of Adam, the importance of opposition in our lives, the role of satan in the plan of salvation, faith, repentence, even politics, the book of Mormon can expand upon what you learned from the bible. Not only that, but I have discovered that when I read the book in sincerety (you can't be trying to discredit it), I find that idea's pop into my mind concerning things I am not even reading. It is almost like a key to receiving revelation. I have read that others say the same thing.

If you can get your sincere curiosity up, and read it with the intent of knowing if it is true and asking God to reveal this, you will in time have that knowledge.

Just one other note: From the context of living the Mormon doctrine and understanding why God does what he does, none of it seems weird anymore. It is all designed to make us more Christ like, and it works.

unger| 3.16.09 @ 5:33PM

Kunal
As I am sure you do not know, sources on Germanic religion from the pre-christian period are rare, read almost non existent. I used Tacitus because he was the earliest author to make a connection between Hermes/Mercury and Woden/Odin. This connection has been maintained in the Hermetic tradition since and interestingly has been broadened to include the Archangel St. Micheal. I am sure Tacitus and later hermetic scholars have worked in a syncretic vein that many find unacceptable, but there learning for good or for ill is part of the western religious tradition. It was not my goal to speak definitively on Germanic religious practices, but only to help illuminate the history of an idea. You see Kunal history and ideas are things that give solace to us adults in compensation for our ignorance of South Park.

TomH| 3.16.09 @ 5:47PM

Fenevad:

You wrote:
“It's not worth arguing over, but that was *not* the position of Brigham Young and (possibly) Joseph Smith. Lott is actually closer to the historical conception of Mormonism that lost out in the late 19th century in favor of a concept imported from traditional Christianity.”

The term “evolving” is probably the wrong term in the English language to describe the theories of Brigham Young or others. Many Latter-day Saints theorized on a great many topics. However, the foundational concept of the universe that they in turn each responded to was “eternal progression.” Later, others theorized about the nature of this concept as it relates to God.

The only scriptural or revelatory evidences we have about God’s increases are related only to his expanding glory and dominion.

If you get a chance, reread Dr. Paulsen’s discussion on omniscience, omnipresence, and omnipotence.

TomH| 3.16.09 @ 5:48PM

Doctor R:

Thank you for your kinds words about Mormons. There are many values that Latter-day Saints and Christians share. I am very grateful for good Christian people who stand up for moral values and live by them.

Obviously we disagree about interpretation of the Bible. However, I am afraid you’re mistaken on many important points as it relates to “evidence” for this or that in Mormon theology or for the existence of Jesus Christ.

It should be noted that the Bible is not “evidence” of Jesus Christ, but is a witness of the experiences individuals claim to have interacting with God or having been witness to the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

However, that archeological evidence supports the “cities” mentioned in the Bible does not give rise to “more” evidence in favor of Christianity over Judaism or Islam for that matter. And certainly, since the Mormon position also lays claim to the Bible as a sure foundation to its Church, it is part of our body of “witnesses.”

Presently, there is no archeological evidence that there was a virgin birth, the miracles of Jesus that Jesus is God’s son, that Jesus was crucified, or that he was literally resurrected. The Bible offers no such evidence. Instead, what the Bible offers is a witness of faith of those individuals experienced revelation from God, or who walked and talked with Jesus. But the New Testament could have easily been a fabrication at the time that the events happened.

That there is archeological evidence for the sites listed in the Bible stands to reason and isn’t evidence of a miracle. Why? Because it was written when those cities existed and were generally known among the people in all of those centuries. This isn’t to say that the Bible isn’t a valuable “witness” but it certainly isn’t proof that Jesus Christ is the son of God.

What is also curious is your use of concept of “proof” to make a distinction between Orthodox Christianity and Mormonism. If Reformations are “true” and “possible” within the realm of Christian experience, then Restorations are significantly more important.

You wrote:
“Put simply, the beliefs that support the foundation of the Mormon Church (or "LDS") are neither historically accurate nor substantiated by archaeology. There is absolutely no historical evidence supporting the claim that native Americans are descended from the tribes of Israel, no evidence supporting the existence of the Nephites, the Lamanites, and other peoples who supposedly populated the Americas, and no support for the claim that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God, as opposed to one of history's most successful hucksters.”

The foundation of the Mormon Church is the First Vision of Joseph Smith when God the Father, and his Son Jesus Christ appeared to him to answer his questions about the varied sects of Christianity. They appeared to him, not as a substance, but as embodied spiritual beings of flesh and bone – tangible, real, existing in space and time. What archeological evidence could be left behind? We know where it happened, what year, and Joseph Smith was a real person.

Further, the coming forth of the Book of Mormon: Joseph Smith being led by a messenger from God to were golden plates were buried, Joseph Smith obtaining the plates, Joseph Smith translating the plates by the use of the “urim and thumim” or seer stones, Joseph Smith speaking the words that appeared in the light of the stones (similar to a bright computer screen) , and scribes writing down the words; all of this is a matter of historical record. We have the scribes documents, we have eyewitnesses of multiple persons saying that its how the Book of Mormon was written – all of this is historically accurate.

The picture of archeology in 1830, when the Book of Mormon was published, and the picture of archeology today are very different. There is a finite list of claims that the Book of Mormon predicts will exist somewhere in the Americas. There are literally scores of evidences that were predicted by the Book of Mormon in 1830, that have since been found over the last 179 years.

Recently, two Book of Mormon settlements were found. The names, dates, and cultural purposes of the sites were verified.

Do these sites “prove” that the Book of Mormon is true? The evidence is much stronger than in the case of the Bible, because the Book of Mormon makes specific predictions about these areas that were unknown to scholars, archeologists, and scientists in 1830. There are many other evidences that can be viewed as well. But “prove” is a very strong word.

The point is, if the Book of Mormon is a fraud then no specific evidences should be found to support its narrative. If we do find evidences that support its narrative then the claim that, “no evidence has been found,” is not accurate.

The question of whether Joseph Smith is a prophet of God is a matter of faith, but there are plenty of evidences that support the historical assertion that he was and is prophet to the Latter-day Saints. Naturally, others do not consider he’s a prophet because they don’t believe.

While I respect Orthodox Christianity, I don’t believe it will withstand the scientific scrutiny of the 21st century. It’s founding principles of “God is a pure consciousness,” or “creation ex nihilo” are completely contradictory to the laws of conservation and energy.

In other words, that matter is neither created or destroyed complete disproves the theories that 1) God pre-existed all matter, and 2) that God created the universe out of nothing. Obviously matter has always existed, ergo, Orthodox Christianity has a serious dilemma.

I find it curious that you require me to show you “today” the complete archeological history of a lost civilization, (the Book of Mormon) for which we have some evidences, but yet you’re not at all concerned about the scientific quandary that faces you.

Can you explain or elaborate on this inconsistency and double standard in more detail?

Prophethascome| 3.16.09 @ 5:55PM

Watchmen and The Book of Mormon are both goofy Sci_Fi. The deference is that the Watchmen is more entertaining and, unlike the Book of Mormon, It's not plagiarized.

jb| 3.16.09 @ 6:28PM

Count me as yet another Mormon who took no offense whatsoever from the article. It is a bit of a goofy connection to make though. Did you run into some missionaries before going to the movies or what?

Roy| 3.16.09 @ 7:32PM

Yeah, like a lot of comic writes, an "incurable lefty" of an extremely irritating sort. That is, not the kind that acknowledges that in the world as it actually exists, the Left stands for ever expanding entitlements and bureacro-blather, but justifies these things; but one who concocts massive conspiracies without a smidgen of reality outside his own head, and then imagines that the Left is the sole thing standing up to these imaginary milatarist-corporate-racist-Zionist-Nazi conspiracies.

You hardly know where to start when talking to somebody who thinks these things, but it should be noted that the one piece of "evidence" they have is that the government somehow, constantly, inexplicably, continues to under some circumstances protect private property, even when it is the private property of "corporations". It would be nice if the type of person who calls himself an "anarcho-capitalist", that is he wants to be a conservative but not a party pooper who interferes with others unstinting self-indulgence, realized that protecting private property is exactly such party pooping from the perspective of people like comic book writers.

Oh..right..the article, um, interesting theory.

CS Lewis| 3.16.09 @ 8:59PM

We're all in America here - I think. We need to support each other against Islam. Islam is of the devil. Doctrines are ok to argue but we need to stand together. Peace between the brothers. God is willing and ready to hear our prayers so we must join together to fight evil or we will all fail.

SarahBean| 3.16.09 @ 9:37PM

What a great article. I have yet to see or read Watchmen but I find this literary comparison stimulating and in no way offensive, I didn't even glean that from the article at all. Certainly many pieces of literature have spiritual references whether intended or not. I would say comparing God to a super hero is no different than comparing Jesus to a lion as C.S. Lewis did in Lion, Witch and the Wardrobe.

Nic| 3.16.09 @ 10:53PM

I think the reaction by some to this article is interesting. It seems that today if you disagree with how your belief system, religious or otherwise, is portrayed it must be bigotry, racism, sexism, or some other –ism. It is still permitted to think that someone else’s belief system is strange and discuss it. Religion is a system of attitudes, beliefs and practices. With the number of religions and permutations, it is not surprising that one person’s religion seems strange to another person. Personally, I do not find the Mormon religion something that I would ever want to practice. But that just means that it is not the religion for me. It may work great for others and I say God bless them. Just because I think it is peculiar does not make me a bigot. It just means that I do not agree with the tenets of that religion. I do not think it is bigotry for a non-Christian to think that many of my beliefs are odd. Without the faith in Christianity many beliefs of Christianity are odd.

Bridget Jack Meyers| 3.17.09 @ 1:46AM

Holy crap, people.

I'm an evangelical Christian with a BA in classics from Brigham Young University. I'm considered by many people to be a respectful outsider following in the footsteps of folks like Craig Blomberg and Jan Shipps, and I also happen to adore graphic novels and Zack Snyder.

There was nothing anti-Mormon in this article nor was there some hidden agenda to demean LDS beliefs. Put your persecution complexes down and back away slowly.

Jeremy: I thought the article was an interesting and amusing thought exercise. Thanks for the read.

Glen S| 3.17.09 @ 2:33AM

Jeremy Lott's article claimed that Dr. Manhattan was close to the Mormon concept of God. I wasn't particularly offended but it demonstrates how little he comprehends the theology and belief system of the L.D.S. people. It is like a while back when I heard some anti-Mormon religionists on the radio going on and on about the "horrible belief" that Mormons can become gods. It makes me laugh. It is a lofty concept and a tenant that we hardly understand and rarely speak of. Probably the best way to understand it is to realize that a baby boy is born, matures and develops and grows up to be like his father. But we don't sit around and dream of the day when we will be gods and create worlds. We are all pretty busy just getting through this life in one piece.

TomH, Thanks for your wonderful in depth critique of Jeremy's critique of a movie that indeed, I doubt I will ever see. Jeremy, I really don't believe you meant anything derogatory toward the Mormons, you were just, well, off the mark. But I appreciate your efforts to understand and analogize.

JoeT| 3.17.09 @ 4:07AM

With all due respect to any and all, and especially the author, I found the tone of the article flip and unworthy of my finishing the read, except the hook was set by the comparison of a comic book figure to (my) God.

As an aside, with the increasing frequency of media disparagement, sensationalism and satire of Christianity, I would caution those who characterize expressing one's disappointment or displeasure with an author's work, as being "too sensitive."
I observe the reverse; the majority silently hold their love of things held dear and stand by as vocal minorities (media included) coarsen, dumb down, ridicule and destroy our traditions, family values, religious beliefs, and the Constitution of our beloved home.

Finally, the author's original intent is not germane to my view; what I care about and what the author might mull over is how the piece affected me and other readers like me. Some may be disaffected and timestrapped enough to see his name and dispense with ever reading another piece. That would be a shame, as I remain optimistic the author has much to impart to us.
Perhaps next time, a little "know your audience" exercise might be in order. Easily done, e.g., replace the Mormons with Jews, Evangelicals or Catholics, compare their sacred beliefs and writings to a comic book and see if it's worthy of putting to pen, here in the near-immortal electron pagination of the online Spectator.

By the way, I note the oppositon have conveyed their view without rancor; after all, we are not the enemy, nor do we strive to be exclusionary. Considering how badly religion is being attacked, the religious would do well to band together in defense of our common values (as the Catholics, Mormons and people of other religious persuasions did in defense of traditional marriage in California)

In summary, I found the article intellectually wanting, emotionally coarsening and assuredly a dubious choice, in contemplation of the assault on Christianity by the author's media brethren.
My suggestion to the author: try harder to write a good read, keeping in mind you write for the readership of the American Spectator: Many holding beliefs quite dear, now willing, for the first time in God knows when, to speak out in defense of their beliefs.

There. My opinion. My beliefs.

TomH: you should write for the Spectator.
Hmm... upon further reflection, you already have. A good read, I might add. I look forward to seeing more of your work wherever it might be found...

Doctor Right| 3.17.09 @ 8:04AM

@EVancleave:

Where do I start?

Aside from the fact that the Bible is the most well-sourced, well-referenced, and fact-checked document from antiquity (with over 10,000 cross-checked copies from antiquity in existence), there is a plethora of historic and scientific evidence for God and Christ.

For God: Look at the universe around you. If you think it's random, that's scientifically illogical.

For Christ: I recommend Lee Strobel's excellent book "The Case for Christ".

Trevor Wood| 3.17.09 @ 8:25AM

I'm a Mormon and I back what Bridget Jack Meyers said.
Calm down brethren - it's just a movie review!
Save your nicely argued theological essays for actual debates on religion.

Ryan| 3.17.09 @ 8:55AM

TomH,

I think that we've been through this one time before, and I answered several of your questions in certain manners.

You're asking what archaeological evidence should be left behind?

Wheels. There is NO evidence that the wheel was developed in the Americas before the arrival of the Europeans. Such an important development would appear SOMEWHERE if it were actually used, and it hasn't.

Horses are the same way, and we have no evidence that the native Americans ever used them before the arrival of the Europeans.

You need both to have chariot battles described in the book of Mormon.

What two sites are you talking about that supposedly prove some of the book of Mormon claims?

One primarily theological point: my God is bigger than yours. Honestly.

Something HAS to self-exist. How can anything exist at all if something didn't?

My God is big enough to have created everything, and to genuinely make the claim, "I AM," which essentially means "I exist in and of Myself." It's the claim He made to Moses on Mount Sinai. How do Mormons explain that claim (which Jesus Christ, by the way, ALSO made before the Sanhedrin before his crucifixion).

My God is bigger than the god of the Mormons. He self-exists, He is FAR too big for me to come to Him by being "good enough," and He is absolutely transcendant, omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent.

I rather enjoy that in God.

TomH| 3.17.09 @ 9:46AM

To my Mormom brethren:

It's quite alright to object to an article. It's not a sign that one is "not calm" or "offended."

Debate is a wonderful thing and should never be quashed because it makes someone feel uncomfortable.

It is important to think correctly. Logic, reason, sound arguments, and valid premises are a necessary part of thinking correctly.

Joseph Smith Jr. said: “It is necessary for us to have an understanding of God himself in the beginning. If we start right, it is easy to go right all the time; but if we start wrong, we may go wrong, and it will be a hard matter to get right.”

Brigham Young, said: “Well, then, we ought, in the first place, to train ourselves to believe correctly, to think correctly, and to practice [act] correctly, and instill correct principles into the minds of the rising generation.”

I don’t mind if your style is different than mine. Considering the type of forum we’re in, I think it accommodates many different styles.

Steve| 3.17.09 @ 9:59AM

PK - well said! I loved your comment.

To Jeremy: I am a devout Mormon too, and I didn't really find this article offensive. If anything, it was sort of funny. I'm still not going to see Watchmen though... ;)

To non-Mormon readers: Most of us Mormons don't take ourselves as seriously as some of the more serious-toned Mormon responders to this article. While I fully agree with the doctrine TomH and others explained quite well, most of us wouldn't take this article as an attack. While it saddens me sometimes that many people seem to hold my beliefs in contempt, I don't immediately go on the defensive when someone questions them.

Robert| 3.17.09 @ 10:20AM

Steve:

I agree. I think Mormons (such as myself) need to be careful about lambasting anyone who discusses Mormon beliefs from a non-Mormon perspective.

I thought the article was actually very respectful and fascinating. Kudos to Jeremy Lott for creatively connecting Mormon beliefs to Watchmen.

Luwy| 3.17.09 @ 10:21AM

I know and respect Richard Hopkins. Nevertheless, I disagree. And I do disagree to your presentation.

First of all, as Christoph Cardinal Schönborn, Catholic Archbishop of Vienna, Austria, and editor of the Catholic World Catechism pointed out, the idea that man can become god is not foreign to Christianity, rather it is an important doctrine. In one of his essays he even quotes one of the Early Church Fathers saying: "The office of the priest is, to make others gods, while he is becoming gods himself." It is self-deification that is unchristian. And self-deification is also incompatible with Mormon thought. While there is a difference in the starting points of deification in the Catholic Church and in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, the outcome is very similar.

Another part is those "omnis" you list. We do NOT believe that God knows the past and the future. He sure knows the past, but what He knows of the future is an open point of discussion. Because if God knows the future 100%, then libertarian freewill is not existant. Also, if God knows the future 100%, he himself cannot have freewill. But there ARE Mormons who hold that position, and it is not the minority.

Concerning omnipresence: What is presence? Is it only where my body is? Or is it the sphere that I can influence immidiately and where I get immidiate sensorial input? I say, it's the latter. And there is no space that God cannot influence immidiately, no space where He doesn't know imidiately what happens. Thus I see no reason to say He is omnipresent.

Concerning Creation: In Genesis 1 and 2 God creates the world. The same word is used for the creation of Heaven and Earth as is used for man. Yet, God creates Adam from dust and breath/spirit, and Eva from Adam's rib. In our days, of course, mankind is not formed from dust and ribs ;-), but rather formed in the womb. And Maccabeans, the only part of the Bible hinting at creatio ex nihilo, takes the creation of man in the womb as an example for God's creatio ex nihilo (2Macc 7:28)! Thus, it seems very clear that Macc does not have the same view on creatio ex nihilo, as modern traditional Christians have.

So this all is rather complex and confusing for those not trained in those topics.

Anyhow, I would have enjoyed your article and just seen it as the fun bit it should be, if your portrayal of Mormon thought was not so much, "See how strange those Mormons are."

Elijah| 3.17.09 @ 10:50AM

Three religions: Judaism, Christianity and Islamism, joined in only one voice. The God's voice at internet: www.overbo.uni5.net
Zac. 4.6-10

Tres religioes: Judaismo, Cristianismo e Islam, unidas em uma só voz. A voz de Deuz na internet: www.overbo.uni5.net
Zac. 4.6-10

Tres religiones: Judaísmo, Cristianismo e Islam, unidas en una sola voz. La voz de Dios en internet:
www.overbo.uni5.net
Zac. 4.6-10

TomH| 3.17.09 @ 12:09PM

Ryan:

I am glad that you are striving to believe in the God of the Bible. We share that in common. I believe the Bible is a valuable witness of God’s direct and indirect interaction with his children.

When we have interfaith discussions, it is important to remember that we’re both working toward the same goal, at least if we admit that we’re both sincere about our faith. We want the truth – the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

If we discover truth, and it’s incompatible with our tradition, we must acknowledge that we’re at a crossroads. In that moment we have a choice – a choice that leads to more truth, or a choice that leads to less truth.

Discovering truth is like peeling an opinion. We have to take one layer at a time to reach the center.

While I love my Mormon faith, I have been open and will remain open to learn more about God, his nature, his life, his will, and his creations. Within religious faith, we must distinguish between tradition and truth. Some beliefs or even rituals in a faith are a result of a need or a point of view from history that are carried forward in time. When more truth is discovered, religious faith must adjust according to the truth.

This is the process that the God of Heaven, our personal Heavenly Father is taking us through in our mortal life – it is expressed in the scripture, “line upon line, precept upon precept.” Not everything is known today, and even less was known 100 years or 1700 years ago, looking back through Christian history, and the history of the prophets in the Bible.

So where is the starting point for truth as it relates to Christianity? Is it Genesis 1:1? Is it John 1:1?

Each of us believes strongly that our position is correct and I don’t think a shouting match will bring us any closer to the truth. Before we get there, I would like to briefly address your criticism of the Book of Mormon.

When making an appeal to archeology, you’re asserting that you believe strongly in scientific principles of carbon dating, sedimentary layers in the earth, and other necessary principles that accurately identify times, locations, and events from the past.

I, too, believe strongly in scientific principles and accept them as valid. You rightly cite the lack of evidence for wheeled vehicles and modern horse remains in the Americas as a reason why we should question the authenticity of the Book of Mormon. The book after all does refers to chariots (although wheels are not mentioned), and it does mention horses, but not in the context as an animal used to pull vehicles or for riding. The Book of Mormon does not claim there is an extensive horse culture or that they were used in battle. In fact, just the opposite is the case, within the text. There are many other things that have yet to be found in the Americas, including, wheat, metal swords, remains of sheep, goats, swine, cattle, cows, and a few other items on the list of predictions.

However, instead of remaining open to new discoveries, critics of the Book of Mormon claim that we must find them “all” NOW before anyone can take the Book of Mormon seriously as an ancient record. I could certainly understand this position if NOTHING had been found to support the Book of Mormon.

If we go back to 1830, and ask the archeologists, scientists, researchers, and theologians of that time, for evidences for the Book of Mormon, they will all answer in the affirmative – there is no evidence.

This knee-jerk reaction of claiming, “no evidence” for the Book of Mormon has been passed down from one generation to the next. To complicate matters, many Mormons formed their own opinions over the last 170 years about where the Book of Mormon cities are actually located and have all tried to advance their own opinions using this argument or that argument or this model or that model.

But what has been really happening in archeology? Just the opposite. Every year, steadily, more evidences are found that support the Book of Mormon narrative. There has been a narrowing down of hypotheses and geographical models in agreement with the “text” (not necessarily Mormon folklore) to find the actual location of the cities and the culture of the Nephites and Lamanites which represent a small part of the overall history of the Americas. Remember, there is a time line in the Book of Mormon – it has its own chronology recorded in the text from 2200 BC to 400 AD. We can verify cultural features, events, new technologies using this internal time line.

In recent years, the following evidences have been verified or found:

• Modern horse remains found (recent discovery in an ancient MesoAmerican well produced horse teeth – carbon dated to be pre-Columbian)
• Elephant found (discovery of an Elephant head carving with tusks, trunk and ears)
• Barely in pre-Columbian America
• Ancient silk making in MesoAmerica
• Ancient honey bees found
• Ancient glass making verified
• Writing and recording on metal plates
• Brass plates in 600 BC
• The ancient practice of burying plates
• Genes linking Eurasians and Native Americans
• The ancient practice of altering Egyptian or reformed Egyptian
• The use of cement in building (the rise of cement use in MesoAmerica corresponds to the time period in the Book of Mormon.)
• Olive culture
• Volcanism near geographical model
• Ancient war fortifications as described in the Book of Mormon
• Hebraic language structures
• Hebrew Book of Mormon names that were not known in 1830
• Weights and measurements corresponding to ancient MesoAmerican systems.

Some interesting links on Book of Mormon archeology.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeology_and_the_Book_of_Mormon
http://www.jefflindsay.com/BMEvidences.shtml

There have been many attempts to explain away the Book of Mormon text as plagiarism from different sources, or other reasons that
1) do not fit into the history of Joseph Smith or other scribes for the Book of Mormon,
2) do not honest admit that some portions are deliberate quotations from the Old Testament or repeats of Jesus' own words from the New Testament,
2) do not account for the evidences above (where did Joseph Smith get them – when 1829 archeology didn’t know them yet?) and
3) don’t take into the account the statistical improbability of Joseph Smith getting so many things correct in combination.

Now add to that the recent discoveries of two Book of Mormon settlements that match the correct time period, the names, the cultural features and the geographical features, and we observe that the claim that there is “no evidence” is simply an untenable position.

To claim that the Book of Mormon can only be authenticated when a certain list of our “favorite” archeological evidences are found is to make a straw man arguments. Why? The Book of Mormon text can be authenticated using other evidences.

One last point on the Book of Mormon. There is a clear and measurable distinction between Bible archeology and Book of Mormon archeology. That cities have been found to support the Bible as a record is not impressive to atheists or non-believers. Why? The Bible was recorded over 1000s of years at the same time when recorded history was also chronicled. The Bible is not the single source for the history of the cities or the people. This is not to say that the Bible isn’t valuable, it is! But, if we equate the Bible and the Book of Mormon archeological discoveries, we’ve made an identification error. Discovered archeology that supports the Book of Mormon carries much more weight and authenticity. Why? The specific predictions made in the Book of Mormon were contrary to known archeology, science, and tradition of 1829. Joseph Smith went against, what was known history of his day, making a very bold statement about future discovery and his blessing from God to recall and chronicle real history. Now jump ahead to 2009. Not only are the multiple discoveries for the Book of Mormon artifacts, culture, and settlements, evidence – the discoveries are strong evidence.

Does this mean that there is 100% proof for the Book of Mormon? There will always be skeptics, critics, and cynics. These approaches do not arise because the evidence is bad, but because belief is not guaranteed in the face of evidence.

One last point on archeology. Does biblical or Book of Mormon archeology PROVE that Jesus Christ is the son of God? No. There are witnesses only. Faith is required using both witnesses because there is no “archaeological” evidence for the miracles of Jesus or for his resurrection.

I am glad that you acknowledge scientific truth. I believe that it represents the way things were, the way things are, and the way things will be.

For better or for worse for our faith tradition, the truth is what I seek.

In the next post, I’ll look at and compare interpretation of God’s nature.

Ryan| 3.17.09 @ 12:13PM

Here's the problem with God not knowing the future, and not having all the "omni's."

How, then, can He be God? How is He worthy of worship and praise and devotion? How can I know that there isn't a better one out there?

At what point does ANYTHING begin if there was never something "ex nihilo?"

And what about the archaeology?

TomH| 3.17.09 @ 12:41PM

Ryan:

You've asked some very important questions.

Let me ask you an important follow up question.

If God created everything out of nothing, who is responsible for everything that was created and the outcome of creation - knowing the past, present and future?

Based on your view of God's infallible design, out of nothing, how did it all turn out?

Ryan| 3.17.09 @ 2:52PM

First off, My view doesn't matter. If God is Who He says He is in scripture - the Beginning and End - our opinion, our beliefs, do not make God. He Is.

That being said, God's purpose in creation turns out rather well by the end of the book of Revelation. He moves all things to glorify Himself - in one way or another - in the end. He redeems His children through His Son to become joint-heirs with Christ to the kingdon of God; He takes our sin - for which the penalty is death - and gives life by giving His own through His Son.

I notice that you're leaning toward the "doesn't that make God responsible for sin?" argument.

Paul answers in Romans 9:
22What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction?
23And He did so to make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory...

Also, keep in mind - if God is Who He says He is - EVERY action that He does is right and good because He does it - AND He does nothing but right and good actions.

The Bible is full of God preordaining, foreseeing (how else can we have prophecy if God doesn't know the future?), foreknowing, and similar terms. Read Romans and Ephesians, read Isaiah, read Daniel...

Like I said before...I don't want a god with such limitations. What's the point - or the hope - of such a god so limited? How can I trust him?

How can I know that I have done enough to please him, if I have to work to earn salvation? Where is the certainty?

Give me Christ as Lord. Give me NO chance to reach God without perfection. Give me a God so big that the only way I can come to Him is to either perfect or perfectly forgiven. I want my sin cast away and dealt with, not "balanced" by good works. I want a God that makes me unblemished in His sight.

Ryan| 3.17.09 @ 3:08PM

On the archaeological evidence stated, much appears to be a matter of opinion of scale rather than definite discovery. Of course, there's dispute about much of any archaeology for anything.

That being said, there is still a preponderance of lack of agricultural evidence against the book of Mormon, many items that have a pretty definite appearance of not being true.

I agree that belief is only strengthened - not based - on the evidence. However, faith can - and is often - confirmed with the physical, and there is much which is only one step away from being disproven in just about any faith.

Here's the issue - have you ever looked into a serious, well-done criticism of the Mormon church and theology?

Jacob F| 3.17.09 @ 4:49PM

Interesting take there, Jeremy. As a practicing Mormon, I didn't take offense at all. I might have to wait for the CleanFlicks version of Watchmen, though!

TomH| 3.17.09 @ 4:51PM

Ryan:

I appreciate your quoting the New Testament in defense of personal responsibility for sin.

But you're confusing the concepts of personal responsibility with God's action before creation.

You wrote:
" First off, My view doesn't matter. If God is Who He says He is in scripture - the Beginning and End - our opinion, our beliefs, do not make God. He Is.

That being said, God's purpose in creation turns out rather well by the end of the book of Revelation."

This is an appeal to your personal belief based on your personal opinion.

While I too, believe that God the Father exists, and that one day his Son, Jesus Christ will return establish a new order, that doesn't speak about the issue of the indestructibility of matter.

It also doesn't speak to that fact and whether creation ex nihilo is a sound religious and philosophical principle.

Let's go back to my question and reduce this further.

If God is the creator out of nothing, he then is the designer and literal creator of every single consciousness.

When Adam and Eve are standing at the bar of God to be judged, how can God genuinely claim that they acted with free will when God designed their personal consciousness - knowing before hand that Adam and Eve would sin?

See the INHERENT problem and flaw?

baluca| 3.17.09 @ 6:32PM

TomH

You're coming off as a Moron not a Mormon.

davidg| 3.17.09 @ 6:50PM

Dr. "Right", you say Mormonism can't be true because some of it's belief's are impossible to prove. Yet you say that you are a Christian. I'm not really getting the disconnect in your logic here. Do you believe in Noah and the Ark? How about Moses parting the Red Sea? How about that thing with all humanity coming from Adam and Eve? I could write up a rather endless list of things that as a 'Christian' you are supposed to believe. And yet, all of these events are implausible at the very least - and certainly impossible to prove. In fact some of them have been 'disproven' several times over. IF we are to follow your argument about why Mormonism must be wrong, then me must discount all of Christianity, Judaism, Islam, all religions really, as false or fake. If you Dr. Right, were being fair, and if we all subscribed to your way of thinking, we would then have to conclude there is no God. Not a belief I would want to subscribe to.

Raymond Takashi Swenson| 3.17.09 @ 9:09PM

I personally thought the comparison between the fictional character and the LDS concept of the real God was interesting. On the scale of accuracy of understanding of LDS concepts of God that are offered by non-LDS commenters, I would give this essay a 9 out of 10.

The most fundamental difference between the traditional creedal description of God and the one held by the Mormons is that the creedal God is inherently incomprehensible, while the Mormons believe that God's fundamental nature can be, to a great extent, understood, indeed, that understanding who God is, especially in relation to us, is essential to our salvation.

The logical paradox of a God who is both three persons but with one "substance" is only one of aspects of the modern creedal description of God that cannot be grasped by human minds. Most of the description is essential a statement of what God is NOT: Not embodied, not emotional, not changing, etc.

It is worth noting that a number of modern Protestant theologians have become advocates of a concept of God that they call "Open" because they have concluded that the God described in the Bible is most fundamentally different from the creedal God by being an entity that experiences emotion. In particular, God feels love for mankind, which was the motive for the atonement performed by Christ, and that love is a reflection of the love that is felt between the individual persons of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. These "Open God" theologians assert that the passive, unfeeling God of the creeds has been a failure of Christianity, telling Christians that God does not really empathize with their sufferings and challenges. They see the most essential nature of God being expressed in the person of Christ, who clearly felt love, and suffered.

And inasmuch as Christ was seen ascending into heaven in his body, and the angels there promised the apostles that he would return to earth in the same way, including in his body, the Bible clearly asserts that Christ remains embodied, even as he is God, and will return to earth to reign as its God. Inasmuch as Christ is God, is embodied, and feels emotions, the description of the Trinity as having none of these attributes contradicts the plain terms of the Bible. And once it is admitted that Christ has these characteristics and is still God, the possibility that the Father also has a body and emotions must at least be admitted as a possibility. While there are some descriptions of God in the Old Testament that might be considered figurative, the Bible does not seem to insist anywhere that God is bodiless or lacking in emotion, in either a figurative or literal sense.

The Eastern Orthodox churches still retain the doctrine of ancient Christianity that salvation consists of the Christian becoming like Christ. This teaching is called Theosis. While it is not identical to the LDS belief, it is 90% of the way there. And it preserves a doctrine that is found repeatedly through the first few centuries of the Christian church.

After all, Jesus repeatedly asserted, and the apostles taught, that the Atonement was for the purpose of diminishing the distance between God and humans.

In the spirit of comparing theological conceptions with speculative fiction, I would offer the observation that an intelligent entity that is bodiless and lacks emotions sounds to my modern ears like a description of an Aritifical Intelligence, a very intelligent computer program. Computer scientists have recognized the difficulty of making a computer understand the most basic facts of our human experience when it cannot learn from experience in interacting with the material world. Which is a superior intelligence: One that has never experienced emotions, or one that has? Human beings who lack the ability to be emotionally involved with others are sometimes termed autistic, and considered disabled. How is a lack of emotional comprehension superior to the ability to empathize, to love, and to suffer with those you love? The emotionally disabled god described in the modern creeds seems to me to lack one of the most basic things that humans possess, so how can he be a more superlative being than we are? Certainly, that does not describe the Christ of the New Testament. That is the question that the theologians of the Open God ask us.

Daniel Peterson| 3.17.09 @ 10:54PM

A believing Latter-day Saint, I find the comparison above unexpected but not particularly offensive.

Just a few brief responses to some comments in the material above:

The actual existence of the plates of the Book of Mormon is solidly established by the consistent testimony of credible (and intensively investigated) witnesses. The real question is whether you regard them as authentically ancient or as modern forgeries. (I don't believe that a good case can be made that they were modern forgeries.)

The Book of Mormon is not nearly as weak, in terms of evidence, as certain comments above seek to portray it. In fact, there are some very persuasive things (in my view) to be said in favor of its historicity.

Likewise, we can debate the relative merits of the mainstream creedal Christian concept of God and the Latter-day Saint concept of God. But I find the latter far more intellectually satisfying and compelling.

Still, I respect our mainstream Christian brothers and sisters, and wish them all the best.

David| 3.18.09 @ 12:20AM

I like the Mormon teaching that six foot men live on the moon and live for a thousand years.

David| 3.18.09 @ 12:36AM

I just found out that the Mormon church dictates the undergarments you wear also.

Daniel Peterson| 3.18.09 @ 12:50AM

David: "I like the Mormon teaching that six foot men live on the moon and live for a thousand years."

I like that one, too. Except that we don't teach it.

David: "I just found out that the Mormon church dictates the undergarments you wear also."

David's on a roll. He's got his anti-Mormon talking points in hand, and he's bound and determined to go through them.

Is he seriously distorting the truth about Mormonism? Failing to supply the context that would make the faith of Latter-day Saints at least somewhat comprehensible to outsiders?

Of course. But what of it?

He's on a roll. He's got his talking points, and he's determined to get through them.

MontgomeryQ| 3.18.09 @ 12:55AM

Lets calm down, people.

Jeremy: thank you fo rthe entertaining and thought-provoking article.

TomH, stick to the BOM and Deseret Book-approved literature. Clearly, any outsider point of view on our religion is too much for you.

Everybody, not every Mormon is like that. There was nothing offensive about the article. I was surprised that Jeremy had more knnowledge about our concept of God than a lot of LDS members.

Ryan| 3.18.09 @ 8:19AM

TomH -

Scripture doesn't speak to the indestructibility of matter, and has little to say about the physical laws which God set in place to run the universe. About all it states in Genesis is that God spoke, and it happened.

Which says something about God - if He spoke and it DIDN'T happen, it would have made Him a bit of a liar.

On the matter of God knowing what Adam and Eve were going to do...that's almost the point...except you're falling into the trap that foreknowledge is causation. God KNEW Adam and Eve were going to sin, but didn't MAKE them sin. He didn't prevent it because He has a greater purpose for it. God cannot sin (because of His nature, anything that He does is by definition the good and right thing to do). God, however, does ALLOW sin to occur, so that we might glorify Him when He saves us out of our downcast state.

Read Romans 9. It's somewhat clarifying. Heck, read the entire book of Romans.

Raymond, as a reformed (aka Calvinistic-ish) Baptist and someone who reads something out of a creed or confession, I think that there is a massive mistake in the "Open God" premise on the creeds - I find nothing in them but God's love and desire for man to glorify Him, a deeply personal and loving God who seeks to redeem His creation for Himself.

Chance| 3.18.09 @ 8:44AM

I think it best to allow the LDS to perpetuate their own definition of God. I do see Jeremy's point, but disagree on how it is explained. The letter is descriptive, but the spirit of the underlying message is all wrong for LDS people. The LDS like to explain it in their own way so people actually get it as it truly is, not as a comic author puts it. The nature of God is a very serious point in LDS doctrine without which, they would not have much to stand on. It is a sort of paramount point of doctrine, a foundation for their theology. That is the reason for their (our) sensitivity.

TomH| 3.18.09 @ 9:52AM

Montgomery:

After rereading the article and my posts, I can see how someone might mistake my direct objection as feeling “offended.” Let me assure you however, that I am not “offended” and I certainly don’t feel threatened. Commenting in forums likes these is a hobby of mine, and certainly my zeal gets the best of me from time to time.

I was raised in California and spent much of my adult life working outside the United States. I am certainly not threatened, but very accustomed to an outsider’s point of view. Perhaps over the years, what I have felt is less patience with “outside” interpretation of the LDS view of God – especially with today’s philosophy of trying “be all things to all people” and equivocating all creeds and beliefs in hopes of mutual understanding. But I am sure Jeremy can handle it and learn from the experience.

If you are, in fact, LDS, you’ll enjoy this quote:

“It is necessary for us to have an understanding of God himself in the beginning. If we start right, it is easy to go right all the time; but if we start wrong, we may go wrong, and it will be a hard matter to get right.” Joseph Smith, jr.

The trouble with Jeremy’s comparison is that it fails to make the proper distinctions what would invalidate his analogy. When his beginning point is incorrect, he misleads readers

The LDS concept of God rests on obedience to immutable laws. God is God because he obeys them all. Dr. Manhattan doesn't have to obey any, as far as I can tell. He’s a god because of an accident. Without the clear distinction of obedience, there is no substantive comparison. On that necessary requirement alone, Jeremy's analogy fails. In Mormonism, gods are mythical creatures and are impossible without obedience to immutable laws.

But you’ll say, we’re just comparing “corporeal” form. Yes, true. But the everlasting corporeal form is a result of the universal resurrection. Jeremy doesn’t need God the Father for such a comparison, he can make an appeal to any resurrected being.

What about believable superpowers? In Mormonism, they are impossible without obedience to immutable laws. In Mormonism, there is no superhuman or cosmic strength without it. Based on that tenant, Dr. Manhattan cannot be a believable god according to Mormonism.

Jeremy admits that an important caveat for deification, not for the God of Mormonism, but only for God’s children when he stated:

“Mormonism is more ambitious still. It holds out the promise that men can become gods, albeit gods whose will must conform to the will of Heavenly Father and the whole heavenly council that includes Jesus and the Holy Spirit.”

Mormons don’t need to appeal to their religion to believe that Dr. Manhattan is a god, but instead can simply make an appeal to their imagination or their knowledge of other great literature about mythical god-like characters, oh say, Greek mythology.

Jeremy makes other errors in the comparison as well:

Creation
In Mormonism, creation out of indestructible matter without obedience to immutable laws, is impossible. Therefore, that Dr. Manhattan can manipulate matter without obedience to immutable laws, is not an accurate comparison to the God in Mormonism, but is an appeal to something else altogether different.

Omniscience
Jeremy posits that the Mormon God can perceive time more fully than most humans. The error here is the term “most”, which should read “all.”

Omnipresence
The God of Mormonism, while spatially local, perceives and is aware of all things in the universe at once through his glory and light, which penetrates all space and time. Dr. Manhattan is spatially local with no penetrating glory or light.

Change:
The nature of the God of Mormonism does not “evolve.” This is an error. In Mormonism, God’s glory and dominion continue to increase.

As you can see Montgomery, Jeremy doesn’t know very much about our concept of God after all. If he knew as much as you say, more than a lot of LDS members, why did he commit so many errors?

MontgomeryQ| 3.18.09 @ 10:20AM

Yes, I'm LDS, TomH. Not your kind, though. I wrote for the Sugar Beet, and have trouble with people that take anything, especially something so deeply personal as religion, so seriously.

The point of Jeremy's article is not that Dr. Manhattan is the exact same as the LDS concept of deity. It's that it's a lot closer than most religions- which is true. And it's pretty tongue-in-cheek. It doesn't warrant you pulling out your quad and attacking each point he tried to make. It's HEALTHY and REFRESHING to see outsiders write about us, even if they make some errors.

I understand that is your way of using these forums, but I found it very off-putting to see your nitpicking. And it did come off as very defensive.

TomH| 3.18.09 @ 10:21AM

Ryan:

Thank you for your reply.

I respectfully disagree with you on whether the Bible makes a reference to the indestructibility of matter, or that God created the world out of pre-existing chaos.
“The most respected translation of Genesis is by E.A. Speiser in the Anchor Bible series. Speiser translates Genesis 1:1-3 as follows:
When God set about to create heaven and earth - the world being a formless waste, with darkness over the seas...- God said, "Let there be light." And there was light.
This translation is significant, for it means that chaos preexisted God's creative activity. The earth was in a state of chaos and without form when God began to create. As Speiser says: "To be sure the present interpretation precludes the view that creation accounts in Genesis say nothing about coexistent matter."23 Thus, this translation supports the notion of creation from chaos in precisely the sense taught in Mormon scripture and by Joseph Smith.” (The Doctrine Of Creation Ex Nihilo… Blake Ostler)

As you can see from the quote above, the Bible does in fact support the view that God created the world out of a “formless waste.”

You wrote:

“On the matter of God knowing what Adam and Eve were going to do...that's almost the point...except you're falling into the trap that foreknowledge is causation. God KNEW Adam and Eve were going to sin, but didn't MAKE them sin.”

You misunderstand my argument above. I do not argue that God would be responsible for Adam and Eve’s sin because of his foreknowledge or his knowing that they would sin.

I am making the argument, that if God created every personal consciousness out of nothing, then he is responsible for all of the inherent flaws within. A logical proposition of creation ex nihilo is that God is responsible for the design of each spiritual entity – including angels, and Adam and Eve. Satan rebelled and Adam and Eve sinned.

Since God is responsible for the inherent flaws in their individual consciousness, then Adam and Eve can truthfully make the claim that God is responsible.

Was God limited in some way that prevented him from creating individuals with consciousnesses that were capable of seeing the choices and always making the right ones?

Either God is limited in some way, or he deliberately created beings that would introduce evil into existence.

Which position represents your view?

TomH| 3.18.09 @ 10:48AM

Montgomery:

I respect your opinion. I think its refreshing that outsiders write about us too. I also acknowledge that you didn't like my approach. Obviously we see things differently. we'll just have to agree to disagree, I suppose.

Jeremy made his article serious when be made his appeals to official positions within Christianity and Mormonism. His tongue-in-check comparison ended with that discussion.

I am all for fun and refreshing portrayals of Mormonism, but not at the expense of misrepresenting our belief in the character and nature of God.

You'll notice that I didn't quote scripture a single time in my post, but kept my critique in the same vein - an appeal to philosophical principles - the same method that Jeremy used.

Was I offended? No.
Do I object? Yes.
Do I find it necessary to like the article as you did? No.
Can Jeremy withstand a critique and live another day? Yes. He'll be just fine and has a different perspective on how his writing is viewed by others who don't agree with him, which is a blessing and a benefit to all writers.

Ryan| 3.18.09 @ 1:03PM

On the ex nihilo matter, I also read some items which hold that the translation is ambiguous. The following verse helps some clarification:

Hebrews 11:3 By faith we understand that the worlds were prepared by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things which are visible.

John 1:3 All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.

Here's a further issue - where did the material that God "organize" everything come from? What is wrong with a God who can call forth something from nothing simply by saying it is so?

I think that you're still trying to squeeze creation=fault to a degree here. I've posted before the words of Paul in Romans 9:

22What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction?
23And He did so to make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory...

Our argument is that God created Adam and Eve with the ability and will to disobey from nothing, and pronounced their creation, "good." If they were created from nothing, then the matter is moot - God pronounced them "good," and I'll accept His judgment on the matter.

You state, "Either God is limited in some way, or he deliberately created beings that would introduce evil into existence. "

The second is precisely - with emphasis on the word "would." God KNEW, and did it anyway. There is NOTHING in the Bible that really contradicts this view, and much which supports it.

Paul's response to what you are stating, in Romans 9, just before the above verses I stated:
19You will say to me then, "Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?"
20On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, "Why did you make me like this," will it?
21Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use?

God did it all that way - and pronounced it, "good." God created us with the ability to sin, and pronounced it, "good," because He had already made provision to take care of that sin. He made man initially sinless, but with the ability and will to sin - and then rejected man for sinning...but made Himself the sacrifice for that sin.

There is nothing written in the Bible that states that there was any sort of human consciousness that predated their creation, while there is something which infers that there was something of angelic nature before then.

David| 3.18.09 @ 2:56PM

TomH says "If Jesus Christ was literally resurrected, and ascended to heaven as such, then, "houston, we've got a problem:" God is no longer only "a spirit" but is spirit, flesh, and bone."
The fact that Christ appeared to the Apostles even though the doors were locked, and then ate to prove he wasn't a ghost, shows that His resurrected Body isn't subject to the same physical laws that ours are.

David| 3.18.09 @ 3:18PM

I believe that not only did God create Time, but also Space. One can almost conceive of God perceiving Time, panoramically, but it's impossible to conceive of what there was before Space.
Is it possible that God can work in the past, or is that part "done with"?

David| 3.18.09 @ 3:32PM

The Persons of the Trinity are distinct, but not seperate. The best illustration of this that I have seen so far is: Space, Time, and Matter, they are not the same but cannot be seperate.

TomH| 3.18.09 @ 6:16PM

Ryan:

God's justice has to be absolute in order for him to be God in the first place.

You wrote:
"I think that you're still trying to squeeze creation=fault to a degree here. "

I am not squeezing anything out of creation.

God created and designed the personal consciousnesses of both Adam and Eve.

At the time of creation, he purposely created their consciousness in an imperfect way that would result in establishing evil in the world.

When Adam and Eve stand at the judgement bar, NOT WITHSTANDING the Bible, they both can make the logical and necessary claim that God caused evil to come into the world, indirectly.

He could have created their intelligence in such a way to avoid all sin - altogether.

This is the inherent flaw in "creation ex nilio" doctrine.

What you're doing with the scriptures is trying to go back and tell me what you think they are saying.

The logical and necessary reason why Adam and Eve or any of us can truly be personally responsible for your actions is because our consciousness wasn't created by God. Otherwise, he's culpable not withstanding our ability to choose between one thing or another.

You see, if someone sins, it's because they aren't choosing wisely. If they had more wisdom or intelligence, and their desires were created differently, God's spitirual creations could always choose right.

The Orthodox Christian claim is that God is omnibeneficient - that there is no evil in God. But according to your view, since God created all all intelligence out of nothing, he could have prevented evil from ever entering into the universe.

Your God cannot be ominbeneficient, because he could have prevented evil,and didn't and therefore cannot be God.

TomH| 3.18.09 @ 6:40PM

Ryan:

My post above should have started with this line:

"ACCORDING TO YOUR BELIEF...
God created and designed the personal consciousnesses of both Adam and Eve.

At the time of creation, he purposely created their consciousness in an imperfect way that would result in establishing evil in the world.

When Adam and Eve stand at the judgement bar, NOT WITHSTANDING the Bible, they both can make the logical and necessary claim that God caused evil to come into the world, indirectly. "

Spencer| 3.18.09 @ 7:49PM

I just want to say thanks to Jeremy Lott for bringing up an interesting comparison. I'm going to read Watchmen again with this article in mind.

Also, I don't see why so many people are getting so offended over this. I don't believe comparisons like this are "demeaning" to a religion or a belief at all. So much classic literature alludes or has characters that stand for the Christian conception of God (ex. East of Eden, Stranger in a Strange Land, etc...). That's part of what makes these works so great. I don't see how a comic book figure can be any different.

Thanks again Jeremy. I enjoy your thoughts on this subject.

David| 3.18.09 @ 8:09PM

TomH said:
"Your God cannot be ominbeneficient, because he could have prevented evil, and didn't and therefore cannot be God."
At a certain point your argument breaks down. At what point does one take responsibility for his or her actions and not blame God? If you fall in the water and can't swim, is it God's fault you drown because He could have provided us with gills? If you fall off a cliff is God evil because He could have given us wings? If we are attacked by a wild animal do we blame God for not making all animals tame? God has given us intelligence in order to try to avoid calamities, as much as possible, just as He has given us the ability to make a choice between good and evil.
"When Adam and Eve stand at the judgement bar, NOT WITHSTANDING the Bible, they both can make the logical and necessary claim that God caused evil to come into the world, indirectly. "
They already did, sort of. Adam blamed woman, "the woman you put here with me", and Eve in turn blamed the serpent.

TomH| 3.18.09 @ 9:01PM

David:

We're talking about the doctrine of creation ex nihilo and it's philosophical consequences.

I am making the argument, that if God created every personal consciousness out of nothing, then he is responsible for all of the inherent flaws within. A logical proposition of creation ex nihilo is that God is responsible for the design of each spiritual entity – including angels, and Adam and Eve. Satan rebelled and Adam and Eve sinned.

Since God is responsible for the inherent flaws in their individual consciousness, then Adam and Eve can truthfully make the claim that God is responsible.

Was God limited in some way that prevented him from creating individuals with consciousnesses that were capable of seeing the choices and always making the right ones?

Either God is limited in some way, or he deliberately created beings that would introduce evil into existence.

Which position represents your view?

ZachC| 3.18.09 @ 11:32PM

So another voice from the LDS faith here. Just wanted to point out that I take no offense from this article, though some commenting seem to think I might. It's a pretty fair assessment of Mormon theology, though I will say Mormon theology takes more than a few paragraphs to sum up. Still, no particular need for me to be offended. We're very often misunderstood, and Jeremy hasn't done that. Interesting article.

Ryan| 3.19.09 @ 8:40AM

TomH,

"Your God cannot be omnibeneficient, because he could have prevented evil, and didn't, and therefore cannot be God" is the basis of your argument, and it's a logical leap that isn't necessarily true.

There is nothing scriptural that states that God HAS to prevent evil to be God.
He created something that was perfect; but what is better - a creation that is perfect without choice, or one that is perfect with the chance to be imperfect yet decides perfection?

God created the latter, and gave man the will to turn against Him (which man did)...and then God made a way to return to perfection. The ability - or will - to disobey God is not necessarily a "flaw," particularly because God MADE Adam that way and pronounced it "good."

And He knew it was going to happen the whole time, and He still called it "good" - because HE gets to decide and define "good," and we DON'T.

That being said, the flaw in your end of the argument relies on the matter that YOU are trying to define what perfection is, and not God. If God is Who I believe (and what scripture tends to point out), then NEITHER of us gets to define "perfect," because neither of us are perfect, and neither of us have any ability to make the penultimate definition of anything because we're NOT God.

You also have a poor definition of "sin," I think. Sin isn't just about "not choosing wisely," (a massive understatement) it's not about having the incorrect information - it's about a will that wants to do nothing else BUT go against the will and law of God. As David stated, and Paul reiterated, "there is none righteous, not even one..." Sin is nature, not choice, since Adam's fall. We don't GET the ability to make "good" choices because we all sinned in Adam.

David| 3.19.09 @ 1:55PM

TomH:
Ryan pretty well summed up my views. I see the leap in your statement: "if God created every personal consciousness out of nothing, then he is responsible for all of the inherent flaws within."
The thing is, there were no inherent flaws. They were given free will, and the idea of free will is that they were capable of making flawed decisions. Earlier you say " he purposely created their consciousness in an imperfect way", but the fact is, they were created with the ability to make decisions for themselves.
The reason I came up with the examples of natural calamities was to disprove your idea that just because God could have prevented something but didn't, he couldn't be God.

TomH| 3.19.09 @ 3:58PM

David:

Does God have free will?

Ryan| 3.20.09 @ 7:14AM

TomH,

In a sense, He's the only One Who really does.

Here's one for you: does God have a standard greater than Himself which determines what is good and evil? If not, how can He be God?

Your singular question doesn't answer to the evidence and points that we've made - particularly the ones which I made using the one thing that we seem to have in common - the Bible.

Honestly, if you're going to make an argument on Christian/religious grounds, you pretty much have to quote scripture and its interpretation to back your points up. Philosophical leanings have to have a grounding, particularly in Christianity where we claim have a higher Authority Who communicated to us.

Ryan| 3.20.09 @ 7:14AM

TomH,

Correction:

Here's one for you: does God have a standard greater than Himself which determines what is good and evil? If so, how can He be God?

TomH| 3.20.09 @ 10:53AM

Ryan:

Thank you for your responses above.

I believe we can and should make an appeal to scripture - most definitely.

However, what if we both read the scriptures and we interpret them differently?

How will we determine who is right?

D Freez| 3.20.09 @ 11:46AM

I am Mormon, and I watched the Watchmen. As I watched the movie, I was struck with how similar Dr. Manhattan & his powers were to my conception of God. I think Jeremy hit it right on the nose with this article.

Of course, God is not blue, does not have a hydrogen atom engraved on his forehead, and does not walk around naked. And He is in no way out of touch with humanity. Oh, and his omniscience is not affected by tachyons. Oh, and He can hear the thoughts and prayers of all humanity. Oh, and He's doesn't cheat on His wife and fall for a younger woman. Oh, and He hasn't become a pawn of the US government. Oh, and He would never be complicit in mass genocide and agree to cover it up. But other than that, He is very similar to Dr. Manhattan.

Frank| 3.20.09 @ 12:01PM

I am Mormon and I watched the Watchmen as well.

And the similarities are staggering (sarcasm intended).

Jeremy could have made as many similarities between a resurrected Jesus as he did with the God of Mormonism.

The God of Mormonism = the resurrected Jesus.

TomH| 3.20.09 @ 12:56PM

TomH,

Scripture interpretation is both personal and not-so-personal. Some scripture is drastically clear; other has nuance; other is completely over are heads simply because we weren't there at the time. The trick is differentiating.

However, there is plenty that we KNOW. We KNOW Greek and Hebrew, we KNOW - for the most part - the meanings of the words and their contexts...and we know we don't have all the answers.

However, I am making an appeal to scripture because it forms the basis for my beliefs. If there is an alternate interpretation of which I am unaware and disproves what I know, have been taught, and can study, I need to be shown it.

However, if I'm pointing out something that is entirely relevant...you should be listening as well and searching for yourself to see if what I am saying is correct. And I'm not just talking about Mormon sources - Biblical scholarship didn't start with Joseph Smith, if you hold to his teachings. There were well over a thousand years of good, God-fearing men who sought to find answers in scripture and dive through their meaning, who fought with themselves and each other to really figure out what was going on, and who ought be listened to.

TomH| 3.20.09 @ 1:16PM

Ryan:

I assume that the post above is from you, since I don't recall writing it. (haha)

Let me assure you that I agree that we should consult both Hebrew and the Greek and place the scriptures in the proper context.

However, when we consult the Hebrew and the Greek, we also run the risk of biases getting in the way since many of the scholars over the last 1000 years were heavily influenced by the changes in philosophy and views of metaphysics.

Creation ex nihilo is a doctrine that we can go back in time and study when it first found existence in Orthodox Christianity.

That God created the world, that he is the author of it, we both agree. But the phrase, "out of nothing" creates a multitude of philosophical problems for Orthodox Christianity.

But if it wasn't out of nothing, then such a proposition creates another set of difficult problems for Orthodox Christianity.

How about we appeal directly to existence?

Doesn't reality trump one interpretation over another?

Ryan| 3.20.09 @ 3:13PM

Here's the problem - creation ex nihilo HAD to happen at some point. You can't get something from nothing, and you eventually have to go back to where ex nihilo happened.

I prefer to think that the starting point is an intelligent, all-knowing Being.

I also think that the consequences of such a Being actually...being...are far better than the Mormon model.

A Being who DEFINES Holiness, Perfection, and Goodness simply by self-existing. A Being who I CANNOT reach of my own doing, who cannot stand my imperfections and made sacrifice for them. A Being so great, so large, so beyond - and yet still considers even me.

Such is the God we see in the Bible. If we don't, you need to point out how and where because I simply don't see it. If all you have is the interpretation of Genesis 1 and nothing else, then you may have a point...but the rest of scripture bears out the matter that man is separated from God by our sins, with "none righteous...not even one."

Give me a God THAT big.

TomH| 3.20.09 @ 7:37PM

Ryan:

I should first should tell you that I believe that God created the heavens and the earth. That he is the author of it, and without his power, it could not have come to be. With this important point made, I’ll like to talk about the implications of the “creation ex nihilo” doctrine.

Let’s work our way back to Creation ex nihilo and see what kind of picture that paints of existence.

According to Orthodox Christianity about 6000 years and 6 (24 hour) days ago, God created the heavens and the earth out of nothing. He also created the angels, one of which was Lucifer, who rebelled sometime during the 6 day period and became Satan. Before this creation there was nothing except God. There was no Son of God, in the sense that we believe in a Son of God today – because there was no existence like there is today. No Word had been made flesh until about 2000 years ago.

For an endless duration in the past or in his existence outside space and time, God did not create anything. He did not want for anything and needed nothing for his perfection. He was complete in every way.

Yet, for a reason unnecessary to his being, he changed. He became a creator. He desired children made out of nothing. So, he created an existence completely opposite his own perfection, on purpose out of nothing, not even out of his own perfection. This act is completely inconsistent with a necessary view of a coherent, perfect, and absolute God. The interpretations above result in a God who made a dramatic change away from his perfect nature to create an unnecessary existence.

We can also compare the views above and see if they are consistent with existence what God is said to have created. We learn from direct observation, scientific study of the earth, the moon, our solar system, other solar systems, our galaxy, and other galaxies that 1) the earth was not created 6000 years ago but billions of years ago. Our sun did not separate “darkness from light” in the universal sense, but only the spatially local sense.

By testing the earth, the moon, the solar system, our galaxy, and other galaxies we can clearly see that 1) the earth is not 6000 years old, 2) the earth doesn’t represent the beginning of God’s universal creations, and 3) the fabric of creation itself, matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed.

We no longer need scholars to provide their conjecture on what this Hebrew or Greek word “might” mean, because we have the testimony of the earth, the sun, and our galaxy as the strongest testators which have been here all along, longer than any living human. These were created by God in a specific way to testify of the truth – his truth.

There are also philosophical problems with the view that God exists as pure consciousness outside space and time. The problem arises out of the purpose of consciousness. That a consciousness could be conscious without existence is a stolen concept of existence. Consciousness is contingent upon existence.

How do you reconcile the truth of the earth, solar system, and galaxy with the cosmological view based on 3rd and 4th century metaphysics and cosmology?

Victor| 3.21.09 @ 5:06PM

My guess is that more Mormons will read this review then see the movie...

~Victor

Ryan| 3.23.09 @ 8:12AM

You're making several bad assumptions:

1. God's creation requires Him to have changed something about Himself. If you build a house, does anything necessarily have to change about you personally other than that hey - you're building a house now?

Nope. God's essential elements of Holiness, completeness, perfection, and everything else didn't change when He created the world.

Second is the automatic assumption that the world was created 6,000-10,000 years ago. I know and understand the science going on - to a point. I know what we find and how old it seems to be. I admit that it's one of the major flaws in creation, and I take it into account. God can work in any way He desires - millions or thousands of years. It doesn't disprove the point that at SOME point something HAS to be uncreated - and I would think that an intelligence Who exists in and of Himself (the meaning behind the term "I AM" is a bit better logically than random particles of matter just appearing.

Third, you're still pushing what YOU decide is "coherent, perfect, and absolute." You DON'T get to define those terms on your own. God does. Also, you have practically failed to use scripture to benefit ANY point you have really made, outside of Genesis 1. No words of Christ. Nothing by Paul.

If we're both Christians, we have an authority to turn to. We have a book that we supposedly hold in common which is supposed to be our starting point in the Bible.

TomH| 3.23.09 @ 2:01PM

Ryan:

Thanks for responding above. I’ll make some counter points of my own below.
I do not believe that I have made any bad assumptions. I believe that I have challenged the Classic view of God with necessary questions relating to the reduction of creation and God’s act to its first principle.

1. If God is perfect and needs nothing, what possible reason could he have for creating a less-than-perfect world? He certainly doesn't need our praise (much less our blasphemy) and the creation of such a world adds nothing to God's perfection. In principle, a perfect God who has accomplished everything possible could not have anything left to accomplish. Why would God intentionally create imperfect beings?

2. The evidence found in the earth and in the solar system doesn’t “seem” to be anything except what it “is.” Modern geologists and geophysicists consider the age of the Earth to be around 4.54 billions of years old. This age has been determined by radiometric age dating of meteorite material and is consistent with the ages of the oldest-known terrestrial and lunar samples. Have you seriously looked at this very large body of scientific evidence?

Then, you proceed to words created and “uncreated” which are Catholic terms rather than “scientific” descriptions of matter and energy. The term “I Am” simply means “existed.” However, there are Catholic catechisms that seek to make the “I AM” statement mysterious and connected with 3rd and 4th century mysticism.

However, I think you have mistakenly borrowed the concept of “creation out of nothing” ideas when you look at the age of the earth and the Law of Conservation of Energy.

These ages of rocks or Earth materials do not refer to when the “atoms” came into existence but when those particular rocks formed together into their current state. In other words, the matter and energy of all things, remains timeless, endless, and always existing. Think in terms of a water molecule: 2 hydrogen and 1 oxygen. The bonds of this molecule can be broken and the result is a change in composition but hydrogen and oxygen continue to exist. Rocks are hard consolidated mineral matter. What is mineral matter? Minerals are made of pure elements and simple salts to very complex silicates. Consulting a periodic table once can see the building blocks of all minerals. With the right pressure or heat, these can be broken down into their constituent parts or chemical elements. So far, 117 elements have been observed; 94 occur naturally on earth

In the early part of the twentieth century, Albert Einstein (1879–1955) demonstrated that matter and energy represent two forms of the same thing. He showed that matter can change into energy and that energy can change into matter, as expressed in his equation E=MC2 (1905).

The Law of Conservation of Energy states that energy cannot be created or destroyed, but can change its form. The total quantity of matter and energy available in the universe is a fixed amount and never any more or less.

So, even when we go back billions of years to the beginning of those materials, we still find indestructible matter and energy – no evidences or laws related to “creation out of nothing.”

Joseph Smith restored this truth to Church of Jesus Christ. Without God, matter and energy are without form. God organizes and brings structure and purpose out of matter, energy and immutable laws.

Moreover, there is nothing in the scientific record or the Bible for a “creation out of nothing” description of God’s acts:

a. The Bible contains clear statements of creation out of chaos. (See Harry A. Wolfson, Philo (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1948), 1:302-3.).

b. Job chapters 28 and 38 refer to God bringing order out of preexisting chaos.

c. Moreover, Genesis 1:1 seems to be a clear reference to creation out of chaos. The Harper's Bible Commentary reads:

As most modern translations recognize, the P creation account (1:1-2:4a) begins with a temporal clause ("When, in the beginning, God created"); such a translation puts Gen. 1:1 in agreement with the opening of the J account (2:4b) and with other ancient, Near Eastern creation myths. . . . The description of the precreation state in v.2 probably is meant to suggest a storm-tossed sea: darkness, a great wind, the water abyss . . . chaotic forces.
(James L. Mays, ed., Harper's Bible Commentary (San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1988), 87.)

d. The most respected commentary on Genesis is by E. A. Spieser, who translates 1:1 in the same way (as a temporal clause) and then adds:
“To be sure, the present interpretation precludes the view that the creation accounts in Genesis say nothing about coexistent matter. The question, however, is not the ultimate truth about cosmogony, but only the exact meaning of the Genesis passages which deal with the subject. . . . At all events, the text should be allowed to speak for itself.” (E. A. Speiser, Genesis: The Anchor Bible Commentary (Garden City: Doubleday, 1964), 13, emphasis added.)

e. The drama of God's creating by organizing chaos is thoroughly treated by Jon D. Levenson, the Albert A. List Professor at Harvard University:

“Although it is now generally recognized that creation ex nihilo . . . is not an adequate characterization of creation in the Hebrew Bible, the legacy of this dogmatic or propositional understanding lives on and continues to distort the perceptions of scholars and lay persons alike. In particular, a false finality and definiteness is ascribed to God's act of creation, consequently, the fragility of the created order and its vulnerability to chaos tend to be played down.” (Jon D. Levenson, Creation and the Persistence of Evil (Princeton University Press: Princeton, New Jersey, 1987), xxix.)

It should be noted that within Mormonism, God’s eternal nature is stressed and highlighted but that God was complete before he started creating is an untenable position. God creates because he needs to create – it is necessary to his being. However, Classic theism denies this proposition.

3. I have not decided or come up with new meanings for the words coherent, perfect, and absolute, I am referring to the Classic interpretation.

a. Coherency refers to something marked by an orderly, logical, and aesthetically consistent relation of parts.

b. Perfect refers to God’s being and his moral rightness relating to “lacking nothing essential to the whole; complete of its nature or kind.”

c. Absoluteness refers to something regarded as independent of and unrelated to anything else.

Therefore, that a complete being such as the “Classic view” of God would intentionally create imperfect beings out of nothing is, by nature “incoherent,” an “imperfect act,” and inconsistent with absoluteness.

This brings us back to the first question I posed: “If God is perfect and needs nothing, what possible sufficient reason could he have for creating a less-than-perfect world?

You are borrowing from Mormonism when you state the view that “imperfection” remains to be “good,” as God declared it in Genesis. However, our definition of the terms coherent, perfect, and absolute differ slightly from your own.

When confronted with these theological and philosophical contradictions, I understand your desire to retreat back into the scriptures where interpretation is subjective between Catholic, Protestant, non-denominational or Mormon interpretations.

But can you see why those appeals only lead to more disagreement? If we all agreed on interpretation then such an exercise could yield fruit.

The Church of Jesus Christ of LDS believes and affirms that its interpretation is more correct than the Classic Christian view. You will argue that your view is most correct.

So what do we do? We have to involve another witness – in this case, existence itself.

Both the Bible and modern science confirm the creation account and the nature of God (1830s) as restored and reestablished by Joseph Smith.

Ryan| 3.24.09 @ 7:24AM

First, you're completely wrong about I AM. The literal meaning, "I shall be who I shall be," has pretty much always had the understanding of self-existence.

Second, you're continuing with the assumption that the world was created less-than-perfect. It wasn't - it was created (in ANY case) as "good," and ONLY God gets to define who and what is "good" because He holds the standard in and of Himself (as Christ Himself pointed out!).

A creation that falls of its own accord does NOT necessarily mean that it was created imperfectly. It was created FINITE.

Third, I don't argue with what science shows us. We live in a complex universe.
Here's the rub.
Matter can't be created. Why and how is it here in the first place?
Paul has an interesting answer:
20For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. - "organization" doesn't make much sense here.

We can continue to debate about the meaning behind Gen 1:1 - and you've made certain good points, but here's the problem.

It still doesn't show me how your version of god is worth following. He's finite; he appears to be answerable to some higher standard; he is NOT the ultimate good...I don't want him.

I want whoever or whatever is above him. THAT is what is worth our worship and praise. The being who DEFINES good and evil, the being who is without beginning or end, the being who is the ultimate. THAT'S what I want - not someone who was like me and had to grow to divinity.

TomH| 3.24.09 @ 11:25AM

Ryan:

You said:
"I don't argue with what science shows us. We live in a complex universe. Here's the rub.
Matter can't be created."

If matter cannot be created and cannot be destroyed then it has always existed. If it has always existed then God did not create it - it is co-eternal with God. If it has always existed, then the laws that uphold it have always existed. If it has always existed then its "space" has always existed. If matter has always existed and is inside space and time, then God is inside space and time.

If matter has always existed and God is inside space, then God is a part of matter. If God is a part of matter, then he does not exist outside space and time.

1. If matter is neither created nor destroyed - creation ex nihilo is false.

2. If creation ex nihilo is false, then God exists side by side with matter, and is inside space and time.

3. If God exists inside space, then the interpretation that God is a pure consciousness outside space and time, is false.

4. If God is not a pure consciousness outside space and time, then the witness of the Bible is of a powerful and supremely intelligent being existing inside space and time and his nature consists of matter and energy.

The resurrection of Jesus Christ is a tangible witness of the reality of matter and energy and its permanent and inseparable connection with God.
If matter is neither created nor destroyed, you can see the necessary propositions that must follow and the Classic view of God cannot be accurate or true.

Mormonism asserts that God has all of the attributes necessary in order to organize galaxies, stars, planets, spirits, human bodies, and a plan to save them from the laws of Justice and Satan to glorify them as he is glorified – to make them one as both the Father and Son are one.

A god that exists outside space and time can be no more powerful than a God that exists inside space and time. Such a god is no "bigger" or "more influential" than the God that exists inside space and time.

A god that CAN cause evil to not exist, and does not, cannot be all good and does not act according to his highest and his necessary perfect and sovereignty. If God is not all good, then God is not God. The Christian view of God is said to be "infinite" or without limitations and could prevent evil. But the Classic Christian God can prevent evil but chooses not to.

Ryan, either your God is limitless or he is not. If he is limitless then he should have been able to create a universe wherein only his values exists - that is, if he is truly sovereign in all senses of that word. If he has "unlimited" knowledge then the puzzle of creating a universe without evil, with no devil, or demons, or sins, should be easily solved by your omnipotent (unlimited power) and omniscient (unlimited knowledge) God.

But, evil exists in the Universe.

Which is it?
a. God has unlimited knowledge but cannot figure out how to create a universe wherein there is no evil?

b. God has unlimited power but cannot destroy evil?

If God's power and knowledge are both unlimited, then God can create a universe wherein free will exists that can be exercised without choosing evil. Such a God can prevent evil because his knowledge on how to do it, is unlimited.

If God made the personal consciousness of Adam and Eve out of nothing, without enough desire or enough knowledge to avoid evil, then God is ultimately responsible for evil.

However, if God did NOT make the intelligence inside Adam and Eve's personal consciousness, then God's hands are clean.

Mormonism restored the truth about every soul on earth - God did not make their intelligence. It is eternal.

There is a third and most important and necessary option to harmonize God with the realities of the universe: God is limited in some respects as it relates to existence. These limits do not frustrate God’s work, they explain the realties of the universe and the outcomes of man.

The true God of the universe, which is revealed in Mormonism, is the only God that is constant - he always obeys laws. This is why he is the object of praise and worship – because he is constant in his values.

In contrast, the Classic God plays tricks on humans. He has the power to destroy evil but doesn't. He requires that we know the name of Jesus Christ, but intentionally causes souls to be born in places and at different times when they cannot know of Jesus Christ, eternally damning them to a horrible existence forever. The Classic God can change his mind who is saved and who is not saved on a whim, based on his mere pleasure.

Contrastingly, the true God of heaven is constant and reliable and no respecter of persons, judging all beings according to immutable laws, always.

You said that you don't argue what science shows us. By your own admission, you confront an existence that is inconsistent with you theological views.
The apparent design in the world points to an intelligent designer. The world's equally apparent disorder and evolutionary development point to an intelligent designer who is not absolutely unlimited or unconditioned. Science has revealed a 4.5 billion year old Earth. Why would "God plod through millions of years of evolution with the entire scene of tooth and claw, blood and pain experienced by animals if he could have created highly evolved organisms instantly? Further, if God is unlimited as you say, then 6 days was 6 days too long for a God who can create anything out of nothing, instantly.

LDS theology can account for the realities we find in the earth, the solar system, and the universe, while Classic theism cannot. In Mormonism, God is a self-existent being. No other being can "create" him or "destroy" him. He has all necessary power to create the universe, offer us the truth, subdue Satan, and save mankind from Satan’s grasp and make his children one with God, as the Father and Son are one, to dwell in happiness and peace forever.

You say you want the God who "defines" good and evil. But if the definition of "good" and "evil" can change at anytime, based on this God's whims, then how can you trust such a God? I submit that a reasonable and sincere person cannot trust a God as you have defined him in your last paragraph and that you have attempted to reconcile with existence. To date, there is no reconciliation.

You claim that God is the ultimate being, unlimited in power and knowledge, but cannot create a universe wherein his greatest attributes are upheld as the ultimate standards for existence. You would have to admit that your God is a paradox.

The God that is always true to his necessary values and attributes - is the only God that can exist in reality. That is the God revealed in the Bible and in Mormonism.

It matters little what we "want” to exist. It only matters what actually exists.

Ryan| 3.24.09 @ 11:55AM

You keep falling into the line that since evil exists, then there cannot be an unlimited God. It's not necessarily a logical conclusion, and you keep asserting that it has to be the truth. You need to ask one more question:

Can an unlimited God, who knows all things, create something He knows will fall and then show His power by being the only Way that creation can be complete?

Where in scripture - outside of the interpretation you present in Genesis - does it show that God is ANYTHING but what I am presenting Him as? Does He ever state in scripture that He is limited, or that He doesn't know something, or that He is incomplete in any way?

Creation was "good" in the beginning, as Genesis clearly asserts. It WAS created perfectly, without blemish; however, that doesn't mean that it could be corrupted. You keep asserting our definitions of what is right and wrong and good and evil, rather than going back and seeing how it was actually done. He gave US the ability to screw it up, and it remains that it is OUR fault for sin. Simply because He allows something, even if he can prevent it, doesn't mean that we can draw the conclusion to find Him at fault. I've quoted SEVERAL times Paul on the matter, something that you haven't really acknowledged. Heck, just about everything that I pointed to in the New Testament has been ignored. Why?

Our belief is that God said it was so - and so it MUST be. God doesn't change what is good and evil on a whim - scripture is pretty consistent on that point. God doesn't change who He saves or doesn't. He doesn't call murder or robbery a sin in one place and then changes His mind later on. Where is it different?

Here's the problem - without an ultimate standard, there cannot be a true definition of good and evil. How can murder be sin if there is nothing concrete to base it upon? What right does the Mormon god have to assert his worth when he has a higher standard to answer to?

Here's the other problem - matter cannot be created. That doesn't mean that it is eternal...because it's here. The very existence of matter breaks the law.

The Mormon God cannot truly say "I AM," because He didn't begin everything. Something else caused - either by accident or by design - him to come to be. Is there another way to look at "I AM" that the Hebrews meant?

TomH| 3.24.09 @ 3:02PM

Ryan:

I sincerely appreciate your zeal to defend your positions. I wouldn’t expect anything less from a person who believes strongly in their religion.

I feel that you are a sincere person and that you genuinely love the gospel of Jesus Christ. I share that deep love for the Savior and his sacrifice to bridge the gulf of justice on my behalf, making it possible for me to return to God. I certainly don’t want our doctrinal disagreements to cloud the deep feelings I have for God’s mercy or his power to change lives. In essence, that is the most important message of Mormonism, and you would say the same thing of your faith, no doubt.

For sure, Mormonism does not agree with Orthodox Christianity on many doctrinal points. However, we affirm the truth of the Bible and other scripture as well.

I acknowledge that our individual approach may be different. I find that I am asking you to make an appeal to existence, and you’re asking me to make an appeal to personal consciousness. I categorize “existence” as those things that we can both confirm in reality. I categorize consciousness as those thoughts or beliefs that are found in our individual “consciousness” that we feel but that we cannot prove through empirical evidence.

In order to have a coherent discussion, we both have to appeal to existence. This is the only reality that we can both confirm together.

This is why I started with the indestructibility of matter. I believe that matter is real. Science has confirmed that is indestructible, and cannot be created or destroyed.

Do you believe this is a true, universal principle of the universe or that it’s merely a complex illusion?

Ryan| 3.24.09 @ 3:20PM

I believe that matter is real, but I also believe that it isn't eternal. Matter cannot be created...but it exists anyway, in spite of the natural laws.

Like I said before, I think that it makes more sense for a noncreated underlying Intelligence, Who self-exists without any external cause or reason (which would make that cause or reason greater than such a being), than for matter and energy to just BE.

There is no good or evil, no higher standard if God is not omnipotent and came about due to some natural cause of the universe. Matter and energy are neither good nor evil in and of themselves...how could they impose any sort of morality? What's the point of morality if the most powerful agent in the universe, which cannot be created or destroyed, is amoral?

You're correct about my zeal for, in a sense, orthodoxy, because I hold your view of God (no offense) to be too low and of Joseph Smith - a fallen man who was imperfect - to be too high. I think that Mormonism is rife with contradictions - particularly in New Testament interpretations.

Part of it really comes to my view that God is High and Holy, and DEMANDS perfection and cannot abide sin because it is against Who He Is - truly good (as Christ said) - and the ONLY way I can reach Him is for Him to reach down Himself and make me able to reach Him.

It's why I see a works-based faith so abhorrent. It states that I can actually DO something to reach God. If I can, then what is the point of the Cross? What's the point of Christ's sacrifice if all I have to do is work? Most/all works-based religions see sin and good as a balancing act, without realizing that sin still persists...and God doesn't want sin balanced, He wants it GONE...and He has to remove it from Himself as far as possible...hence the wages of sin being death. Not the wages of sin, minus my payment when I have done enough to appease God without any real standard to know I have done enough.

Honestly, read the book of Romans. SO much is laid out there that I wonder if Mormons really do.

TomH| 3.24.09 @ 4:47PM

Ryan:

You wrote:
“I believe that matter is real, but I also believe that it isn't eternal. Matter cannot be created...but it exists anyway, in spite of the natural laws.”

Te "classical" tradition views perfection as static and absolute, an upper limit beyond which it is impossible to progress. From this view of perfection it follows that God is without any parts (metaphysically simple), outside of time (timeless), absolutely unchanging in any respect (immutable), untouched by anything that occurs in the world (impassable), and without any material body (incorporeal).

This definition of God was mostly formulated during the 3rd, 4th, and 5th centuries when very little was known about the reality of matter and true nature of the universe. It is only coherent from THAT time, and not in our time.

The definition of something that was never created or that can never be destroyed means it is has existed for an infinite duration. It is self existing. It has always existed by natural laws that have always existed. Matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed – by definition, they are eternal.

I know that this directly contradicts the doctrines “creation out of nothing” or ‘Christian immutability” but nonetheless, matter and energy are by nature, eternal.

Why don’t you believe that matter and energy are eternal?

Ryan| 3.25.09 @ 8:20AM

One, because I heartily disagree with your interpretation of Genesis 1, and I think the rest of the Bible backs the point up.

John 1:3 for example.

3 All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.

Even if it really does mean "organized," it STILL doesn't preclude that God didn't create all matter.

Another reason is the implications of morality. If matter is eternal as you say, then the chaos is greater than God. I stated earlier:
"There is no good or evil, no higher standard if God is not omnipotent and came about due to some natural cause of the universe. Matter and energy are neither good nor evil in and of themselves...how could they impose any sort of morality? What's the point of morality if the most powerful agent in the universe, which cannot be created or destroyed, is amoral?"

I also think that many of the arguments that I was making from the New Testament you really haven't answered well. Is there a reason they're being avoided?

TomH| 3.25.09 @ 1:08PM

Ryan:

You wrote:
"Another reason is the implications of morality. If matter is eternal as you say, then the chaos is greater than God."

How does this logically follow?

Ryan| 3.25.09 @ 3:16PM

It goes with what I stated before - matter and energy are amoral. If they, and not God, are the greatest force, then how can anything matter? How can God be worthy - and be the standard - if there is something greater than Himself?

TomH| 3.25.09 @ 4:05PM

I said:
"Matter and energy are co-eternal with God."

You said:
"Chaos is greater than God."

I don't believe that matter and energy are greater than God.

Can you please demonstrate how matter and energy are greater than God simply because they coexist with him?

Ryan| 3.25.09 @ 4:24PM

No, I stated, "Another reason is the implications of morality. If matter is eternal as you say, then the chaos is greater than God."

I was equating that the non-intelligence of matter with what is essentially a chaotic, random state with no intelligence.

If it's co-eternal with God (who, by the way you are presenting him, is not eternal, but I could be wrong on my interpretation there), then God cannot be greater than matter and energy simply because the co-exist, and one cannot definitively be greater than the other. Your interpretation of God may be able to manipulate it, but He has no FINAL power over it, to create or destroy it.

If He cannot create it or destroy it, how can He be greater?

John 1:3, as I quoted before, also completely goes against the idea that anything co-existed with God.

I'm REALLY trying to hammer home scripture here, as I have several times. You seem to be relying upon philosophy and science as your starting point.

If scripture is what we supposedly hold it to be, it is to be our authority. I have consistently provided not just Biblical justifications for what we are driving at about God at the beginning, but also His purposes and plans and some pretty good overall answers about means and such.

I have particularly used the New Testament. I've only seen you quote Gen 1:1.

TomH| 3.26.09 @ 4:05PM

Ryan:

I would love to have a conversation from the Bible about the creation and the nature of God - taking in all of the verses to reach a clearer consensus of God's nature and his creation process.

However, what inevtibaly happens is that you and I will start talking past each other because we both interpret the Bible differently.

This is why I have invited you to look at the truth of existence. We can both make an appeal to it - it can confirm truths that we're questioning without reverting to one's opinions over the other.

We both agree that according to the Word of God in regard to the creation, God spoke and it was done according to His knowledge, wisdom, understanding, and power.

However, what is not consistent is the Orthodox Christian explanation of how it all happened. God created the universe in a way consistent with truth of our existence. Those truths are undeniable.

Matter and energy do not appear out of thin air. They do not appear from nothing. It may appear to Christian theologians that it appears out of thin air, but this is because their knowledge is limited.

So it was for Catholic councils and Churchmen of the 3rd and 4th centuries. They too spoke with limited knowledge and not from divine revelation. They adopted the Creation Ex nihilo doctrine from others who spoke with limited views as well. The process of how God brought about the most significant act, next to the atonement of Jesus Christ, was not revealed to the Christian Church through revelation, it was merely an adoption of others views that were popular at the time that made God appear unlimited in every way (which is a philosophical and cosmological fallacy.)

Have you not studied the history of Christianity and its major blunders in the recognition of cosmological realties in the past?

Aristotle ( 384 BC to 322 BC) asserted a geocentric view of all existence; the Earth became the center of the universe and ALL heavenly bodies revolve around it. This was the gospel truth for most of the world through New Testament times, through the emergence of the Universal Christian Church, through the time of the famous Church councils and creeds, and through the Reformation. Catholics and Protestants asserted the same views: the Earth is the center of motion of the universe. This remained Church doctrine for most Christians until Galileo Galilei in 1610.

Today, Galileo is considered the father of modern observational astronomy, the father of modern physics, the father of science, and the father of modern science. Through the influence of Copernicus and his telescope, he asserted that the Earth was NOT the center of the universe, but that it was the Earth that revolved around the Sun. (Heliocentrism)

These discoveries directly contradicted Christian Church doctrine. The Church cited Psalm 93:1, 96:10, 104:5, Ecclesiastes 1:5, and 1 Chronicles 16:30 as direct scriptural evidence that Galileo was guilty of blasphemy. The Christian Church forced Galileo to recant his discovery that the Earth revolved around the sun on penalty of death. To save his life, Galileo recanted.

Later it was confirmed that Galileo was right and the Church was wrong about Earth and Heavenly bodies. Today you can thank Galileo and other scientists for the knowledge and the truth about the Earth and the Sun; not because the Christian Church interpreted the Bible correctly, but because those scientists persisted in establishing the truth.

Now jump ahead almost 400 years. What are the confirmed scientific realities that contradict Christian Church doctrine today?

* The Laws of Conservation of Matter and Energy directly disprove and refute Creation ex nihilo

* Uranium lead isotope dating directly disproves and refutes the young Earth doctrine.

* Cosmic ray stream testing directly refutes the young Earth doctrine.

* Radioactive nuclide decay directly disproves and refutes the young Earth doctrine.

* Tidal pull slowing and coral fossil relationships disprove and refute the young Earth doctrine.

* Magnetic pole reversals recorded on the Atlantic ocean sea floor directly disprove and refute young Earth doctrine.

* Observed astronomy, light, and proven mathematical formulas disprove and refute a young galaxy doctrine.

The Christian Church continues to carry on in its stubbornness. Why? Arrogance and pride continue to permeate their approach to reality and existence. They believe that God has ordained them to be right in these matters. They don’t seek truth of our reality and existence the way God has made it, but just want their interpretations to remain true.

In fact, the behavior of the Christian Church in 1610, and their unwillingness to embrace the truth of existence, based on direct observation of reality, opened a permanent wedge between religion and science that continues to widen today.

The Christian Church will continue to be diminished each year because it won’t let go of its doctrines that are the myths and fantasies of Greek philosophers who reasoned with a limited view of existence. More and more, people who have discovered the truths of existence who cannot harmonize existence with Christian Church doctrine about Creation, the age of the earth, the reality of matter and energy, its necessary limits, etc., will leave the Church. Rather than abandoning reality, they are abandoning false doctrines. Scientific truth is a double-edged sword for Christians; it refutes their foundational doctrines and sets them free in the same slice.

Now enter in Joseph Smith. Mormonism, the reestablished Church of Jesus Christ, does not carry the burden of these false doctrines. God the Father, in his wisdom, placed Mormonism on solid ground in reality and existence when He declared to Joseph Smith: Matter is neither created nor destroyed. It was 80 years later that science confirmed this principle as verified scientific truth.

This religious principle allows Mormonism to be set apart from other Christian faiths, like a light on a hill.

Ryan| 3.27.09 @ 8:10AM

First, we don't believe that matter "appeared." We believe it was created. BIG difference.

Second, I've done little - if any - speaking about the age of the earth. It's a subject I avoid because I well know the scientific results, and I don't know if we can say for certain anymore that the earth is young, and how that fits in with the first bit of Genesis.

Third, I believe that matter cannot be created....but it's here anyway, in violation of the natural laws. You haven't addressed this, and there is plenty that you haven't addressed.

Fourth, Galileo's issue wasn't necessarily his findings, it was his methodology. The guy was a pompous jerk, by all accounts, and wouldn't produce the evidentiary results. He may have been right, and the church may have treated him wrong, but it wasn't because he somehow contradicted scripture, it was that they just wouldn't take his word for it.

Finally, I know you haven't appealed to scripture because you're trying to find a way to START with the natural laws of the universe. I believe in a God Who completely preempts those laws, and that is where I start. You don't. It appears that you believe that the natural order of the universe, in a sense, is as great as the creator rather than Him being the one who wrote them, holds them in Himself, and breaks them when He pleases.

We CAN'T just point at the natural order - we HAVE to appeal to scripture if we're Christians. I have continually done so - even on the points of Creation. You haven't.

Mark| 3.27.09 @ 12:39PM

Hello Ryan and TomH,

I stumbled upon your discussion and have found it very interesting reading, I don't want to really distract either of you from your debate and I feel quite out of my league throwing in my two cents here but maybe you could point out anything that is incoherent in my thoughts.

I always thought that God is eternal. Eternal being a word in context to the concept of time so to me it has the meaning that God has always existed in the past, He exists now in the present and will always exist in the future. There was no ‘beginning’ (a time when He did not exist) and there will be no ‘end’ (No point in time in the future where He will not exist)

I also though that God defines the laws of all things because of his perfect nature. What I mean by this is God is God because he has never broken the laws of the universe. He will always be God because the laws won’t change because He himself will never change. (The same yesterday, today, and tomorrow)

My understanding of this comes from the fact that the Lord God was able to come to earth and sacrifice himself for us on the cross and therefore become the saviour of mankind. He was able to do this because he had never broken the law, i.e. he was perfect and had never sinned.

Therefore if God did violate the law he would become have not fulfilled his Word as written in the Bible and I know God is not a liar! So this means that God must have never violated the laws of the universe.

So from my interpretation of what you have said Ryan, it seems like your saying it was ok for God to violate the laws of the universe at the start just to get things going, but from then on he will keep them. That to me suggests a view that He has changed.

I don't see the problem in matter being eternal in existence the same as God is eternal in existence because it is clear to me that it is God that has command over matter (and not the other way around). God does not answer to a higher standard, he is the highest standard. Matter is subject to God’s will. God is not a subject to anything.

Ryan| 3.27.09 @ 2:09PM

Hey Mark,

You have two things in conflict: Is God or the laws of the natural universe in control?

If God be God, didn't He write them? Does the universe operate without Him?

If the laws or in control, what's the point of God?

Mark| 3.27.09 @ 6:56PM

Hi Ryan,

What I was trying to get at is that both God and the laws of the natural universe have both always existed together

Where I think your view is one must have come before the other.

In other words you see the question in terms of the chicken and the egg. Either the laws of the natural universe came first and at some point God came into existence, and now, has to abide by them. Or God existed first then wrote the laws (which, between these two options, God being the first to exist would make more sense as He is the highest standard)

If God wrote the laws, the laws have not been eternal since there would be a point in time where the God existed but the laws didn't exist.

What I am trying to get at, (forgive me if I’m not very clear in this explanation) is that God’s existence defines the laws.

I guess another way to try to explain my point better is this statement, God is without sin and cannot sin (sin defined as breaking God’s laws).

Does this mean he is simply incapable of breaking his own law and therefore cannot sin?

Or does it mean he cannot sin simply because he just chooses not to?

Either way the statement God is without sin and cannot sin implies that God, who has always existed in the past, exists in the present and will always exist in the future, has never and will never sin or break His own laws and therefore is eternally perfect.

The question: Is God or his laws of morality now in control could be asked in a same way to your question. (Did he hand over control to his laws of morality when he wrote those? Because once He wrote them, He now cannot break them or he would commit what He has defined as sin and He cannot change the laws that define what sin is as that would make Him a changeable God)

I believe the answer is in what I was attempting to explain above. God defines the law; because God exists the law exists. Therefore both God and the laws are eternal. This avoids the ‘what came first, chicken or the egg’ paradox.

So to your question: Is God or the laws of the natural universe in control? I propose the same as above; God defines the laws of the universe, as he defines the laws of morality and the laws of all things by His eternal existence.

It now makes no sense saying that either God is in control or the laws are in control, simply that God exists eternally and His existence defines the universal laws of all things and without God there is no law (and therefore no universe).

Stephenie| 3.28.09 @ 9:29PM

I have found this thread very interesting. I found it because my friend talked about a home visit from some Mormon missionaries and the watchmen. I didn't know what the connection was so, after an internet search, here I am!
I'm a believer and follower of Jesus Christ. I believe that God is, was and ever will be. He's big enough to make sure the bible is accurate. He's big enough that we don't have to justify everything thru man's eyes. There is a mystery to the Word and the truth and, all of man's arguments aren't going to prove or disprove God. God leads us to himself, as he wills.
That being said; I think Ryan gets it right. TomH, Mormonism says you have to just "know" the word of Joseph Smith is true. That we Christians got it wrong but, Joseph Smith got it right. God appeared to him but, after thousands of years of appearing to Jews and the early Christians, we got it wrong.
Your god is not our God. We can agree to disagree but, we're not talking about the same deity. While you argue about matter and science, LDS isn't about science. It's ultimately about belief.
If you read the whole bible is helps to understand it's a narrative. When we take bits and pieces of the bible, out of the whole context, it's easy to be confused. God has given us enough to know and love him, as he's always known and loved us.
I was told by a Mormon missionary, that the Book of Mormon is scripture, as we Christians believe the Bible is scripture. That faith is like a door, the bible as one hinge and the book of Mormon the other hinge. The door doesn't open without both hinges. That the Mormon prophets are to interpret things the bible didn't prepare for, i.e. internet pornography.
If faith is a door, I only need one hinge on top, the bible. The book of Mormon has had so many changes, so many things that Joseph Smith predicted that weren't true, it's impossible for me to believe in it.
As to the prophet, doesn't the scripture Mathew 5:27-28 say and answer:
"You have heard that it was said, 'Do not commit adultery.'
28. But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
TomH, can you address why LDS has secret temples and rituals? My Jesus came to earth to make all things new; we don't need the high priest to go behind the curtain anymore, he ripped the curtain. So why the secrecy?
Again, thank you for the dialog!

TomH| 3.30.09 @ 3:54PM

12 Irreconcilable and Inherent Flaws in Orthodox/Evangelical Christianity (By TomH)

1. Creation Ex Nihilo cannot be reconciled with reality: The Laws of Conservation of Matter and Energy disprove it. Early Christian documents show that it was invented by Gnostic Christianity and then later adopted by Orthodox Christianity, rather than revealed by apostles and prophets. Christian scholars contend that it cannot be read into the Hebrew or Greek bibles.

2. The literal six day creation/6000 year old earth cannot be reconciled with modern geology: Multiple independent dating methods disprove a Young Earth and instead show it to be millions of years old.

3. The Orthodox Christian God that existed for eternity in the past, who recently became a creator 6000 years ago, cannot be reconciled with the Christian definition of absoluteness and perfection. The most significant creative act for the Christian God cannot be reconciled with the Laws of Conservation of Matter and Energy and modern geology’s dating of the earth.

4. Orthodox Christian doctrine cannot adequately account for or identify the existence of the hosts of heaven, Lucifer’s former glory, his fall, and the war in heaven. This existence cannot be reasonably reconciled with a literal six day creation story.

5. Orthodox Christian doctrine cannot adequately account for the existence of human spirits before they were born to earth (including all of the sons of God who shouted for joy when the foundation of the earth was laid, Job 38).

6. The Orthodox Christian Gods lack of prevention of evil, in view of his unlimited power and unlimited knowledge, cannot be reconciled with the Christian definition of absoluteness, perfection, and omnibeneficence.

7. The Orthodox Trinity doctrine (with its necessary pluralism and strict ontological oneness) cannot be reconciled with the Bible. It was a creation of Catholic Councils in the 3rd, 4th, and 5th centuries, resulting in Creeds that are extra biblical. Modern Christian scholars assert that it is not biblical.

8. The Orthodox Trinity cannot adequately identify or account for Gods necessary pluralism in the Old Testament or prior to the creation.

9. Christian acceptance of extra biblical Creeds cannot be reconciled with the closed canon doctrine by Christians and is a violation of their closed canon doctrine. (If the Creeds are not scripture, then why do Christians measure whether other groups are Christian using it?)

10. The Christian doctrine of biblical inerrancy cannot be reconciled with the Bible. It is not an early Christian doctrine but a recent invention. (While accepting biblical inerrancy, they continue to support Christian interpretive incorrectness and ignore major Christian blunders of bible interpretation over the last 18 centuries.)

11. The Christian doctrine of a closed canon cannot be reconciled with the Bible itself.

12. The Christian INTEPRETATION of salvation by grace alone cannot be reconciled with ALL of the writings of Paul and the rest of the New Testament witness. Only by ignoring most of the New Testament, can a person reasonably accept a grace alone salvation. While holding a view of Biblical inerrancy, this is irrational and not biblical.

Look at it this way Ryan and Stephanie:

• The Christian Church held to a geocentric view (earth centered) of the universe until proven false (it took about 100 years for it to place its theology in line with revealed truth.)

• The Christian Church held to a heliocentric view (sun centered) of the universe until proven false. (it took about 50 years for it to place its theology in line with revealed truth.)

• The Christian Church CONTINES to hold an ex nihilo Creational view (creation out of nothingness) of the universe in spite of Biblical texts and scientific proof and evidence to the contrary.

• The Christian Church CONTINUES to hold to a literal six day creation view of the universe in spite of scientific proof and evidence to the contrary

Just like the first two propositions, within the next few decades, the Christian Church will have to abandon the last two false traditions which are based on 3rd, 4th, and 5th century metaphysics and cosmology, and finally place its theology in agreement with certifiable truth.

For Mormons, this occurred at the beginning of the restitution of all things, prophesied in the New Testament, Acts 3:21. God revealed in the 1830s, before scientific proof arrived on the scene, that the indestructibility of matter and energy is a THEOLOGIAL principle because it is a principle of existence.

Ryan| 3.31.09 @ 8:06AM

TomH,

Your list shows me that you have looked little into what I have written, and just continued to make the same points over and over without substantive debate.

I'm sorry, but we're done.

TomH| 3.31.09 @ 8:57AM

Ryan:

Appealing to your interpretation of the Bible seems to be a circular argument.

You present Bible verses and I respond with a different interpretation. In order for us to come to the truth, we have to make an appeal to existence, which is beyond the circular arguments of a personal consciousness.

An appeal to Christian history can also provide insight.

See my post below.

TomH| 3.31.09 @ 9:02AM

"Where did Creatio ex nihilo doctrine come from?"

If Creation ex nihilo is going to be your foundational principle for all existence, it is your governing principle for everything else, and it is not EXPLICITLY taught in the Bible, then where did it come from?

In order to answer this important question we have to go back into Christian history to almost the beginning just after the Apostles were all killed.

First, a short introduction to some key persons in Christian history:

1. Justin Martyr, (100-165 AD) Christian apologist and Saint. His works represent the EARLIEST surviving Christian "apologetics" of notable size.

2. Basilides, Gnostic Christian apologist, taught at Alexandria, Egypt between 117-138.

3. Theophilus of Antioch (115-185 AD), early Christian theologian.

4. Taitan the Assyrian (120-180 AD) early Christian theologian.

5. Augustine of Hippo, Christian Saint and Bishop (324-430 AD), is said to be one of the most important philosopher theologians of the development of Western Christianity.

6. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) was a priest of the Roman Catholic Church. Aquinas is held in the Catholic Church to be the model teacher for those studying for the priesthood. The works for which he is best-known are the Summa Theologica and the Summa Contra Gentiles. One of the 33 Doctors of the Church, he is considered by many Catholics and Christian scholars to be one of Christianity’s greatest theologians and philosophers.

Now for some important details about Christian history:

"For Stoic, Platonist, and Peripatetic alike matter imposed the natural necessity of corruption upon the body. The moral limitations imposed by matter made a bodily resurrection seem offensive. Christian hopes for a resurrection seemed misguided both intellectually and morally. The Christian apologists of the late second century struck back by redefining matter as a creature of God, which he directed to his purpose. The religious claims of the Christian apologists signalled a major philosophical change. Within a century, Plotinus developed a rigorous monistic system of emanation within the Greek philosophical tradition. In his system, even matter was derived from the One. Nevertheless, because it was wholly indefinite, matter remained evil and the sage eschewed it. Augustine gave creatio ex nihilo its first careful philosophical consideration in the Christian tradition. Turning the valences of the Classical world on their heads, he argued that as something capable of being formed into good things, matter itself was good and a creature of the good God. The next major philosophical consideration of creatio ex nihilo in the Christian tradition came at the hands of Aquinas, who taught that creatio ex nihilo meant that nothing was presupposed to God's creative act, not matter, forms, natures, essences, ideas, laws of nature, or a hierarchy of being. The creature depended entirely on God's creative act. Despite the great dependence of the creature upon God, Aquinas taught that the creature still bore a genuine likeness to God, in his highly developed teaching of participation."

(James N. Hubler, "Creatio ex Nihilo: Matter, Creation, and the Body in Classical and Christian Philosophy through Aquinas" (University of Pennsylvania, 1995), 107-8)

http://repository.upenn.edu/dissertations/AAI9532205/

Who introduced Creation ex nihilo?

"Creation ex nihilo began to be adumbrated in Christian circles shortly before Galen's time (150 AD). The first Christian thinker to articulate the rudiments of a doctrine of creatio ex nihilo was the Gnostic theologian Basilides, who flourished in the second quarter of the second century. Basilides worked out an elaborate cosmogony as he sought to think through the implications of Christian teaching in light of the platonic cosmogony. He rejected the analogy of the human maker, the craftsman who carves a piece of wood, as an anthropomorphism that severely limited the power of God. God, unlike mortals, created the world out of 'non-existing' matter." (Robert Louis Wilken, The Christians as the Romans saw Them (Yale University Press, 2003), 88-89)

Thus, the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo was first advanced by a Gnostic Christian (a heretical branch of Christianity), and did not appear until more than a century after the birth of Christ.

Also:

"With Basilides [a second century Gnostic philosopher], the conception of matter was raised to a higher plane. The distinction of subject and object was preserved, so that the action of the Transcendent God was still that of creation and not of evolution; but it was 'out of that which was not' that He made things to be. The basis of the theory was Platonic, though some of the terms were borrowed from both Aristotle and the Stoics. It became itself the basis for the theory which ultimately prevailed in the Church. The transition appears in Tatian [ca. 170 A.D]." (Edwin Hatch, The Influence of Greek Ideas and Usages upon the Christian Church, 195-196.)

And,

"Creatio ex nihilo appeared suddenly in the latter half of the second century c.e. Not only did creatio ex nihilo lack precedent, it stood in firm opposition to all the philosophical schools of the Greco-Roman world. As we have seen, the doctrine was not forced upon the Christian community by their revealed tradition, either in Biblical texts or the Early Jewish interpretation of them. As we will also see it was not a position attested in the New Testament doctrine or even sub-apostolic writings. It was a position taken by the apologists of the late second century, Tatian and Theophilus of Antioch, and developed by various ecclesiastical writers thereafter, by Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Origen. Creatio ex nihilo represents an innovation in the interpretive traditions of revelation and cannot be explained merely as a continuation of tradition." (James N. Hubler, "Creatio ex Nihilo: Matter, Creation, and the Body in Classical and Christian Philosophy through Aquinas" (University of Pennsylvania, 1995), 107-8)

A few early Jewish and Christian theologians and philosophers, including Philo, Justin, Athenagoras, Hermogenes, Clement of Alexandria, and, later, Johannes Scotus Eriugena, made statements that indicate that they do not hold to the concept of the creation-out-of-nothing.

Compare the views and teachings above from Basilides, Theophilus of Antioch, and Taitan the Assyrian, with the Christian saint and apologist that PRECEDED them all, Justin Martyr.

He said:

"And we have been taught that He in the beginning did of His goodness, for man's sake, create all things out of unformed matter; and if men by their works show themselves worthy of this His design, they are deemed worthy, and so we have received-of reigning in company with Him, being delivered from corruption and suffering." (Justin Martyr, "First Apology of Justin," (Chapter 10) Ante-Nicene Fathers 1:165)

And,

"[the earth,] which God made according to the pre-existent form." (Justin Martyr, "Hortatory to the Greeks," (Chapter 30) Ante-Nicene Fathers 1:286)

These views are nearly identical to what Joseph Smith reestablished (restored) in the 1830s about the eternal nature of matter.

What does the Bible REALLY say about creation?

New Testament:
"Several New Testament texts have been educed as evidence of creatio ex nihilo. None makes a clear statement which would have been required to establish such an unprecedented position, or which we would need as evidence of such a break with tradition. None is decisive and each could easily be accepted by a proponent of creatio ex materia...The punctuation of [John 1:3] becomes critical to its meaning. Proponents of creatio ex materia could easily qualify the creatures of the Word to that "which came about," excluding matter. Proponents of creatio ex nihilo could place a period after "not one thing came about" and leave "which came about" to the next sentence. The absence of a determinate tradition of punctuation in New Testament [Greek] texts leaves room for both interpretations. Neither does creation by word imply ex nihilo....as we have seen in Egypt, Philo, and Midrash Rabba, and even in 2 Peter 3:5, where the word functions to organize pre-cosmic matter." (James N. Hubler, "Creatio ex Nihilo: Matter, Creation, and the Body in Classical and Christian Philosophy through Aquinas" (University of Pennsylvania, 1995), 107-8)

http://repository.upenn.edu/dissertations/AAI9532205/

One author observed:

"The verb ktidzo "carried an architectural connotation...as in "to build" or "establish' a city....Thus, the verb presupposes the presence of already existing material." (Michael L.T. Griffith, One Lord, One Faith: Writings of the Early Christian Fathers as Evidences of the Restoration (Bountiful, UT: Horizon Publishers, 1996), 72)

Summary:

1. Creation ex nihilo did not originate with the New Testament church. It originated from the Gnostic theologian Basilides.

2. Creatio ex nihilo was an inventive yet flawed apologetic response based on the metaphysics and cosmology of the 2nd century.

3. Other Christian theologians mistakenly adopted Basilides' views.

4. One hundred years later, Plotinus, Greek philosopher incorporated this response into his view of God that influenced Christian metaphysics and mysticism.

5. Creation ex nihilo was slowly assimilated into Christianity by Augustine and then later, Aquinas.

6. It continues as the predominate SCIENTIFIC view of reality for the Christian Church to this day.

7. However, the metaphysics and cosmology upon which Creation ex nihilo rests, has been disproved for over 400 years ago, with the most dramatic evidence coming forward in the last 100 years.

The Laws of Conservation of Matter and Energy can neither be created or destroyed; they are inextricably connected to matter and energy, which cannot be created or destroyed.

I know this might be the very first time you've had to address these philosophical and scientific realities that are incongruous with your views of God, the universe, and our reality.

Old Testament, New Testament, and early Christian interpretation of the reality is that God created the universe out of preexisting materials.

Laws of Conservation of Matter and Energy, or OUR REALITY, attests to the same.

God has spoken against Creation ex nihilo in the very way he formed the universe and the way he organized the earth. Today, science has proven that matter cannot be created or destroyed; such is the reality of existence.

I recognize fully the implications for this truth and what it does to every other doctrine in Christianity, in particular, to the concepts of created and uncreated (unbiblical contrasts) and the necessary separation between God and man.

These interpretations logically follow when built upon the false premise of the "destructibility" of matter and energy.

Look at it this way: (repeat)

* The Christian Church held to a geocentric view (earth centered) of the universe until proven false (it took about 100 years for it to place its theology in line with revealed truth.)

* The Christian Church held to a heliocentric view (sun centered) of the universe until proven false. (It took about 50 years for it to place its theology in line with revealed truth.)

* The Christian Church CONTINUES to hold an ex nihilo Creational view (creation out of nothingness) of the universe in spite of Biblical texts and scientific proof and evidence to the contrary.

* The Christian Church CONTINUES to hold to a literal six day creation view of the universe in spite of scientific proof and evidence to the contrary

Just like the first two propositions, within the next few decades, the Christian Church will have to abandon the last two false traditions which are based on 3rd, 4th, and 5th century metaphysics and cosmology, and finally place its theology in agreement with certifiable truth.

For Mormons, this occurred at the beginning of the restitution of all things, prophesied in the New Testament, Acts 3:21. God revealed in the 1830s, before scientific proof arrived on the scene, that the indestructibility of matter and energy is a THEOLOGICAL principle because it is a principle of existence.

The choice is yours: on one hand is reality and existence, and on the other hand are the vain imaginations of Christian philosophers, no matter how well intentioned they thought they were or think they are now.

In my opinion, arguing against existence indicates a psychological disorder. Can you see it?

To argue against existence is to argue that God has created an elaborate deception; all for the sake of saving a doctrine that is not found in the Bible but was invented by a Gnostic Christian and mistakenly adopted by other errant Christian theologians who introduced it to the body of historical Christian thought.

Joseph Smith brought back the truth and firmly planted THEOLOGY back into the frame work of existence and reality.

Without Joseph Smith, you're left with the fantasies and vain imaginations of misguided and misinformed early Christian apologists.

Take a listen to some of the recent converts to Mormonism.

www.mormons.org

Ryan| 4.2.09 @ 8:56AM

Unfortunately, only even now have you ever brought about any sort of New Testament argument, and it's not something you even wrote yourself.

Something the article doesn't address is how the early Hebrews understood the creation story; often a strictly "literal" interpretation can ignore what the reality of the text reveals (baptism is a good example here).

I'm not arguing that the doctrine came to prominence at that time; however, it doesn't necessarily prove that it is wrong. I could use a similar argument against Mormonism if you want to go that route.

Here's the problem.

If matter pre-existed God, how can He have the right to call Himself the "Alpha and Omega?"

The question you continually don't answer - how can matter even BE if it cannot be created? I'm not arguing against science here. I'm asking how can matter exist at all?

You keep NOT answering these questions.

I've pointed out from the words of Paul about God's purposes in creation if He knows everything, and they've continually been ignored. You HAVEN'T addressed them.

You stated "Appealing to your interpretation of the Bible seems to be a circular argument.
You present Bible verses and I respond with a different interpretation. In order for us to come to the truth, we have to make an appeal to existence, which is beyond the circular arguments of a personal consciousness."

There are often times that you didn't respond AT ALL - particularly when I quoted Romans.

If we are Christians, then the Bible HAS to be our starting point, NOT sometimes elusive scientific thought. I don't think that I have stated anything all that contradictory, however, and I think that the later issues of Mormonism - Who Jesus and God are; polygamy; salvation by works; and common misinterpretations - further shows its deception and its theological flaws.

Here's the rub. If God is NOT penultimate, He could NOT have made atonement for my sins. Christ died because He was sinless and God abhors sin so totally that I can do NOTHING to reach to Him.

If I can do good to be saved, then there's NO point for Christ's death and atoning work.

The problem with Mormonism - and any system which relies on salvation by works instead of grace - is twofold. One, I have NO measure on how well that I've done, and Two, my sin is still in place. There is nothing in scripture that talks about "balancing" good works and evil. Sin must be removed.

That's my problem. You're trying to point out that God cannot be penultimate from the beginning. Scripture bears out, not just because of creation, but because of how God deals with sin and His people, that He HAS to be for it to work.

If God is NOT above all, if all things are NOT answerable to Him, if He did NOT plan it all out, then HOW can He be called God?

TomH| 4.6.09 @ 2:07PM

Ryan:

The Bible does not explicitly teach Creation Ex nihilo, the Orthodox Trinity, sola scriptura, biblical inerrancy, or “grace alone” reconciliation with God.

The circular argument that I am referring to is the circle that you and I will go around when we try to make an appeal to the Bible. If you were an LDS Christian, we would see eye to eye using the Bible as the witness. However, your religion and my religion both interpret the Bible differently. So what do we do?

While I would love the Bible to be the starting point, it cannot be “OUR” starting point because we don’t agree on what it explicitly teaches. We generally agree on what the bible teaches. However, on the details of interpreting specific texts, I will claim that you read your tradition into the Bible and then you will claim the same about me, because out interpretations do not agree.

This is why I asked you to make an appeal to existence, as neither one of us can dismiss self-evident facts. I also invited you to look at what Christian bible scholars have found through the study of early Christianity, Christian history, and other religious texts to account for the varied doctrines of Christianity that cannot fully be reconciled in the Bible.

In your recent post you said:

“Here's the problem. If matter pre-existed God, how can He have the right to call Himself the "Alpha and Omega?"

The question you continually don't answer - how can matter even BE if it cannot be created? I'm not arguing against science here. I'm asking how can matter exist at all?

You keep NOT answering these questions. “

Ryan,

I have spent many hours preparing posts for you answering these questions. I believe what’s happening here is that you keep on holding onto traditional beliefs that have been disproved. You continue to want to rationalize them but keep on confronting the truths of existence. I’ll answer them below so you can’t miss the answers:

1. “If matter pre-existed God, how can He have the right to call Himself the "Alpha and Omega?"

Your first premise is not a Mormon doctrine. Mormons do not believe that matter pre-existed God. Mormons assert and believe that all matter and energy are co-eternal with God’s existence. As revealed by Joseph Smith, and later proven by science, matter and energy are neither created or destroyed. This first Mormon and scientific premise disproves creation out of nothingness. Have you addressed this necessary evidence directly?

“The Encyclopedia of Mormonism explains:
Equivalent to the Old Testament term "the first and the last" (e.g., Isaiah 44:6), alpha and omega are the first and last letters of the Greek alphabet. Just as no letters stand before alpha or after omega, so there are no other gods in this creation other than that represented in Jesus Christ. He encompasses all, from beginning to end; he extends beyond all extremities and categories.

Jesus Christ is the beginning because he created the earth; he is the end because he is our advocate with the Father at the final judgment.
When early Christianity—a religion based in Hebrew theology—encountered the Greek philosophical world, Greek-thinking converts tried to harmonize the two worldviews. The Greek worldview came from the writings of philosophers like Plato, who postulated that nothing that is perfect can be physical, and so forth. This collision between Hebrew and Greek paradigms resulted in a redefinition of the Hebrew/Christian God into one acceptable to Greek thinkers. God, according to the philosophers, had to be uncreated, eternal (in the philosophical sense of existing outside of time), and unique (in the sense that he is completely different than human beings).

Modern Christians—who have inherited the Greek worldview as interpreted by the Protestant reformers—use a select set of Bible verses to enforce this interpretation. To them, the "Alpha and Omega" passages in Revelation indicate that Jesus was uncreated and existing from all eternity in a triune form (three persons, but one God).
Latter-day Saints reject the interpretive baggage of the Greeks and Reformers, and claim that Christ is eternal, but not in the sense that the
philosophers explain it.”

http://en.fairmormon.org/Alpha_and_Omega

2. “How can matter even BE if it cannot be created? I'm not arguing against science here. I'm asking how can matter exist at all?”

Ryan, just as you accept that God has always existed without being created, is the same thinking process for believing that formless matter and energy have always existed side by side with God. If you’re not rejecting science then you’re accepting science and you must reconcile your cosmological view of the universe with the Laws of Conservation of Matter and Energy – meaning, matter and energy are co-eternal with God. Yet, Mormonism asserts that formless matter will always be formless without God’s acting on it.

3. “Here's the rub. If God is NOT penultimate, He could NOT have made atonement for my sins. Christ died because He was sinless and God abhors sin so totally that I can do NOTHING to reach to Him. If I can do good to be saved, then there's NO point for Christ's death and atoning work.”

Apart for the lack of biblical support, these ideas do not follow logically or scriptutally. I think what you meant to say is the “ultimate” or “the first,” since penultimate is the next to the last one. Here are the contradictions with your statement:

a) That God totally abhors sin contradicts your God’s unlimited knowledge and unlimited power in preventing sin. The Christian God could have prevented all sin but failed to create existence and circumstances wherein all sin could have been avoided. Which one are you going to be true to? God inherently abhors sin and has unlimited power but can only create an existence wherein sin is prevalent, of God inherently abhors sins and has limited power wherein he magnificently operates in an existence that is co-eternal with him?

b) For a God that has unlimited knowledge and power, a sacrifice to fulfill justice he controls is no real sacrifice at all but merely an intellectual exercise. There are no real demands of justice in existence.

c) If man can do nothing to reach God then belief or prayers to God cannot reach God either.

d) If a person does good, God always rewards the person, according to the Law of the Harvest. Whatever a person sows, he will reap the same, whether good (or evil). However, good deeds never regenerated human flesh on their own. The keeping of God’s laws always produces rewards, but such rewards in and of themselves cannot regenerate human flesh or cause a soul to leave and reenter the body. The Resurrection of Jesus Christ is a universal gift to all mankind – everyone will be “saved” in this sense. However, not everyone will inherit the Kingdom of God, as this REQUIRES certain decisions and actions by the individual.

Evangelical Christians usually quote Ephesians 2:8,9 in defense of their “grace alone” doctrine.

8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.

The first problem I see is that the word, alone, does not appear in the actual text.

The second problem I see is that the Evangelical interpretation ignores “through faith” the first condition of grace. While LDS doctrine agrees that the sacrificial act of Jesus Christ is what pays the penalty for sins to Justice, but obviously not everyone who has ever lived, who lives now, or who will yet live will exercise faith unto repentance to have grace applied to them. Something activates grace in the lives of people; Among other things, Faith unto repentance – Acts 20:21.

The third problem is that when Evangelical Christians quote these verses, they equivocate the words faith and intellectual belief. There is a wide and disparaging difference among Christian denominations on exactly what faith is. In other words, mere lip service about the historical Jesus is not faith. A declaration about Jesus Christ without any determination by the individual to actually follow Christ’s teachings in their personal conduct on a day to day basis is mere lip service.

Ryan there are other problems I see with a, grace alone, interpretation. If Paul really taught grace alone salvation , or salvation without any effort on our part, we must consider a number of questions:

I. Why did Paul write so often to Christian congregations admonishing them to abandon their sinful ways, if the presence of grace alone covers every believer?

II. Why did Paul have to tell believing Christians that those who committed various sins could not be saved in the kingdom of God? (1 Corinthians 6:9-10; Galatians 5:19-21; Ephesians 5:3-5.)

III. Why did Paul say that "godly sorrow worketh repentance to salvation?( 2 Corinthians 7:10)

IV. Why did Paul tell the Philippians to "work out your own salvation with fear and trembling? (Philippians 2:13)

V. When discussing "the grace of God that bringeth salvation," why does Paul say that it teaches "that denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world? (Titus 2:11-12)

VI. Why does the epistle to the Hebrews say that Jesus was "the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him? (Hebrews 5:9)

So, from the scriptures above we have these following conditions that will prevent BELIEVING CHRISTIANS from inheriting Kingdom of God, or conditions that must be met to receive salvation by grace:

* The commission of certain sins prevent salvation.
* Godly sorrow must be accompanied by repentance
* A person must work out their personal salvation with fear and trembling
* Grace requires denying ungodliness
* Grace requires denying worldly lusts
* Grace requires living soberly
* Grace requires living righteously
* Grace requires living godly

While grace is sufficient to overcome the penalty of justice, the passages indicate that knowledge of “grace alone” is not sufficient to qualify for salvation.

We agree that the grace of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ is sufficient to save a person unto whom Christ imparts such grace. It is the receiving the grace of Jesus that is at issue.

Belief alone is not having faith.
Belief alone is not grace alone.

These are just a few of the distinctions you fail to make with a “grace alone” salvation..

In essence, the argument about grace versus works is a Catholic/Protestant argument. It does not belong to Mormonism. In Mormonism, grace and works are harmonized properly with these principles:

1. Jesus Christ is the only source for grace.
2. Grace, also referred to as the atonement, was made by Jesus Christ and cannot be made by anyone else.
3. There is an everlasting gulf between man and God because of the penalties of sin and death brought onto mankind by Adam and Eve (physical and spiritual death).
4. Jesus Christ created a bridge between man and God, with his sacrifice overcoming both physical and spiritual death – payment in full to justice.
5. The existence of the bridge or the knowledge of the bridge does not grant anyone complete passage over bridge, traversing the everlasting gulf.
6. The person must enter the narrow path that leads to the bridge, then a person’s must enter the gate at the beginning of the bridge. Then person must stay on the bridge, until the gulf is traversed.
7. If the persons fails to enter the path, enter the gate, fails to continue on the bridge, jumps off the bridge, or turns around before he reaches the other side, the effects are the same: the everlasting gulf remains between that person and God.

The argument you have made about a works-salvation is one that was created by Protestants long ago and does not address the truths revealed in Mormonism.

Mormons do not believe that their “works” alone can cross the everlasting gulf between themselves and God. This is absurd to Mormons. However, Mormons affirm and believe that striving to keep God’s commandments and exerting personal will to resist temptation and avoid sin is a part of the covenant we make with Christ or a part of walking on the bridge. If a person fails to exercise their personal will to fulfill the commandments of Christ, he/she deceives self about their faith or their standing before God and is in danger of turning away from God. (Hebrews 6:4-6)

At the end of your post you claim that scripture teaches that only because God existed before matter and energy was he able to “deal with sin and his people.” You don’t cite any references directly with this claim and you establish no necessary reasons why it is true.

You then wrote:
“If God is NOT above all, if all things are NOT answerable to Him, if He did NOT plan it all out, then HOW can He be called God?”

• Mormonism affirms that God is above all through his intelligence, knowledge, priesthood, power, obedience, and glory.
• Mormonism affirms that all things are subject to God.
• Mormonism affirms that God organized the universe out of pre-existing matter and energy, without which, there would be no organization and matter and energy would resort back to formless, unorganized matter. God’s power acts on matter and energy.
• Mormonism affirms that God the Father is God because, having a choice, he chooses and has chosen to obey all laws in existence – therefore, all things are subject unto him.

Ryan, the bigger question here is this:

The Laws of Conservation of matter and energy confirm that they can not be created or destroyed.

You’re asserting that I should accept your interpretation of the Bible and IGNORE existence or reality. This approach is completely irrational. This is the same kind of reasoning from the Christian Church when they asked believers to trust their interpretation of the Bible to affirm that the earth is the center of the universe: a significant cosmological mistake.

Your theology must conform to existence; otherwise, it’s a fantasy. Right?

Can you see the problem?

Ryan| 4.8.09 @ 3:57PM

I can see your problem with mine, but I don't see a problem on my end. You suppose that matter and energy are co-eternal with God. I don't, because I see that they equate each other and it cannot make God greater than the surrounding matter and energy if they are co-eternal. You state that,

"God the Father is God because, having a choice, he chooses and has chosen to obey all laws in existence – therefore, all things are subject unto him. "

Then how can He cause miracles? How can He turn water into wine, part a Red Sea, flood the earth, and every other "unnatural" act He caused in scripture? If God binds Himself by such laws, how can He do those things?

Either God cannot break the natural laws, or He wrote them.

My starting point is an omniscient God. Yours are the laws of physics.

If my God wrote those laws, then they are subservient to Him, even to the creation and destruction of matter, which I hold - and I believe scripture proves - God can perform. If ALL things are subject to God, are not the natural laws put in place? Would not the law of conservation of matter and energy?

Your assertion of grace alone is a bit too simplistic, and I believe your bridge analogy - while it sounds good - is a bit faulty. Here's the reasoning - grace extends even to my ability to walk that bridge. It's NOT my doing. Christ walked that bridge FOR me, and even gave me the faith to walk it.

In Eph 2:8, the "that" refers to faith, not grace. My heart is incapable of both without Christ's work.

Paul completely affirmed that even though grace covers, we are to live according to Christ (Rom 5-6 clearly spells this out). Your question #II spells out some particular verses that speak of specific sin lifestyles - not specific sin acts. Under grace, my one act of sin does not separate me from Christ - and the NT is monumentally clear on the matter.

On III, you quoted 2 Cor 7:10. You need to back up a verse.
9I now rejoice, not that you were made sorrowful, but that you were made sorrowful to the point of repentance; for you were made sorrowful according to the will of God, so that you might not suffer loss in anything through us.

"Made sorrowful." My sorrow over my sin is NOT my own, but it's God's grace which produces it. I am unable to even be sorrowful for my own sins.

IV. The question is answered in Phil. 2:14 - "For it is God who is at work in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure."

I'm not working FOR salvation, but working it OUT because God is already working it in me. Paul is addressing those who already believe, not those who are not saved already.

V. Titus 13looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus,
14who gave Himself for us to redeem us from every lawless deed, and to purify for Himself a people for His own possession, zealous for good deeds.
Later in the chapter, Paul essentially summarizes everything that preceded it in these two verses - that it's God who purifies (ps, notice the "God and Saviour, Christ Jesus). My works are POST salvation here, not precedent.

VI. Hebrews 9 speaks of Christ's obedience as well - and how my salvation is dependant upon His sacrifice. Christ didn't secure me just because I am obedient - He secures me because of HIS obedience. I could be obedient to Him all I want, but without His sacrifice, my obedience is pointless is more what the scripture states rather than it causing my salvation.

Your list about grace is wrong on its basic concept. Grace, in a sense, does require those things, but it first CAUSES those things to occur. Without grace FIRST, I am COMPLETELY unable to come to Christ.

I think that you may be falling for the tendency of those who look at "grace alone" to completely ignore the matter of what grace DOES. Grace produces faith. Grace produces the desire to DO good works. Grace produces ALL of those things toward my salvation, and it brings me BACK to Christ - who atoned for all my sins - when I screw up. It's not an excuse (which Paul, in Romans, very much speaks about not sinning so that grace can increase).

I do agree that faith isn't just intellectual assent - faith is, in a sense, action - "Faith without works is dead" indeed. It's not saying that faith is separate from works - it's that you cannot naturally have one without the other. You quoted Hebrews 6 incorrectly on this matter - NONE of those words are used ANYWHERE - "tastes," "enlightened" in scripture to speak of salvation. The passage isn't about those who are saved, just those who had essentially intellectual assent. Go look it up from some non-Mormon NT experts (John MacArthur has a good synopsis).

My statement that God could not have provided for my sins if He wasn't above all comes from several ideas and sources:

1. God abhors sin, and must punish it through death (Adam and Eve's story, Romans 3:23; 6:23)
2. God has to have the ability to define sin to be able to punish it (Ten commandments).
3. God has to be big enough to define sin - otherwise anything that He states is wrong may not be, and He cannot be just in judging it.
4. Only a perfect man can come before God (Isaiah's experience before the throne).
5. No man is perfect, because in Adam we all fell (I Cor 15:22)
6. Christ was perfect for me, and was able to be the ultimate sacrifice because He was pure and unblemished...and He could only be that because He was both God and man, because man's nature is sin.

TomH| 4.9.09 @ 12:29AM

Ryan:

Thank you for the reply. Before I respond could you answer these questions so I understand your position more fully?

What is exactly required for a human being to be saved according to your interpretation?

Are there any limitations of grace?

Are there any requirements for grace?

TomH| 4.9.09 @ 12:30AM

More specifically above - the first question:

What exactly is required OF a human being in order to be saved?

Ryan| 4.9.09 @ 8:54AM

John 3:16-18
"For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have everlasting life. For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but so that the world through Him might be saved. For he who does not believe is condemned already, for he has not believed in the only begotten Son of God."

It's belief - faith in Christ.

"For by grace are you saved through faith, and that (faith) is not of yourselves, it is the gift of God, not by works, lest any man should boast." Eph 2:8

Also, almost without saying, I have to be a sinner in order to even need grace, but that's a bit universal for mankind - Romans 3:23, "For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God."

Probably ought to get a definition of grace in here as well - "unmerited favor." "Charis" is the greek word.

Grace is both limited and unlimited. It's by God's grace that we even live and breathe as sinners (Noah and the Ark is a good example here; as is God's not doing away with Israel after the ten commandments were given) when we DON'T accept Him; but His saving grace, as John 3:16-18 above is essentially reserved for those who believe in Christ - something that Eph 2:8 even states that I cannot do apart from God granting me the grace to believe anyway!

The requirement for grace was Christ's atoning death on the cross, which takes away my sin and meets God's requirement to grant grace to those who believe.

TomH| 4.9.09 @ 11:16AM

Ryan:

Thank you for the post above. I still think you’re mixing two concepts found in the New Testament.

Truth 1: There is the truth that Christ’s atonement paid in-full the penalty for sins and overcame the demands of justice, giving him power over death and to save individual persons.

Truth 2: Disciples of Christ receive payment of sins and demands of justice by believing, accepting, and following Jesus Christ’s commandments.

By answering these questions below, you’ll be able to make a clearer distinction between the two:

1. Do you make a distinction between belief and faith?

2. Do you believe Jesus Christ requires keeping commandments to be ultimately saved in the Kingdom of God?

3. Do you believe that obedience has any connection to being saved at all?

4. Do you believe that grace alone can save unbelievers who choose not to believe?

5. Do you believe that grace alone can save unrepentant sinners?

6. Do you believe that grace alone can save unbaptized believers?

7. Do you believe that grace alone can save the willfully disobedient believer?

8. Can grace alone save the unrighteous believer?

9. Can the grace alone declare a believing person righteous when they willfully disobey Jesus Christ or disregard his counsel and commandments?

10. Is it possible for a believer to claim to be saved by grace alone but not actually saved at all?

TomH| 4.10.09 @ 1:35PM

Ryan:

You wrote:

• Then how can He cause miracles? How can He turn water into wine, part a Red Sea, flood the earth, and every other "unnatural" act He caused in scripture? If God binds Himself by such laws, how can He do those things?
• Either God cannot break the natural laws, or He wrote them.
• My starting point is an omniscient God. Yours are the laws of physics.
• If my God wrote those laws, then they are subservient to Him, even to the creation and destruction of matter, which I hold - and I believe scripture proves - God can perform.

1. Turning water, a natural substance, into wine, another natural substance is not unnatural. The immediate and instantaneous process of change is just unfamiliar to us. Yet, the coming together of elements is precisely natural. God rearranged existing elements to form another natural substance.

2. You seem to argue that a God that can break his own laws is a more powerful being than a God who follows existing laws that make all things subject to him by following them, making him a less powerful God. However, you haven’t shown this to be the efficacious case using the Bible or logic.

3. Having said that, I feel that there is more we agree on, regarding this issue, than you might believe.

In Mormonism, our starting point is God the Father.
• He is the most intelligent being in the universe or the equivalent of traditional Christian omniscience.
• He instituted laws whereby we could advance in knowledge, experience, and ultimately be saved from death, sin, and the demands of justice, that are real (not just in God’s mind).
• He is bound to law because he will neither destroy justice or mercy and such necessitates limitations. That he has the power to break the laws or keep them (free will) doesn’t make him more powerful – what makes him powerful is that he keeps, honors and sustains them all.
• He uses natural laws (does not suspend them) to turn water into wine, and the Red Sea to part, raise people from the dead, turn loaves into fishes, etc.

Some might conclude miracles are “magic” because humanity doesn’t know how those laws operate – yet God is a God of laws and not a capricious God. These laws are subservient to him because he keeps them. However, there is a clear distinction between laws and elements. Elements left to themselves are chaos. God forms order out of the chaos through laws that are known to him. Whether the laws are eternal or God created them, he knows them all. If he breaks laws, he ceases to be God.

Ryan| 4.13.09 @ 9:02AM

>>>Truth 1: There is the truth that Christ’s atonement paid in-full the penalty for sins and overcame the demands of justice, giving him power over death and to save individual persons.

Yeah, essentially.

>>>Truth 2: Disciples of Christ receive payment of sins and demands of justice by believing, accepting, and following Jesus Christ’s commandments.

You're right...except it's not the first step. John 6:44a - "44"No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him..." "Draw" here literally means "dragged."

By answering these questions below, you’ll be able to make a clearer distinction between the two:

1. Do you make a distinction between belief and faith?

Yep - faith has a critical element that it produces something - it is indeterminably inseperable from works.

2. Do you believe Jesus Christ requires keeping commandments to be ultimately saved in the Kingdom of God?

Yes...but we can't, because we're fallen. Hence the need for salvation.

3. Do you believe that obedience has any connection to being saved at all?

Yep - salvation produces obedience. Romans 6 is pretty useful here.

4. Do you believe that grace alone can save unbelievers who choose not to believe?

Nope. Nothing scriptural that it does.

5. Do you believe that grace alone can save unrepentant sinners?

Grace has to produce repentance first. Acts 11:18 When they heard this, they quieted down and glorified God, saying, "Well then, God has granted to the Gentiles also the repentance that leads to life."

6. Do you believe that grace alone can save unbaptized believers?

Yep. Thief on the cross. Everyone in the OT before John the Baptist came around.
Acts 11:16 16"And I remembered the word of the Lord, how He used to say, 'John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.' "
I Peter 3:21 Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you--not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience--through the resurrection of Jesus Christ...

7. Do you believe that grace alone can save the willfully disobedient believer?

Is there any other sort of disobedience? Am I more powerful than God that I can undo something He has done if I disobey?

8. Can grace alone save the unrighteous believer?

Nothing but - Eph 2:8-9
8For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God;
9 not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.

It is God - not I - who makes me righteous before Him. Righteousness is not a matter of scale, it's a state of being. I'm either righteous or I'm not.

9. Can the grace alone declare a believing person righteous when they willfully disobey Jesus Christ or disregard his counsel and commandments?

Like I asked before - is there any other sort of disobedience other than willful? If my actions somehow take me out of right standing with God, how can I have ANY assurance that I am either in or out of right standing before Him? How can I know if I did something "bad enough?"

10. Is it possible for a believer to claim to be saved by grace alone but not actually saved at all?

If they're a "true" believer, likely that they're saved. The world isn't full of people desiring God and hoping God picks them. We are running headlong en masse AWAY from Him, not desiring Him, and He changes us, and scoops us out of the mire. As David said, "There are none who seek God..."

Ryan| 4.13.09 @ 9:18AM

1. Turning water, a natural substance, into wine, another natural substance is not unnatural. The immediate and instantaneous process of change is just unfamiliar to us. Yet, the coming together of elements is precisely natural. God rearranged existing elements to form another natural substance.

Fine. You do it by just thinking about it, and let me know how it turns out. Show me a natural law of physics that allows for it to happen. Show me how a simple substance - like water - can suddenly produce the sugars and alcohol necessary to become wine instantaneously.

2. You seem to argue that a God that can break his own laws is a more powerful being than a God who follows existing laws that make all things subject to him by following them, making him a less powerful God. However, you haven’t shown this to be the efficacious case using the Bible or logic.

Not break - write. God's will transcends any law of nature and physics. If He wrote those natural physical laws, He can do with them what He wills. It's how He can perform miracles, because He is NOT bound, as we are, by the physical nature of the universe. How else could He even perform any of the physical miracles if those laws are not beholden to Him? How can He part the Red Sea, turn water into wine, do ANY of the miracles in Egypt (which weren't just random, but specified attacks to show He was more powerful than the Egyptian "gods."), lead the Hebrews via a pillar of fire or cloud...all of those acts, and more, don't follow natural happenstance. They BREAK the laws of physics and the standard God set for the world to run....and He does that because He is the standard, NOT "natural" laws.

How can God be God if He has boundaries? Do not laws confine and define? How can He be God if He is not the definer?

If it's the other way around, how then can I trust that God is really in control and really knows what He's doing if He has to follow something that is a higher standard than Him? Is not the highest standard worthy of my worship? If God didn't write the laws, and doesn't hold them together in Himself, then how is He worthy? Why should I not simply worship the natural laws if He is beholden to them?

I want to worship the HIGHEST standard, that which controls from the highest order.

TomH| 4.13.09 @ 1:36PM

Ryan,

Thank you for your reply. I respond below to some of your post.

You wrote:

“Fine. You do it by just thinking about it, and let me know how it turns out. Show me a natural law of physics that allows for it to happen. Show me how a simple substance - like water - can suddenly produce the sugars and alcohol necessary to become wine instantaneously.”

1. Ryan, you know that presently there is no such knowledge given to man. Not because it’s not there, but because it is not known. Mormonism teaches that God knows and uses natural laws, opposed to no law at all wherein God creates a totally separate standard for himself, and one for his creatures. Such a proposal is chaos and immoral.

You wrote:
“Not break - write. God's will transcends any law of nature and physics. If He wrote those natural physical laws, He can do with them what He wills.”

2. God revealed to the prophet Joseph Smith that he instituted laws whereby his children could progress in knowledge and experience and obedience to become like Him. These laws are prescriptive. However, there are a set of “laws” that are co-eternal with God that reflect his perfect attributes. These laws he keeps, always.

Ryan, you really need to look at the word “capricious” in the dictionary. What you are proposing is a capricious God. A God who is whimsical, with a changing morality. It does not take a person with a high IQ to know that we are weaker than he is and that God is the strongest of all beings in existence. He has knowledge and power that humans do not have knowledge of. This does not mean that he suspends reality to exercise his power. That explanation is 5th century metaphysics which was rejected about 200 years ago.

What you’re struggling with is the fantasy that existence creates insurmountable limits on God, that prevent him from acting according to his highest values and God’s greatest truths.

You also error when you say that the turning water to wine, parting the red sea, performing miracles, or causing a pillar of fire to appear, all BREAK the laws of physics. The laws of physics are not broken but the chemical composition of elements are changed USING the laws of matter, energy, physics, etc.

In reality, substances change chemical composition CONSTANTLY on the earth and these simple changes can be made naturally or caused by human beings. I can very EASILY change water into steam. The hydrogen bonds can be broken (not the law of physics) by using a heat source and a different substance is created. I can change steam into ice by lowering the temperature. I can create fire by applying a heat source to combustible materials. I haven’t broken any laws of physics, I HAVE USED THEM.

So it is with God. There is no necessary reason to create something out of nothingness when you’ve got plenty to work with already. Changing water into wine however, requires knowledge and PERSONAL power that is not available to human beings. Nevertheless, it happens inside reality and is done before ones eyes, yet all a natural process of combining existing elements connected by bonds in certain ways that changes water into wine.

You wrote:
“How can God be God if He has boundaries? Do not laws confine and define? How can He be God if He is not the definer?”

3. Don’t you mean if he is not a REDEFINER? All of that you have said leads the reader to believe that your God is only powerful if he can REDEFINE the laws at anytime because of his whims. Will God break the law of justice, the law of mercy, the law of obedience, the law of the harvest, the law of sacrifice, the law of etc.? No. God does not break laws. If so, he ceases to be God. If so, he is a capricious God – a God that CANNOT be trusted.

You wrote:
“If it's the other way around, how then can I trust that God is really in control and really knows what He's doing if He has to follow something that is a higher standard than Him?”

4. Ryan, how you trust a capricious God at all? You claim God is in control of everything. Yet, when we discuss free will, suddenly God is not in control? Which is it going to be Ryan? Determinism or free will? Will/does God destroy free will? Are there laws that govern free will? Look how your belief shakes out:

I. Who CAUSED Lucifer’s consciousness?
II. Did God predetermine Lucifer’s consciousness?
III. If God is not bound by any law, then why didn’t he just destroy Satan in the beginning and the most horrific of all evil beings? That is, if God is not bound by any laws?
IV. If God bound by the laws that govern free will?
V. Did Satan’s free will cause a problem for God’s original plan for Adam and Eve?
VI. Which was better for Adam and Eve? God’s original plan or the fall?

By honestly answering these questions, you’ll find the glaring contradictions in your belief system.

You wrote:
I want to worship the HIGHEST standard, that which controls from the highest order.

5. In Mormonism, God is the highest and the ultimate standard of perfection. He is perfect because he is consistent. He is not capricious. He is not whimsical. He is constantly obedience to laws – otherwise we cannot trust in what he says – because it can all change tomorrow. Are you saved or not? It could all change tomorrow. Are God’s laws eternal? They could all change tomorrow. Mormonism does away with this nonsense and reveals that God is the most intelligent (true omniscience) of all beings and he follows all necessary laws in order to possess all attributes of perfection. If he breaks laws, he ceases to be God.

The restored gospel of Jesus Christ (Mormonism) rightly places glory and trust back toward the most powerful being in the universe – God the Father. And because Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit are ONE with the Father, they too can be trusted eternally.

Ryan| 4.14.09 @ 9:32AM

You're missing something, and it's probably something that I didn't articulate.

God doesn't change.

You're equating my belief that God is supreme over all laws to such a God being capricious and whimsical on his attitudes.

It's not necessarily a logical conclusion.

If God is perfect, high, and holy, then He's not GOING to change Who He Is. Humans change because we're imperfect. God doesn't change. It's why He can be the ultimate judge, and why He can define what is right or wrong.

Your argument would be correct IF God wasn't perfect and complete. It falls flat because it assumes since God CAN change the laws on a whim, then He WILL change them (as humans would). He doesn't.

You also keep coming back to the argument that such a God could have done away with evil in the beginning.
I keep coming back to Paul, something that you have NOT addressed as dealing with the matter. The end of the story of Job also wrestles with it some as well.

Romans 9:19-22
"19 You will say to me then, "Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?"
20On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, "Why did you make me like this," will it?
21Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use?
22What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction?"

TomH| 4.14.09 @ 10:21AM

Ryan:

Did God determine the scope and ability of Lucifer's consciousness?

Is God bound by the laws that govern free will?

Was God always a creator?

Was God always made flesh?

Was God always resurrected?

Can your God change all eternal laws tomorrow if he wanted to? (Notice I didn't say that God would change, I asked can your God change all of the laws)

In order for God to provide free will, is Lucifer always necessary in your God's creations?

Can your God create an existence wherein free will exists, but Satan does not exist?

Ryan| 4.14.09 @ 4:00PM

>>>>Did God determine the scope and ability of Lucifer's consciousness?

In the sense that God knew what was going to happen, then yes. In the sense that it makes God responsible for Satan/Lucifer's actions, no. The two ideas are NOT contradictory. God is not responsible for sin - He created an environment wherein man WOULD sin. Mormonism seems to refuse to see the difference.

>>>>Is God bound by the laws that govern free will?
What does that even mean? What laws are those? Where are they written? Who wrote them?

>>>Was God always a creator? Odd question, particularly using "was." God IS the creator.

>>>Was God always made flesh?
Not according to John 1 - "and the Word became flesh, and dwelt among men..."

>>>Was God always resurrected?
Another odd question. Not according to scripture. He didn't exactly die at the beginning.

>>>Can your God change all eternal laws tomorrow if he wanted to? (Notice I didn't say that God would change, I asked can your God change all of the laws)

First, we need to differentiate "laws" here, because I'm thinking that we have a couple clarifications.

First, there are the natural laws put in place to order the physical nature of the universe. God can and will change those as necessary, because there is no real moral value to their changing. It's the reason that He CAN change them, because He is God and doesn't cease to be so.
The natural laws do NOT rule God's behaviour here. He's not bound by gravity, or thermodynamics, or relativity. If he were, how could He claim to be God if the natural order were higher than Him?

Second is God's moral law. Your question is essentially moot here. God DOESN'T change morally - to do so would admit that there was some sort of moral imperfection in God, and that would essentially make God a liar in being God, another moral imperfection.

>>>In order for God to provide free will, is Lucifer always necessary in your God's creations?

First, you're assuming that there is such a thing as "free will."
Second, I start with the premise that God knows what He's doing. Lucifer isn't an accident, therefore he must be necessary.
Check the book of Job for probably the best exposition on Satan and how God glorifies Himself through Satan's activities.

>>>Can your God create an existence wherein free will exists, but Satan does not exist?
Am I supposed to know better than God how good or bad the existence He created is supposed to be? How can I make that determination?
What RIGHT have I to make that determination? Am I greater than God that I can somehow determine that He screwed up His creation?

TomH| 4.14.09 @ 7:06PM

Ryan:

You wrote:
"In the sense that God knew what was going to happen, then yes. In the sense that it makes God responsible for Satan/Lucifer's actions, no. The two ideas are NOT contradictory. God is not responsible for sin - He created an environment wherein man WOULD sin. Mormonism seems to refuse to see the difference. "

Just examine carefully your comments here.

1. According to your view, God knew the full ramifications of his actions before hand when he created Lucifer’s consciousness. He knew that he was going to rebel. He knew he was going to cause Adam and Eve to rebel against him.

2. What was the purpose of creating angels in the first place exactly? Was it to obey God or rebel against God? Now, reason carefully here. Angels aren’t beings who are created for earth, remember?

If God created Lucifer’s consciousness out of nothingness, then God framed it, provided it with the intelligence and attributes it has. Since God has unlimited power and knowledge in your tradition, and is limited by nothing, then God “IS” ultimately responsible for Satan’s choices.

1. You claim that your God is consistently and morally good.
2. A perfectly morally good being wants to prevent all evils.
3. An omniscient being knows every way in which evils can come into existence.
4. An omnipotent being who knows every way in which an evil can come into existence has the power to prevent evil from coming into existence.
5. A being who knows every way in which an evil can come into existence, who is able to prevent that evil from coming into existence, and who wants to do so, would prevent the existence of that evil.
6. A God that is claimed to be both omnipotent, omniscient and perfectly good who does not act morally consistent cannot be God.
7. Therefore, the traditional Christian interpretation is not consistent with attribute of moral perfection.

Look at it this way Ryan.

You are a moral person and you believe that evil should be prevented, always. You’re walking down the street with your loved one, perhaps your wife or your mother. A person approaches you with a knife and he states he’s going to kill your wife or your mother. This is genuine evil and inconsistent with your highest values. You have a gun in your pocket and a concealed weapons permit. You warn the robber to stop. He does not stop. You do nothing at all and your wife or your mother is killed for no reason. You had the power to prevent evil and you did nothing. Do you bear any responsibility for the death of your wife or mother?

Here’s another one:

You’re in bar with a friend, he’s drunk and you are sober. You leave the bar and you let him drive home by himself knowing that he’s very drunk. You know what could happen but you do nothing. On the way home, he kills a family of 4 people in a car accident. You had the power to prevent manslaughter

Now, to make these analogies complete, in each instance, you know before hand exactly what is going to happen in both cases: you know the robber is going to kill your wife and you know the drunk is going to kill 4 innocent people.

You hold the deepest commitment to goodness and correctness. Would you not at LEAST act in such a way, based on your limited knowledge, to PREVENT the evils?

Would you not walk another way? Would you not drive your friend home?

Now let’s go back to your God. He has unlimited knowledge and unlimited power. By those two definitions, he has the knowledge and the power to create an existence wherein free will can be exercised but where Lucifer, a created angel, does not rebel against him. He also has sufficient power and knowledge to create an existence wherein created beings freely choose the good because they can comprehend the good immediately and always freely choose it.

Why couldn’t Adam and Eve SEE CLEARLY that God’s commands must always be obeyed? Obviously he didn’t create them intelligent enough to comprehend it.

Ultimately, your version of God is responsible for all evil. Therefore his judgments against Satan, Adam, Eve, and the whole human race are unfounded.

I am sure you will respond with, “God could not eliminate evil and suffering without eliminating the greater good of having created persons with free will who can make moral choices”, something like that?

See the word, “could not”?

Either your God is morally responsible for evil or there are limits on God’s knowledge and power that you have not accounted for in your theology.

Now what you do next Ryan is VERY BIZARRE. You quote Romans 9:19-21 in whose defense? If the potter made the clay in such a way, who caused the clay to BE that way?

Which is it? Free will or determinism? You can’t have both.

Free will asserts that you have the ability and the responsibility to make choices in your life. You can choose good or evil in every situation. Determinism in general asserts the opposite: there are no free choices. There is soft determinism that teaches our backgrounds and previous choices determine future choices, but we have some moral responsibility for these choices. Hard determinism takes this a step further and removes our moral responsibility.

Which one is your belief?

I believe that each individual is responsible for their moral choices, and not because God made my personal consciousness.

Mormonism rightfully avoids the mess of the problem of evil because in reality, because God doesn’t create personal consciousness – intelligences are eternal – by nature they are weaker.

This is why God created our universe to LIFT UP the weaker intelligences, by our own free will and choice, and not by determinism.

Ryan| 4.15.09 @ 12:08PM

I was wondering where we might come down to this.

I'm essentially a five-point Calvinist. More or less a "reformed Baptist," as it were. Using your definition, I'm essentially a "soft determinist," which is why I so strongly quoted Romans...

which, by the way, you didn't refute. You just questioned my use. If you're going to go a very "free will" route, you have a LOT of scripture that you have to explain away - particularly Romans and Ephesians.

Keep in mind as well - the two examples you quoted involve men, NOT God. The moral implications can be separate. Man is fallen and limited - God isn't.

God is perfectly able to create a system whereby He knows evil shall occur, and has the power to prevent it - but doesn't, and yet remain totally pure and good.
In fact, as with Job, he doesn't allow it to occur WITHOUT His permission.

You also make a very bad statement - Satan did not cause Adam and Eve to sin - He tempted them. Their sin was on their shoulders (as God rightly judged THEM, and not Satan, for their actions).

Here's another question - if my "conscience" is co-eternal, then how can God have any authority over me?

I'm going to ask again another question - what are the laws of free will? Who wrote them? By whose authority do they stand?

Speaking of evil, by what authority can it be defined if there is no ultimate standard of good?

TomH| 4.15.09 @ 7:18PM

Ryan:

In answer to your standard question, here is the answer:

• Reality is the standard of truth (as things were, as they are, and as they are to come)
• Life is the standard of value
• God is the standard of perfection.

I appreciate your admission about TULIP. It explains much of your contradictory statements and beliefs. Do you not remember that Calvinism was developed beginning in 1534 by John Calvin and others? So, where is your Apostolic link to Jesus Christ’s true gospel?

The question is Ryan, how exactly do you determine whether John Calvin’s interpretation of the Bible is correct?

By what method do you claim to verify that Calvinism is the true gospel as opposed to Catholicism, Methodism, or Baptist theology which also claim equally valid methods for stating that their interpretation is more correct?

TomH| 4.15.09 @ 7:44PM

Calvinism Refuted:

If we refute one of the 5 points of Calvinism, we refute them all.

Total Depravity cannot be reconciled with these scriptures:

• Little children’s consciousness innocent, but their bodies carry the effects of the fall.

• Children do not inherit the spiritual consequences of their fathers. (Ezek 18:1-4, 19-20)

• Personal judgment will be of one’s personal actions and not for Adam’s sin. (Matt. 12:36-37, Rom2:6; 2 Cor 5:10, 1 Peter 1:17)

• Not Adam’s sin, but one’s personal sins separate them from God (Isaiah 59:1-2)

• There are no bible verses that explicitly teach that one is condemned for sins other than his/her own.

• Unsaved, unregenerate, or unelected men are capable of doing good and have free will
o By nature, Gentiles do good things of the law. (Romans 2:14-16)
o Man has free will and can choose for himself to do good or evil. (Joshua 24:15)

• Being saved is contingent on repentance (Luke 13:3)

• The personal self is responsible for taking action to be saved. (Acts 2:40)

• Forgiveness of sins contingent on repentance and baptism. (Acts 2:38)

• The admonition to work out one’s salvation refutes and defeats Calvanism (Phil 2:12)

• Justification refutes the term inherited sin. (Romans 5:18)

• Redemption refutes the term inherited sin. (Colossians 1:13-14)

• God sent all beings to earth blameless. (Ezek 28:15)

• Paul’s declaration that he was once spiritually alive refutes inherited sin. (Rom 7:9-11)

• Paul’s assertion that infants are the model of purity refutes inherited sin. (1 Cor 14:20)

• Jesus declared infants as the model for all believers (Matt 18:1-3; 19:13-14)

TomH| 4.15.09 @ 7:51PM

One more for the easy refutation of Calvinism:

Infants identified as the “blood of innocents.” Their innocence refers to their spiritual consciousness. This proves that Biblical theology declares infants innocent and refutes Calvinism. (Jeremiah 19:2-6)

TomH| 4.16.09 @ 12:18AM

Jesus Refutes Calvinism's Irresistible Grace

John 12:32 "And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all [peoples] to Myself."

1 Timothy 2:3 For this [is] good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, 4 who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.

Jesus does draw all people to Himself. Jesus said He will draw all people unto Himself if He were to be lifted up and crucified. God desires all mankind to be saved, but most people resist being drawn. John Calvin's doctrine of "Irresistible Grace" is clearly shown to be incorrect by Jesus' clear declaration.

TomH| 4.16.09 @ 1:31AM

Ryan:

You wrote:
" Keep in mind as well - the two examples you quoted involve men, NOT God. The moral implications can be separate. Man is fallen and limited - God isn't.

God is perfectly able to create a system whereby He knows evil shall occur, and has the power to prevent it - but doesn't, and yet remain totally pure and good."

Appeals to your opinions are interesting for you personally, but they do not provide necessary evidence that you are correct.

You've just argued that God is whimsical and inconsistent with his highest values. Your God cannot be God.

You steal a concept from existence to try to avoid the necessary explanation why your "all good" God cannot act according to his highest values in the presence of his unlimited knowledge and unlimited power.

Either he is not all good or he is limited in power and or knowledge.

In the moment God created Lucifer's consciousness, according to your tradition, God knew in that very instant that Lucifer would rebel and that it would be neccesary to cast him out.

Your God intentionally doomed Lucifer to eternal hell before he became conscious.

This is the necessary responsibility your God bears. Why? Because he could have created Lucifer with more intelligence to choose the good but your God failed to act according to his highest values: prevent sin - always.

Your God is either all good or he is limited in his power and knowledge and didn't actually create Lucifer's consciousness.

Ryan| 4.16.09 @ 9:17AM

Several comments...

>>>>• Reality is the standard of truth (as things were, as they are, and as they are to come)

So, who gets to define reality? Where does it come from? If reality defines "truth," how does God have any authority?

>>>• Life is the standard of value

According to what? What does that even mean? By what authority is the statement made?

>>>• God is the standard of perfection.
How can He be the standard of perfection if He does not define truth in and of Himself? If reality, and not God, defines Truth, then is not "reality" the standard of perfection?

As a precursor, I notice that you are doing a lot of picking-and-choosing of scripture to prove your points below. I think that I've tried to provide some context earlier; one of the faults of theological debate is picking and choosing verses rather than looking at scripture as a whole. We can fing many scriptures to prove our points, but what we also have to be able to do is deal with the ones that seem to go against us. In particular is the "vessels of destruction" issue that I keep bringing up and you keep NOT really addressing.

>>>On total depravity, how do the verses you quoted reconcile with Romans 9:9-11
" 9What then? Are we better than they? Not at all; for we have already charged that both Jews and Greeks are all under sin;
10as it is written,
"THERE IS NONE RIGHTEOUS, NOT EVEN ONE;
11THERE IS NONE WHO UNDERSTANDS,
THERE IS NONE WHO SEEKS FOR GOD;"

You're mis-interpreting and mis-defining Total Depravity and original sin. It doesn't mean that I am held accountable for Adam's sin, it means that I am capable of nothing but sin without God's grace - as per Romans 5. My sins - as the verses you pointed out - are my own, but without Christ's work on the Cross, I AM a sinner (I don't just "do sin"). My nature is to DO sin....and my good works count as "filthy rags" without God's grace.

The scriptures you quote really aren't a refutation - they don't address my previous state as condemned without Christ.

Unsaved men CAN do good, but it doesn't count for anything. An act can always be morally good, but it doesn't affect my standing with God, particularly if I am without Christ. Is. 64:6

Repentance is indeed a precursor to salvation, but you need to take more scripture into account. Repentance must be granted by God:
2 Tim 2:25: " 25 with gentleness correcting those who are in opposition, if perhaps God may grant them repentance leading to the knowledge of the truth,

You quote Acts 2:38 and 40, but you skip Acts 2:39: " "For the promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself."

Phil 2:12 isn't to someone who isn't saved, but is an exhortation to someone who has already BEEN saved...in context, the term "salvation" isn't used in reference to eternal salvation, but Paul's other uses in the nearby text actually refer to his own imprisonment. In light of the rest of scripture as well - where there is little to nothing that points towards a works-based salvation, it doesn't mean anything toward my being able to save myself.

Romans 5:18 actually proves my point better. "18 So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men." Adam's fall affected ALL of us.

Skipping some others, I'm going right to a MAJOR misinterpretation.
John 12:32 - "peoples" here is more properly translated "nations" or "tribes." It's a general sense, and fits well with the idea that the Gospel will be spread to all nations before the end per Matt 24:14.
Also, notice that it's Jesus "drawing," not me "coming."

Finally, you continue to ascribe a human condition - whimsy and inconsistency - to the historical interpretation of God, when that same interpretation presents God as both completely Good and never being whimsical or inconsistent.

Yes, there is the problem of a completely all-powerful being allowing evil to even exist, and of not creating it in the first place. However, that's the problem as WE see it. We do not - and cannot - see it from HIS perspective, which is eternal, Holy, and right.

After talking with you more and more about this, the main problem that I am seeing is that the problem with Mormonism is that it attempts to explain the inexplicable, and rejects the possibility that it's OKAY to not be able to understand God.

It's too simplistic. It rejects the idea that there can be mystery and certain unexplainable things; that my efforts to reach God MUST be worth something.

What is wrong with a God that I cannot reach through my own efforts? What is wrong with my works counting for nothing? What is wrong with my condition being so downcast that I NEED an awesome Saviour to change my own NATURE?

TomH| 4.16.09 @ 12:40PM

Ryan:

You wrote:
“You're mis-interpreting and mis-defining Total Depravity and original sin. It doesn't mean that I am held accountable for Adam's sin, it means that I am capable of nothing but sin without God's grace - as per Romans 5.”

As an intelligent being, why are you incapable of nothing but sin? Is this something you did at birth? Name the cause of your incapability to do nothing but sin.

Ryan| 4.16.09 @ 2:56PM

Sin is my natural tendency due to Adam's fall.

Romans 5:18 actually proves my point better. "18 So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men." Adam's fall affected ALL of us.

It's also why Isaiah stated in Is. 64:6:
6For all of us have become like one who is unclean,
And all our righteous deeds are like a filthy garment;
And all of us wither like a leaf,
And our iniquities, like the wind, take us away.

And particularly in Ps 51:5
"5Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity,
And in sin my mother conceived me."
---particularly, the whole Psalm is a plea to God - that it's ONLY God who can lift one out of sin.

Also, there are multiple verses - particularly John 6, where Christ talks about the bread of life - of the Father "drawing" - literally "dragging" (against the will) - a person to Himself.

It's why grace is so HUGE. It's why only by grace are we saved - because I DON'T have the desire in and of myself to run to God. His grace doesn't just save me from my sin - it completely changes my nature FOR sin.

It's not a matter of God making me intelligent enough to realize His grace, it's the matter that no matter how smart I am, I'm not going to come to Christ on my own, based merely on some sort of logical reasoning. It doesn't make SENSE in our minds that God would make any sort of sacrifice of His holiness for us - "foolishness to the Greeks."

Maybe that's why God allowed sin and evil - so that He can truly show His power and might over it. It allows God to really prove Himself, because ONLY He can make a creation that was both perfect in the beginning AND totally runs from Him and falls so far that ONLY He has the power to redeem it!

TomH| 4.17.09 @ 10:13AM

Ryan:

Let's go back to the fall, what was Adam's condemnation exactly?

Ryan| 4.17.09 @ 1:55PM

Gen 3:17-19
17Then to Adam He said, "Because you have listened to the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree about which I commanded you, saying, 'You shall not eat from it';
Cursed is the ground because of you;
In toil you will eat of it
All the days of your life.
18"Both thorns and thistles it shall grow for you;
And you will eat the plants of the field;
19By the sweat of your face
You will eat bread,
Till you return to the ground,
Because from it you were taken;
For you are dust,
And to dust you shall return."

First was toilsome, uneasy labor. Second, in Gen 3:24, he drove them out so that they could not eat of the Tree of Life - thus the punishment of death according to his promise in Gen 2:17:
"17but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die."

Romans 5:12: "12Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned..."

Pretty much the entirety of Romans 2 covers the idea:

" 18 So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men.
19For as through the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous."

Does scripture add anything that I missed?

TomH| 4.21.09 @ 2:16PM

Ryan:

Sorry for the delay in posting. I took some time away from the computer for spring break with the family.

You wrote:
Sin is my natural tendency due to Adam’s fall.

You may hold this belief but I do not see this as message of the Old or New Testaments. This is another way of saying that you’re totally depraved and spiritually evil – that your spiritual nature is only toward evil. This is a conceptual error. Your natural tendency is not toward evil but toward good things. However, what you lack is the WILL to always obey what you perceive is the good.

Your quotation of Romans 5:18 doesn’t support total depravity or the inherent evil nature of mankind either. Man (Adam and Eve) were spiritually innocent in the beginning. Man’s INHERENT nature is innocence, not evil. After man reaches an age where he/she can clearly distinguish between good and evil, then and only then does he/she “become unclean” (Isaiah 64:6.) Also, the “righteous deeds” spoken of in that verse are references to the outward ordinances of the Law of Moses, not the willing and grace filled obedience of the disciple of Jesus Christ. Also, the universal condemnation spoken of in Romans 5:18 is physical death and not enduring spiritual separation from God. All mankind, whether saved or not, will be resurrected because of the gift of Jesus Christ. However, not all mankind will be joint heirs with Jesus Christ – such a crown requires discipleship, and cannot be received merely because of the existence of grace, but must be received by covenant – of faith, repentance, baptism, and enduring discipleship. Otherwise, there is no crown of glory of joint inheritance with Jesus Christ.

I believe we both agree that many consequences followed after the fall of Eve and Adam including, spiritual death (expulsion from God's presence because of uncleanness) and physical death (separation of spirit and body.)

If you recall from the Garden, God proclaimed that if they partook of the tree of knowledge of good and evil that they would “die.” In other words, if they had not partaken of the fruit, they would have remained in the garden, able to partake of the tree of life and lived forever in God’s presence.

In the beginning, Adam and Eve were much like little children who are naturally naive and trusting and lacking self-consciousness and knowledge of good and evil because they are innocent. In the same way, the spiritual consciousness of each spirit born to earth is also innocent in the beginning, but born into a fallen mortal body and into a fallen world where disobedience is a “way of life” for many.

Your interpretation of Psalms 51:5 (a lamentation) and Romans 5:12, cannot be harmonized with these scripture concepts and verses:

• Children do not inherit the spiritual consequences of their fathers. (Ezek 18:1-4, 19-20)

• Personal judgment will be of one’s personal actions and not for Adam’s sin. (Matt. 12:36-37, Rom 2:6; 2 Cor 5:10, 1 Peter 1:17)

• Not Adam’s sin, but one’s personal sins separate them from God (Isaiah 59:1-2)
Romans chapter 2 does not teach that all mankind were sinners the moment they are born into existence. You are confusing an act that can be considered sinful with an act that was willfully committed as an act of disobedience. Romans 2 doesn’t work for the concept of Total Depravity since “many” doesn’t mean all, otherwise, all human beings were lost and now all humans beings are saved.

If you go back to the fall and consider carefully the punishments, you’ll find that children are not sent to hell to endure an endless torment simply because they weren’t born “saved.” Everyone receives an equal chance to use the moral agency (free will) that God grants to all human beings.

Their personal choices then become the determining factors whether they will follow light and truth, given to every man, or whether they will choose evil.

No one is “dragged” against their will into salvation. This is absolutely absurd. John 6 refers to the invitation of God to ALL – not a select few.

How do we know?
1. Jesus died for all men –
a. 1 John 2:1 "My little children, I am writing these things to you that you may not sin. And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous; 2 and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world."
b. Luke 19:10
c. 2 Corinthians 5:14-15
d. Hebrews 2:9

2. The atonement of Jesus Christ can save anyone at any time before or after death because Jesus Christ paid the full measure of justice.
a. John 1:29
b. 1 John 2:1-2

3. The gospel of Jesus Christ is for all of mankind
a. Mark 16:15-16
b. Romans 1:16

4. God is no respecter of persons. Jesus died for all and anyone who obeys the gospel can be saved from spiritual death (salvation of physical death is an unconditional gift.)
a. Revelation 22:17

Calvinism was born because it could not answer some of the questions raised in the inadequacies of traditional Christianity. However, in the process, Calvin erred. We can now see his errors in full context of the Bible. It know teaches that Jesus’ grace is a license for immorality just like any “once saved always saved” teacher.
Remember what I said in the beginning? Whose interpretation of the Bible are we going to use as the final word? All of your doctrines become suspect when we have to reconcile them with the rest of the Bible.

Instead of making an appeal to your personal interpretation, make an appeal to existence. You have no way of identifying who is saved and who is not saved.

Why?

• There are those who profess salvation but who show no outward signs of inner change.
• There are those who profess salvation and who show many signs of inner change.
• There are those who profess NO salvation who show no outward signs of inner change.
• There are those who process NO salvation but who show many signs of inner change.

So, Ryan, who is saved above?

Is there really a point to our discussion when you’re just going to continue to make appeals to your personal interpretation of scripture?

Ryan| 4.21.09 @ 4:38PM

It's not just my own personal interpretation - it's an attempt to take scripture at its word, using a long line of scholarship and study by giants over almost two millenia. If we differ on a scriptural meaning, we have MANY resources to turn to and look for interpretation by people smarter than both of us. We've got the Greek. We've got a pretty good chain of scholarship and good evidence that we're dealing with what was originally written.

I keep pointing to it because it's SUPPOSED to be our sole authority AND our common ground. If we hash anything out, it's what we have to turn to.

Where does scripture state that my state is one toward innocence? What scripture points to some matter that I am corrupted by the world instead of it being inherent in my nature? If you're going to make this assertion, there really has to be some scriptural basis. I don't see you revealing one.
If Romans 5:18 doesn't support total depravity, then how is it explained? What is the proper interpretation? If it isn't spiritual death, as you state, then why is the word "condemned" used?

Where in Isaiah 64 does it state that there is a moment where we understand good and evil and then become unclean? Is a evil work not evil when I am ignorant of its evilness?

In Ez 16, is it talking about the sin nature, or simply about personal responsibility for one's own sin (keep in mind these are two different ideas - my inherited nature is to sin, but my responsibility for my sin is my own).

I'm not really arguing against the Biblical fact that I am responsible for my own sin - just that Adam's fall - as scripture bears out - places within me the selfish nature to go and DO sin.

In John 6:44, how is the Greek supposed to be interpreted? What else could it mean if not "dragged?" What is the word picture used in the other instances in scripture? What scriptures in John 6 are inclusive to all humanity?

This one isn't just "personal interpretation." If you can't go back to the Greek here and see what it looks like and what it means in context, I'm not sure what other meaning to give it.

You're quoting a lot of verses that, when used by themselves, easily lend toward a more universal picture of salvation. Often, in context, they're a little better read when either considering their audience, understanding that many letters were written directly to believers, or that the use of "all" isn't necessarily encompassing - particularly in the light that NOT all people will be saved.

I wonder if you've even studied Calvinism from a different angle. Frankly, I consider it a bit of a box, anyway - a useful tool, but not necessarily definitive. It has its issues, but doesn't have a lot going against it.
You're also falling into the interpretive trap that somehow Calvinists (and eternal security believers in general) all believe that we are somehow excused from sin. We're not - we just understand that we don't have to work to find favor with God. Paul has a pretty expressive condemnation of the matter - "Let it never be!"

What if you went the other way - when you state, "All of your doctrines become suspect when we have to reconcile them with the rest of the Bible," it seems that you give greater weight to some scripture over others. What scripture is more important? By what measure should I use?

Often our interpretation of scripture tends toward our biases and presuppositions. It's VERY difficult to allow scripture to speak for itself in many cases, because we cannot be objective.

I'm not sure if you noticed, but I often try to use whole passages instead of singular verses. It helps keep things in their context. I encourage you to do the same - it keeps us from picking and choosing because it makes us deal with verses that make us uncomfortable.

Lastly, we believe that, through God's grace, true faith WILL result - as a natural happenstance - in good works that glorify God. It's not my job to define who is saved and who isn't - God does that without my permission. I just have a handful of scriptural parameters that help me make a judgment call, and I'm not always going to be right on that one.

Honestly, it's my main problem with a salvation based on works. It's too quantifiable by human standards, and it dodges the real issue at hand - that my sin, first and foremost, MUST be dealt with. It almost treats sin as specific external acts rather than something that is all-pervasive and is a core problem. God states that He removes sin, not that He offers something to "balance" it.

TomH| 4.22.09 @ 12:23PM

Ryan:

As a direct descendant of Mayflower Pilgrims, I am very aware of the history of Calvinism. I am also aware of the number of scholars who are traditional and they far out number those associated with Calvinism.

The point is, there are a wide and diverse number of Christian denominations who disagree with Calvinism as it lies outside traditional Christian interpretation of scripture up until John Calvin and his published work in 1534. We do have the Greek bible but it doesn't give us a necessary Calvinist reading of doctrines. Do you see the problem? Calvinism is just one of the many interpretations of the Bible. Interpretation comes from someone's opinion about the text. So, which of the opinions is correct? See the problem Ryan?

You wrote:
"It's not my job to define who is saved and who isn't - God does that without my permission. I just have a handful of scriptural parameters that help me make a judgment call, and I'm not always going to be right on that one. "

Then couldn't you be 100% wrong about your salvation? How do you know that you will be saved? More appeals to your personal consciousness?

The point of the four different people shows that Calvinism cannot accurately identify who is saved and who isn't saved among the 4. See the problem?

You wrote:
"Honestly, it's my main problem with a salvation based on works. It's too quantifiable by human standards, and it dodges the real issue at hand - that my sin, first and foremost, MUST be dealt with."

Ryan, Mormonism is not a “works alone“ based gospel. This is an old Protestant argument that was being made long before Mormonism arrived on the scene in 1830. Do you see the problem? Mormonism didn’t “adopt” a “works alone” based gospel. This is the ASSUMPTION of most Protestant groups because we teach that we must STRIVE to keep the commandments of Jesus Christ.

Anciently, the "works based" arguments were originally made to address Jewish worship of the former laws of animal sacrifice which rarely address MODERN issues regarding rampant immorality among professing Christians. These unrepentant, and willfully disobedient Christians are not saved. Most Christian denominations agree that the New Testament witness makes such doctrines very clear.

We agree that sin is a core problem – it’s an inherent weakness of personal will. Only through the relationship with Deity, can one overcome this weakness until we have given up all desire for sin. This is a life long process of change that occurs because of and through the enabling power of grace. This is the “core” doctrine of Mormonism. God saves no one IN their sins, but is willing to save anyone FROM their sins, if they are willing to “FOLLOW” Jesus Christ in the way he has prescribed. If you do not come unto him, according to his words, and his way, salvation from sin cannot and does not occur.

In Mormonism, the reality of salvation is as simple as entering into a Covenant with Jesus Christ. The first laws and ordinances of the gospel are:

1. Exercise Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ (1. Acknowledge that he is God’s son (Godhead) and the redeemer, and 2) that he has the power to forgive sins, cleanse sins, and redeem. Mormons believe that this is necessary which leads to the next step.)

2. Exercise repentance (a deliberate and concerted personal effort to turn away from sinful ways, in mind and body, and a life time commitment to continually repent of sins committed in the future.)

3. Receive baptism by immersion for the “remission of sins” – sins are “washed away” or forgotten by God and the believer is cleansed from prior sins.

4. Receive the Gift of the Holy Ghost which is given to the faithful, repentant, and baptized believer to guide him/her to avoid sin and to do the work of God.

5. From there, the faithful, repentant, baptized, and gifted believer begins a new life – dedicated to keeping God’s commandments. Without a desire to keep God’s commandments, there is no forgiveness or salvation.

6. Inevitably, the weakness of personal will is revealed, and the faithful, repentant, baptized, and gifted believer, sins. However, because of the Covenant, the person can approach God, repent, and address the personal will, recognizing all of his or her desires do not conform to God’s laws and that it is sin, that this area of personal conduct needs focused attention, including exercising personally will to eliminate the DESIRE and behavior, recognizing the enabling power of the grace of Jesus Christ and praying for it, receiving it, and making the necessary changes in personal life to emulate the life of the Savior Jesus Christ. The cost? Personal pride and lust. This is what is meant by “enduring to the end.”

7. God is no respecter of persons but favors the repentant and faithful followers.

8. Every week, Mormons enjoy partaking of the “sacrament” or the (Eucharist) which represents a renewal of the Covenant of the remission of sins – thus fulfilling the covenant and enjoying the promise of salvation every day of life – living under the promise of salvation and not in a life burdened by unrepented sin, and under the bondage of new and continued sin.

If you believe that “keeping commandments” or personal repentance and change is impossible or unnecessary, then most likely you’re under the burden of pride and don’t understand the atonement of Jesus Christ. (That’s not an accusation.)

In your tradition you teach people that a person “cannot” keep God’s commandments and so, for the most part, you don’t.

The gospel of Jesus Christ however teaches that we must keep commandments, and do all that we can to live and love in conformity with God’s laws. This isn’t so we can “earn” salvation but so we can try our best to keep his commandment.

Consider carefully the words of Jesus Christ - the Son of God, the Savior, the Redeemer, and judge of you and me:

Matt 5: 19
19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Then, Jesus teaches his followers of the “higher” standard that they are to live which has to do with overcoming the personal weakness of personal will which is the “core” effort to following the Savior.

The way of truth and life is to join with the Savior, in partnership, and take upon his merits, mercy and grace (Book of Mormon teaching) and receive the companionship of Deity (the Holy Ghost) so a person can walk in a newness of life and leave one’s old life behind.

Without continual repentance, walking in the path of righteousness, a continued effort to conform one’s life with God’s laws, there can be no salvation. To return to old ways of sin is to deny the faith.

Ryan, I can see that you love your tradition, but once again, the idea of your salvation boils down to you having elected yourself in your mind, and then declaring that you are eternally secure in salvation simply because you wish it so. Do you see the problem?

In order to receive salvation from sin (now and in eternity), death (spiritual), and hell (the burden of sin now, and the eternal punishment that awaits), we must ABIDE in Jesus Christ. This doctrine and necessary condition is fully described in John 15:1-10; it is further continued in the parable of the prodigal son. To abide is to “continue or remain” DOING something – that something is 1) teaching the commandments, 2) doing the commandments, and 3) repenting of sins. Mere lip service is worthless.

We don’t do these things because we’re “EARNING” salvation; we do them because God commanded us to do them. By trying to honoring his word, we indicate with our minds, and our bodies that we are his true disciples by following him, albeit imperfectly. God REQUIRES us to strive with all of our heart, might, mind and strength, repenting when we fall short. Otherwise, there is no discipleship and there is no salvation. These are the requirements of grace.

There are many Christians professing, “Lord, Lord,” but there are fewer still who are “doing the will of their Father in heaven.”

Therefore, at the final judgment, it is by grace we are saved after all that we have done in this life to follow the Savior Jesus Christ. Without discipleship, without following the Savior, without abiding repentance, there can be no salvation.

Ryan| 4.22.09 @ 3:08PM

On Calvinism, it's not exactly out of the mainstream - it was birthed partially out of Augustine, and many Protestants held to it in one form or another actually up until the early 20th century when evangelicalism really started to take hold. Not that everyone was a Calvinist (Wesley comes to mind here), but it wasn't out of the "mainstream."

If it isn't God's job to decide who is saved, then who is it up to? Who gets to define salvation? Under what authority? Are your four examples the only four questions?

Can I truly profess to be a Christian and show fruit without the changing power of the Gospel?

Just as I had a bit of a mischaractarization of Mormonism's faith-and-works based theology, you're continuing to mischaracterize many evangelicals when you state, "If you believe that “keeping commandments” or personal repentance and change is impossible or unnecessary, then most likely you’re under the burden of pride and don’t understand the atonement of Jesus Christ. (That’s not an accusation.)"

I'm not taking it as an accusation, I'm taking it as a mischaracterization. Practically any professing Protestant will reject the idea you've written, because there's no Biblical basis for it. I'm rejecting it here and now. I made the mistake of ascribing a belief that wasn't there - please be wary of doing it in return.

We just believe that it's not a prerequisite for Salvation, because we are completely incapable of it without the redemptive work of Christ FIRST working in us the change necessary so that we want to go and do good - not because it gains us favor, but because Christ changed our core nature.

I'm going to disagree with you on what you stated about sin - "it’s an inherent weakness of personal will." It's a massive understatement. We don't sin because our will is weak - we sin because our will is fallen and rebellious.
If God doesn't save me while I am still in my sins, then how can He save me at all?
Romans 5:8 "But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us."
Actually, you contradict scripture, per Col 2:13 "When you were dead in your transgressions (sins) and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made you alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our transgressions,"

An argument can be made on John 15 that only true believers - not superficial lip-service ones - are going to "abide" in any case.

Here's a question that I think is going to require an answer - where in the Bible does grace - and I'm asking for the specific word and idea here - ever require ANYTHING before it's given? Who earned it?

Can I repent on my own?

TomH| 4.22.09 @ 3:28PM

Ryan:

Are you saved, yes or no? And how do you know that you are saved?

Ryan| 4.23.09 @ 8:48AM

I believe - have faith - that I am. I know because God has wrought in me a changed life and placed in me the desire to fight sin and do good - things that I don't think I'd have wanted to do had I not been a Christian (and sins that I would have dove deeper into had I not been saved as well).

He has produced fruit in my life - bringing people to Himself through me, good works, etc.

Shall you answer my questions - particularly the last two?

TomH| 4.30.09 @ 12:20PM

Thank you for the reply. Apart from our disagreements over doctrine, I am very glad and grateful that you seek to remain steadfast in Jesus Christ. By emulating him in our words and actions we can draw others to him as well. The regret that I have for you is that you won’t enjoy the fulness of all of the blessings of the atonement of Jesus Christ (I know that you disagree.)

On Romans 5:8 and Col 2:13, you’re still reading these verses from a “total depravity from birth” point of view. Because the penalty of sins was already paid by Jesus Christ, little children, or those who have not reached the age of accountability are not under the penalty of sin. They are made alive in Christ because their spirits are still innocent, not knowing the clear difference between right and wrong in the body.

You wrote:
“I'm going to disagree with you on what you stated about sin - "it’s an inherent weakness of personal will." It's a massive understatement. We don't sin because our will is weak - we sin because our will is fallen and rebellious.”

You and I disagree over what exactly is happening within the human soul that causes us to sin. In order to understand this, let’s go back to Adam and Eve. Above you say that our will is “fallen” and therefore we disobey. You say that this fallen condition is because of the disobedience of Adam and Eve, and therefore we have inherited a fallen and rebellious nature because of the fallen. In your explanation, fallen nature comes first and disobedience naturally follows.

However, there is a problem with this explanation. It does not fit for Adam and Eve. Adam and Eve were NOT fallen in the garden. Yet, they disobeyed. It follows therefore, that disobedience is NOT a necessary result of the fall of man because disobedience preceded the fall. Disobedience also preceded the fall before the world was made with Lucifer.

So, once again we’re back to Creation out of Nothing. In your tradition, God created the intelligence of Lucifer, Adam and Eve. You said, “our will is fallen and rebellious.”

In your tradition, God, (creator of everything) is the author (directly or indirectly) of fallen and rebellious intelligence. In my faith, God revealed to Joseph Smith that inherent in every soul of man is intelligence, that is neither created or made – it is co-eternal with God. Therefore, God is not responsible for a “fallen and rebellious will” that PRECEDE the fall. Rather, it is inherent weakness of a pre-existing will that has been revealed in the actions of Lucifer, Adam, Eve, and every living soul.

There are eternal laws that were neither were created or can be destroyed. There also, are laws that God, the most powerful and intelligent being, instituted to raise up all other weaker intelligences. He raises up weaker intelligences by partnering with them. Through submission to the Father’s will, we can overcome all things and subdue all weakness and can eradicate the desire and the will to disobey.

The life is a testing ground, a proving ground to test our will. A work that will either lead to everlasting damnation or everlasting life – a life with God – acting and existing in harmony with the Father – and becoming one with Jesus Christ, as the Father and the Son are one. The Father is offering us the gift of overcoming all things so they can never act upon us and so that we can act freely forever (in harmony with the Father’s will – that is consistent, perfect, harmonious, and compassionate.)

Now about Romans and Colossians. The consequences of the fall is not sin, sin already existed and preceded the fall. Sin occurred BEFORE the fall, first in Lucifer and then in Adam and Eve. The consequences of the fall were separation from God, a casting out and uncleanness, (Spiritual death) and eventual separation between body and spirit (physical death).

Because of the atonement of Jesus Christ, ALL mankind is redeemed from the fall. The automatic and unconditional gift of resurrection eliminates the penalty of physical death – death no longer is an eternal obstacle to salvation or repentance.

Jesus Christ also paid in full, the penalty of uncleanness for all of mankind, suffering the pain, penalty, and torment of all sin. This is why the “original sin” doctrine cannot be true. The consequences of the fall have already been amended by Jesus Christ. Even if you believe in “total depravity,” it has already been done away in Jesus Christ.

This is why it is “fair” for us to be here, in this existence. Everyone is responsible for their own choices, notwithstanding finding ourselves in mortal bodies. Our will can still choose the good. We are provided an opportunity to freely choose between the good or the evil based on our intelligence, our desires, and our faith.

Now, to your questions – you asked:

1. If God doesn't save me while I am still in my sins, then how can He save me at all?
2. Where in the Bible does grace - and I'm asking for the specific word and idea here - ever require ANYTHING before it's given? Who earned it?

Answer to number 1: In your tradition, you speak of salvation as if a person has already been made free from mortal life, weakness of the flesh, mortal nature, sin, suffering, problems, pain, and the travails of life. However, this is an error. No one on the planet is “currently saved” in this way. What they mean to say is that they have a hope for salvation in the future. And those who believe in eternal security, they declare to everyone that they are indeed “saved” right now. They used the term “saved” to mean that their name has been written in the Lamb’s book of life, never to be removed again. However, this is all just an emotional and intellectual exercise. There is no significant difference between that person and the atheist when it comes to their mortal condition.

But what is salvation? Salvation is a remission or forgiveness of sins coupled with merits, mercy and grace of Jesus Christ. It is to be declared CLEAN and RIGHTEOUS at the final judgment.

But when does this occur? Not for a long while. So when we say “salvation” today, we’re really talking about our standing with God before the resurrection, and the final declaration or bestowal of all of the gifts of God.

God doesn’t save anyone “in” sin. Sin must be repented of. Sin must be symbolically washed away. Sin must be departed from. Sin must be abolished through the enabling power of the atonement and through the personal effort of the believer. The personal actions of the believer must change, otherwise the desires, effects, and penalties of sins remain and will return.

When you stand before God at the final judgment, as everyone will, you are either declared clean or you are declared unclean. Therefore, when someone is saved, they are saved from the penalties of sin and death – spiritual suffering of the damned and separation from God. When a believer is faithful in the covenant made with Christ during this life, he/she can enjoy the continual remission of sins, as he/she repents and strives to keep God’s commandments. This blessing begets more faith and more knowledge in Jesus Christ.

This doctrine represents the complete message of the New Testament. A confession-alone, or a belief-alone, or a faith-alone or a grace–alone doctrine can only be reached when excluding most of the New Testament witness of the faith.

By what power are we cleansed from sin? Grace. By what power to we accept a covenant of grace and obedience? Through our own faith, subjecting our will to God’s will, through acts of submission, and through an outward and authorized covenant.

This honor cannot be taken upon self by one’s self, but must be received through covenant, ordinance, and authority by one who bears the holy priesthood of God.

Ryan| 5.1.09 @ 9:12AM

Your argument has a core problem:
"However, there is a problem with this explanation. It does not fit for Adam and Eve. Adam and Eve were NOT fallen in the garden. Yet, they disobeyed. It follows therefore, that disobedience is NOT a necessary result of the fall of man because disobedience preceded the fall. Disobedience also preceded the fall before the world was made with Lucifer. "

You might be right if it weren't for Romans 5
"12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned--" and the concept is REPEATED throughout the rest of Romans 5. Sin wasn't in the world until Adam disobeyed. True - the tree was already there, but that was the ONE thing that God told Adam he couldn't do, and was given the ability to do it. There's nothing scriptural that shows Adam had a sin NATURE - they were walking around naked without wanton lust, there was no murder, theft, dishonoring God, any of that. If your argument "The consequences of the fall is not sin, sin already existed and preceded the fall..." were to hold true for Adam, then he would have been sinning in MANY other ways....

On those of us who believe in eternal security, "There is no significant difference between that person and the atheist when it comes to their mortal condition." I find no great disagreement about the term salvation used; we've probably over-simplified the matter. Probably the best way to describe it is that I am justified (a one-time act); being sanctified (a process); and it leads to my salvation (the final result). However - particularly in Hebrews, salvation is used in a very present tense.

"God doesn’t save anyone “in” sin. Sin must be repented of. Sin must be symbolically washed away. Sin must be departed from. Sin must be abolished through the enabling power of the atonement and through the personal effort of the believer. The personal actions of the believer must change, otherwise the desires, effects, and penalties of sins remain and will return. "

You have a problem here - it's a DIRECT contradiction of scripture.
Romans 5:6 For while we were still helpless, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly.
7For one will hardly die for a righteous man; though perhaps for the good man someone would dare even to die.
8But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.
"Christ died for the ungodly" and "While we were yet sinners."

Why would I need salvation from God if I'm not IN my sin? How does that make sense? If I can walk away from sin on my own, then what's the point of the salvation that he offers?

At some point, we're going to have to debate over what some of the scripture means here, particularly in Romans, and we HAVE to hash out the intent and the Greek and the root of it all.

You accosted yourself pretty well with Genesis, and really went at it on that one point. Unfortunately, you really haven't done it with the rest of scripture, and have been throwing off my arguments as mere personal interpretation. If you're right, then scripture will bear you out...and it will bear you out not because of my personal interpretation, but because it backs your point. I have continuously been pointing at scripture, and you really haven't gone to it all that much to back you up, or tried to refute my arguments much with "it doesn't mean that, and here's why."

OR we would see many people now living near-perfect lives, as Adam's was before the Fall. We don't.

TomH| 5.1.09 @ 1:43PM

Ryan:

In your post above, you’re assuming your conclusion within the premises your argument, which is a contradiction. The error you make is your assumption about the word “sin” in Romans 5.

Let’s test it:

1. Which comes first, the disposition to sin, or the act of disobedience?
2. Inherent in choice, coupled with commandment, is obedience and disobedience, true or false?

Also, if “sin” came into existence with Adam, then what do you call Lucifer’s act of disobedience? He led away 1/3 of the hosts of Heaven and persuaded them to disobey. We’re talking thousands or perhaps millions of God’s creatures disobeying. Were those disobedient acts, sins?

Ryan| 5.4.09 @ 8:33AM

1. Per Romans 5, the disposition is within us because of Adam's disobedience.
Adam's disobedience wasn't because there was sin in the world already - there is nothing in scripture that points to that, and Romans 5 goes directly against it. Adam's disobedience was because it was the one choice God gave him that he could turn wrong, and he did it.

You're trying to work in a contradiction in the above when Romans 5 states that it really isn't one. So, either I believe Romans 5 when it states

"12Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned--"

or I believe something else?

You need to re-word your question #2. It doesn't make sense.

And Lucifer isn't a man. My condition was never predicated on what he did - it was Adam, a fellow man. Lucifer's disobedience and fall is separate from Adam's. Scripture consistently holds Adam and humanity responsible, though there is punishment for Satan.
Yes, sin was around, but sin wasn't IN MAN. It wasn't his nature until after the fall.

Otherwise it would be a contradiction of Romans 5
19For as through the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous.

It DOESN'T say through SATAN'S disobedience, the many were made sinners; it's a direct reference to Adam. Your statement may have a certain logical conclusion to hit; however, it contradicts scripture. Which am I supposed to go with?

TomH| 5.4.09 @ 1:02PM

Ryan:

The “T” in TULIP was already refuted a few posts ago. What you’re advocating is the Calvinist doctrine of Total Depravity:

“The Five Points of Calvinism, by Edwin H. Palmer, pg. 122
(He quotes from The Belgic Confession of Faith Article XV)
"We believe that through the disobedience of Adam original sin is extended to all mankind; which is a corruption of the whole nature and a hereditary disease, wherewith even infants in their mother's womb are infected, and which produces in man all sorts of sin, being in him as a root thereof, and therefore is so vile and abominable in the sight of God that it is
sufficient to condemn all mankind."

You don’t seem to know it, but your concept of inherited sin is a stolen concept from the penalty of sin. You are confusing the concepts.

First let’s define sin. What is sin? Sin is open rebellion against God. It is disobedience against God’s commandments or his declared will based on flawed desires, knowledge, will, and disposition.

Your argument follows thusly (as I understand it.)

1. In the beginning God created Adam and Eve with a perfect nature with a disposition toward only good.
2. God gave Adam commandments to keep.
3. Satan tempted Eve and she quickly disobeyed.
4. Adam followed and disobeyed.

The problem Ryan is if number 1 is true, then 2, 3, and 4, are impossible.

2, 3, and 4 are not only possible, but actually occurred, so number 1 cannot be true.

If number 1 is not true, then Adam and Eve were NOT created with perfect natures – they were created (out of nothing ) as imperfect beings.

Satan did NOT change Adam and Eve’s nature when he tempted them, he simply told them to disobey God. It didn’t take much at all.

In Adam and Eve’s moment of disobedience, they were still in the garden and had access to the tree of life. God had not punished them.

It was only when God cast them out of the garden (his presence) and denied them access to the tree of life (death), when man’s difficulties began.

So, your claim that “sin” is inherited because of the fall, is an untenable position. Neither sin nor disobedience was INHERITED by mankind because of Adam’s sin, it was the penalties of disobedience that were inherited (separation from God, imperfect bodies, no access to the tree of life).

So what does Paul mean in Romans 5?

Let’s look again:
12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:”

Let’s replace the word “sin” with “disobedience.”

12 Wherefore, as by one man [disobedience] entered into the world, and death by [disobedience]; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have [disobeyed]:”

Adam introduced disobedience into the world without having fallen first. Do you see the problem?

You say that the “fall” causes INHERENT disobedience. But that isn’t true with Adam. Adam was NOT FALLEN, yet HE disobeyed. How do you explain that? See the problem?

Either Adam and Eve were created with perfect natures or they were not. Did they disobey in their pre-fallen state? Yes.

Therefore, the fall did not create disobedience. Disobedience created the fall. With the fall came certain penalties. 1) Separation from God and 2) physical death.

THIS IS WHAT PAUL IS TALKING ABOUT. Through disobedience the fall occurred, and because the fall occurred, death came upon all mankind.

You argue that the FALL created inherited disobedience, but inheritable disobedience already existed in Adam before the fall.

However, there is no “original guilt.” Only the EFFECTS of the fall remain. Disobedience is not one of the effects of the fall – It PRECEDE the fall. The disposition to choose evil was already present in the consciousness of both Adam and Eve.

In your tradition, God created the disposition to choose good and evil in Adam and Eve.

In my faith, all spiritual beings possess intelligence that is neither created nor made. Both the disposition to choose good or evil already exist. However, there is a pre-existing weakness that has to be overcome in this intelligence in order to live with God eternally. The purpose of this life is to overcome this weakness by partnering with God.

In your tradition, God is directly responsible for evil and unjustly punishes Adam and Eve for a condition that he orchestrated based on flawed natures that he willfully created out of nothing. You claim that God makes the responsible but when we examine the causes of effects of your interpretations, we can see that it is not compatible with the ENTIRE message of the Bible.

In my faith, God offered Adam and Eve a chance to reveal in them (and to billions of other pre-mortal spirits) their inherent and pre-existing weakness and a way to overcome it, through earth life and the atonement of Jesus Christ. Our spiritual nature can only be changed by our efforts and God’s grace – there is no other way. This message agrees with the entire message of the Bible.

God cannot and will not FORCE a person (irresistible grace) to BE good by nature, he invites imperfect beings to become perfect THROUGH a process of change, repentance, and willful obedience, made possible by his atonement and gifts. A person must partner with Christ and “work out his own salvation” along side the Godhead in order to live with God eternally.

Otherwise, the inherent flaw in spiritual nature will only rear its ugly head later in heaven.

If you’re arguing that our hope is in a future and powerful change (without our effort) wherein our nature is changed back into Adam’s “sinless” nature before the fall, then there’s a big problem – such a nature resulted in sin and disobedience then and it will only result in sin and disobedience in the future.

Ryan| 5.5.09 @ 9:28AM

---"So, your claim that “sin” is inherited because of the fall, is an untenable position. Neither sin nor disobedience was INHERITED by mankind because of Adam’s sin, it was the penalties of disobedience that were inherited (separation from God, imperfect bodies, no access to the tree of life). "

Not necessarily.

Romans 5
15But the free gift is not like the transgression. For if by the transgression of the one the many died, much more did the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abound to the many. "

"the transgression of the one the many died" - There's something that Adam did that affected me profoundly.

Also v18
"18So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men."

"condemnation to ALL men."

And finally, here's the kicker:
"19For as through the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous."

"The many were made sinners." I was "made a sinner" because of what Adam did.

Otherwise, what could "the many were made sinners" mean?

In verse 12, you're focusing on the wrong word. I don't debate "disobedience" there.

You're missing two words. One is "entered." The other is "death."

"Entered" tells me that sin WASN'T there already. That death was brought in further emphasises the point - it shows that there is a direct correlation and that it WASN'T THERE BEFORE Adam sinned.

If you're correct, I would think that two things would have occurred:
1. Adam would have sinned before he ate of the fruit.
2. There would have been death before Adam ate of the fruit.

We see NEITHER in scripture.

I see the conclusion that you are drawing - that if Adam was perfect he wouldn't have disobeyed, and the logic ALMOST works, except that God is big enough to create a man both perfect AND with the ability to turn against him.

You keep trying to work in contradictions with a being so far above both of us Who can cause a contradiction to work.
As Christ said in Matthew 19:26
"26And looking at them Jesus said to them, "With people this is impossible, but with God all things are possible."

Also, your final conclusion disregards one thing - God placed the choice in the garden for Adam. In the Kingdom to come (however that looks), there won't be a need for that choice - God will have fulfilled all things in His way.

Here's a question again:

Can I repent on my own? What scripture backs it up?

Who in scripture did something to earn God's grace BEFORE God came to them?

TomH| 5.5.09 @ 1:06PM

Ryan:

You're going to have to interact with these premises:

1. The fall of Adam was caused by disobedience.
2. The fall did not cause inherent disobedience in others because it preceded the fall.
3. Inherent disobedience in man existed before Adam fell. Both Eve, and Adam proved this.

Conclusion: Total Depravity is a false doctrine.

This line of understand is neither impossible with man or God. It can easily be understood by writing it down on a piece of paper and reading it in sequence. What is impossible is integrating the fact that disobedience preceded the fall with your interpretation of Total Depravity.

If the kicker is Romans 5:19, then the argument is over.

Other verses in the Bible (that I have already cited) make it clear that individuals are punished for their own sins and not Adam's sin of partaking of the fruit.

You incorrectly identify mortal life as Adam's punishment. The lasting punishment of the fall would be spiritual death, never to be rejoined with God, and physical death, never to be rejoined with the physical body.

Do you see the error? You think this life is the "punishment" but it was not punishment but TIME for Adam to repent. And so it is will all of us.

In order for Romans 5:19 to support your theory that all are inherent sin or are inherently guilty, verse 19 would have to declare that "all were made sinners" by Adam's disobedience and that "all will be made righteous." It doesn't say all and so you can't attach all of mankind to it.

In the New Testament when it declares, all have sinned, it refers to actions made by the individual and not Adam's guilt. So "all" can't be extrapolated here either.

In sum, there is no inherent sin that man is carrying in his genes. However, the children of adam carry the mark of disobedience: separation from God and inherent susceptibility to physical death. These are not SINS, they are EFFECTS of Adam’s disobedience. If man fails to repent in this life, then LASTING separation from God will occur. However, all men will be resurrected.

The doctrine of Total Depravity has a purpose. It is to DENY the necessity for personal repentance and obedience. It is a deceptive doctrine that keeps mankind in his “fallen state” by lulling him into blissful slothfulness which is not compatible with the message of obedience and diligence that Jesus himself required.

You wrote:
“I see the conclusion that you are drawing - that if Adam was perfect he wouldn't have disobeyed, and the logic ALMOST works, except that God is big enough to create a man both perfect AND with the ability to turn against him.”

This is completely incoherent. I am not drawing a conclusion. You claimed that our nature would be changed back into the nature wherein man will be perfect but capable of turning against God. You say it’s because God is big that he does this. So, based on your statement above therefore, your hope of a FUTURE nature like Adam’s is misplaced: look how it turned out last time: disobedience, sin, and the fall. Why can’t the Orthodox God create natures that won’t sin and still give man his choice, if his power and knowledge are unlimited? Your answer is “so he could do it His way” which means, so you don’t have to account for the multiplicity of contradictions between your interpretation and other Bible verses and coherent logic.

You also wrote:
Also, your final conclusion disregards one thing - God placed the choice in the garden for Adam. In the Kingdom to come (however that looks), there won't be a need for that choice - God will have fulfilled all things in His way.

This is another unrelated and incoherent response. Without free will and choice in the future, man will be an automaton – scripted. Without choices, there will be no freedom. However, we can already predicte the chaos that will follow in your heaven: the perfect nature that God creates for man results in disobedience and sin – we don’t have to wonder about that point.

Obviously, the claim that God created “perfect natures” for Adam and Eve cannot be reconciled with the events and the outcome of the garden. It does not fit the reality of what happened with Adam and Eve.

You wrote:
“"Entered" tells me that sin WASN'T there already. That death was brought in further emphasises the point - it shows that there is a direct correlation and that it WASN'T THERE BEFORE Adam sinned.”

Ryan, you are informed by your INTERPRETATION. You are making your interpretation FIT into the scripture, can’t you see it? Look at the logical sequence accordint to Romans 5:12:

First disobedience entered the word, second death, and third the death of all those who belong to Adam’s family. Get it?

First disobedience, then the fall second.

But this is exactly what I have been saying all along! You’re trying to argue that the FALL took place first, and then disobedience second. See the problem?

Your problem is that you’ve been teaching that the fall caused disobedience but your teachers and pastors didn’t think about how this “necessary causal relationship” occurred in Adam.

Like I said, all of this is not impossible. It is not hard or difficult to recognize that disobedience preceded the fall. What is hard is reconciling that fact with your doctrine of “inherited sin.” Your doctrine and the logical sequence of disobedience –then fall, then death – cannot be reconciled with your doctrine of “fall-then disobedience, then death.

See the error?

Ryan| 5.6.09 @ 8:20AM

---"Other verses in the Bible (that I have already cited) make it clear that individuals are punished for their own sins and not Adam's sin of partaking of the fruit. "

I don't argue against the matter that my sins are my own, and the verses you cited do not argue against a sin nature. These are not mutually exclusive ideas.

----"You incorrectly identify mortal life as Adam's punishment. The lasting punishment of the fall would be spiritual death, never to be rejoined with God, and physical death, never to be rejoined with the physical body. "

No real argument here from me - I just didn't state spiritual death.

----"In order for Romans 5:19 to support your theory that all are inherent sin or are inherently guilty, verse 19 would have to declare that "all were made sinners" by Adam's disobedience and that "all will be made righteous." It doesn't say all and so you can't attach all of mankind to it."

1. Then who gets attached? Are there "many" who are NEVER disobedient to God in their entire lives?
2. Verses 12 and 18 reference "all" here. It's pretty inclusive language. I'm not getting into universal salvation here - I don't think Paul is pointing toward that - but if you're going to use that interpretation of "many," you REALLY have to back it up with what it DOES mean if I'm wrong.

----"The doctrine of Total Depravity has a purpose. It is to DENY the necessity for personal repentance and obedience. It is a deceptive doctrine that keeps mankind in his “fallen state” by lulling him into blissful slothfulness which is not compatible with the message of obedience and diligence that Jesus himself required."

I challenge you to find a single major preacher or theologian who preaches and teaches this statement. It's the common absolute misconception of what those of us who believe in eternal security believe and practice. Paul refutes it, in fact:

Romans 10
1What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?
2God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?

----"Ryan, you are informed by your INTERPRETATION. You are making your interpretation FIT into the scripture, can’t you see it? Look at the logical sequence accordint to Romans 5:12:

First disobedience entered the word, second death, and third the death of all those who belong to Adam’s family. Get it?"

You still didn't refute my point - that sin WASN'T in the world before Adam's disobedience.

Maybe there needs to be a clarification here:

Did Adam sin in other ways before he disobeyed? If so, what scripture backs it up?

I think we went a little around on the wrong thing - I'm not arguing against that Adam's disobedience brought about the fall; I'm arguing that Adam's was without sin before he disobeyed. I perceive that you don't believe it, but looking at Genesis and Romans 5 together it appears that:

1. There was no sin, and therefore no death of any sort nor struggle before Adam's disobedience.
2. Adam's disobedience brought sin into the world, and it's punishment - death.
3. (The point we differ on) Adam passed down through mankind a sin nature, that ONLY God can save us from, and not anything we can do to lift ourselves out..

TomH| 5.6.09 @ 10:17AM

Ryan:

What we are debating is whether or not the doctrine of "Original sin" is valid or not.

We both agree that Adam and Eve were innocent in the garden and were sinless until they disobeyed. Their disobedience caused the fall. We both agree that we cannot truly do lasting good on our own without the atonement of Jesus Christ - the enabling power.

However, the issue at hand is "original sin." If you've read anything about Augustine's life prior to his becoming a churchman, you know that he lived a life of immorality. His overwhelming guilt and his regret for wasting so much time living a life of sin over took him and he later reasoned in life, erroneously, that he had no other choice in the matter.

Excerpt from http://www.jefflindsay.com/adam.shtml#orig

“An important theological issue is whether or not we are accountable for Adam's transgression. Do we share guilt in that original sin (i.e., the sin associated with the origin of man)? Concerning evangelical views on original sin, L. Ara Norwood in FARMS Review of Books (Vol. 9, No. 2, pp. 164-201) explains that "the source of this doctrine rests with the erroneous scriptural interpretation of Romans 5:12" from Augustine, as Professor Elaine Pagels details:

The Greek text reads, "Through one man [or 'because of one man,'] sin entered the world, and through sin, death, and thus death came upon all men, in that all sinned." John Chrysostom, like most Christians, took this to mean that Adam's sin brought death into the world, and death came upon all because "all sinned." But Augustine read the passage in Latin, and so either ignored or was unaware of the connotations of the Greek original; thus he misread the last phrase as referring to Adam. Augustine insisted that it meant that "death came upon all men, in whom all sinned" - that the sin of "one man," Adam, brought upon humanity not only universal death, but also universal, and inevitable, sin. Augustine uses the passage to deny that human beings have free moral choice, which Jews and Christians had traditionally regarded as the birthright of humanity made "in God's image." Augustine decrees, on the contrary, that the whole human race inherited from Adam a nature irreversibly damaged by sin...."

Augustine attempts to rest his case concerning original sin ... upon the evidence of one prepositional phrase in Romans 5:12, insisting that Paul said that death came upon all humanity because of Adam, "in whom all sinned. But Augustine misreads and mistranslates this phrase (which others translate "in that [i.e., because] all sinned") and then proceeds to defend his errors ad infinitum.... Augustine's argument has persuaded the majority of western Catholic and Protestant theologians to agree with him;... But, ... when we actually compare Augustine's interpretation with those of theologians as diverse as Origen, John Chrysostom, and Pelagius, we can see that Augustine found in Romans ... what others had not seen there. (Elaine Pagels, Adam, Eve, and the Serpent, New York: Random House, 1988, pp. 109 and 143, emphasis in the original, as cited by Norwood, pp. 187-188.)

Dr. Seth Farber writes of Augustine's doctrine of original sin in "The Reign of Augustine," The Christian Activist: A Journal of Orthodox Opinion, Vol. 13, Winter/Spring 1999, pp. 40-45,56:

Thus, according to Augustine, due to Adam's sin every person belongs to a "mass of perdition".... Augustine wrote, "The damned lump of humanity was lying prostrate. Nay, was wallowing in evil...." Augustine argues that infants who did not receive baptism would be condemned to suffer the torments of eternal punishment in hell. He wrote that no one who is born of Adam and Eve was "less a sinner than they were." ... "Everyone arising as he does from a condemned stock, is from the first necessarily evil and carnal through Adam." Because it was transmitted by natural propagation, "original sin was as universal and inevitable as life itself." Thus, Augustine writes, "The infant is bad: though little, he is already a great sinner."

Unfortunately, Augustine’s views prevailed and in the 6th century, they were formally canonized by the Council of Trent.

Farber also writes of Luther's views on original guilt (ibid., p. 41):

Like Augustine, Luther denied that God willed the salvation of all human beings [in contrast, see 1 Tim. 2:4, for which Augustine said the "all" only referred to the predestined saved ones], and he asserted that He "saved so few and damned so many." Luther's explanation for this is similar to that of Augustine: By not granting salvation to all, God shows us that His grace cannot be taken for granted.... Like Augustine, Luther conceived God as a majestic sovereign, to whose arbitrary fiat human beings - at least those who are predestined to be saved - ought to succumb in fear, in reverence, and in gratitude.

Luther asserted that original sin had completely abnegated freedom of the will, which was now entirely in bondage to sin, and "not free to strive toward whatever is declared good." He stated that man "neither does the good nor is capable of it in the absence of grace." (Farber, p. 41)

Farber also explains Calvin's position:

Like Augustine and Luther, Calvin believed that man's nature was altered and irreparably damaged by original sin. He stated, "Infants bring their own damnation with them from their mothers' wombs; the moment they are born, their natures are odious and abominable to God." (p. 41)

In the Eastern Christian tradition, Orthodoxy, the misanthropic concept of original sin never became entrenched. As Farber explains, "The source of evil lies in the freedom of man. Sin is not in the nature of humanity but is entirely an act of will. Sin is sin because it is voluntary. Otherwise God would not condemn us for it" (p. 44).

In LDS doctrine, free will is a vital gift from God - but a dangerous gift that makes evil possible. God wants all of us to be saved, but does not force us to accept Him. We must choose. Infants are free from guilt and are saved in the glories of heaven if they die before becoming accountable. In fact, they're precious, clean, and cute, not "odious." The Fall of Adam affects us all in bringing spiritual death (sin) and temporal death (which can be understood as physical death or, in what may be a preferred interpretation, our physical separation from God here in mortality--see "The Earth and Man" by James Talmage). But we are accountable for our own actions, not for Adam's. Byron R. Merrill explains (ibid.):

While The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints teaches that the transgression of Adam and Eve brought death into the world and made all mortals subject to temptation, suffering, and weakness, it denies that any culpability is automatically transmitted to Adam and Eve's offspring. All mortals commit sin, but they will be punished "for their own sins, and not for Adam's transgression" (A of F 2)....

Latter-day Saints believe that infants inherit certain effects of the Fall, but not the responsibility for any sin as a result of Adam's or Eve's transgression. From the foundation of the world, the Atonement of Jesus Christ makes amends "for the sins of those who have fallen by the transgression of Adam" (Mosiah 3:11). Therefore, baptism is not needed until children reach a state of accountability, generally at the age of eight years, for little children cannot sin and are innocent.... They are redeemed from the beginning by the grace of Jesus Christ (D&C 29:46-47), whose Atonement cleanses them of the effects of the Fall (D&C 137:10). The Prophet Mormon wrote the following words of Christ: "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" (Moroni 8:8).

In one account in the Pearl of Great Price, Adam learned that he had been forgiven for his transgression in the Garden of Eden, and that "the Son of God hath atoned for original guilt, wherein the sins of the parents cannot be answered upon the heads of the children" (Moses 6:54). However, as a consequence of the Fall, evil is present in the world and all "children are conceived in sin, [and] so when they begin to grow up, sin conceiveth in their hearts, and they taste the bitter, that they may know to prize the good" (Moses 6:55). Begetting children in marriage is not a sin (cf. Heb. 13:4), but the propensity for sin is inherited. “

No mortal person bears the burden of repenting for Adam's transgression. Nevertheless, all inherit the effects of the Fall: All leave the presence of God at birth, all are subject to physical death, and all will sin in some measure. From the moment of conception, the body inherits the seed of mortality that will eventually result in death, but only as a person becomes accountable and chooses evil over good do personal sins result in further separation from God. Thus Adam was counseled: "Wherefore teach it unto your children, that all men, everywhere, must repent, or they can in nowise inherit the kingdom of God, for no unclean thing can dwell there" (Moses 5:57).

The Fall of Adam made the Atonement necessary for in our fallen state, we all sin individually and are subject to temporal death (or physical separation from God) as well. In fact, the Book of Mormon actually makes it clear that humans are incapable of doing good on their own, due to our fallen nature, and that we must be changed by the power of Christ to be able to follow Him. For details, see "Cry Redemption: The Plan of Redemption as Taught in the Book of Mormon" by Corbin T. Volluz (FARMS Review of Books, Vol. 3, No. 1, 1994, pp. 148-169). It is only through the Atonement of Christ and HIs merits and grace that we have any hope of returning to the Father.

The Lord revealed to Adam that "the Son of God hath atoned for original guilt" so that little children were not evil, but were "whole from the foundation of the world" (Moses 6:54). Thus, "every spirit of man was innocent in the beginning; and God having redeemed man from the fall, men became again, in their infant state, innocent before God" (Doctrine and Covenants 93:38). Thus, little children are redeemed from the Fall and need not be baptized, but as we become accountable, we each fall into sin and need to be born again. (Little children do not have knowledge of good and evil, as stated in Deut. 1:39, and thus aren't accountable yet and do not fall into sin.) "

So Ryan, it comes down to whether or not the nature to sin was already a part of Adam's consciousness prior to the fall.

The evidence shows that the nature to sin was already inherent in Adam before the fall and was not a result of the fall.

Therefore, all of humanity was not cursed with a nature to sin, as it existed/exists in every living soul.

You continue to argue that there was no "sin" before the fall. We agree. There was no sin because Adam and Eve obeyed.

However, the nature to sin preceded the fall and was not a result of the fall and therefore the necessary causal relationship with the nature to sin and the fall, found in Calvinism has no foundation.

Ryan| 5.6.09 @ 1:46PM

If Adam had a sin nature, then how did he avoid sinning before he ate the fruit? How could it have not manifested itself if it was his "nature," his inclination?

How could Paul write that sin had "entered" if Adam had a pre-fall sin nature? Does that not mean that sin had already "entered?"

The problem (and the great thing), I think, that original sin brings about is that it makes us not only wholly unable to reach for Christ (which people don't like the idea of); but it also makes our sin that much more abhorrent.

It's also an affront to me thinking that I can do anything about my own salvation, that somehow I can determine whether or not I'll let God save me.

Frankly, I don't see how a God who lets me determine my salvation is God at all.

BTW, I've been using what has typically been called the best word-for-word translation by Biblical scholars, the NASB version, which uses "because."

On another point, I'm more or less in agreeance with the "age of accountability" idea; however, I rest in that I believe in a God Who does what is good and right in any and all cases, no matter my opinion on the subject.

TomH| 5.6.09 @ 6:17PM

Ryan:

You r questions:

1. If Adam had a sin nature, then how did he avoid sinning before he ate the fruit?

Ryan, Adam didn’t avoid sinning. He disobeyed in the garden. You’re asking an immaterial question about the time period between when he was placed in the garden and when he disobeyed. Such is not known and irrelevant. Why? Neither his nature, God’s admonitions, God’s stated consequences for sin, or the Tree of life could keep Adam from sinning. The commandments in the garden, as far as we know, were two-fold: 1) multiple and replenish the earth (procreate) and 2) do not eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. What other commandments would he have broken during the “time period” in question?

2. How could it have not manifested itself if it was his "nature," his inclination?

Answer: It did manifest itself. Both Adam and Eve sinned before the fall occurred and their time in the garden was cut short.

3. How could Paul write that sin had “entered” if Adam had a pre-fall sin nature?

Paul doesn’t believe in inherited sin. He can say that “sin” entered the world with Adam’s disobedient act because it is true. Paul is not limited by Calvinistic interpretations. The disobedient act of Adam brought the consequences of death into the world. Paul is not referring to an inheritance of sins, he’s referring to an inheritance of death. Since Adam was cast out into the world from the garden, Adam’s nature was doomed to produce more disobedience or weakness of will.

4. Does that not mean that sin had already entered the world?

I am going to take you at your word that you are genuinely struggling with this very self-evident concept and answer you sincerely. No. Adam’s disobedience is when sin entered the world. There is no such thing as inherited sinful nature through the fall Ryan. However, there is such a thing as INHERENT weakness toward disobedience. I think this is where you’re making your error and where you may be confused – the difference between “inherent spiritual weakness “ and “inherited” physical traits. Let’ me put it another way. The moment Adam and Eve were placed in the garden they were destined to eat of the fruit of knowledge of good and evil. Why? Their ability to always choose the good was not perfect. They could see between good and evil and they were free to choose between them but they were susceptible to deception and error. This is apart of all spirit entities that come from God’s presence.

5. Original sin brings about is that it makes us not only wholly unable to reach for Christ (which people don't like the idea of); but it also makes our sin that much more abhorrent.

Ryan, the concept of original sin is not what makes a person wholly unable to reach for Christ. Spiritual and physical death, the effects of the fall make a personal wholly unable to receive Salvation without Jesus Christ and his atonement. If given the chance, all mankind IS ABLE to “reach for” (cry unto, search for, think on, read about, pay to) Jesus Christ, as all mankind has been or will be invited to him through the preaching of the word of God in this life or the next.

You also wrote:
It's also an affront to me thinking that I can do anything about my own salvation, that somehow I can determine whether or not I'll let God save me.

Mormonism teaches that the reason you are powerless to save “yourself” is because by your own efforts you are unable to overcome spiritual death on your own (the resurrection is a universal gift to all of Adam’s children from Jesus Christ). All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. God has called all men to be saved. He hasn’t left out anyone to be saved. However, it is the choice of the individual to receive salvation through faith, repentance, baptism and enduring to the end in faith. This is just, fair, generous, and be fitting a God who loves ALL of his children. It preserves his integrity of a God who is no respecter of persons. A God who doesn’t desire to save all of his children cannot be trusted. 1 Timothy 2:4 Bears this out:

1 Timothy 2:4
3 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour;
4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.

A God who wills that all men be saved provides the necessary reality in which all men can be saved, but does not FORCE all men to be saved, because of moral agency. God will save the maximum number possible but it is the humility and willingness of man to come unto God that will determine the number. Such is the necessary nature of moral agency (or what you call free will), the nature of man, and the nature of God.

Ryan| 5.8.09 @ 9:43AM

"What other commandments would he have broken during the “time period” in question?"

Is sin limited to just the commandments that Adam was given? Was lust, or hatred, or contempt, or any similar sins not yet sin at that point?
If sin was already in the world, how could Adam escape it at all?

"Paul doesn’t believe in inherited sin. He can say that “sin” entered the world with Adam’s disobedient act because it is true. Paul is not limited by Calvinistic interpretations. The disobedient act of Adam brought the consequences of death into the world. Paul is not referring to an inheritance of sins, he’s referring to an inheritance of death. Since Adam was cast out into the world from the garden, Adam’s nature was doomed to produce more disobedience or weakness of will. "

I profoundly disagree with you here, because the word "entered" denotes something that wasn't there before; if sin was in Adam, then the use of the word "entered" by Paul would be wrong, and the entire discourse in Romans 5 would have needed to be written differently. Paul NEVER talks about any sin that existed before Adam's fall - he doesn't refer to it in any case!

The argument that you're making on whether or not sin was in Adam before the fall is inferred from your theology, rather than directly referred from in scripture. About the only place you may be able to draw it from is the moment Adam disobeys.

You're also dealing with a problem in Romans 7
17So now, no longer am I the one doing it, but sin which dwells in me.
18For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh; for the willing is present in me, but the doing of the good is not.

"Their ability to always choose the good was not perfect. They could see between good and evil and they were free to choose between them but they were susceptible to deception and error. "

You're a bit wrong here - Adam and Eve could NOT see because it was called the "tree of KNOWLEDGE of good and evil." They couldn't discern and always had perfect motives in all their actions before they ate. They could NOT, as you put it, "see between good and evil" because they hadn't EATEN and gained the knowledge to see at that point.

"If given the chance, all mankind IS ABLE to “reach for” (cry unto, search for, think on, read about, pay to) Jesus Christ, as all mankind has been or will be invited to him through the preaching of the word of God in this life or the next."

What scripture points toward my own ability to reach for Christ on my own?

"He hasn’t left out anyone to be saved."

Romans 9:22 What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction?

1 Tim 2:3-4 needs a bit deeper context - the "all people" Paul is talking about is a VERY general sense of the term, when you look at 1 Tim 1, he's talking about praying for "all men," even those who don't follow Christ (as a couple didn't in I Tim 1).

Particularly in light of his other writings, such as Romans 9, there has to be a correlation - I Tim 2 doesn't disprove statements like Paul's "vessels of wrath," so they have to be complementary. The way that works is if I Tim 2:4 is a very general statement.

Speaking of Romans 9, I'd REALLY like to see the Mormon explanation of it, because I used it in response to you several times without you really defending it well.

"God will save the maximum number possible but it is the humility and willingness of man to come unto God that will determine the number."

Where in scripture does it state such? Where in scripture does it state that God doesn't know who or how many will come to Him?

Here's another question that we've bounced around a little bit, but I don't know if we concluded.

Where does sin come from? How does God have moral authority to condemn it? By what standard is sin actually sin?

TomH| 5.12.09 @ 5:52PM

Ryan:

I stand firmly behind what I said before:
"Their ability to always choose the good was not perfect. They could see between good and evil (that God said to multiply and that he said not to partake of the fruit) and they were free to choose between them. Is this not true? You’re confusing 1) they could see some of the good from evil with they could see MORE of the good from the evil, when they partook of it. To say that they could not see ANY good from the evil is to have God giving instructions to Adam and Eve that they could not understand. As an example of their ability to understand, God commanded Adam and Eve to take care of the garden.

(It’s like giving a child a loaded gun and placing it in its hands and say don’t pull that trigger right there. Out of curiosity or due to memory failure, the child pulls the trigger and kills someone. Then you have the child punished.) As an example,

Examine these questions:

1. Did Adam and Eve have a free moral will to choose between good and evil? Yes.
2. Did God make it clear to them what they could do and what they could not do? Yes.
3. Did he tell them to take care of the garden? Yes.
4. Did he tell them to multiple and replenish the earth? Yes.
5. Did he tell them to not partake of the tree of knowledge of good and evil? Yes.
6. Did they recognize them as commandments? Yes.
7. Did God make Adam and Eve originally in a perfect state – both their spiritual essence and their physical essence (your tradition)? Yes.

If number 7, then why didn’t they continue to obey, if a pre-existing flaw didn’t already exist in their spiritual and physical bodies?

What was the flaw? Their ability to always choose the good. Was it there from the beginning? Yes. Therefore, number 7 cannot be true as stated, and Adam and Eve had a pre-exiting condition that directly led to their disobedience. THIS WAS NOT A CONSEQUENCE OF THE FALL – IT CAUSED THE FALL.

After disobedience, mankind INHERITED physical death and since Adam and Eve were cast out of the garden into the world, the spiritual separation has remained.

Then, Adam and Eve’s children, now subject to spiritual and physical death, would also make the SAME inevitable mistakes: failing to always choose the good (a pre-existing condition to all beings placed on earth by God.)

Obedient and Disobedient nature is pre-existing in all spiritual beings before the world was made and after the world was made. The only way to escape disobedient nature is to change personal desires away from disobedience, and learn to choose the good through the grace of Jesus Christ.

Like I said before, Calvin, and others, doctrinally confused the INHERENT weakness in weaker spiritual beings (to fail to always choose the good ) with INHERITED physical traits. An INHERENT spiritual weakness is NOT passed on from father to son or mother to daughter. God creates every soul that enters a living body. It is innocent before God. What a spiritual being inherits are the physical traits of its parent, not the spiritual weaknesses of Adam and Eve. Why? The ability to ALWAYS choose the good is something that is acquired through experience – mortal experience and by partnering with God.

Other issues:
1 Tim 2:3 is a very clear and indisputable statement that God wants all to be saved – not in an abstract way but in a very particular and personal away for every spiritual being he has created. Otherwise, the statement: “God is no respecter of persons” makes him partial to one being over another for no reason except his moods swings.

Romans 9:22-23 does not claim that the sovereignty of God “fitted” one soul for destruction and another for salvation. What a horrible God yours must be! To have unlimited power and knowledge and to PURPOSELY “fit” a soul for eternal pain, anguish and horrible misery is one of the most contradictions of love and mercy that can ever be made. Ryan, my friend. Listen to yourself. Awake from the chains of hell my friend. What does Peter say in Acts 10:34? “God is no respector of persons.” This DIRECTLY contradicts the idea that God’s sovereign will FITTED one for destruction and another for salvation. Verse 35… every person “that feareth [God] and worketh righteousness, is accepted by [God].

Need the word from Paul? Look at Romans 2. who says:
2: Judgement against those who COMMIT evil.
5. Hardest of heart and impentitent of heart leads to WRATH (not sovereign inherent fitting)
6: God will impart destruction or salvation according to his DEEDS.
8: contentiousness, disobedience, unrighteousness reaps indignation and WRATH
9: The man who COMMITS evil receives tribulation and anguish.
10 To every man who WORKETH good, God blesses with glory, honor, and peace.
11 THEFORE, GOD IS NO RESPECTER OF PERSONS.

Your claim that Romans 9:22-23 is evidence for a God who fits some beings for salvation and others for destruction, cannot be harmonized with Romans 2:1-12. It is clear that the sinner FITS himself for destruction and makes himself a “vessel of wrath.”

Now read Paul’s words in 1 Tim 2:3-4in light of Romans 2:1-12:
3 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour;
4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.

God WILLS that all men be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. God’s knowledge of who will come unto him notwithstanding, does not FIT someone for wrath or salvation. Such knowledge does not destroy his will that ALL men be saved (1 Tim 2:3). His knowledge informs him of who is WILLING to be saved. In order for God to fit SOME for wrath means that he doesn’t will that ALL men be saved. This would be a contradiction in HIS will.

Such a contradiction proves that your doctrine is false.

You asked what is sin?

1. Answer: Disobedience to God’s commandments. Sin describes an act of will by human beings that directly contradicts God’s commandments.
2. You asked: “where does sin come from?”
3. Disobedience to God’s commandments. The cause of sin is disobedience. What comes first? Disobedience or sin? Disobedience.
4. Where did Adam’s sin come from? His disobedience.
5. Why did Adam and Eve disobey? They were unable to always choose the good.
6. Why was Adam unable to choose the good? He was spiritually weak.
7. Why was Adam spiritually weak? It was the nature of his spirit (as created by God – your tradition)
8. In your tradition, God is ultimately responsible for sin, since he created the INHERENT weakness in Adam and Eve’s spiritual consciousness.

How does God have moral authority to condemn sin?

Our purpose is to be happy. Our ultimate purpose is to experience joy forever.
God has knowledge of everything necessary for him to shape the universe and our earth life. He understands all of the necessary elements of it. He is the most intelligent being in existence. God creates for purposes consistent with their identities. God’s motives are good. God knows what is inherently good for our spiritual identities and what is not good. God consistently acts according to these truths and creates a reality consistent with them. Because man is weak and does not have the knowledge that God has, he provides knowledge of the laws of existence. When we break these laws, there is an eternal consequence that God cannot change except through the mercy of the atonement (which paid the demands of justice). Justice is real and inevitable- God does not alter justice.

• God cannot have moral authority to condemn sin if he could have prevented sin and didn’t.

• God cannot have moral authority if he created personal consciousnesses that willfully disobeyed when he has all knowledge and power to create personal consciousness that always obey.

• God cannot have moral authority to condemn sin when he could have created a sinless universe but failed to act according to his highest values. Such a being cannot be trusted or worshiped.

Disobedience preceded the fall, meaning that INHERENT spiritual weakness already existed in Adam and Eve and was not CREATED by the fall.

Therefore, Inherited sin is a false doctrine.

Ryan| 5.13.09 @ 9:19AM

"If number 7, then why didn’t they continue to obey, if a pre-existing flaw didn’t already exist in their spiritual and physical bodies?"

Because it doesn't necessarily flow that a perfect creation cannot disobey. When God created man, it was the first thing He called "very good." Interestingly enough, Christ stated in Luke 18:19 "And Jesus said to him, "Why do you call Me good? No one is good except God alone." (stated post-fall).

God CAN create something that is both Perfect AND with the ability to turn against Him. That's why He's God. Simply because we believe that it contradicts doesn't make it untrue with God - something it appears the Mormon theology cannot accept.

1 Tim 2:1-4 has an issue - either it means that all men - including those who don't come to Christ - will be saved, or it has to mean something else. Scripture in various other places states that there is judgment for sinners. If you're going to get that literal, then does it truly mean ALL men, or just some will be saved?

---"Romans 9:22-23 does not claim that the sovereignty of God “fitted” one soul for destruction and another for salvation. What a horrible God yours must be! To have unlimited power and knowledge and to PURPOSELY “fit” a soul for eternal pain, anguish and horrible misery is one of the most contradictions of love and mercy that can ever be made."

Then what does it mean? Where is man the one in control in the following verses?

21Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use?
22What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction?
23And He did so to make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory..."

----"It is clear that the sinner FITS himself for destruction and makes himself a “vessel of wrath.”

The verse doesn't say that. It says that God does it. If man did it, then who is the potter?

You are correct. God IS horrible. He is horrible in His judgment of sin, horrible in His condemnation of sinners, in giving us what we deserve....and yet still remain Sovereign, and yet I am STILL responsible for my sin.

And yet He lifts me and HE turns my head toward Him. That is His mercy and His love - that I CANNOT do anything good without Him. Sin is that awful, and God is that merciful.

Acts 10:34-35, "34 Opening his mouth, Peter said: "I most certainly understand now that God is not one to show partiality,
35but in every nation the man who fears Him and does what is right is welcome to Him."

Peter is talking to Jews, essentially stating that salvation can come to those who are not Jewish. But to fear God, I have to know Who He is. How can I know unless God reveals Himself? How can I trust and worship a god who does NOT define everything because he does not self-exist?

How can God have the moral authority to condemn sin if sin is defined outside of Himself? How can I know that He is right and just to condemn sin if He cannot define it - if He is NOT the ultimate Good?

How can God be God if He cannot define sin simply by His own goodness?

"• God cannot have moral authority to condemn sin if he could have prevented sin and didn’t.

• God cannot have moral authority if he created personal consciousnesses that willfully disobeyed when he has all knowledge and power to create personal consciousness that always obey.

• God cannot have moral authority to condemn sin when he could have created a sinless universe but failed to act according to his highest values. Such a being cannot be trusted or worshiped. "

Can these three points work if God is Sovereign, ultimate, and His ways are not our own? Why should I have the authority to define what God can and cannot do?

Can a contradiction in man necessarily be a contradiction with God?

TomH| 5.13.09 @ 1:06PM

Ryan:

Do you recall in the beginning of our conversation when I said we need to make an appeal to existence? When someone makes an appeal solely to their personal consciousness about this or that concept, then ANYTHING can be believed.

Your rhetorical response (asking questions that you are unable to harmonize with existence) does not constitute evidence for your position.

In essence, you want others to believe what you believe because you say your belief is possible. But where is it possible? Only in your mind - where contradictions are ignored and integrated as truth.

You wrote:
“God CAN create something that is both Perfect AND with the ability to turn against Him. That's why He's God. Simply because we believe that it contradicts doesn't make it untrue with God - something it appears the Mormon theology cannot accept.”

Mormon theology embraces all truth. Truth is not contradictory to itself. Do you see the problem?

In essence, this is your doctrine:

1. God created the personal will of Adam and Eve.
2. The will of Adam and Eve is both wholly perfect and imperfect at the same time.
Therefore, the doctrine of inherited sin is true.

By the law of non-contradiction your premise (number 2) is false and your conclusion is false.

1 Tim 2:1-4 says that God WILLS that all men be saved. That is his will. He desires all men to be saved. Your doctrine of men intentionally fitted for destruction by God is a direct contradiction of this scripture. You say it doesn’t mean that. You say that it means something else. You say it does not contradict your believe that God does NOT will that all men be saved because in your docrine God wills that some be MADE vessels of wrath.

So again…

1. 1 Tim 2:3-4 states “For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.”
2. Ryan states that Romans 9:22-23 states that God does NOT will that al men be saved but that some be made vessels of wrath (NOT saved) intentionally.
3. Therefore, inherited sin is true.

However, by the law of non-contradiction your premise (numbers 1 and 2) is false and your conclusion is false.

Around and around we go, when does it stop? Nobody knows.

Appeals to your interpretation based alone on your personal views, do not instantiate your interpretation. Do you understand fully what I am saying here?

Look at it this way, even if you make an appeal to the collective consciousness of all Christians, your view is in the minority. How can you claim that it is correct? Appeals to consciousness alone are subjective. This is why we need an appeal to existence.

In the garden, what came first? Disobedience or sin? The answer? Disobedience of will that lead to a disobedient act (sin).

Disobedience has primacy over sin because it is first. Disobedience came into existence because Adam and Eve did not choose the good. Why didn’t they choose the good? Because their spiritual will was weak – a preexisting condition. (In our tradition, God INTENTIONALLY made Adam and Eve this way; in my faith, the will of Adam and Eve was not created by God.)

Therefore, in their pre-fallen state Adam and Eve were already capable of willful disobedience; it was just a matter of time. To what do we attribute this flaw? Since Adam and Eve had not yet eaten the fruit, the acting out of a choice to disobey (inherent weakness) was already there.

It is therefore IMPOSSIBLE for the FALL to CAUSE an inherited sinful nature, as such a nature already existed in Adam and Eve before the fall. Disobedience caused sin, and sin caused the fall. Sin entered the world and the fall occurred. How did sin enter the world? Through a disobedient will.

When men and women are born to earth life, within their consciousness is the inherent weakness to NOT be able to always choose the good. This is NOT a result of the fall but is a part of inherent spiritual identity that pre-existed before the person came to earth and entered a human body.

How do we know? Adam and Eve had a nature of disobedient will before the fall occurred. When did it FIRST manifest itself? In the garden - first with Eve and then Adam.

Adam introduced disobedience to the world but did not CREATE disobedient nature. (In my faith it always existed, in your faith, God created it.)

However, Calvin erred when he thought it meant that all of the children of Adam inherited a “disobedient” nature because of his introduction of a sinful act. Huge error.

Calvin erred by equivocating the nature to disobey with the nature to die physically or to be separated from God. (You have made no arguments or have not addressed how disobedience wasn’t first.)

So, what IS inherited from Adam? Separation from God and fallen physical bodies – the conditions known as spiritual death and physical death. Sin is NOT inherited from Adam. The inevitability of disobedience is a PRE-EXISTING CONDITION in every spiritual being (you say it is created and I say its always existed). Every person is responsible ONLY for their own personal acts of disobedience. You confuse disobedience, sin, and death and equivocate them all into an abstract concept wherein their definitions and meanings are so convoluted they cannot be distinguished. Why? When we distinguish them is when we can identify that the doctrine of inherited sin is false.

On God and moral authority:

You wrote:
“How can God have the moral authority to condemn sin if sin is defined outside of Himself? How can I know that He is right and just to condemn sin if He cannot define it - if He is NOT the ultimate Good? How can God be God if He cannot define sin simply by His own goodness? “
And
“Can these three points work if God is Sovereign, ultimate, and His ways are not our own? Why should I have the authority to define what God can and cannot do?”

In order to answer this, let’s identify man’s ways:

1. Humans are not sovereign.
2. Humans are not the ultimate good.

How do we know 1 and 2? The experience of man in the garden and our own personal experience identify the two truths above. No authority is required to declare the two points above – they are self-evident.

Let’s identify God’s ways that you say have been revealed by traditional Christianity:

1. God is sovereign and the ultimate good.
2. God’s definition of sin cannot be found outside himself.
3. God’s goodness defines sin. (I assume you mean that everything outside God’s definition of goodness is sin.)
4. Only goodness exists in God.
5. Everything outside God’s goodness is sin.
6. As the ultimate good, God defines sin.
7. Anything not in agreement with God’s goodness is sin.
8. Sin is evil.
9. Only a Sovereign God can accomplish anything.
10. God only creates things consistent with his goodness.
11. The ultimate good perfectly acts according to the highest values of good and prevents all evil- always. Otherwise it is not the ultimate good, it is SOMETHING else.
12. However, your God failed to prevent all evil (either because he is not sovereign or because he is not the ultimate good.)

Conclusions:

13. Therefore, by the law of non-contradiction, (1, 10-11) your God cannot be identified as the ultimate good or as the ultimate sovereign – he is something different altogether.
14. By the law of non-contradiction, (2 &5) the location or origination of sin is either in God’s mind or outside God’s mind.
15. By the law of non-contradiction, (7, 10, 12) God created a reality inconsistent with his ultimate goodness (no evil or sin).

Through the process above, I did not claim “authority” to define what God can and cannot do. I properly identified that, in your tradition, God is sovereign (unlimited power and knowledge) and is the ultimate good (omnibeneficient.)

Your rhetorical question of “can these points work?” cannot be harmonized with the structure and nature of truth. Truth is not contradictory and therefore, when the premises contain contradiction, they are false.

Then you wrote:
“Can a contradiction in man necessarily be a contradiction with God?”

Man doesn’t have the contradiction. The true God doesn’t embody the contradiction. Your premises contain the contradiction.

Your response is: this contradiction must be the result of our misunderstanding of God’s ways. To which I respond, yes it is. Your understanding of God creates glaring contradictions. The contradiction identifies the falsehood. You can’t rhetorically speak your way out of this one.

In Mormonism, God self-exists and acts consistent with his highest values at all times. He can identify all sin without any difficulty at all. Because he is the most intelligent being, he institutes laws that are consistent with his nature, the nature of all spiritual beings and their everlasting joy. God obeys all laws at all times. It is consistent with his nature. These do not restrict God’s power, they enable him to do all things that are consistent with his highest values.

The contradictions of the Orthodox Christian God:
1. Eternal sovereignty but only a beginner creator 6000 years ago. (Eternally and internally inconsistent)
2. Eternally omnipotent, but unable to create an existence wherein only the ultimate good exists. (Eternally and internally inconsistent)
3. Eternally the ultimate good, but unable to prevent or destroy evil. (Eternally and internally inconsistent.)

Around and around we go, when will it stop? Nobody knows.

Unless you’re ready to make an appeal to existence Ryan, there’s no point in circular chases of your appeals to personal consciousness alone.

Ryan| 5.14.09 @ 8:25AM

---"Mormon theology embraces all truth. Truth is not contradictory to itself. Do you see the problem?"

The problem I see is that Mormon theology attempts to try and explain everything, without the realization that there might actually be a few things unexplainable. It, in a sense, tries to make God too small.

Truth isn't contradictory, but where are we promised to completely understand Truth in this life? Where do we get any authority to define truth?
"John 14:6 Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me."

You mis-interpreted something:
"2. The will of Adam and Eve is both wholly perfect and imperfect at the same time."

I never stated it was imperfect - you extrapolate that. Their wills were limited, not imperfect. There's a difference. Christ was limited in a similar fashion, except that He was able to live sinlessly...and we never say that His will was "imperfect."

When we speak about I Tim 2 and Romans 9, which passages are supposed to take precedence? Is either passage more important than the other? How is Romans 9 supposed to be interpreted?
Am I supposed to believe that every man is going to be saved, and THEN go to Romans 9 and interpret it some other way?
Do you see the problem?

In Biblical interpretation, we cannot come with pre-supposed ideas. We HAVE to find out how the verses correlate, NOT how one takes precedence over another. The Bible is true in ALL its parts, and there aren't differing levels of truth.

So either the breakdown is:
1. God wills everyone everywhere at all times to come to know Him - which contradicts the whole "vessels of wrath" idea.
2. "All men" is a more general statement than specific. Typically when the Bible speaks of every human, it's VERY general - such as John 3:16-18, where it talks of God loving the world, but then next states that some will be condemned because of their unbelief.
3. Is there a third meaning that I am missing?

Ryan| 5.14.09 @ 9:24AM

--Continuing--

"Calvin erred by equivocating the nature to disobey with the nature to die physically or to be separated from God. (You have made no arguments or have not addressed how disobedience wasn’t first.) "

Probably because I'm equivocating disobedience with sin - the first act of disobedience was the first sin. It wasn't created by Adam, but was permitted by God.

---"11. The ultimate good perfectly acts according to the highest values of good and prevents all evil- always. Otherwise it is not the ultimate good, it is SOMETHING else.

Here's the assumption that you keep making - that ultimate good with ultimate power MUST PREVENT evil from occurring because it has the power to do so. Biblically, we don't find this. Job essentially asked the same question, and God rebuked him. Here is point where we particularly clash in theology.

Scripture plainly teaches that God's ways our not our own, and that God's wisdom is bafflement to us at times. He IS Truth, not just the one Who understands it best. He is True, combined with the ability to MAKE things True.

If He had said, "Let there be light," and light didn't come forth, it would have made Him a liar...but He can't lie....so there was light.

In a similar fashion, He has made us with wills of our own and still foreknows Who we are and what we will become, because of His plan to glorify Himself.

"In Mormonism, God self-exists and acts consistent with his highest values at all times. He can identify all sin without any difficulty at all. Because he is the most intelligent being, he institutes laws that are consistent with his nature, the nature of all spiritual beings and their everlasting joy. God obeys all laws at all times. It is consistent with his nature. These do not restrict God’s power, they enable him to do all things that are consistent with his highest values."

What you DIDN'T state above is that God DEFINES sin...therefore something else must define sin. What is it? It seems that Mormon theology simply is based around the matter that God is simply "smart enough," but yet I don't see any overarching principle that sets a STANDARD in and of itself.

If sin is defined as sin, there must be a good to define it, with some sort of authority behind that good. If God does not set that standard in and of Himself because He KNOWS good, not just IS good, where does His knowledge come from and how can I trust that His knowledge is perfect? How can I trust that He isn't fooling me with some arbitrary standard that I cannot live up to, when there may be something else out there that I can follow?

"1. Eternal sovereignty but only a beginner creator 6000 years ago. (Eternally and internally inconsistent)
---Would such a God have to start somewhere (btw, I'm not a strict creationist, but I won't be surprised whatever the final answer is on creation.)
2. Eternally omnipotent, but unable to create an existence wherein only the ultimate good exists. (Eternally and internally inconsistent)
---Do you even consider that God may have a higher purpose for allowing evil to exist? That maybe He can show His glory even greater by allowing evil to come about, and THEN dealing with it, proving that He can defeat and overcome evil? Paul actually explains this in Romans 9 when he talks about God's purposes with vessels of wrath and mercy!
3. Eternally the ultimate good, but unable to prevent or destroy evil. (Eternally and internally inconsistent.)
---Scripture shows that God defeats all evil in the end.
Rev 21: 3And I heard a loud voice from the throne, saying, "Behold, the tabernacle of God is among men, and He will dwell among them, and they shall be His people, and God Himself will be among them,
4and He will wipe away every tear from their eyes; and there will no longer be any death; there will no longer be any mourning, or crying, or pain; the first things have passed away."
5And He who sits on the throne said, "Behold, I am making all things new " And He said, "Write, for these words are faithful and true."

"Unless you’re ready to make an appeal to existence Ryan, there’s no point in circular chases of your appeals to personal consciousness alone. "

Honestly, I think that I HAVE been making such an appeal, but you keep trying to mark it down to "an appeal of consciousness." I've been working with the scripture that you've been handing me, and I've been doing my best NOT to go with just personal interpretation, but allowing the scripture to speak for itself, and use other parts of scripture to aid in interpretation and looking at the Bible as a whole, even with the more difficult issues. I've particularly challenged you in one area that you haven't given a sound theological answer for, which I think you accosted yourself decently in Genesis 1.

Romans 9 - you've essentially stated that "it can't mean that because of Timothy," but you haven't dove into the Romans 9 to state what it DOES mean and why.

TomH| 5.14.09 @ 1:04PM

Ryan:

Let’s summarize:

You assert that the concept of inherited sin and predetermined salvation of some, and the predetermined damnation of the rest was EXPLICITLY taught in the New Testament and therefore should be believed today. You cite Romans 9, among other scriptures as evidence of this. However, this premise has many flaws including:

1. According to early Christian writings, the concept of Original sin was not a tenant of original Christianity, therefore, by what authority do you add it to the canon now?
2. Christian history has shown that the seeds of the Original Sin concept was later ADDED to Christian tradition by Augustine and more fully formulated by John Calvin. Who gave Augustine and Calvin authority to add this new concept to the canon now?
3. Materially, the concept of Original sin or inherited sinful nature, according to the events in the garden, it is impossible for Adam to have sinned without first exercising disobedience of will. Therefore, within the nature of spiritual consciousness, the nature of man’s LIMITED will was revealed. Whether by deliberate creation or eternal nature, within the spiritual consciousness of man is the INHERENT flaw and weakness to not be able to always choose the good – sin is inevitable. Therefore, the FALL didn’t cause man’s weak will – it is a natural feature of his spiritual consciousness. This ALONE refutes the concept of inherited sin.
4. The concept of God deliberately creating some spiritual consciousnesses for salvation and others for damnation (vessels of wrath) is a contradiction of 1 Tim 2:3-4; God desires that all men be saved, and therefore has created EVERY spirit to be capable of salvation. God has called all men to salvation.
5. The concept of God deliberately creating some spiritual consciousnesses as “vessels of wrath” is a contradiction of God as “no respecter of persons.” If God created some for salvation and created others for wrath, he BECOMES a respecter of persons. (The supposed reasons are wholly irrelevant to the argument.)
6. Because of the truths of 4 and 5, INHERITED sin cannot be reconciled with the New Testament witness of Jesus Christ theology.

You wrote:
“Romans 9 - you've essentially stated that "it can't mean that because of Timothy," but you haven't dove into the Romans 9 to state what it DOES mean and why.”

I did explain Romans 9 and made it COMPATIBLE with 1 Tim 2:3-4 and ROMANS 2:11. Further, look at James 1:9. It states that if you “have respect to persons” then a sin is committed.

God deliberately creating some vessels for salvation and some vessels of wrath, whilst all have limited knowledge and will, is a contradiction of 1 Tim 2:3-4, Romans 2:11, and James 1:9.

And, since when did Romans 9 become a pivotal chapter for the doctrine of Jesus Christ? Romans 9 is only pivotal to Calvin’s interpretation of the fall and the sin of man.

You wrote:
“In Biblical interpretation, we cannot come with pre-supposed ideas. We HAVE to find out how the verses correlate, NOT how one takes precedence over another. The Bible is true in ALL its parts, and there aren't differing levels of truth.”

It is time that YOUR doctrine became compatible with 1 Tim 2:3-4, Romans 2:11, and James 1:9 without an appeal to ignorance. Make it so.

You cite the “mysteries” of God or “ignorance” of God’s way, as to why your doctrine contradicts those verses. However, this is not evidence that your doctrine is correct but just begs the question further.

There is no misunderstanding in 1 Tim 2:3-4, Romans 2:11 and James 1:9 and HOW those verses are incompatible with your interpretation of Romans 9. The contradiction isn’t inexplicable according to the revealed word – the contradictions are inexplicable because Calvinism cannot coherently and consistently reconcile them.

Here’s why:

First, God’s mercy is not activated through a nonsensical, mysterious, whimsical process. How do we know?

1. God is the only one who can determine who will receive mercy and who will not receive mercy. Not because it is a mystery but because we cannot accurately judge in all cases.
2. God’s mercy is based on “no respecter of persons.” (Romans 2:11, and James 1:9)
3. Access to mercy is THROUGH repentance and change (Matt 9:13)
4. Even the unrighteous (your vessels of wrath) can receive mercy (Heb 8:12) meaning that vessels of wrath can become vessels of mercy (Romans 9:23)
5. God wants none to perish (be unrighteous or become lasting vessels of wrath) but wants ALL to come to repentance through his longsuffering. (2 Peter 3:9)
6. God gives ALL MEN a chance to repent and be saved. ( Romans 2:4-6)

Second, Romans 9 does NOT teach that God predetermined, from the beginning, that some spiritual consciousness (that he created (your tradition) in a limited way) would be DESTINED to become everlasting vessels of mercy and others everlasting vessels of wrath. A God who can create ALL spiritual consciousness as vessels of mercy but deliberately creates inferior spiritual consciousness as vessels of SUFFERING and wrath, is inconsistent with a God whose HIGHEST values are justice, love, equity, mercy and who is NO RESPECTER OF PERSONS, and WHO WILLS THAT ALL MEN REPENT AND BE SAVED. Therefore, predestination is false by the law of non-contradiction.

Look closely at Romans 9:21. In the analogy, God is compared to a potter with his clay. The error that Calvinists impose on Romans 9:21 is the literal belief that God IS a potter and that we are literally INANIMATE clay. The problem is, that by nature, clay does not have free will. However, WE DO. Missing from Paul’s analog, in these verses, is the NECCESARY component of Man’s free will to choose. To Choose what? His destiny - either to choose good or to choose evil, just like Adam and Eve. If man cannot freely choose his destiny (salvation or damnation) then you need to come clean and tell me that you do NOT believe in man’s freedom to choose.

Now, the more important question is, do we find in Paul’s writings where he INSERTS the “free will” component between the Potter and the clay? YES!

Let’s examine closely, 2 Timothy 2: 19-26. Look at verse 21:

21 If a man therefore purge himself from these, he shall be a vessel unto honour, sanctified, and meet for the master’s use, and prepared unto every good work.

Ah ha! Paul continues the analogy and states that in order for the clay to be fitted into ANYTHING it first must be PREPARED. Is the preparation a process of both man and God? Yes! What does man do to prepare himself to be fitted as a vessel of honor, sanctification, and mercy? He must PURGE HIMSELF. Purge himself of what? Ungodliness. (2 Tim 2:16)

And also required, Paul lists the things in 2 Tim 2:22-26 including youthful lusts, foolish questions, and strifes as well as the addition of following righteousness, faith, charity, peace, prayer with a pure heart, meekness, and repentance.

If God wills that all men be saved, then he has equipped everyone equally with the ability to purge self and be fitted into a vessel of mercy.

Therefore, inherited sin and predestination are false doctrines.

How do we know?

First, God’s mercy is not activated through a nonsensical, mysterious, whimsical process supported by the 6 points above.

Second, Romans 9 does NOT teach that God predetermined, from the beginning, that some spiritual consciousness (that he created in a limited way) would be DESTINED to become everlasting vessels of mercy and others everlasting vessels of wrath. All are called to become vessels of mercy through the choices of the individual which prepare him to be fitted to become a vessel of mercy or a vessel of wrath (refusing to repent).

You also wrote:
“What you DIDN'T state above is that God DEFINES sin...therefore something else must define sin. What is it? It seems that Mormon theology simply is based around the matter that God is simply "smart enough," but yet I don't see any overarching principle that sets a STANDARD in and of itself.”

Here’s why you don’t see it. It is because your theology is solely based on the primacy of consciousness – divine consciousness. This is a reality wherein only God existed for an eternity in the past, where he thought, and thought and thought and finally he decided to ACT and create the universe out of nothing. In essence he changed. In an instant, based on no “overarching principle” he abandoned his perfect existence, and did something unnecessary to his being. He created a universe that is inconsistent with his highest moral values: the ultimate good wherein there is no evil. You claim that this existence is where God is required to allow the evil to get rid of the evil, despite he having unlimited power to prevent evil in the first place, and unlimited power to eliminate it today. Do you see the incoherence?

There’s another problem. The purpose of a consciousness is to be aware. Awareness is contingent upon two things: self and something else. Without the something else, there is no awareness of self. It is impossible that your God was ever aware of anything without anything else existing co-eternally with God. Traditional Christian theology is based on the flawed primacy of consciousness which is a stolen concept from awareness of existence.

Here’s where you’ll try to fall back on “God’s ways are not man’s ways.” You’ll have to reconcile this appeal to ignorance with, “Let us make man in our own image.” The construct of a consciousness is no different in man; expect man does not possess all knowledge. In other words, making an appeal to the “mysteriousness” of God does not address the problems of the primacy of consciousness, it only begs the question.

In Mormonism, these problems are eliminated. God was/is the most intelligent being of all other beings in existence. Heavenly Father, matter and energy, and all other intelligences were not created or made. The “overarching principle” in Mormonism is EXISTENCE. Therefore, since God cannot destroy matter, energy (conservation), and cannot destroy the individual consciousness of spiritual beings, he is limited in power. However, this limitation does not frustrate his purpose, his morality, his plans, or his designs.

The first principle of existence is truth: things as they were, as they are, and as they are to come. The truth is that God’s existence is what all spiritual beings seek. God seeks all beings to become one with him. All beings, in their natural weak state, cannot become one with God. Therefore, God instituted laws whereby all beings could have the opportunity to become one with God. This is what is called Creation and the Plan of Salvation.

The second principle of existence is the freedom to act. All beings have been given the freedom to choose between thousands if not millions of pairs of opposing choices: one of the choices in the pair leads to a oneness with God, the other one leads to separation from God.

The gospel of Jesus Christ, is the PATH to a oneness with God forever. Rejection of the gospel, through personal, inherent, moral agency, leaders to a separation of God and the eventual union with all other beings who KNOW God, and do not want to follow his laws or obey his authority.

Ryan, I pray that you will embrace a religion and a religious philosophy (restored gospel of Jesus Christ) based on the primacy of existence – all other paths are based on fantasies.

Ryan| 5.14.09 @ 2:19PM

There were a handful of ideas that simply weren't dealt with during Biblical times, or were assumptions made by apostles and and had to be hashed out by the Church down the line: baptism is one in particular (we simply don't know whether or not the NT-era church practiced infant baptism); Original sin; canon scripture; the divinity AND humanity of Christ - these just weren't issues that the early church had, because they were dealing with issues such as how "Jewish" they were supposed to be, or what practices were permissible, what was sin and what wasn't.
The post-Biblical church had to go BACK and take a look at what WAS said on certain subjects, and extrapolate meaning and reasoning.

Do you believe in universalism - that all men WILL be saved? Because that's what an extremely literal, non-general interpretation of I Tim 2 states, and many other similar verses - not that all men are CAPABLE, but that God WILLS all men.

Are all men capable of being saved, or will all men BE saved?

Man's will before Christ is towards sin - and even righteous works count for nothing (filthy rags). I was unable to truly be "good" at all.
After Christ takes hold, my will is truly free to choose to do the good works He has set before me.

And I wonder about your "no respecter of persons" theology. All I see in scripture is that God doesn't care of race or background in salvation - the Romans context is particular in making the points that He can save Jews AND non-Jews.

The audience in 2 Peter 3:9 is NOT non-Christians. Peter is addressing a presumed Christian audience. Taking the context, it cannot be definite that the "all" there means everyone.

I Tim 2:10For this reason I endure all things for the sake of those who are chosen, so that they also may obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus and with it eternal glory.
---Paul is addressing Timothy, and talking about Christians when he refers to vessels. He's not necessarily making a notion about salvation, but about Christian conduct (particularly in idle/pointless talk, which is the "these things" he refers to).

"If God wills that all men be saved, then he has equipped everyone equally with the ability to purge self and be fitted into a vessel of mercy. "

If the Mormon God wills all men to be saved, then why does he not have the strength and power to carry it out? Is his power not enough to save everyone, to do everything that he wills to do?

"Second, Romans 9 does NOT teach that God predetermined, from the beginning, that some spiritual consciousness (that he created in a limited way) would be DESTINED to become everlasting vessels of mercy and others everlasting vessels of wrath. All are called to become vessels of mercy through the choices of the individual which prepare him to be fitted to become a vessel of mercy or a vessel of wrath (refusing to repent)."

Romans 9:21 "Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use?"

Where does scripture teach that I EVER do something first? Where does it teach that I can approach God without His working in me to approach Him first?
THAT'S the point of original sin, when it comes down to it - to why only God can work in me to even be able to come to Him, because I'm not going to "choose God" by simply examining the evidence or making a decision based on what I want to do. God HAS to initiate because my choice - my will - is to run from Him. There's no scripture that points to my ability to walk to Him without His working in me first.

"You claim that this existence is where God is required to allow the evil to get rid of the evil, despite he having unlimited power to prevent evil in the first place, and unlimited power to eliminate it today. Do you see the incoherence? "

Paul didn't.
Romans 9:22 What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction?
23And He did so to make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory...

"To make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy."

God, in a sense, is showing off, through His creation, how big and mighty and awesome His power is - that there isn't an opposite to His will - not even evil.
God is LIFE, and He shows it off by dying AND then defeating death Himself.
God is Holy, and He shows it by condemning anything that even has a hint of unholiness about it.
God is Mighty, and cannot be overcome, not by the rebellion of His entire creation.

"It is impossible that your God was ever aware of anything without anything else existing co-eternally with God."

Unless, of course, He's Omnipotent. The Trinity helps out here as well.

"However, this limitation does not frustrate his purpose, his morality, his plans, or his designs."

So, does the Mormon God purpose and design to save everyone?

Another item I have a problem with - if nothing was created or made, then how can God claim to be greater than anything - even my own consciousness? Is he just stronger and smarter, and might makes right?

HOW can I know that his knowledge is perfect, and that there isn't another out there with a will equal to his working somewhere else? How can I know that He has authority to tell me what sin is when he doesn't have the authority to define it?

"Primacy of existence?"
Where is the Biblical scripture behind it? Outside of your interpretation of Genesis 1, how does it line up with the Bible?
Where does the OT and NT state that I am "co-eternal" with God, but weaker?

What does it mean to become "one" with God?

TomH| 5.14.09 @ 4:41PM

First things first.

As you can see from the Bible, the necessary doctrines of that God is no respecter of persons and that God desires that all men be saved, contradict the interpretation of original sin, inherited sin, or predestination.

Your attempt to switch the premises of the argument (from the universal desire of God that all men be saved, to the universal condition of salvation for all souls (righteous and unrighteous) does not address God's present and clear will that he wants all men to be saved.

The Bible is clear that God's desire is that all men be saved. (1 Tim 2:3-4) If all men do not have an equal opportunity to be saved then God's desire is uninformed, incoherent and ignorant.

God is neither unformed, incoherent or ignorant and therefore, all men have an equal opportunity to be saved, if they will repent by responding to God. This, the Lord's comandment: "Chose ye this day whom ye will serve." If there is no free will, there is no choice and man is not responsible.

This truth DIRECTLY contradicts your claim that God forces some spiritual beings into mercy and forces other beings into wrath.

Second, if you would like to state coherent premises why you believe that Mormonism is not true based on existence or the collective consensus of Bible verses, I am willing to respond to that.

However, responding to your rhetorical questions based on your understanding of the Bible or of philosophy, without those necessary premises is fruitless.

Your ignorance of HOW something can occur based on the holes in your theology does not represent a contradiction in MY theology.

You wrote:
"It is impossible that your God was ever aware of anything without anything else existing co-eternally with God." Unless, of course, He's Omnipotent. The Trinity helps out here as well. "

Ryan, claiming that God is omnipotent doesn't help. Unless you believe that an UNCONSCIOUS omnipotence is worthy of worship. Also, the Trinity doesn't help either. The Trinity doctrine is founded on the ONE. The one what? The one divine consciousness. If you'd like to concede that the Trinity consists of three, separate, divisible, and independent and individual consciousnesses.

You also wrote:
"Where does the OT and NT state that I am "co-eternal" with God, but weaker? "

The doctrine of eternal existence for all spiritual beings is lost from the Bible. Most likely removed because of disbelief or because it clashed with other changed doctrines.

However, the bible provides clues, and existence provides the rest of the evidence.

1. All intelligences existed before the world was made (Rev 12:6-9, Isaiah 14:12-13, Jude 6, 2 Peter 2:4, Hebrews 12:9, Acts 17:29, Romans 8:17, Jerimiah 1:5, Job 38:4,7)

2. All intelligences will RETURN to God. (Return requires pre-mortal existence - meaning the Christian interpretation of how our spirits are made at birth is false.) Eccl12:7.

3. Every human being is composed of energy. The spirit itself is not composed of "nothingness" but is energy. Energy is neither created or destroyed, and therefore there is an energy in everyone that has always existed.

You wrote:
"If the Mormon God wills all men to be saved, then why does he not have the strength and power to carry it out? Is his power not enough to save everyone, to do everything that he wills to do? "

Not only does the God the Father (the Mormon God) desire that all men be saved, but Paul affirmed this attribute about God in 1 Tim 2:3-4. There is no question that God wills that all men be saved.

However, your doctrine does not encompass 1 Tim 2:3-4 and because inherited sin, and predestination contradict it. Therefore, you don't fully believe it.

So, if God WILLS that all men be saved, then why aren't all men saved? Good question. The answer is in my post above. Because ETERNAL intelligences cannot be FORCED to be made vessels of mercy or vessels of wrath by God's will. The spirit of Man must make the choice whether to be prepared to be FITTED as a vessel of mercy or a vessel of wrath. After God's invitation to be saved, the choice of man is what determines whether salvation will come unto him who has been invited.

God stands at the door and knocks. If we hear his voice, and open the door, THEN and only THEN will God come in unto that person and brake bread with him.

The choice of the person to open the door is what determines if men will be saved.

Ryan| 5.15.09 @ 9:01AM

1. All intelligences existed before the world was made (Rev 12:6-9, Isaiah 14:12-13, Jude 6, 2 Peter 2:4, Hebrews 12:9, Acts 17:29, Romans 8:17, Jerimiah 1:5, Job 38:4,7)

Rev 12 - Speaks of God casting Satan out of heaven. Angels are not people.
Isaiah 14:4 - the passage is addressed to the "King of Babylon."
Jude 6 - angels, not people
2 Peter - Angels, not people
Hebrews - "Father of spirits" - Paul is addressing how big God is here, and comparing to earthly fathers. Nothing here about how spirits are "eternal."
Acts 17 - Paul speaking about God's nature being not carnal
Romans 8 - simply talking about how, through God, we are different than the world
Jer 1 - Foreknowledge of Jeremiah specifically; verse works well with an eternal God.
Job 38 - "sons of God" in an OT context is best understood right before the flood, when heavenly beings who were DIFFERENT than man were mingling with them.

None of the verses you quoted are directly pointing to how intelligences were made before the world...and it's difficult to squeeze the concept into them.

Zech 12:1 "1The burden of the word of the LORD concerning Israel. Thus declares the LORD who stretches out the heavens, lays the foundation of the earth, and forms the spirit of man within him..."

God can create a spirit first and have it return to Him. The mormon doctrine here is not a necessary conclusion. Zechariah states that the spirit is "formed within."

Where can you measure spiritual energy? How do you know that it cannot be created or destroyed? How do we know that it has to follow the laws of physics?

I do NOT ignore I Timothy; I just see it in a different light in looking at the rest of scripture. We know that "all men" will NOT be saved, and just about EVERY other scripture that encompasses the world backs up the point.

"Because ETERNAL intelligences cannot be FORCED to be made vessels of mercy or vessels of wrath by God's will. "...

Then how can the potter have the "right" to mold the clay? Where does Paul state in the passage that I GIVE God the "right" to mold me? Does this mean that I have power and authority over God to determine what HE has the "right" to do? Does that not mean that my "rights" supercede God's?

Rom 9: 21 Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use?

"God stands at the door and knocks. If we hear his voice, and open the door, THEN and only THEN will God come in unto that person and brake bread with him."

Commonly used phrase, which is taken out of context. Rev 3:14-22 is written NOT to an individual, but to the church in Laodicea, calling for its repentance and to turn toward Christ.

"Not only does the God the Father (the Mormon God) desire that all men be saved, but Paul affirmed this attribute about God in 1 Tim 2:3-4. There is no question that God wills that all men be saved."

So Mormonism believes in universal salvation. Does this mean I get to do whatever I want and not have to worry about it?

TomH| 5.15.09 @ 11:34AM

Ryan:

I have come to the conclusion that you love your doctrine more than you love the truth.

What left is there to say? You'll continue to make an appeal to your personal interpretation of the Bible (or to Christian tradition) to move your way out of sticking contradictions, instead of eliminating the contradictions.

Your response to the scriptures indicating pre-mortal existence of the sons of God before the world was made (Sons of God are not angels in traditional Christianity) is not in harmony with what has been recently learned as early Judaic and Christian doctrines. You may not be aware of this, but there are ancient texts that confirm that Christian saints once taught that PEOPLE existed spiritually before they were born to earth (another evidence that Joseph Smith restored ancient Christianity.) Your distinction between people and angels is based on old traditions of Christian sects and not supported in the Bible. There are not two different spiritual species of beings – angels and people. The hosts of heaven that were not cast out of heaven all come to earth at some point. Those who were cast out of heaven, lost their first estate and therefore were unworthy of a second estate ( earth life). Here’s a necessary question for you: If Joseph Smith taught in the 1830s that pre-mortal existence was a lost doctrine, and we ancient evidence comes forth in our modern age that it was indeed a genuine doctrine which fits into the plan of salvation and answers the contradictions within Christianity, then it is STRONGER than the modern reject and interpretation of traditional Christians.

You wrote:
"So Mormonism believes in universal salvation. Does this mean I get to do whatever I want and not have to worry about it? "

If you take my last post and combine that with all of my other posts, there is no rational basis for claiming that Mormonism believes in the universal salvation of the wicked.

I believe you're at the end of your rope and are desperate for talking points or material to respond to and therefore, when in such a position, desperate persons make up false premises to which they wish to easily argue their point. This represents bad form.

The gospel of Jesus Christ (the restored gospel clearly teaches this) teaches mankind sufficiently in the eternal nature of existence. There are only two paths: one that leads to the kingdom of Father, Son and Holy Ghost and another path that leads to existence with the father of all lies, Lucifer or the devil.

My former posts, citing many verses of scriptures, prove the following:

1. God is not a respecter of persons.
2. God wills that all men be saved.
3. Salvation only comes to the submissive and those who seek salvation.
4. Not all men will follow the will of God and repent.
5. God forces no one to be saved or to be damned.
6. Therefore, not all men will be saved since they do not choose to repent.
7. Repentance is the door that one must open to receive Jesus Christ.
8. Without repentance, there is no salvation.
9. Without submission of human will to God's will, there is no salvation.
10. God does not force our will to be submissive to his.

You wrote:
“Where can you measure spiritual energy? How do you know that it cannot be created or destroyed? How do we know that it has to follow the laws of physics?”

Ryan, listen to yourself. You talk as if all of existence around is us just an imaginary construct unrelated to God’s being. So, it makes more sense that your doctrine is correct than for existence to be correct? Can you not see that such is an appeal to a fantasy? Can’t you see the absurdity of your proposition that God has created an elaborate hoax and that Catholic metaphysics is indeed true?

What you have conveniently omitted is traditional Christian history. Christian metaphysics (the doctrine of reality) came from the Aristotelian view of the cosmos – where everything in the universe revolves around the earth, and where God created it out of nothingness. In essence, this was their “revelation” about the laws of physics. Now, in the modern age, where God has blessed us with the ability to SEE the REALITY of existence, and we can determine that matter and energy are NOT created or destroyed but RELATIVE to one another and that energy is ALWAYS conserved in the universe, YOU say we must REJECT reality and return to the good old days of Catholic Metaphysics! Absurd. Creation is MAINTAINED by the laws of physics. Things EXIST because of the laws of physics. These are God’s laws based on the reality of existence. Why would you propose that we ignore the laws of existence? Because EXISTENCE contradictions your doctrine. By the law of non-contradiction, existence disproves your doctrine.

You wrote:
"Commonly used phrase, which is taken out of context. Rev 3:14-22 is written NOT to an individual, but to the church in Laodicea, calling for its repentance and to turn toward Christ. "

Revelation 3 is a divine revelation to every individual who reads the bible. The entire chapter is written to the individual who seeks to receive salvation. Your game of "redirection" can easily disproved starting with the beginning but verse 19 will do:

Rev 3:19
19 As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent.

As many as I love applies to all people everywhere and in every age. Do you want to be a part of that group that the Lord loves? If so, you must endure chastening and BE ZEALOUSLY REPENTANT.

Then, speaking to every person everywhere in every age Jesus Christ reveals:

Rev: 3:20
20 Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.

Jesus is speaking about the reality of existence. In the real world, Jesus is standing at a closed door. He knocks at the door and beckons to enter. The only way that the door can open is based on TWO conditions: 1) the person must hear the Lord's voice, and 2) he must OPEN the door.

Without these two conditions having been met, NO ONE on the planet can receive the Lord and have Jesus come in to the person and dine with him. This message is to all of mankind - those who have ever lived. Most importantly, this message is to YOU directly, Ryan.

Verse 21 is the summation of all acts of a person laboring in the gospel of Jesus Christ - to become ONE with God and sit with Jesus in his throne, as Jesus sits with the Father in the Father's throne.

Verse 22 makes it clear that this message is the message of the entire gospel unto all.

Now, the question is, why would you minimize Rev 3:20?

Because once again, after multiple verses, IT REFUTES CALVINISM.

Ryan| 5.15.09 @ 2:39PM

"Gen 6:1 And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,
2That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose...."

There's a definite difference between "sons of God" and men in the above verses. Angels or not, they weren't men.

Ancient texts even from Christians aren't proof that the doctrine was sound. There was plenty that was gotten wrong in early Christianity - it's what the epistles were written to correct much of the time.

You stated, "Not only does the God the Father (the Mormon God) desire that all men be saved, but Paul affirmed this attribute about God in 1 Tim 2:3-4. There is no question that God wills that all men be saved."

There is a STARK difference between "desire" and "will." "Will" denotes a definite plan and intentions of carrying it out. If God "wills" something and it DOESN'T happen, then how powerful a God can He even be? If God wills my salvation, if that's His PLAN, and MY will can usurp HIS will, then what worth does He have as God if His will can be thwarted?

Repeating another question:
---"Because ETERNAL intelligences cannot be FORCED to be made vessels of mercy or vessels of wrath by God's will. "...

Then how can the potter have the "right" to mold the clay? Where does Paul state in the passage that I GIVE God the "right" to mold me? Does this mean that I have power and authority over God to determine what HE has the "right" to do? Does that not mean that my "rights" supercede God's?

I'm going back a ways to the Conservation of Matter and Energy debate earlier.

It states that matter cannot be created.

Matter exists.

Are these concepts not in contradiction? How can anything just "exist" other than God Himself?

If matter and energy and God and all beings are all eternal, how can one be considered any greater than the other?

Here's the other problem with Rev 3
---It's in a passage addressed to a church, expressing discontent about it's complacency.
---Nowhere in the first part of Rev does it speak anything about lack of faith
---No evangelistic encounter in the NT expresses anything about "letting Jesus in" or "opening the door" or anything of that sort.

In context with the rest of scripture, the concept just doesn't work, and in the context of the letters to the churches of Revelations, the entire passages are written to believers, which means that there must be a meaning other than leading to salvation.

TomH| 5.19.09 @ 9:11AM

Ryan:

You wrote:
“There is a STARK difference between "desire" and "will." "Will" denotes a definite plan and intentions of carrying it out. If God "wills" something and it DOESN'T happen, then how powerful a God can He even be? If God wills my salvation, if that's His PLAN, and MY will can usurp HIS will, then what worth does He have as God if His will can be thwarted?”

Your statement above represents the awful state of confusion that you are in because of the false traditions of Christianity and how they relate to existence, and to Christianity’s own propositions.

With your statement above, you’ve just disproved your own God. Why? Your God is the ominibenficient God wherein he must always THINKS and ACTS according to the ultimate good. Ominbeneficience REQUIRES that your God 1) always WILLS that ONLY the good come into existence, and that 2) this WILL can never be subverted by any other being or circumstance because your God has unlimited knowledge and unlimited power to carry out his ULTIMATE will.

So, let’s see how your God did.

1. Lucifer thwarted God’s plan of total obedience to his commandments and led away 1/3 of the hosts of heaven. Did Lucifer usurp God’s will that all obey?
2. Adam and Eve thwarted God’s plan of total obedience to his commandments. Did Adam and Eve usurp God’s will that they both obey forever?

What are you going to argue next? That your God is not honest or your God is limited in some way?

TomH| 5.19.09 @ 12:04PM

Ryan:

Please consider:
Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God. (Matthew 4:4)

The reason why I quote this verse is two fold: 1) the message of the truth is identified by harmonizing every word that has proceeded from the mouth of God, and 2) we have an obligation to weigh every word carefully and then integrate it into the message of truth.

Each time when you have been confronted with “more words” that have proceeded from the mouth of God, which DIRECTLY contradict your religious propositions, you set it aside, minimize it or declare, based on your interpretation, that it is not significant.

You are not the first to make this mistake. Such rationalizations have been on going since the days of Cain and Abel. James addresses such intellectual gyrations when he said:

“Therefore lay aside all filthiness and overflow of wickedness, and receive with meekness the implanted word, which is able to save your souls. (James 1:21)”

We must believe the word of God with full purpose of heart and mind. He must carefully weigh how the words fit together into one great whole, wherein we find complete truth.

A few posts ago, I showed clearly wherein your doctrine of forced salvation for some and forced damnation for others is contradictory with other NECCESARY attributes of God and his “way of salvation.”

Your refusal to concede to these points is not based on other scriptures that clarify these points but because you love your own personal doctrine more than you love the WHOLE truth.

You have offered many rhetorical questions/complaints. These are your expressed frustrations why your doctrine cannot be easily defended. You provide no sound arguments of how your doctrine of “predestination” and “inherited sinful nature” could be true when 1) Disobedience of will preceded the Fall proving that such willfulness was already embedded into the consciousness of man, 2) God is no respecter, and 3) God will have all men be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth and provides a reality wherein such is possible. How? Jesus Christ paid the ransom for ALL me (not just the saved). That individual persons choose NOT to take upon themselves the name of Jesus Christ, follow him and keep his commandments is an act of an independent consciousness. God will not force salvation or damnation on anyone – the individual must choose it based on their own will and desire. Once invited by the light of Jesus Christ, if that man or woman humbles him or herself, and prays to the Father in the name of Jesus Christ, he/she will receive more grace to come unto Jesus Christ. The more obedient a person becomes, the greater the faith he/she will exercise.

That all men are NOT saved is not a subversion of God’s plan, but a reality of the moral agency of mankind – all are free to choose. God’s plan was to eliminate spiritual and physical death and bring man back into his presence to be judged of him: God is successful. What you fail to integrate into your premises and doctrine is the primacy of moral agency. Your failure to integrate this principle into your understanding of the truth, inevitably leads to your next question: (next post)

TomH| 5.19.09 @ 12:05PM

Ryan:

You wrote:
“Repeating another question:
---"Because ETERNAL intelligences cannot be FORCED to be made vessels of mercy or vessels of wrath by God's will. "...
Then how can the potter have the "right" to mold the clay? Where does Paul state in the passage that I GIVE God the "right" to mold me? Does this mean that I have power and authority over God to determine what HE has the "right" to do? Does that not mean that my "rights" supercede God's?”
Your difficulty in identifying adequate arguments to support your position stem from the incoherent an unsupportable premise found in traditional Christianity which is:
“God is all-powerful, even over the will of all of God’s created beings.”

A simple reminder of Lucifer and his leading away 1/3 of the host of heaven disproves the supposition above. Clearly, God did not want Lucifer or a 1/3 of his created beings to leave Heaven. If God had all power, the likes that traditional Christianity says he has, then 1/3 of the host of Heaven would not have left because God would have OVERRIDDEN their individual wills and preserved Heaven. When you argue that God has such power over all created beings, and we see that he didn’t use such power in agreement with his highest values, we can see that your version of God is contradictory and therefore, false. You have been taught that such contradictions are a “marvel” to behold. However, this also is an absurdity when we acknowledge the suppositions to identify truth.

Also, because you believe that mankind is either forced into salvation or damnation, you don’t adequately identify or differentiate the elements of the analogy in which God is referred to as a potter and in which we are referred to as the clay.
First, you INTRODUCE and contrast the rights of God versus the rights of mankind, I do not. What does this have to do with the fact that ETERNAL intelligences cannot be forced to be made vessels of mercy of vessels of wrath? Not much.
Do you see what’s happening here? It is not my claim that there is a contradiction between God’s rights to mold and between my rights to be molded – the contradiction exists in YOUR doctrine. Why? If mankind is free to CHOOSE for himself, then the doctrine that God forces some to be saved and some to be damned is a lie.
You can’t have both. You can’t have freedom to choose and forced salvation or damnation. You must choose one or the other. And therein is your doctrine refuted. You must concede that man is free to choose.

The individual is free to choose what kind of vessel the individual will become. God wills that all men become vessels of mercy because he wills that all men to come to the knowledge of the truth and be saved (1 Tim 2:3-4). However, because men choose to disobey, they deliver THEMSELVES up to vessels of wrath because of the JUSTICE of the laws of God. How? When men refuse to retain their knowledge of God, God’s justice activates and there are given over to a reprobate mind, and if this prideful condition goes untreated, they can become vessels of wrath. (Romans 1:28)

What can God do to mold? He sends messengers to declare the reality of Justice and the reality of Mercy and asks men to choose one or the other. And why is mercy even possible? The reality of all existence is natural justice – so why can mercy exist? Jesus Christ paid the price of the penalty of justice for ALL mankind and holds POWER over justice. ALL mankind is free to choose which vessel they will become.

God’s right to mold is preserved through his declaring the truth, the sacrifice of his son, and through the influence of his Holy Spirit that calls all men to hear his voice, to receive knowledge, and to sup with him.

Man’s right to be molded is preserved through moral agency. Man must choose between answering God’s call to believe or ignoring the call all together – answering the call results in the gift of faith. Faith is increased as one chooses to obey the words of God.

God is limited only by moral agency – he cannot and will not force a single soul into heaven. Only those who love the Father and the Son will share an abode with them. How do we know if a man loves the Father and the Son? After hearing them and their words, he will keep their words. (John 14:20-25)

Why are these concepts so difficult for you? You fail to identify, differentiate and integrate ALL of the words that have proceeded forth from the mouth of God.

The message of truth is where we coherently and logically COMBINE the words together into a significant and wonderful whole.

TomH| 5.19.09 @ 1:31PM

Ryan:

You wrote:
“I'm going back a ways to the Conservation of Matter and Energy debate earlier.
It states that matter cannot be created.
Matter exists.
Are these concepts not in contradiction? How can anything just "exist" other than God Himself?
If matter and energy and God and all beings are all eternal, how can one be considered any greater than the other? “

In your tradition, many centuries ago, the distinction between the uncreated and the created was introduced. This doctrine arose out of the Catholic debates about the nature of God and was formulated and then instituted as doctrine into the Creeds. Do you remember the term for it? Creation ex nihilo. Creation ex nihilo was a doctrine created out of thin air by a heretical Gnostic Christian apologist by the name of

Because of this unbiblical differentiation, you supposed that energy could not have existed without God first CAUSING it to exist.

Mormonism affirms the reality of the Laws of Conservation of Energy. Traditional Christianity affirms that energy only “appears” to be uncreated and therefore is merely an illusion (in order to avoid the contradiction of existence versus Christian dogma.)

What you’re struggling with above is the contradiction between existence (the reality of our universe) and traditional Christian consciousness (the centuries old interpretation of the reality of the universe.)

Do you see the problem? You want the world to swallow the interpretation of the universe that Christians held up as the truth, but now is directly contradicted by the proven Laws of the Universe.

God formed the universe according to truth. The truth of the universe is that energy is uncreated and is conserved. It has many forms including: light, sound, thermal, potential, kinetic, elastic, gravitational, and electromagnetic.

Mormonism affirms that God caused the creations of the universe to exist (out of chaotic pre-existing matter and energy). We also affirm that God added upon the pre-existing intelligences (you and I) through a process referred to as “the First Estate” and we have the opportunity to be added upon here (the Second Estate) if we will humble ourselves and follow Jesus Christ.

According to Mormonism, God is an eternal spiritual being, the most intelligent and loving being in existence who acts wholly consistent with his purpose, his identity, and his integrity and who possess power to accomplish his designs.

We believe that God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, and omnibenevolent, without Creation ex nihilo, with complete moral agency of man, and consistent with his creation - the laws of reality, and consistent with his identity (spirit, glorified flesh and bone).

Ryan| 5.20.09 @ 8:38AM

"With your statement above, you’ve just disproved your own God. Why? Your God is the ominibenficient God wherein he must always THINKS and ACTS according to the ultimate good. Ominbeneficience REQUIRES that your God 1) always WILLS that ONLY the good come into existence, and that 2) this WILL can never be subverted by any other being or circumstance because your God has unlimited knowledge and unlimited power to carry out his ULTIMATE will.

So, let’s see how your God did.

1. Lucifer thwarted God’s plan of total obedience to his commandments and led away 1/3 of the hosts of heaven. Did Lucifer usurp God’s will that all obey?
2. Adam and Eve thwarted God’s plan of total obedience to his commandments. Did Adam and Eve usurp God’s will that they both obey forever?

What are you going to argue next? That your God is not honest or your God is limited in some way?

First off, God wins in the end. Nothing He does is ever "thwarted."
You still hold the automatic assumption that omnibeneficience MUST result in all things good, all the time.
God's plan is even greater than that. He wants to show His glory, which means He has to prove that there is no power above or beside Him - not sin, not Satan, not anything. How could God show He is bigger than sin if He didn't allow sin to come to pass?

---"Each time when you have been confronted with “more words” that have proceeded from the mouth of God, which DIRECTLY contradict your religious propositions, you set it aside, minimize it or declare, based on your interpretation, that it is not significant. "

I'm really trying not to. I am expanding the text, attempting to contextualize, and placing what is stated not just using an arbitrarily-made chapter and verse that sounds nice by itself, but looking at when and to whom something was written, and how the surrounding verses appear.

---"That all men are NOT saved is not a subversion of God’s plan, but a reality of the moral agency of mankind – all are free to choose."

Here's the problem: if it's God's will that I be saved, and I run from His will because MY will is that I don't want Him, then how is it NOT that my will is not usurping His?
It's one of the MAJOR problems that I came to realize - that if God is all-everything, then how can I POSSIBLY be able to thwart His desires?
Paul talks about it as well:
Romans 9:19, "You will say to me then, "Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?"

Paul's point is that we CANNOT resist God's will. At all. Is there any other way to read the verse?

What pot gets to throw itself? What pot can mold itself without the Master's hand purposefully molding it, and working the pot? What pot can tell the Master that he's screwing up?

---"That all men are NOT saved is not a subversion of God’s plan, but a reality of the moral agency of mankind – all are free to choose."

Really? Where's the scripture to really back this up? "All are free to choose?"

---"If God had all power, the likes that traditional Christianity says he has, then 1/3 of the host of Heaven would not have left because God would have OVERRIDDEN their individual wills and preserved Heaven. "

Again, another conclusion based on the way man would do things as opposed to the way God acted. There's a lot in here that Mormonism supposes the way God MUST act if He is who you are saying I believe He is, when reality is different. God is NOT limited by our definitions.

---"Also, because you believe that mankind is either forced into salvation or damnation, you don’t adequately identify or differentiate the elements of the analogy in which God is referred to as a potter and in which we are referred to as the clay."

Where does Paul state that the clay ever has any rights in the analogy?

----"We believe that God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, and omnibenevolent..."
Yet I can thwart his will by choosing not to follow Him, when it's His will that all men be saved.

----"Do you see the problem? You want the world to swallow the interpretation of the universe that Christians held up as the truth, but now is directly contradicted by the proven Laws of the Universe. "

Except I believe in a God who is GREATER than the laws of the universe, who has no problem contradicting them, and bending the laws - which have no moral value - to His will. You appear to be placing the law of conservation of matter and energy above God; I do the opposite. I believe in a God Who WROTE the law.

TomH| 5.20.09 @ 10:54AM

Ryan:

Was Lucifer's fall a result of God's irresistible will?

Was Adam and Eve's transgression a result of God's irresistible will?

Are terrorist acts (911) a result of God's irresistible will?

TomH| 5.20.09 @ 1:25PM

Ryan:

You wrote:
"It's one of the MAJOR problems that I came to realize - that if God is all-everything, then how can I POSSIBLY be able to thwart His desires?
Paul talks about it as well:
Romans 9:19, "You will say to me then, "Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?"
Paul's point is that we CANNOT resist God's will. At all. Is there any other way to read the verse? "

Let's see how you read the verse when you have to apply irresistible will to these realities:

1. Was Lucifer's fall a result of God's irresistible will?
2. Was Adam and Eve's transgression a result of God's irresistible will?
3. Are terrorist acts (911) a result of God's irresistible will?

Ryan| 5.20.09 @ 1:58PM

Such incidents were such as God's plan was laid out to occur. It does NOT abrogate the perpetrators of their responsibility for their own actions.

Many people treat this as a contradiction - that God's will and my responsibility are contradictory notions.

Paul's letter to the Romans completely goes against the idea - he states that we are all sinners, but that God is still absolute and NOT responsible. It's practically the whole reason for the potter description in Romans 9 - which you still haven't broken down and explained other than somehow a jar can work on itself.
"18 So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires.
19 You will say to me then, "Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?"

Again, WHY does Paul ask this question? How does Mormonism explain it?

TomH| 5.20.09 @ 2:20PM

Ryan:

Mormonism explains clearly, citing multiple bible verses, as well as verses from modern day scripture that Man has moral agency and the freedom to choose.

Now, I'll give you another chance to answer my questions, that I didn't ask about personal responsibility but about God's irresistible will that you say universally exists.

You wrote:
"Paul's point is that we CANNOT resist God's will. At all. Is there any other way to read the verse? "

Let's see how you read the verse when you have to apply irresistible will to these realities:

1. Was Lucifer's fall a result of God's irresistible will? (Yes or no)
2. Was Adam and Eve's transgression a result of God's irresistible will? (Yes or no)
3. Are terrorist acts (911) a result of God's irresistible will? (Yes or no)

Ryan| 5.20.09 @ 4:26PM

Your questions are leading. God is not responsible for those actions, even though He is sovereign over all.

In a sense, the answer is "yes" to each of those questions. God was not surprised by any of them, but we also need to understand that His will is intended to glorify Himself. God allowed - not caused - those actions, and we need to understand the differentiation. Job's story is helpful here - God released His protection from Job intentionally to allow the devil to do his work...and it wound up glorifying God in the process.

In a sense, they are all "vessels of wrath" crafted by God to show his mercy to other vessels.

At the same time, God did NOT sin in those matters.

I answered your question. Please answer mine. What is the precise Mormon exegesis on the question Paul asks:
""18 So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires.
19 You will say to me then, "Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?"

Again, WHY does Paul ask this question? How does Mormonism explain it?

TomH| 5.20.09 @ 4:47PM

Ryan:

The questions may appear leading but you have stake out a definite position that requires a direct yes or no answer.

You claim that all beings are predestined by God's will to be a vessel of mercy or a vessel of wrath.

I will follow up with, 'When did God predestine" all beings to vessels of mercy or wrath.

You will respond: At creation.

And I will say: then you advocate a position wherein there is no free will.

Therefore, your doctrine is not consistent with the Bible.

You wrote:
"Again, WHY does Paul ask this question? How does Mormonism explain it? "

Ryan, without subjective opinion, how would anyone know WHY Paul asks the question?

If Paul himself doesn't tell us "why" explicitly then we'd have to infer from the text itself.

If we infer from the text, without additional corroboration, it would be very easy to make an error.

What you're arguing is that Paul is INDIRECTLY teaching predestination by imposing an incoherent Godly sovereignty that cannot be harmonized with the rest of the message of the gospel that Paul delivers.

Paul doesn't EVER refer to irresistible grace/will ever again and none of the other Apostles ever claim to know about it or preach about it.

On the other hand we have ample scriptures indicating doctrines that DIRECTLY REFUTE AND CONTRADICT Calvin's irresistible grace.

Ryan, how does a rhetorical question become evidence for your easily refuted interpretation of Paul's message in Romans 9?

TomH| 5.20.09 @ 5:29PM

Evidences against the false doctrine of “no free will and “God’s irresistible will of forced salvation or damnation”

**Evidence #1: God declares, man is free to choose.
Genesis 2:15-17
15 The LORD God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it.
16 And the LORD God commanded the man, "You are free to eat from any tree in the garden;
17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die."
(NIV)

God tells Adam and Eve: You are free to choose. Depending on your choice, there will be a consequence.

**Evidence #2: God declares the reality of choice
Deuteronomy 11:26-28
26 See, I am setting before you today a blessing and a curse--
27 the blessing if you obey the commands of the LORD your God that I am giving you today;
28 the curse if you disobey the commands of the LORD your God and turn from the way that I command you today by following other gods, which you have not known.
(NIV)

God declares the reality of choice: Keep commandments = blessings. Break commandments= cursings. Man has the freedom to choose between blessings or cursings.

**Evidence #3: God allows choice between life, prosperity, death, and destruction
Deuteronomy 30:15-18
15 See, I set before you today life and prosperity, death and destruction.
16 For I command you today to love the LORD your God, to walk in his ways, and to keep his commands, decrees and laws; then you will live and increase, and the LORD your God will bless you in the land you are entering to possess.
17 But if your heart turns away and you are not obedient, and if you are drawn away to bow down to other gods and worship them,
18 I declare to you this day that you will certainly be destroyed. You will not live long in the land you are crossing the Jordan to enter and possess.
(NIV)

God sets before man the choice between life, prosperity, death and destruction. This is a contradiction of an irresistible will. Why? Offering man a choice for which he cannot make is a fraud. God is not a fraud, therefore, the doctrine of irresistible will is a fraud.

Jesus said:
37 "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing.
(NIV)

Ryan, if God’s will is irresistible and Jesus LONGED to gather the children of Jerusalem (which was his will), why wasn’t Jesus able to gather Jerusalem’s children like he wanted?

JESUS, God the Son, offers the REASON why he was UNABLE to gather Jerusalem’s children as he WILLED. What was it? Man was not WILLING.

**Evidence #4: God allows man to choose based on his man’s own desires.
Joshua 24:15
15 But if serving the LORD seems undesirable to you, then choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your forefathers served beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land you are living. But as for me and my household, we will serve the LORD."
(NIV)

God declares that men can choose for themselves between good and evil.

**Evidence #5: God desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.
1 Timothy 2:1-4
1 I urge, then, first of all, that requests, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for everyone--
2 for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness.
3 This is good, and pleases God our Savior,
4 who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.
(NIV)
God’s will is that all be saved, not just a few.

**Evidence #6: If a person deliberately chooses to sin after receiving the truth, the sacrifice of Jesus Christ does not apply to them.
Hebrews 10:26-27
26 If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left,
27 but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God.
(NIV)

**Evidence #7: Even some, to whom God has given the gift of faith unto salvation, can choose to depart from it.
1 Timothy 4:1
1 The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons.
(NIV)

If the gift of faith cannot DRAG a man to salvation.

**Evidence #8: Through God’s longsuffering, he wills that everyone comes to repentance.
2 Peter 3:9
9 The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.
(NIV)

TomH| 5.20.09 @ 5:36PM

Repost of last two evidences:

**Evidence #7: Even some, to whom God has given the gift of faith unto salvation, can choose to depart from it.
1 Timothy 4:1
1 The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons.
(NIV)

If the gift of faith cannot DRAG a man to salvation, then Predestination cannot.

**Evidence #8: Through God’s longsuffering, he wills that everyone comes to repentance.
2 Peter 3:9
9 The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.
(NIV)

God wants all to repent thus refuting that the doctrine God some men are incapable of repentance and God wants them to become vessels of wrath.

TomH| 5.20.09 @ 5:46PM

You wrote:
“"18 So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires.
19 You will say to me then, "Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?"
Again, WHY does Paul ask this question? How does Mormonism explain it? “

Romans 9:18-20

Interpretation 1: Calvinism: Taking Paul’s analogy LITERALLY and not figuratively, Calvinism teaches that Man cannot resist God’s will to be “PREDESTINED” (from the beginning of creation) into a pot of mercy or a pot of wrath.

Interpretation 2: Mormonism: Man cannot resist God’s will to be judged a pot of mercy or a pot of wrath, in the final judgment. Man cannot resist this judgment because God is Sovereign over mercy and justice. God sacrificed his only begotten Son to answer the demands of justice – laws that he could not ignore or turn a blind eye. Man’s individual interactions (or lack thereof) with God’s prescriptive will, together with God’s grace (or lack therefore) will determine the final mold of the clay.

Interpretation 1
• Presents a God of Sovereignty inconsistent with God’s other known attributes as revealed in the Bible: love, justice, goodness, grace, obedience, etc.
• Turns God’s absoluteness into whimsical and arbitrary judgment.
• Erroneously takes Paul’s analogy LITERALLY and not figuratively.
• Fails to acknowledge that clay does not have personal consciousness but humans do.
• Contradicts scripture requiring man’s free will, or moral agency.
• Contradicts Christ’s doctrines of “God’s universal will that all men be saved (Paul), and God’s universal will that all men be repentant (Peter).
• Contradicts the need for prayer, pleading to the Lord, repentance, and enduring to the end.
• Fails to identify the source of Paul’s analogy (Isaiah 29 &64;) wherein God’s will is subject to change based on man’s understanding.
• Fails to reconcile that God’s wrath can be turned away and God’s mercy can be received at any time during mortal life.
• Makes God’s commandments superfluous.

Interpretation 2:
• Presents a God of Sovereignty who will judge according to the laws he has given to man. (Consistent with his will and what he has revealed.)
• Takes Paul’s analogy figuratively.
• Acknowledges that humans are not inanimate clay but have personal consciousness that can choose good or evil.
• Agrees with the many scriptures revealing that man is free to choose his destiny.
• Agrees with Christ’s doctrine of God’s universal desire that all men be saved and repent.
• Is consistent with a God who is both merciful and just.
• Agrees with the need for faith, repentance, baptism, prayer, enduring to the end.
• Agrees with the source of Paul’s analogy (Isaiah 29 &64;) wherein God’s will is subject to change based on man’s understanding.
• Agrees with the Bible’s message that God’s wrath can be turned away and God’s mercy can be received any time during mortal life based on repentance.

Can some of God’s judgments be stayed during mortality? Yes.
Can man resist mercy before the day of judgment? Yes.
Can man resist wrath before the day of judgment? Yes.
Does man freely choose whether to accept or resist? Yes.

By what power does God DELAY complete mercy unto glory and complete wrath unto destruction? His longsuffering through the atonement of his Son. (Romans 9:22-23)

However, final judgments cannot be resisted when pots of mercy and pots of wrath are CURED (prepared and fitted) – this is the context of Romans 9.

By the law of non-contradiction, clearly Interpretation 1 (Calvinism) is false.

Ryan| 5.21.09 @ 9:40AM

Practically the only argument pre-fall was the existence of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, where Adam, with his sinless nature, was given the ability - but not the nature (that actually sums it up nicely for me) - to eat or not eat.

"Paul doesn't EVER refer to irresistible grace/will ever again and none of the other Apostles ever claim to know about it or preach about it."

Not necessarily.

John 6:44 "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day."
"draw" here literally means "dragged," - particularly because that's how it's used in the rest of the Bible. Particularly, there are none able to resist effectively God's "drawing."

Monergism.com puts it succintly, from John Piper: "Specifically, John 6:64-65 says, "'But there are some of you that do not believe.' For Jesus knew from the first who those were that did not believe, and who it was that should betray him. And he said, 'This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.'"

Notice two things.

First, notice that coming to Jesus is called a gift. It is not just an opportunity. Coming to Jesus is "given" to some and not to others.

Second, notice that the reason Jesus says this, is to explain why "there are some who do not believe." We could paraphrase it like this: Jesus knew from the beginning that Judas would not believe on him in spite of all the teaching and invitations he received. And because he knew this, he explains it with the words, No one comes to me unless it is given to him by my Father. Judas was not given to Jesus. There were many influences on his life for good. But the decisive, irresistible gift of grace was not given.

2 Timothy 2:24-25 says, "The Lord's servant must not be quarrelsome but kindly to every one, an apt teacher, forbearing, correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant that they will repent and come to know the truth."

Here, as in John 6:65 repentance is called a gift of God. Notice, he is not saying merely that salvation is a gift of God. He is saying that the prerequisites of salvation are also a gift. When a person hears a preacher call for repentance he can resist that call. But if God gives him repentance he cannot resist because the gift is the removal of resistance. Not being willing to repent is the same as resisting the Holy Spirit. So if God gives repentance it is the same as taking away the resistance. This is why we call this work of God "irresistible grace".

--------------------------------------------------------------
----"God sets before man the choice between life, prosperity, death and destruction. This is a contradiction of an irresistible will. Why? Offering man a choice for which he cannot make is a fraud. God is not a fraud, therefore, the doctrine of irresistible will is a fraud. "

Not necessarily. The Bible is fairly consistent that the ONLY way that I am able to choose the good is through God's working in me - that I am incapable without Him first working in me salvation. It doesn't negate the choice given, just that I cannot do anything truly good apart from Christ. Many of your "evidences" talk about choosing God - which are true - but are only including half of the equation.

Matt 23:37 is one of the few instances where it appears that you may be proven right; however, I ffound this useful tidbit:
"this passage comes in the context of a fierce rebuke of the religious leaders of the Jews. Note who the pronoun "you" refers to in verses 33-35 where the killers of the prophets are described. We see the killers of the prophets (Jerusalem) being lamented over. One would be hard pressed to make "Jerusalem, the city ... your ... you" be anyone other than the scribes and Pharisees that Jesus has been rebuking."

Hebrews 10 doesn't necessarily show that one can lose salvation - it points toward the matter that someone can come so far into the fold, but that the endurance will bear the true one out, not that the person who doesn't endure was saved and then lost it. If that's the case, the verses point MORE toward not being able to regain it at all!

I Tim 4 also points toward that faith needs to be maintained...but says nothing about whether or not they were saved in the first place. A man can have a certain amount of faith, or believe that he does, but not truly be a part of Christ for some other reason.

2 Pet 3:9
You're running into the continuous problem of these type of "everyone" and "all" verses.
One is that there's no real way to interpret them in the light of an in-between; that some will be saved voluntarily and others won't.
They either point toward universal salvation; or God's desire for all mankind to come to know him is thwarted by a weaker creature; or the meaning behind "all" is a very general sense of God redeeming mankind in general.

Often Paul's use, when specified, is "all kinds of men" or "all nations," which is more God's intent. Otherwise, God's will is thwarted by weaker men, and He can't be God otherwise.

Ryan| 5.21.09 @ 9:54AM

"Interpretation 2: Mormonism: Man cannot resist God’s will to be judged a pot of mercy or a pot of wrath, in the final judgment. Man cannot resist this judgment because God is Sovereign over mercy and justice. God sacrificed his only begotten Son to answer the demands of justice – laws that he could not ignore or turn a blind eye. Man’s individual interactions (or lack thereof) with God’s prescriptive will, together with God’s grace (or lack therefore) will determine the final mold of the clay. "

The problem with the "final judgment" argument is Pharoah.
"17For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, "FOR THIS VERY PURPOSE I RAISED YOU UP, TO DEMONSTRATE MY POWER IN YOU, AND THAT MY NAME MIGHT BE PROCLAIMED THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE EARTH."

Though Pharoah's initial actions led to God hardening his heart later, it still remains that it was during Pharoah's life that God was actively molding him for destruction, not Pharoah molding himself!

"Man’s individual interactions (or lack thereof) with God’s prescriptive will, together with God’s grace (or lack therefore) will determine the final mold of the clay."

Then why does Paul state, " 21Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use?" Does not God have the right to mold me as He sees fit, even when I resist?

The funny thing about throwing a pot - it just flies apart on it's own or lays there if it isn't ACTIVELY shaped. A pot continually tries to go against what the potter is shaping, and the final shape isn't up to the lump of clay...it's up to the potter. It's resistance is CONTINUAL, not just at the end...and a pot doesn't accept it's shape well. It must be forced into it.

"• Agrees with the Bible’s message that God’s wrath can be turned away and God’s mercy can be received any time during mortal life based on repentance. "

Who grants repentance?

Ryan| 5.21.09 @ 10:11AM

I think that we're at an impasse, to a point, but I want to sum up some things that I have come to believe about Mormonism:

1. It believes in a non-sovereign god, who is too weak to see his ultimate will come to pass, leaving it to the whims of weaker creatures. It also cannot show me how God is greater than everything in the universe if all is co-eternal, defining itself not first and foremost by the Bible, but by scientific law which God is beholden to rather than the Author of.
2. It has serious issues with modern history as we know it - little real proof of its claims of what occurred in the New World.
3. It ignores 1500 or so years of Biblical scholarship by learned men who earnestly sought God and His will, and places my salvation also in the hands of a man who had little Biblical knowledge when he wrote the book of Mormon, upon which there have been countless changes since written, unlike the majority of the Bible.
4. It states that salvation is through grace and works, and that it can be lost rather than God bringing me to Himself and keeping me faithful through His changes in my life. It misinterprets grace alone as being license to sin, rather than acknowledging that grace works in me to change all things within me to make me desire to run after God.

TomH| 5.21.09 @ 1:36PM

Ryan:

We’re at an impasse? Really? (chuckle) We were at an impasse from the beginning. I predicted the outcome of this conversation. I said that until you make an appeal to existence, you’d always rely on subjective interpretation for the basis of your arguments.

When you rely solely on the primacy of consciousness (personal or collective) you’re doomed to fantasies and fables. The ONLY way you can come to the knowledge of the truth is actually INTERACT with it – the truth of existence.

It is an unfortunate thing that you stumble over a few mistranslated verses or wrest scriptures so you can’t see the message of God in its entirety. I cite the slothful Calvinist philosophy for this.

I respond to different points from your post below:

Point 1: Adam didn’t have a disobedient nature before he sinned.

You wrote:
“Practically the only argument pre-fall was the existence of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, where Adam, with his sinless nature, was given the ability - but not the nature (that actually sums it up nicely for me) - to eat or not eat.”

Your explanation doesn’t fit the facts of the garden.

1. Sin is caused by a disobedience of free will against the commandments of God.
2. A nature incapable of sinning does not sin.
3. God does not cause (directly or indirectly) anyone to sin.
4. Adam sinned of his own free will and choice.
5. Therefore, prior to the sin, Adam had a nature capable of sinning.
6. Therefore, inherent disobedient will was prior to the act of sinning.
7. Inherent disobedient will was not a result of the fall, it caused the fall.
8. Therefore, original sin is a false concept.
9. Therefore, Calvin’s Total Depravity doctrine is flawed and the entire message of TULIP collapses.

In your post, you said it is impossible for man to do anything good on his own. Which commandments did Adam keep on his own and when? Before he partook of the fruit, he had not fulfilled God’s commandment.

Ryan, if your God is to be consistent sovereign, that he’s always been engaged in all of the lives of his creatures, (dragging some to salvation and others to damnation) then your God failed miserably.

How? Why didn’t God DRAG Adam into submission and CAUSE, through divine gifts, that Adam OBEY the commandment? This is the BIG HOLE in your doctrine. Ultimately, your doctrine reduces man to a puppet and God is the puppeteer.
You claim that this is God’s right and therefore it is. However, this is a understanding about what the Sovereignty of God actually means.

Point 2: Hearts are harden because men resist God and they are doomed to “walk in the dark” (this is God’s justice).

You wrote:
“The problem with the "final judgment" argument is Pharoah.
"17For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, "FOR THIS VERY PURPOSE I RAISED YOU UP, TO DEMONSTRATE MY POWER IN YOU, AND THAT MY NAME MIGHT BE PROCLAIMED THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE EARTH." Though Pharoah's initial actions led to God hardening his heart later, it still remains that it was during Pharoah's life that God was actively molding him for destruction, not Pharoah molding himself!”

You said… “though Pharoah’s initial actions (his personal choices) led to God hardening his heart later….”

You just refuted yourself Ryan! Can’t you see it? In your doctrine there is NO FREE WILL, Pharaoh CANNOT do anything of himself – he’s dragged to heaven or hell based upon God’s sovereign power according to Calvinism.

Therefore, you misspoke. There is no problem here of final judgment, moral agency, and God’s molding mankind. Why?

1. God knows the many possibilities of each individual and independent and uncreated intelligence.
2. Based on personal choices, that each individual can make, God foreordains that individual to accomplish great things and return to him (wills all men be saved and repent)
3. Pharaoh was foreordained by God to demonstrate God’s power in that God’s name might be proclaimed throughout the whole earth (to be saved and repent)
4. God demonstrated the foreordination of Pharaoh to be saved and repent WHEN GOD CALLED HIM TO REPENTANCE.
5. After repeated invitations, Pharaoh did not repent and God left him to his OWN wisdom and intelligence, which is weak.
6. The term “God hardened Pharaoh’s heart” is a mistranslation, based on the facts. God didn’t harden Pharaoh’s heart, he invited him many times to repent. This CLEARLY isn’t hardening, this is inviting.
7. If you are claiming that Pharaoh didn’t have the choice to repent because God had ELECTED him to NOT to repent, then you’re claiming that God has committed a fraud against Pharaoh. Since the invitation was fraudulent because God had no intention of giving Pharaoh ANY gifts so he could repent (based on your doctrine.)
8. In the real world, Pharaoh refused to repent and so his heart was hardened because of the justice of God.
9. Scribes lumped together the events in points 6 and 8 and summarized them as “God hardened Pharaoh’s heart.”
10. Hundreds of years later, Calvin errs and misreads the text because he doesn’t make an appeal to other scriptures and to the actual events in existence.
11. So, because Pharaoh refused to repent, he DID in fact, CHOOSE to mold “himself.” How? God offered Pharaoh a GENUNIE invitation to repent. Pharaoh’s heart was not hardened. Because he refused to repent, the justice of God assigned him to receive the recompense of his actions (law of the harvest). So, this is how it happened:
a. God invited Pharaoh a chance to repent – one given with no fraud.
b. Pharaoh had a choice: Repent or not repent.
c. Pharaoh decided on his own, not to repent (because of his refusal to humble himself.)
d. Therefore, Pharaoh MISSED his foreordained opportunity to receive the greater blessings that God had provided for him.

Now comes the interesting point….

You quoted me and then wrote:
“"Man’s individual interactions (or lack thereof) with God’s prescriptive will, together with God’s grace (or lack therefore) will determine the final mold of the clay."
Then why does Paul state, " 21Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use?" Does not God have the right to mold me as He sees fit, even when I resist?”
Let’s see, how did it turn out for Pharaoh? He resisted. And he was “fitted for a vessel for destruction.” How did it happen? He resisted. He refused to repent. If you resist, you will be fitted for destruction. When Paul asks, “Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?” we should add at the end, “and lived”. Therefore, “For who hath resisted his will and lived?” Such is the context. How can we know?

Look at Romans 13:1-2
“ 1 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.
2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.”

Ryan, this BIBLE verse COMPLETELY disproves your interpretation of Romans 9:19 that Paul is teaching God’s will is IRRESTIBLE because of God’s sovereignty. Clearly, humans CAN and DO resist the power of God’s will, and his teachings; those who resist receive DAMNATION. They become vessels of wrath. How? Through continued disobedience.

The right of God to mold the clay is through his MERCY and his JUSTICE. All are invited to repent and receive salvation; only upon the conditions of repentance does a person AVOID becoming a vessel of destruction through God’s mercy because of the atonement of his Son Jesus Christ.

All men are “drawn” to the Savior Jesus Christ through the invitation of the light of Christ and the Holy Ghost. Because of the reality of this existence, everyone comes to the point wherein they must CHOOSE for themselves whether they will follow God or not.

We have many examples in the Bible, wherein those who had received the gift of God to believe or had received of the spirit, yet they rebelled. Who are they? They are those who have received the Holy Ghost and who have afterward sinned against it. (Matt 12:31, Mark 3:29, Luke 12:10, Hebrews 10:26)

What you confuse Ryan is God’s gifts of the spirit unto man with the concept that God’s sovereignty is translated into an “irresistible grace.” If Sovereignty is absolute, then God’s invitations and warnings are a fraud.

Calvinism does not properly integrate these Biblical truths: the Foreknowledge of God, Foreordination (predestination), Calling, Justification, and Sanctification.

According to John Calvin, "The reprobate like the elect are appointed to be so by the secret council of God’s will" (Calvin’s Institutes II, chapter xxii, page 11) and "…their doom was fixed from all eternity and nothing in them could transfer them to a contrary class…" (Calvin’s Institutes III, chapter iii, page 4). Also, according to Calvin, "…Not all men are created with similar destiny but eternal life is foreordained for some, and eternal damnation for others. Every man, therefore, being created for one or the other of these ends, we say, he is either predestined either to life or death" (Calvin’s Institutes III, chapter xxiii).

Let’s compare that to the Bible:
1. We know from the biblical record that all of God’s creation was good including man, "And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good…" (Gen. 1:31).
2. We also know that God created all men for His joy as Revelation 4:11 states, "For thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created."
3. We also know that God has no pleasure/joy in the death of the wicked. (Ezekiel 18:23,32 and 33:11)
4. Therefore, based on 1, 2, & 3, God would not order that anyone should be intentionally fitted for destruction.
5. How do we know? Look at Ezekiel 33:11, the Lord makes a very interesting statement about Himself. He says, "Say unto them, as I live, sayeth the Lord GOD, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked…." Notice that God prefaces His statement with, "As I live." How long has God lived? The Scriptures teach that God is eternal. Therefore, from eternity past (that is throughout all of eternity and even before the creation of man) God has never had any pleasure in the death of the wicked.
6. Therefore, if God didn’t predestinate any to eternal death (separation from God), then what was EVERYONE foreordained to?

**Evidence #5: God desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.

1 Timothy 2:1-4
1 I urge, then, first of all, that requests, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for everyone--
2 for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness.
3 This is good, and pleases God our Savior,
4 who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.

**Evidence #8: Through God’s longsuffering, he wills that everyone comes to repentance.
2 Peter 3:9
9 The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.

Supreme Principles of a Sovereign God:
1. “[A]s I live, sayeth the Lord GOD, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked…."
2. “[W]ho wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.”
3. “[N]ot wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.”

How do we combat the resistance in ourselves? Humility. How do we receive humility? By ridding ourselves of every impure and wicked expression, responding to the spirit of truth and word of God in us, and through personal effort to be humble in order to receive grace sufficient to conversion. (1 Peter 5:5, James 1:21, James 4:7)

TomH| 5.21.09 @ 3:19PM

Ryan:

Mormonism affirms that God is the creator of heaven and earth. He formed everything in the universe out of pre-existing energy (tha